The case revolves around a dispute involving the international transfer of minor football player Nikolas Terkelsen Nartey, registered by the Deutscher Fussball-Bund (DFB) and 1. FC Köln, against FIFA. The conflict arose during the 2016/2017 winter registration period, focusing on the interpretation and application of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), particularly concerning the transfer and registration of minor players outside the designated registration window. The RSTP mandates that international transfers of professional players require an International Transfer Certificate (ITC), processed through FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS). For minor players, additional approval from FIFA's Sub-Committee of the Players’ Status Committee is necessary before an ITC can be requested. Article 6(1) of the RSTP stipulates that players may only be registered during fixed registration periods, but an unwritten exception had developed, allowing ITC requests and subsequent registrations to proceed if approval was pending at the end of the registration period. This exception was based on fairness, ensuring clubs were not penalized for delays beyond their control.
The dispute also addressed the interpretation of sports association rules, emphasizing objective construction based on wording, intent, historical context, and common practice. A "binding common practice" (Vereinsübung or Observanz) arises when a rule's application reflects a longstanding and widely accepted understanding. For such practices to be terminated or amended, clear communication to stakeholders is essential. FIFA attempted to change this practice via email on January 27, 2017, clarifying that approval for minor transfers must be obtained before an ITC request and that all TMS data must be uploaded within the registration period. The appellants argued this change was inadequately communicated, leaving them to rely on the previous practice. The sole arbitrator, Prof. Ulrich Haas, examined whether FIFA's communication met the threshold for proper notification, especially given its timing—midway through a registration period with only days remaining. The arbitrator concluded that FIFA's communication was insufficiently clear and unequivocal, meaning stakeholders could still rely on the longstanding practice. The decision underscored the importance of transparent and timely communication when altering rules or practices, particularly when impacting procedural deadlines and stakeholder obligations.
The case highlights the complexities of regulatory interpretation in sports governance, balancing written rules with unwritten exceptions and the necessity of fair and clear communication to ensure compliance and avoid disputes. The arbitrator's ruling reinforced that changes to established practices require adequate notice to affected parties to be enforceable. The appellants, including the DFB, FC Köln, and the player, sought an exemption from FIFA's validation exception to allow the transfer, arguing that FIFA's sudden change in practice violated principles of good faith and estoppel. They cited past practices where FIFA allowed document uploads after the registration period if approval was pending. FIFA maintained that strict adherence to the RSTP was mandatory, rejecting the transfer request due to non-compliance. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ultimately upheld the appeal, setting aside FIFA's decision and granting the exemption for Nartey's transfer, emphasizing the need for clarity and fairness in regulatory changes. The ruling also assigned costs to the appellants, noting the DFB's failure to relay critical information to its clubs as the primary cause of the issue. The case underscores the challenges clubs and associations face in navigating international transfer regulations, particularly for minors, and the importance of clear, consistent communication from governing bodies like FIFA.