The case involves a dispute between Real Racing Club de Santander SAD (the Appellant) and Sport Grupo Sacavenense (the Respondent) regarding training compensation for a player who transitioned from amateur to professional status. The central issue was whether the player had signed his first professional contract with the Appellant, triggering the obligation to pay training compensation under FIFA regulations. The Appellant argued the player was registered as an amateur and only received reimbursements for expenses, while the Respondent contended the player had signed a professional contract, making the Appellant liable for compensation. The case was initially decided by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of the Respondent, ordering the Appellant to pay training compensation. The Appellant appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the player's professional status and the proportionality of the compensation amount.
The CAS proceedings focused on two contracts: a professional contract (First Contract) and an amateur agreement (Second Contract). The Appellant claimed the First Contract was fraudulent and never enforced, while the Second Contract was the valid agreement, rendering the player an amateur. The Respondent maintained the First Contract was legitimate and binding, and the Second Contract was an attempt to evade compensation. The Sole Arbitrator found no evidence supporting the Appellant's claim of fraud and noted the Appellant failed to prove the Second Contract superseded the First Contract. Key evidence included payments matching the First Contract's terms and a termination agreement referencing it, undermining the Appellant's argument. The Arbitrator concluded the First Contract was valid, establishing the player's professional status and the Respondent's entitlement to training compensation.
The compensation amount was calculated based on FIFA regulations, which prescribe indicative training costs depending on club categories. The Appellant, a category 2 club, and the Respondent, a category 4 club, had training costs set at €60,000 and €10,000, respectively. Since the player moved from a lower to a higher category club within the EU/EEA, the compensation was determined as the average of these amounts (€35,000) multiplied by the years of training the player received with the Respondent, from age 12 to 21. The Appellant argued this amount was disproportionate to their actual training costs, submitting a financial report claiming lower expenses. However, the Sole Arbitrator found the report inconsistent and insufficiently detailed, failing to meet the burden of proof required to justify a reduction. The Arbitrator emphasized FIFA Circular Letters, particularly N. 799 and N. 826, which outline the philosophy and methodology for calculating training compensation, including allowable expenses like salaries, accommodation, and education. The Appellant's evidence lacked specificity and did not align with these guidelines, leading the Arbitrator to uphold the DRC's original decision.
The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the Appellant's liability for training compensation and rejecting claims of disproportionality. The ruling reinforced the importance of clear evidence in substantiating claims and highlighted FIFA's regulatory framework as the basis for resolving such disputes. The decision underscored that contractual labels alone do not determine a player's status; actual compensation and contractual terms are decisive. The case also clarified that clubs must provide detailed, verifiable evidence to challenge FIFA's indicative training costs, ensuring fairness and consistency in compensation calculations. The final ruling maintained the original compensation amount and dismissed all additional motions, concluding the legal proceedings.