The case involves a dispute between Manchester United FC and Empoli FC S.p.A. over training compensation for a player who moved from Empoli to Manchester United. The player, an Italian national, was registered with Empoli as an amateur before being loaned to another Italian club, Cuoiopelli, and later signing a scholarship agreement with Manchester United in 2009. The clubs disagreed on the compensation amount, leading Manchester United to pay Empoli €46,397, which it believed was due under FIFA Regulations. Empoli claimed €345,000 and filed a case with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which partially accepted the claim, ordering Manchester United to pay an additional €61,936 plus interest.
Manchester United appealed the DRC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the DRC erred in calculating the compensation and that it had already fulfilled its obligations. The CAS addressed procedural and substantive issues, clarifying that counterclaims are inadmissible in CAS appeal proceedings unless explicitly permitted. The tribunal emphasized the need for clear evidence when disputing training compensation calculations and ruled that a party fulfilling its obligations before first-instance proceedings should not bear those procedural costs.
Empoli argued the 2009 FIFA Regulations should apply retroactively, seeking €357,123.28 plus interest, while Manchester United contended the correct amount was €12,123 for the player’s 16th birthday season, as he was registered with Empoli for only 59 days. The Sole Arbitrator reviewed the case and found the DRC had made a substantive error, correcting the compensation to €12,123.28, which Manchester United had already paid. The Arbitrator dismissed Empoli’s arguments about proportionality and ruled Manchester United should not bear the DRC’s procedural costs.
The CAS upheld Manchester United’s appeal, partially reversing the DRC’s decision and annulling the cost-related declarations. The decision emphasized compliance with FIFA Regulations and the correct application of training compensation rules, highlighting the complexities of such disputes and the procedural constraints in CAS appeals. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and providing clear evidence in arbitration proceedings.