The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on October 10, 2013, in a case involving the international transfer of a minor football player, referred to as "the Player," and several respondents, including Club Atlético de Madrid, the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), and FIFA. The case centered on the interpretation of Article 19 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which governs the protection of minors in football transfers. The panel, composed of Prof. Petros Mavroidis, Mr. Rui Botica Santos, and Mr. Michele Bernasconi, addressed procedural and substantive legal issues.
Procedurally, the panel clarified that the 21-day deadline to file a statement of appeal under Article R49 of the CAS Code is strict, while the 10-day deadline under Article R51 can be extended. The panel recognized the Player's standing to sue, as he was sufficiently affected by FIFA's decision, despite not being a party in the initial proceedings. The panel also ruled that an appeal against FIFA's administrative decision should be directed solely against FIFA, not the national federation or the club involved.
The core dispute revolved around Article 19 RSTP, which prohibits the international transfer of players under 18 unless specific exceptions apply. The panel emphasized strict interpretation to protect minors, with no exceptions beyond those explicitly outlined in Article 19(2). One exception, under Article 19(2)(a), allows transfers when a player's family moves abroad for non-football reasons. The burden of proof lies with the player to demonstrate that football was not a motivating factor.
The Player, a U.S. citizen, moved to Spain with his family in 2012. His father, a successful businessman, testified that the relocation was for personal and cultural reasons, not football. However, FIFA rejected the Player's registration, citing doubts about the family's motives, particularly given the Player's expressed interest in joining Atlético de Madrid and his prior involvement with U.S. clubs, including the Chicago Fire Soccer Club, which had a partnership with Atlético.
The panel conducted a de novo review, weighing evidence for and against the family's claim. Factors supporting non-football motives included the family's multicultural background, financial independence, and long-term planning for the move. Factors suggesting football motives included the short timeline between the family's arrival and the registration request, the Player's prior football activity, and his public statements about joining Atlético.
Ultimately, the panel found that the family's relocation was not primarily motivated by football. It highlighted the lack of evidence of prior contact between the Player and Atlético, the family's independent reasons for moving, and the Player's unexceptional football background in the U.S. The panel dismissed the Player's public statements as social adaptation rather than reflective of the family's true intentions.
The appeal was partially upheld, setting aside FIFA's decision and permitting the Player's registration as an amateur with Atlético de Madrid. All other claims, including those against RFEF and Atlético, were dismissed. The ruling underscores the importance of evidence in establishing motives for family relocations in minor athlete cases and reinforces the strict application of Article 19 RSTP to protect minors while allowing justified exceptions.