The case between Dundee United FC and Club Atlético Vélez Sarsfield centered on a dispute over training compensation for a player who transferred from Vélez Sarsfield to Dundee United. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on November 20, 2013, addressing key aspects of training compensation under FIFA regulations. The player, initially registered as an amateur with Vélez Sarsfield in 2005, turned professional in 2008 and was later loaned to another Argentine club before returning to Vélez Sarsfield. After terminating his contract, he joined Dundee United in 2009, prompting Vélez Sarsfield to seek training compensation. The case was first heard by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of Vélez Sarsfield, ordering Dundee United to pay EUR 230,000 plus interest. Dundee United appealed to CAS, arguing that no compensation was due, citing the player's EU citizenship, a termination agreement, and alleged bad faith by Vélez Sarsfield.
The CAS panel, comprising Hendrik Willem Kesler, Michael Beloff QC, and Efraim Barak, clarified several legal interpretations. They ruled that training compensation is payable regardless of whether a player transfers immediately after their contract ends or after a delay, as long as the transfer occurs before the player turns 23. The panel emphasized that the existence of a contractual relationship at the time of transfer is not a prerequisite for compensation. They also confirmed that loans do not interrupt the training period for compensation purposes, meaning Vélez Sarsfield retained entitlement for the periods it trained the player, excluding loan periods. However, definitive transfers do interrupt the training period, resetting the calculation for subsequent transfers. The panel rejected Dundee United's argument that Article 6 of Annex 4 to the FIFA Regulations (which applies to EU/EEA transfers) should extend to this case, as the transfer originated outside the EU/EEA.
Regarding the termination agreement between the player and Vélez Sarsfield, the panel found no evidence that it waived the right to training compensation, as the agreement did not explicitly mention it and involved only the player and Vélez Sarsfield, not Dundee United. The panel also dismissed claims of bad faith by Vélez Sarsfield, noting that minor inaccuracies in documentation did not justify denying compensation. The panel determined the training period ran from March 11, 2005, to June 6, 2008 (the player's 21st birthday), excluding the loan period. They calculated the indicative compensation amount at EUR 195,000, based on Dundee United's Category II status and FIFA's training cost guidelines, and set interest at 5% annually starting from August 21, 2009, 30 days after the player's official registration with Dundee United.
The CAS partially upheld Dundee United's appeal, adjusting the compensation amount from the DRC's EUR 230,000 to EUR 195,000 but affirming Vélez Sarsfield's entitlement to payment. The ruling reinforced the principles of training compensation under FIFA regulations, ensuring consistency in cross-border transfers and loans while clarifying the scope of exceptions for EU/EEA transfers. The decision underscores the importance of precise contractual and regulatory interpretation in football disputes.