The case involves a legal dispute between S.C. Football Club Universitatea Cluj S.A. (Cluj), the Romanian Football Federation (RFF), the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL), and S.C. Concordia Chiajna (Chiajna) concerning the registration and eligibility of football player Marius Mădălin Martac. The player was initially under contract with AS FC Oțelul Larissa (Larissa) and loaned to ASC Corona 2010 Brașov (Corona) for one season. After the loan was mutually terminated, the player signed an employment contract with Cluj until June 2014. Chiajna contested the player's eligibility during a match, arguing his registration was invalid. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Romanian football regulations, particularly the RFF's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players (RSTFP), and the validity of the player's registration with Cluj.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined several key issues, including the admissibility of late submissions under Article R56 of the CAS Code, the interpretation of loan agreements under Romanian regulations, and the validity of player registrations. The CAS panel ruled that under Romanian regulations, a player whose loan is terminated prematurely is not obligated to return to his original club but is free to join another club until the original loan period ends, provided he returns to his original club afterward if required. The panel also clarified that the original club's approval is not necessary for the player to join another club during this interim period.
The case highlighted the unique nature of Romanian football regulations, which grant players greater freedom in choosing clubs after a loan termination. The RFF's Disciplinary Committee and the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) initially sided with Cluj, determining the player's registration was valid. However, the RFF Appeal Committee later overturned this decision, arguing the player's dual registration with Larissa and Cluj violated regulations. Cluj appealed to the CAS, which ultimately upheld the initial interpretation, reinforcing the player's autonomy under Romanian regulations.
The CAS panel found that the player's employment contract with Cluj, signed on 1 February 2014, complied with regulatory requirements. Larissa, the player's original club, did not challenge the registration within the 90-day deadline stipulated by Article 25.4 of the RSTFP, nor did it request the player's personal data sheet from the RPFL, which was necessary for his eligibility to play for Larissa. The panel concluded the player was not obligated to return to Larissa and was free to register with Cluj for the remainder of the loan period.
The CAS upheld Cluj's appeal, set aside the RFF Appeals Committee's decision, and dismissed all other claims. The ruling affirmed the player's valid registration with Cluj and resolved the dispute in Cluj's favor, emphasizing the importance of contractual clarity and regulatory interpretation in football disputes. The decision clarified the legal framework governing loan agreements and player registrations in Romanian football, prioritizing player rights over club demands in such scenarios.