The case revolves around a dispute between Zamalek Sporting Club and Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club concerning training compensation for a football player who transferred from Accra to Zamalek in 2011. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with reviewing a decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which had ordered Zamalek to pay Accra USD 82,500 as training compensation for the 33 months the player spent with Accra, plus interest and procedural costs. Zamalek appealed the decision, arguing that the player had already completed his training period before joining Accra or, alternatively, that the compensation amount was disproportionate to the actual training costs.
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Hans Nater, established key legal principles for the case. It confirmed that CAS has full power of review in appeals against decisions by sports governing bodies like FIFA, with evidence only to be excluded under specific conditions of procedural misconduct. The burden of proof for demonstrating an earlier completion of the player’s training period rested with Zamalek, while any challenge to the proportionality of training compensation required concrete evidence, such as invoices or detailed financial records.
The factual background revealed that the player had been registered with several Ghanaian clubs before joining Accra in 2008 and later moving to Zamalek in 2011. Accra filed a claim with FIFA in 2011 for training compensation, which Zamalek initially did not contest, leading to the DRC's decision in Accra’s favor. In its appeal to CAS, Zamalek sought to annul the DRC’s decision, arguing the player was already fully trained before his time at Accra or that the compensation amount was excessive. Accra, in response, requested the exclusion of Zamalek’s evidence, dismissal of the appeal, and confirmation of the DRC’s decision, along with reimbursement of legal costs.
The CAS proceedings involved written submissions and a hearing, with both parties presenting their arguments. The Sole Arbitrator examined the player’s status, salary, and performance, concluding that the player was not fully trained during his first season with Accra, thus entitling Accra to compensation. The arbitrator referenced FIFA regulations, which stipulate that training compensation is payable for players under 23 unless evidence shows their training ended earlier. Zamalek failed to substantiate its claim that the player’s training had concluded before joining Accra.
The calculation of training compensation was based on FIFA’s indicative amount of USD 30,000 for Category II clubs under the African Football Confederation. Zamalek argued that their actual training costs were significantly lower, around EUR 1,228 per player, but the arbitrator found this evidence insufficient, as Zamalek did not provide detailed financial records like invoices or payroll slips. The arbitrator ruled that the FIFA-indicated amount was not disproportionate and ordered Zamalek to pay USD 30,000 to Accra, plus 5% annual interest from October 20, 2011, as per Swiss law.
The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness, burden of proof, and the need for concrete evidence when disputing training compensation calculations under FIFA regulations. It also highlights the validity of FIFA’s compensation framework, which bases amounts on hypothetical costs incurred by the new club rather than actual expenses. The ruling partially upheld Zamalek’s appeal but maintained the core financial obligation, reinforcing adherence to established legal standards in sports arbitration.