The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on August 13, 2014, in the dispute between FC Metz and NK Nafta Lendava concerning training compensation for a player who transferred from Nafta to Metz. The case originated from FC Metz's refusal to pay EUR 400,000 in training compensation to NK Nafta Lendava after the player's move. The CAS panel, composed of Hans Nater, João Nogueira Da Rocha, and Stuart McInnes, addressed several legal issues, including the distinction between legal capacity and standing to sue, the nature of the contractual termination, and whether training compensation was applicable. The panel determined that legal capacity is governed by the law of the club's place of incorporation, while standing pertains to the substantive claim. It also clarified that the contractual clause in question was not a buy-out clause but a mutual termination agreement, meaning the player was a free agent when he joined Metz.
The player had been registered with Nafta from 1998 to 2011, initially as an amateur and later as a professional. Financial difficulties led to a settlement agreement in 2011, terminating the player's contract. He subsequently signed with Metz in August 2011 and was registered as a professional in October 2011. Nafta claimed training compensation, arguing the transfer occurred before the player's 23rd birthday. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled in Nafta's favor, ordering Metz to pay compensation. Metz appealed to CAS, contesting the decision. The CAS proceedings involved submissions in both French and English, with the hearing conducted in English. The panel examined the contractual agreements and concluded the player's departure from Nafta was based on mutual termination, not a unilateral breach, and that he was a free agent when joining Metz.
The panel rejected Nafta's argument that the settlement agreement included a buy-out clause, emphasizing that such clauses typically address unilateral termination, whereas the agreement reflected mutual consent. It also noted that Nafta's financial breaches could have justified the player terminating the contract without compensation, but he opted for a negotiated settlement instead. The panel further dismissed Nafta's claim that it was entitled to training compensation, ruling that the player's free agent status exempted Metz from such obligations under FIFA regulations.
The CAS overturned FIFA's decision, ruling that no training compensation was owed. The award highlighted the importance of contractual interpretation and adherence to FIFA regulations in resolving disputes between clubs. It also addressed procedural matters, such as the language of proceedings and the legitimacy of Nafta as a party, confirming its legal existence under Slovenian law despite no longer competing in official football competitions. The case underscores the complexities of player transfers and the legal distinctions governing training compensation in football. The final decision affirmed FC Metz's position, annulling the FIFA ruling and dismissing all other claims. The award was finalized on August 13, 2014.