The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case between FC Nitra and FC Banik Ostrava, decided on 26 April 2013, revolved around the issue of training compensation for a football player who transferred from Nitra to Banik Ostrava in 2009. The player had trained with FC Nitra from the age of six but did not sign a professional contract with the club before moving to Banik Ostrava. FC Nitra sought training compensation under FIFA regulations, arguing it had invested significantly in the player's development and had a legitimate interest in retaining him. Banik Ostrava contested the claim, asserting that Nitra had not offered the player a professional contract and thus was not entitled to compensation.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially dismissed Nitra’s claim, ruling that under Article 6 of Annex 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), a training club must either offer a professional contract or demonstrate a genuine interest in retaining the player to qualify for compensation. The DRC found that Nitra had not provided sufficient evidence of its intent to keep the player, such as formal contract offers or proactive efforts to secure his future. Nitra appealed to CAS, arguing it had shown a bona fide interest in the player and had attempted to negotiate a contract.
The CAS panel, comprising Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Alasdair Bell, and Mr. Cristian Jura, examined whether Nitra had justified its entitlement to training compensation. The panel emphasized that the conditions for claiming compensation should not be interpreted too restrictively. While the training club must demonstrate a genuine interest in retaining the player, this does not necessarily require unambiguous or documentary evidence. The panel referenced Swiss Civil Code principles, which allow decisions based on reasonable inferences when direct evidence is lacking. However, the panel ultimately upheld the DRC’s decision, finding that Nitra had not provided sufficient evidence of its intent to retain the player, such as formal contract offers or clear communication of its plans for him.
The case clarified that while clubs need not always offer contracts to claim compensation, they must actively demonstrate a bona fide interest in the player’s future to justify their entitlement. The ruling reinforced the balance between encouraging player development and ensuring fair compensation for training clubs under FIFA regulations.
In a subsequent ruling, CAS partially upheld Nitra’s appeal, overturning the DRC’s decision and affirming Nitra’s right to training compensation. The panel determined that Nitra was entitled to EUR 130,000, calculated based on the clubs’ category III classification under FIFA regulations, with training costs set at EUR 30,000 per year. Nitra had argued for a higher compensation amount, claiming both clubs should have been classified in category II, but the panel rejected this, noting FIFA’s specific categorization for clubs from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Additionally, CAS ruled that Nitra was entitled to interest on the compensation amount at a rate of 5% per annum, starting from July 15, 2009, when the player was registered with the Czech Football Association.
The case underscores the complexities of training compensation disputes in football and the importance of adhering to FIFA’s regulatory framework. It highlights the need for clubs to provide clear evidence of their efforts to retain players and the role of CAS in adjudicating such matters. The decision ultimately balanced the interests of training clubs in receiving fair compensation with the principles of player mobility and development.