The case involves a dispute between Real Racing Club de Santander SAD (the Appellant) and União Desportiva Alta de Lisboa (the Respondent) regarding training compensation for a player, C. The central issue was whether the player was a professional or amateur during his time with the Appellant, which determined the Respondent's entitlement to training compensation under FIFA regulations. The player initially signed a professional contract (First Contract) with the Appellant but later signed an amateur agreement (Second Contract), leading to conflicting claims about his status. The Appellant argued the player was an amateur, while the Respondent maintained he was a professional, entitling them to compensation.
FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of the Respondent, concluding the player was a professional due to fixed monthly payments he received, regardless of the contract's terms. The DRC calculated the compensation at EUR 35,170 plus 5% interest, based on FIFA regulations and UEFA club categories. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the player's professional status and the compensation amount. The Appellant claimed the First Contract was invalid and the Second Contract was the only valid agreement, with payments being reimbursements for expenses, not a salary. They also argued the compensation was disproportionate to actual training costs, submitting a financial report to support their claim.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator found no evidence the First Contract was invalid or that the Second Contract superseded it. The termination agreement referenced the First Contract, reinforcing its validity. The Arbitrator emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Appellant, who failed to demonstrate the player was genuinely an amateur or that the compensation was disproportionate. The Arbitrator upheld FIFA's calculation, noting the Appellant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked supporting documents like invoices or detailed budgets. The decision aligned with FIFA Circular Letters, which provide guidelines for compensation calculations and allow adjustments only if clearly disproportionate, a standard the Appellant did not meet.
The ruling underscored the importance of contractual documentation and strict evidentiary standards in determining player status and compensation. It affirmed FIFA's reliance on indicative training cost averages unless proven otherwise, ensuring consistency with prior CAS jurisprudence. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Respondent's entitlement to training compensation. The case highlights the complexities of player registrations, contractual obligations, and the challenges clubs face in disputing FIFA's compensation determinations. The outcome reinforces the practical significance of FIFA regulations and circulars in resolving such disputes.