The case revolves around a dispute between SC FC Steaua Bucuresti and FC Internazionale Milano SpA concerning training compensation for the young football player Radu Ionut Andrei. The player was initially registered with Steaua Bucuresti as a junior amateur from 2008 to 2012 before moving to another Romanian club. In 2013, he joined the Italian club Pergolettese, initially as an amateur and later signing his first professional contract with them on 3 July 2013. Shortly after, on 13 August 2013, he was transferred to Inter Milan for a fee of EUR 315,000. Steaua Bucuresti filed a claim before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in 2014, arguing that Inter Milan should pay training compensation for the player’s development during his time with Steaua. The FIFA DRC dismissed the claim, concluding that Pergolettese was the first club to register the player as a professional and that there was no evidence of Inter Milan using Pergolettese to circumvent training compensation rules. The DRC noted that the transfer fee paid to Pergolettese was significantly higher than the potential training compensation owed, making it unlikely that the transfer was structured to avoid payment.
Steaua appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the transfer was a circumvention of FIFA’s training compensation rules. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Marco Balmelli, examined whether the transfer was a "bridge transfer" designed to evade compensation obligations. Key factors considered included the duration of the player’s stay with Pergolettese, whether he played for the club, prior contacts between the player and Inter Milan, the rationale for joining Pergolettese before Inter, and the transfer fee amount. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, finding no evidence of circumvention. The panel noted that the player had legitimately signed a professional contract with Pergolettese before transferring to Inter Milan, and the transfer fee was substantial, suggesting a genuine transaction rather than an attempt to avoid compensation. The ruling reinforced the principle that a circumvention occurs when actions comply with the letter of regulations but not their purpose, but in this case, no such intent was proven.
The case highlights the complexities of training compensation disputes in football, particularly when young players move between clubs in different countries. The decision underscores the importance of examining the factual circumstances of each transfer to determine whether rules are being circumvented. Ultimately, the CAS found no wrongdoing by Inter Milan and dismissed Steaua’s appeal, upholding the FIFA DRC’s ruling that Steaua was not entitled to training compensation from Inter Milan. The arbitrator emphasized that Steaua failed to prove Inter Milan should be considered the first club where the player signed a professional contract due to any rule violation. The appeal was dismissed, and all other relief requests were denied, confirming the original decision. The case serves as a reminder of the need for clear evidence and adherence to regulatory definitions in resolving sports disputes.