The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on September 5, 2014, in the dispute between SK Slavia Praha and Genoa Cricket and Football Club concerning training compensation for Lukas Zima, a young player who trained with SK Slavia Praha as an amateur before signing his first professional contract with Genoa FC in 2011. SK Slavia Praha sought compensation under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), but the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected their claim, leading to an appeal to CAS. The CAS panel, composed of José María Alonso Puig, James Robert Reid QC, and Margarita Echeverría Bermúdez, examined whether SK Slavia Praha was entitled to compensation despite not offering Zima a professional contract.
Under Article 6(3) of Annex 4 of the RSTP, a club may claim compensation if it can demonstrate a genuine interest in retaining the player for future seasons, even without a formal contract offer. The panel emphasized that clubs must show proactive efforts to integrate the player into their long-term plans. SK Slavia Praha argued it had invested in Zima’s development, but the panel found insufficient evidence of a bona fide intention to retain him. The CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, ruling that merely treating Zima like other amateur players and his subsequent success with Genoa FC did not meet the burden of proof required under FIFA regulations. The decision highlighted the balance between compensating clubs for training investments and allowing young players career mobility.
The procedural history included SK Slavia Praha’s appeal to CAS, requests for extensions, and a denied stay of the DRC’s decision. The CAS proceedings followed standard arbitration protocols, with both parties submitting briefs and appointing arbitrators. SK Slavia Praha sought €122,301 in compensation, arguing it was entitled under FIFA regulations, which require payment for training players between ages 12 and 21 when they sign their first professional contract. They contended the amount should be calculated based on the average training costs of both clubs. However, the DRC rejected the claim, asserting SK Slavia Praha failed to offer Zima a contract, a key requirement. SK Slavia Praha defended its position by stating it was not the player’s "former club" under Czech regulations, as Zima was on loan from FC Hradec Králové, which retained contractual rights. They also argued they were unaware Zima would leave before turning 18 and that Genoa FC did not negotiate with them.
Genoa countered that no compensation was owed if the former club did not offer a contract, as confirmed by the DRC. They highlighted SK Slavia Praha’s contradictory stance—denying being Zima’s former club while claiming compensation—and the lack of evidence that SK Slavia Praha offered Zima a contract. Genoa also noted the absence of proactive efforts by SK Slavia Praha to retain Zima, such as contractual negotiations or improved financial offers. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, as both parties agreed and FIFA statutes permit appeals to CAS. The appeal was deemed admissible, filed within the required timeframe.
The Panel determined SK Slavia Praha was Zima’s former club under FIFA Regulations, as he was registered with them at the time of transfer and not subject to a valid loan agreement with FC Hradec Králové. However, SK Slavia Praha did not offer Zima a contract, which generally disqualifies a club from claiming compensation. The Panel considered whether SK Slavia Praha could justify its entitlement under exceptional circumstances, referencing prior CAS rulings that allowed compensation if a club demonstrated genuine interest in retaining the player. The FIFA Commentary on the Regulations emphasized that such justification would be difficult to prove and limited to extraordinary cases.
SK Slavia Praha provided evidence, including match reports, statistical data, and housing cost confirmations, but the Panel found this insufficient to demonstrate a genuine interest in retaining Zima. The burden of proof required more substantial documentation, such as negotiations, communications, or internal club memoranda indicating an intent to sign the player. The absence of such evidence weakened SK Slavia Praha’s case. The Panel concluded that merely treating Zima like any other amateur and later recognizing his success did not meet the required legal standard.
Since SK Slavia Praha failed to prove its entitlement to training compensation, the Panel dismissed the appeal. All related claims, including reimbursement