The case revolves around a dispute between Romanian football club SC Dinamo 1948 and Italian club FC Internazionale Milano SpA concerning training compensation for a young player. The player, a Romanian goalkeeper, was initially registered with Dinamo as a junior amateur from February 2012 to March 2013. He then moved to Italian club Pergolettese, signing his first professional contract on July 3, 2013, before transferring to Inter Milan on August 13, 2013, for a fee of €315,000. Dinamo claimed Inter Milan circumvented FIFA regulations by using Pergolettese as an intermediary to avoid paying training compensation. Under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), the club that first registers a player as a professional is responsible for paying training compensation to the player’s former clubs. Dinamo argued Inter Milan should be liable, alleging Pergolettese was merely a bridge club to bypass this obligation. However, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) dismissed Dinamo’s claim, finding no evidence of circumvention. The DRC noted the player legitimately signed a professional contract with Pergolettese before transferring to Inter Milan, and the transfer fee paid was significantly higher than the training compensation due, making it unlikely Pergolettese was used to avoid payment.
Dinamo appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the FIFA DRC’s ruling. The CAS emphasized that proving circumvention of Article 20 RSTP requires clear evidence, such as a player signing with an upper-tier club before joining an intermediary club or an unusually short stay at the intermediary club. In this case, the player spent five months at Pergolettese, and there was no proof of prior contact or an agreement with Inter Milan before his transfer. Additionally, the player’s move to Pergolettese was justified by his family’s relocation to Italy, further undermining Dinamo’s claim. The CAS concluded Pergolettese was the first club to register the player as a professional, making it responsible for training compensation, not Inter Milan. Since no circumvention was established, Dinamo’s appeal was dismissed.
The case highlights the complexities of training compensation disputes in football, particularly concerning player status and contractual validity. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS jurisdiction based on the signed Order of Procedure by both parties and deemed the appeal admissible as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by FIFA Statutes and the CAS Code. The applicable law was determined to be FIFA Regulations, primarily the RSTP, with Swiss law as a subsidiary framework. The arbitrator found sufficient evidence, including documentation and FIGC records, to confirm the player signed a professional contract with Pergolettese in July 2013, receiving a salary exceeding his expenses, thus meeting the definition of a professional player under Article 2 RSTP. The transfer to Inter Milan occurred afterward, meaning Pergolettese, not Inter, was responsible for training compensation.
Dinamo argued the transfer process was a circumvention of Article 20 RSTP, alleging it was a "bridge-transfer" to avoid payment obligations. However, the Sole Arbitrator rejected this claim, referencing Swiss Federal Tribunal and FIFA DRC jurisprudence. Key factors included the player’s duration at Pergolettese (five months, with 41 days post-professional contract), his prior involvement with the club’s junior team, and the absence of evidence suggesting pre-existing agreements with Inter Milan. The transfer fee of €315,000 paid by Inter Milan indicated a legitimate transaction rather than a circumvention. The Sole Arbitrator concluded Dinamo failed to prove a deliberate bypass of RSTP rules, dismissing the claim for training compensation from Inter Milan. The decision underscores the importance of factual evidence and established legal criteria in assessing compliance with sports regulations. The appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA DRC’s decision confirming no training compensation was owed to Dinamo was upheld.