The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 14, 2018, in a dispute between Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion) and Genoa Cricket & Football Club (Genoa) regarding training compensation for a Senegalese football player. The case centered on whether Sion owed Genoa compensation for the player's training during his loan period with Genoa. The CAS panel, composed of Mr. Manfred Nan, Mr. Daniele Moro, and The Hon. Michael Beloff QC, upheld the decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Single Judge, which ordered Sion to pay Genoa EUR 55,000 plus 5% interest as training compensation.
The player had been registered with multiple clubs, including Genoa, where he was on loan from FC Krasnodar. The panel emphasized that loans do not interrupt the training period, and clubs that effectively train a player, even temporarily, are entitled to compensation under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The RSTP stipulates that training compensation is generally payable for training incurred between ages 12 and 21, or up to 23 if the player has not clearly completed training before 21. The assessment of whether a player has completed training requires a case-by-case analysis, considering factors such as first-team appearances, league level, performance in competitions, remuneration, and public notoriety.
Genoa claimed compensation for the period the player was on loan with them, arguing they contributed to his training. The FIFA DRC ruled in Genoa’s favor, and Sion appealed to CAS, failing to respond to the initial claim due to negligence in monitoring FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS). The CAS panel admitted Sion’s new evidence and arguments, finding no bad faith, and conducted a de novo review, reaffirming the principle that CAS appeals allow for a fresh examination of evidence unless there is abusive procedural behavior.
Sion argued that the player had completed his training before joining Genoa, citing his time with Maccabi Tel Aviv and Krasnodar, where he had limited playing time but high transfer fees and salaries. Genoa countered that the player was still developing, pointing to his inconsistent performances and decline in market value. The panel rejected Sion’s claim, noting that sporadic appearances and financial factors alone do not prove the completion of training. The panel also dismissed the player’s statement denying Genoa’s training role, as it was made while employed by Sion and lacked cross-examination.
The panel referenced prior CAS jurisprudence, including cases like CAS 2014/A/3710 and CAS 2015/A/4335, which clarified that loans do not break the chain of training compensation. The decision underscored the importance of balancing clubs' financial interests with the developmental needs of young players, ensuring clubs that contribute to training are fairly compensated. The panel upheld the FIFA DRC’s calculation of EUR 55,000 plus interest, dismissing Sion’s appeal and reinforcing the integrity of the training compensation system. The ruling highlights the complexities of training compensation disputes and the need for careful evaluation of a player’s career trajectory to determine liability.