The case involves a dispute between FC Sportul Studentesc SA and FC Petrolul Ploiesti SA regarding the validity of the employment agreement signed by player Mares George Alexandru with FC Petrolul. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following a decision by the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) Appeals Commission, which upheld the player's registration with FC Petrolul. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of the RFF’s Regulations for Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and whether FC Petrolul had fulfilled its obligations regarding training compensation for the player.
Mares George Alexandru began his career with FC Steaua Bucarest at age nine and later registered with FC Sportul as an amateur in 2011. After turning 16 in May 2012, he played for FC Sportul’s first team in Liga 2. In November 2013, FC Sportul was excluded from RFF competitions. In June 2014, the player signed with FC Petrolul, which paid training compensation to FC Steaua but faced difficulties paying FC Sportul due to the latter’s lack of response. FC Petrolul followed legal procedures to deposit the compensation, fulfilling its obligations under Romanian law. The RFF initially denied FC Petrolul’s registration request, but the National Dispute Resolution Chamber later approved it. FC Sportul appealed, arguing FC Petrolul had not complied with RSTP regulations, but the RFF Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal, prompting FC Sportul to bring the case to CAS.
The CAS panel, consisting of a sole arbitrator, examined whether the applicable RSTP version had been correctly interpreted. It ruled that amendments to RFF regulations only take effect upon official publication on the federation’s website, meaning the 2013 version applied at the time of the dispute. Under these regulations, junior players aged 16 or older must sign their first contract with their registered club unless the club fails to propose a contract within 60 days of the player’s 16th birthday. Additionally, a player is free to sign with another club if their original club is excluded from RFF competitions, as was the case with FC Sportul.
The arbitrator found FC Petrolul had made reasonable efforts to pay training compensation and fulfilled its legal obligations. Since FC Sportul had been excluded from competitions, the player was entitled to sign with FC Petrolul. The CAS upheld the RFF’s decision, confirming the validity of the player’s registration. The ruling emphasized procedural compliance in regulatory changes and clarified conditions for junior player transfers.
FC Sportul argued the RFF RSTP 2014, effective July 15, 2014, prohibited the player from signing with another club until December 31, 2014, and sought to invalidate the contract. FC Petrolul countered that the contract was signed under the 2013 RSTP, which was in force at the time, and that the 2014 rules could not apply retroactively. They also contended that Article 14 of the RFF RSTP, granting clubs exclusive rights to compel junior players to sign contracts, violated fundamental rights under Romanian and international law, including freedom of employment. FC Petrolul further noted FC Sportul had not offered the player a contract after his 16th birthday, and the team’s exclusion from competitions justified the player’s move.
The CAS dismissed FC Sportul’s appeal, confirming the contract’s validity and declaring Article 14 of the RFF RSTP null and void for contradicting fundamental legal principles. The arbitrator ruled that even if Article 14 applied, FC Sportul had lost its right to compel the player to sign due to its inaction. FC Sportul was ordered to pay CAS administration costs, panel fees, and a sum of 20,000 Euros to cover the respondents’ defense fees.
The decision highlighted the importance of procedural compliance in regulatory changes and upheld the player’s contractual freedom under applicable rules. It also underscored potential conflicts between sporting regulations and broader legal principles, particularly regarding freedom of movement under EU law, though the arbitrator found it unnecessary to resolve these broader issues in this case. The ruling affirmed the validity of the player’s employment agreement with FC Petrolul and dismissed all other claims.