The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 5, 2015, in the dispute between Club Grenoble Football 38 and Sporting Clube de Portugal concerning training compensation following the transfer of a player. The case arose after the player's contract with Grenoble was terminated due to the judicial liquidation of the club's commercial entity, SASP, in 2011. The player subsequently signed with Sporting Clube de Portugal, prompting Grenoble to seek €360,000 in training compensation from FIFA. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) denied the claim, ruling that the termination lacked just cause under FIFA regulations, as it stemmed solely from Grenoble's financial difficulties. Grenoble appealed to CAS, arguing that the termination was justified under French labor and commercial laws due to the liquidation, which they claimed was beyond their control.
The CAS panel, composed of Fabio Iudica, François Klein, and Markus Bösiger, addressed procedural and substantive issues. Procedurally, the panel ruled that untranslated or late-filed documents would be disregarded except for verifying their existence. On the merits, the panel emphasized that training compensation is not owed if a contract is terminated without just cause under FIFA regulations. It found Grenoble failed to prove its financial troubles were not attributable to its commercial entity, meaning the termination could not be justified. Additionally, the panel noted Grenoble's remaining entity, the Association, lacked standing to claim compensation, as it did not demonstrate a genuine interest in retaining the player or prove it was the legally entitled entity.
Sporting Clube de Portugal contested Grenoble's legitimacy to claim compensation, arguing the contract was with SASP, a separate legal entity. The panel agreed, noting Grenoble provided no evidence the Association was entitled to compensation. The panel also dismissed Grenoble's reliance on French law, stating it was irrelevant to FIFA's regulatory framework. The decision reaffirmed the strict application of FIFA rules, particularly the principle of pacta sunt servanda, discouraging unilateral contract termination without just cause.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, denying Grenoble's claim for training compensation. The ruling highlighted the importance of evidence in establishing just cause for termination and clarified the conditions under which training compensation may be awarded. It also underscored the complexities of legal and financial responsibilities in football clubs, especially when structured as multiple entities. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing procedural compliance and the burden of proof on clubs seeking compensation. The CAS dismissed all other motions, concluding the appeal was unfounded.