The case involves a dispute between Club Atlético Vélez Sarsfield, The Football Association Ltd., Manchester City FC, and FIFA regarding the transfer of a minor player. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Mr. Efraim Barak, Prof. Gustavo Albano Abreu, and Prof. Ulrich Haas, issued its award on 16 April 2018. The dispute centered on procedural and substantive legal issues, including the right to intervene in proceedings, procedural violations, standing to sue, interpretation of sports association regulations, and the free movement of workers within the EU. The panel rejected a request for intervention by a party that failed to appeal the initial decision within the 21-day deadline, emphasizing that allowing such intervention would circumvent procedural rules. It clarified that procedural violations, such as the right to be heard, could be remedied in de novo proceedings if the appeal body had the authority to review facts and law anew. The panel ruled that only parties with a concrete, legitimate, and personal interest affected by the decision may appeal, requiring a tangible financial or sporting stake.
The case involved a young football player registered with Vélez Sarsfield from age 11. Manchester City attempted to sign him at 16, triggering a dispute over training compensation and transfer rules. The player obtained an Italian passport shortly before his 16th birthday and signed with Manchester City, which FIFA’s Single Judge approved under Article 19(2)(b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), citing compliance with EU free movement laws. Vélez Sarsfield and the Argentine Football Association (AFA) opposed the transfer, arguing it violated FIFA rules and lacked proper consent. Vélez Sarsfield appealed, challenging the interpretation of Article 19(2)(b), which permits transfers of minors aged 16–18 within the EU/EEA under certain conditions. The club argued the exception should apply only to intra-EU/EEA transfers, while Manchester City and the FA contended it should extend to EU citizens transferring from non-EU/EEA clubs, aligning with EU law.
The panel noted FIFA’s initial alignment with Vélez Sarsfield’s interpretation but its subsequent shift following the CAS ruling in the Vada II case, which adopted a broader interpretation without amending the rule’s wording. The panel found the plain wording of Article 19(2)(b) might suggest a narrower interpretation, but the broader context, including legislative history and discussions with the European Commission, supported the FA and Manchester City’s stance. The panel emphasized that restricting transfers of EU passport holders from non-EU/EEA clubs would violate the principle of free movement, as it would discriminate based on residence rather than nationality. It highlighted inconsistencies in the current system, where EU/EEA citizens are treated differently from non-EU/EEA citizens, creating an unfair advantage for EU/EEA clubs.
The panel acknowledged FIFA’s intention to protect minors but found no justification for the differential age limits: 16 for intra-EU/EEA transfers and 18 for others. This imbalance distorted the transfer market, allowing EU/EEA clubs to recruit younger players globally while non-EU/EEA clubs faced stricter restrictions. The panel urged FIFA to reconsider the territorial restriction, suggesting the rule should apply globally if material requirements are met. However, it upheld the player’s registration with Manchester City, as it complied with the existing interpretation of Article 19(2)(b), and dismissed Vélez Sarsfield’s appeal. The panel concluded by emphasizing the need for FIFA to review and potentially revise the regulations to ensure fairness and consistency in the treatment of minors and clubs worldwide.