The case involves a dispute between Genoa Cricket and Football Club S.p.A. (Genoa) and NK Lokomotiva Zagreb (Lokomotiva) concerning training compensation for a young football player under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with resolving several key issues, including jurisdiction, admissibility, applicable law, and the merits of the dispute. The principle of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" was affirmed, establishing CAS's authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, supported by Swiss law and FIFA statutes, which explicitly permit appeals to CAS after exhausting internal remedies. The dispute centered on whether Lokomotiva was entitled to training compensation for the period the player was on loan with them, despite Genoa's argument that the player was an amateur during this time and that Lokomotiva was not the player's former club.
The CAS determined that the player's status (amateur or professional) during the loan period was irrelevant for training compensation purposes. The RSTP aims to incentivize youth development by ensuring clubs are compensated for their training contributions, regardless of contractual status. The arbitrator emphasized that any club training a player between ages 12 and 21 is entitled to compensation for the effective training period. The loan arrangement did not interrupt the training segment, meaning both Dinamo Zagreb (the loaning club) and Lokomotiva contributed to the player's development. Consequently, Genoa, as the acquiring club, was responsible for paying compensation to both Dinamo Zagreb (for non-loan periods) and Lokomotiva (for the loan period).
The arbitrator rejected Genoa's argument that Lokomotiva should claim compensation from Dinamo Zagreb, deeming it unreasonable, particularly if the loan was free. Such a requirement would discourage clubs from loaning young players, undermining the RSTP's objective of fostering youth development. The compensation calculation was based on FIFA guidelines, considering club categories and training costs. Lokomotiva, a Category III club, was entitled to €35,000 for seven months of training, but the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) had awarded €31,134.85, the amount initially claimed by Lokomotiva. The arbitrator upheld this under the ultra petita principle, which prevents exceeding the claimed amount.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Genoa's appeal, confirming the DRC's decision and reinforcing the RSTP's framework for fair compensation in player transfers. The ruling highlights the balance between incentivizing youth development and ensuring clubs are justly compensated for their contributions, while also clarifying procedural and jurisdictional aspects under Swiss law and FIFA regulations. The case underscores the complexities of sports arbitration and the importance of clear regulatory frameworks in resolving disputes involving young athletes and cross-border clubs.