The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between Bologna FC and FC Barcelona concerning training compensation for a player who transferred from FC Barcelona to Bologna FC. The case centered on whether Bologna FC was obligated to pay training compensation to FC Barcelona after the player, who had been registered with FC Barcelona since 1999 and signed his first professional contract with them in 2010, moved to Bologna as a free agent in 2012. The player had been loaned to another club in 2011 before returning to FC Barcelona, and Bologna FC signed a preliminary agreement with him before his contract expired. FC Barcelona claimed €535,000 in training compensation, arguing it had offered the player a contract extension before his transfer, which the player did not accept. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of FC Barcelona, and Bologna FC appealed to the CAS.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Israel, Italy, and Germany, examined several key issues, including whether FC Barcelona had met regulatory requirements to claim training compensation, whether its contract offer was made in bad faith, and the impact of the player's loan on the compensation calculation. The panel clarified that training compensation is generally due even after a player's contract expires, unless the player moves within the EU/EEA and the training club did not offer a new contract before the expiry of the current one. FC Barcelona had offered the player a contract extension, fulfilling the requirement under Article 6(3) of Annex 4 to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The panel emphasized that offering a renewed contract demonstrates the training club’s "real intention" to continue the employment relationship, rejecting Bologna FC's argument that the offer was made in bad faith. The panel also ruled that a training club’s right to offer a renewed contract cannot be invalidated by a player signing with another club before the 60-day deadline, unless the training club acted in bad faith.
Regarding the loan period, the panel concluded that loans do not disrupt the chain of the training period for calculating compensation, though the loan period itself is excluded from the calculation. The categorisation of clubs for training compensation is based on their overall investment in youth development, not on whether a specific player plays for the club’s A team or another team. FC Barcelona was classified as a Category I club due to its participation in the Spanish first division, and Bologna FC was expected to know this classification. The panel dismissed Bologna FC's argument that the player passport should determine club categorisation, stating it is used to verify training periods but not club categories. The panel also rejected Bologna FC's claim that FIFA regulations violate EU principles of free movement of workers, noting that FIFA's international transfer rules, including training compensation, were approved by the EU Commission and aligned with EU Court of Justice precedent.
The CAS ultimately upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, ruling that Bologna FC must pay FC Barcelona €535,000 in training compensation, plus interest from 1 September 2012 at 5% per annum until payment. The panel confirmed that FC Barcelona had acted in good faith and met all regulatory requirements, and the loan to Vitesse did not affect the compensation calculation. The appeal by Bologna FC was dismissed, and all other claims were rejected. The ruling reinforced the principles of training compensation under FIFA regulations, ensuring consistency in future disputes and underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and acting in good faith in player transfers. The decision highlights the balance between regulatory compliance and genuine intent in contractual offers, particularly within the EU/EEA framework, and the importance of clubs protecting their interests in player transfers.