The case involves a dispute between Budapest Honvéd FC and América FC over training compensation for a football player who was first registered as an amateur with América FC and later as a professional with Budapest Honvéd FC. América FC sought EUR 77,408 plus interest as training compensation under FIFA regulations, arguing the player was first registered as a professional before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of América FC, ordering Budapest Honvéd FC to pay the claimed amount, plus interest and procedural costs. Budapest Honvéd FC appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the validity of the claim, the fairness of the compensation, and the player’s registration history. The club argued the player was only briefly under contract, never played for the first team, and was primarily trained at a Hungarian academy. They also claimed the player and his agent denied his registration with América FC and presented a waiver from another Brazilian club, Volta Redonda FC, relinquishing any claims for training compensation. Additionally, Budapest Honvéd FC contended the compensation amount was disproportionate and that América FC missed the 18-month deadline to file the claim.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Michele Bernasconi, evaluated the case based on written submissions, focusing on the burden of proof and the appropriateness of the compensation amount under FIFA guidelines. The arbitrator emphasized that claims must be substantiated with concrete evidence, such as invoices or training cost documentation, and in the absence of such evidence, FIFA’s indicative amounts apply. The arbitrator dismissed Budapest Honvéd FC’s arguments, noting the official player passport confirmed the player’s registration with América FC and that the waiver from Volta Redonda FC did not affect América FC’s entitlement. The arbitrator also clarified that the claim was timely, as FIFA regulations allow a two-year window for such claims. The compensation amount was upheld, with a slight adjustment to EUR 77,232, plus 5% annual interest from March 29, 2010. The decision reinforced that contractual duration with a new club does not justify reducing training compensation and that only economic factors, not subsequent contractual relationships, should influence the assessment.
The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, rejecting Budapest Honvéd FC’s appeal and confirming América FC’s entitlement to training compensation. The ruling underscored the importance of thorough documentation and adherence to FIFA’s regulatory framework in football-related disputes. The case highlights the necessity for clubs to provide solid evidence when challenging FIFA’s calculations and the strict application of procedural deadlines and evidentiary standards in such disputes. All other motions or requests for relief were dismissed, concluding the matter.