The case involves a dispute between Royal Standard de Liège and FC Porto over training compensation for a young Belgian player, referred to as Player T. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on 19 May 2017, addressing whether Liège had demonstrated a genuine interest in retaining the player, a requirement under FIFA regulations to claim training compensation when a player moves to another club. Player T was registered with Liège as an amateur from 1 July 2008 until 28 April 2014. On that date, Liège sent a draft employment contract for the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons to the player’s father via registered mail, but neither the player nor his father collected the documents, which were eventually returned. On 25 July 2014, Player T signed a contract with Porto, though he was only registered with them on 10 November 2014. Liège claimed training compensation, arguing it had made efforts to retain the player, but Porto refused, leading Liège to file a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which rejected the claim on 18 February 2016.
Liège appealed to CAS, contending it had demonstrated genuine interest by sending a contract offer. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, and Mr. Mark Hovell, examined the case under Swiss law, which governs FIFA’s regulations. The panel emphasized that the key issue was whether Liège had genuinely sought to retain the player, either through a valid contract offer or other evidence of sincere interest. Under Swiss law, an offer is only valid upon receipt by the other party. The panel noted that while a registered letter is deemed received even if uncollected, the contents and timing of the offer, as well as the club’s overall conduct, must demonstrate bona fide intent. The panel found Liège’s actions insufficient to establish genuine interest, as the contract offer was sent late, and there was no follow-up or further engagement with the player or his family after the documents were returned. Witness testimonies and the broader context of the club-player relationship further supported the conclusion that Liège had not met the necessary threshold to justify training compensation.
The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, rejecting Liège’s claim. The ruling reinforced the principle that clubs must provide clear and convincing evidence of their intent to retain a player, beyond mere formalities, to qualify for compensation under FIFA regulations. The case highlights the importance of substantive proof over procedural compliance in disputes over training compensation. The panel also addressed procedural matters, confirming its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal. It determined that the applicable law was FIFA’s regulations, with Swiss law subsidiarily applied for contractual interpretation. The panel found the question of whether the 2012 or 2014 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) applied irrelevant, as both versions were identical for the issues at hand. The core of the appeal revolved around Article 20 of the FIFA RSTP, which mandates training compensation when a player signs their first professional contract or is transferred before turning 23. The panel interpreted Article 6, paragraph 3 of Annex 4 to the FIFA RSTP, clarifying that it applies to both professionals and amateurs, with the former requiring a written contract offer to justify compensation.
The panel rejected Liège’s argument that it had offered the player a professional contract, noting that Swiss law requires such an offer to be received by the player to be valid. The letter was not delivered to the player or his representative but was stored at the post office, which did not constitute the player’s sphere of influence. Even if receipt were assumed, the panel found the offer lacked genuine intent, as it appeared motivated solely by securing training compensation. This conclusion was supported by the club’s prior actions, including informing the player’s father that the player was no longer in their plans, demoting him to a lower team, and signing a replacement player. These factors indicated the club had effectively written off its investment in the player, undermining its claim to compensation. The panel rejected a formalistic approach, stressing that both alternatives under Article 6, paragraph 3 must be interpreted in light of the provision’s purpose—ensuring compensation is only due when a club sincerely