The case involves a dispute between Real Racing Club de Santander SAD (the Spanish Club) and Clube Atlético e Cultural Pontinha (the Portuguese Club) over training compensation for a player, C., who had previously been registered with the Portuguese Club. The central issue was whether the player was a professional or amateur when he signed with the Spanish Club, as this determines eligibility for training compensation under FIFA regulations. The player initially signed a professional contract with the Spanish Club in August 2013, which included significant financial terms, but shortly afterward, a second contract was signed classifying him as an amateur with no remuneration. The Portuguese Club claimed training compensation, arguing the player was a professional, while the Spanish Club contested this, citing the second contract.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Fabio Iudica, examined the case and upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's (DRC) decision. The panel ruled that the Spanish Club failed to prove the player was an amateur, as the first contract clearly indicated professional status. The panel emphasized that FIFA Circular Letters, while not legally binding, are relevant for interpreting FIFA regulations. Additionally, the panel noted that training compensation could only be adjusted if proven "clearly disproportionate," a high standard the Spanish Club did not meet. The decision reinforced that clubs must substantiate claims regarding a player's status and disproportionality of compensation.
The Spanish Club argued that the player was never registered as a professional and that payments made to him were reimbursements for expenses rather than wages. They also contested the compensation amount, claiming it was disproportionate to their actual training costs. However, the Sole Arbitrator found no evidence supporting the invalidity of the first contract or the Spanish Club's claims about the payments. The arbitrator also dismissed the Spanish Club's alternative request for reduced compensation, citing insufficient documentation to justify a deviation from FIFA's indicative amounts.
The Portuguese Club maintained that the player had signed a valid professional contract, entitling them to training compensation. They argued that the second contract was an attempt to circumvent payment obligations and emphasized the fairness of the FIFA DRC's calculation, which was based on established confederation averages. The Sole Arbitrator agreed, concluding that the Portuguese Club was entitled to compensation as per FIFA regulations.
Ultimately, the CAS panel ruled in favor of the Portuguese Club, affirming the FIFA DRC's decision. The Spanish Club was ordered to pay EUR 23,520 plus 5% annual interest in training compensation. The ruling underscores the importance of clear evidence in contractual disputes and the role of FIFA guidelines in interpreting regulatory standards. The case also highlights the challenges clubs face in proving disproportionality in training compensation claims and the necessity of thorough documentation to support such arguments. The decision aligns with consistent CAS jurisprudence and reinforces the principles of fairness and transparency in football governance.