The case involves a dispute between Royal Standard de Liège (Liège) and FC Porto (Porto) over training compensation for a young Belgian player, referred to as Player C, who moved to Porto in 2014. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 19 May 2017, addressing whether Liège had demonstrated a genuine intention to retain the player’s services, a key requirement for claiming training compensation under FIFA regulations. The dispute centered on the validity of a contract offer sent by Liège to the player’s father via registered mail in April 2014, which was never collected and subsequently returned. Meanwhile, the player signed with Porto in May 2014 and was registered with them in August 2014. Liège sought training compensation from Porto, which was refused, leading to proceedings before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later an appeal to CAS.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, and Mr. Mark Hovell, analyzed the case under Swiss law, which governs FIFA regulations. The panel emphasized that the training compensation rule aims to ensure clubs genuinely intend to retain a player’s services, either through a valid contract offer or other demonstrable interest. The panel found Liège’s contract offer invalid under Swiss law because it was never received by the player or his father. Swiss law requires an offer to enter the addressee’s sphere of influence to be valid, and the failure to collect the registered letter negated its legal effect. The panel also examined Liège’s broader conduct, noting the club’s lack of proactive efforts to engage the player after the failed delivery, the timing of the offer (sent just before a regulatory deadline), and the player’s demotion to lower-tier teams, which undermined claims of genuine interest. Witness testimonies from the player and his family further supported the conclusion that Liège had not made a sincere effort to retain the player.
Liège argued that Belgian law should apply to the contract offer’s validity, claiming it did not require a signature under Belgian employment law. However, the panel rejected this, affirming Swiss law as the governing framework for FIFA regulations. Liège also contended that internal communications and financial support to the player’s family demonstrated its intent, but the panel found these actions insufficient to prove bona fide interest. The panel referenced prior CAS jurisprudence, which balances clubs’ rights to training compensation with players’ freedom to pursue career opportunities. It concluded that Liège’s actions were procedural rather than substantive, aimed at securing compensation rather than retaining the player.
Porto, in its defense, argued that Liège had no genuine interest in the player, citing his demotion and the lack of follow-up after the undelivered offer. Porto also disputed the calculation of training compensation, suggesting a lower amount if liability were found. The panel ultimately upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, ruling that Porto was not obligated to pay training compensation. The case underscores the importance of both formal compliance and substantive intent in contractual and regulatory disputes in football, highlighting the need for clubs to demonstrate genuine efforts to retain players to claim compensation. The CAS dismissed Liège’s appeal, rejecting all additional claims and confirming the FIFA DRC’s ruling in favor of Porto.