The case centers on the international transfer of Oscar Bobb, a minor football player from Norway to Portugal, and the legal disputes surrounding FIFA’s regulations on the protection of minors in football. The core issue revolves around Article 19 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which prohibits the international transfer of players under 18, with limited exceptions. One such exception, under Article 19(2)(a), allows transfers if the player’s parents move to the new country for reasons unrelated to football. Oscar Bobb, born in 2003, moved to Porto, Portugal, in September 2015 with his mother, who held sole parental responsibility. His mother, a professional actress, claimed the move was for professional reasons, as she had secured employment with a Portuguese theater company. However, suspicions arose due to Bobb’s prior involvement with FC Porto, including training and participation in tournaments as early as 2013, suggesting the move might have been influenced by football-related motives.
FIFA initially rejected FC Porto’s application for Bobb’s transfer in 2016, citing concerns that the relocation was linked to football. The decision highlighted that Bobb’s early connections with FC Porto and the timing of his mother’s employment contract cast doubt on the claim that the move was entirely unrelated to football. Neither Bobb nor FC Porto appealed this decision. In 2017, a second application was submitted by Associação Juvenil Escola de Futebol Hernâni Gonçalves, another Portuguese club, seeking approval for Bobb’s transfer under the same exception. FIFA again rejected the request, maintaining that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the move was independent of football. The case was then brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Sofoklis Pilavios, upheld FIFA’s decision, emphasizing that exceptions to the prohibition on minor transfers must be applied cautiously. The panel ruled that if any football-related motive influenced the parents’ decision to move, the exception under Article 19(2)(a) would not apply. The standard of proof for such exceptions is high, requiring evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that the move was unrelated to football. In this case, the panel found that the football factor played a role in the family’s relocation, thus invalidating the exception. The decision reinforced FIFA’s strict stance on protecting minors in football transfers, ensuring that exceptions are only granted when the move is demonstrably unrelated to the player’s career.
The appellants argued that the prohibition harmed Bobb’s welfare, as he was already integrated into Portuguese life, enjoying a good standard of living, education, and football opportunities. They requested an exception based on the spirit of Article 19, which aims to protect minors’ welfare. However, the Sole Arbitrator found that the family’s move was substantially linked to football, violating Article 19’s prohibition of international transfers for football-related reasons. The ruling underscored that no additional exceptions beyond those explicitly listed in Article 19(2) could be considered, and the criteria for an exception under Article 19(2)(a) were not met. The CAS dismissed the appeal, upheld FIFA’s decision, and rejected all other motions, reinforcing the strict application of FIFA’s regulations to safeguard minors in football.