The case involves a dispute between Udinese Calcio S.p.A. and Santos Futebol Clube, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), concerning training compensation for a football player who moved from Santos to Udinese. The dispute originated from the player's registration with Santos in 2003 and subsequent contracts, including allegations of forced agreements. Santos filed claims for breach of contract and training compensation after the player signed with Udinese in 2009. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) partially accepted Santos' claim in 2015, ordering Udinese to pay €345,000 plus interest. Udinese appealed this decision to CAS, challenging the validity of the claim, the amount awarded, and the interest calculation.
Key legal principles were established by the CAS panel. It ruled that an appellant could develop arguments during a hearing if referenced in their appeal brief. Under Swiss law, payments made on the next working day after a public holiday deadline are valid. The statute of limitations for training compensation claims begins 31 days after the player's registration, with a two-year window to file claims. While FIFA regulations do not explicitly provide for interest on late payments, a consistent practice based on Swiss law awards 5% annual interest from the due date until payment. The panel found no evidence to justify reducing the interest owed and emphasized that CAS generally does not recalculate procedural costs from prior proceedings unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Udinese argued that Santos' claim was time-barred, as it was filed more than two years after the player's registration with Udinese in 2009. Udinese also contended that the Brazilian court's prior rulings on the player's contract with Santos should have res judicata effect, binding FIFA's DRC. The panel dismissed this, noting the Brazilian rulings concerned employment disputes, not training compensation, and Udinese was not a party to those proceedings. The panel upheld the FIFA DRC's calculation of the training period, concluding it ended on 28 August 2008, when the player was legally permitted to leave Santos. It also rejected Udinese's claim that the DRC acted beyond its authority, finding Santos had clearly requested compensation in its submissions.
Regarding procedural issues, the panel confirmed Santos' advance payment for the DRC proceedings was timely, as the deadline fell on a non-banking day and was extended to the next working day. The panel emphasized that FIFA's procedural rules allow for claim amendments and clarifications, ensuring fairness without rigid formalities. It dismissed Udinese's argument that the delayed procedure caused financial loss, citing lack of evidence. The panel upheld the FIFA DRC's decision in its entirety, including the award of interest and procedural costs, reinforcing the principle that clubs investing in player development should be fairly compensated. The ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance and statutory time limits in resolving football-related disputes while balancing formal requirements with substantive justice.