The case involves a dispute between Hamburger Sport-Verein e.V. (HSV), a German football club, and Odense Boldklub (OB), a Danish football club, over training compensation for the player L., who transferred from OB to HSV in 2002. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 21 April 2004, addressing the calculation and duration of training compensation under FIFA regulations. L. had been registered with OB from 1991 to 2002, signing his first non-amateur contract in 1996. OB claimed training compensation from HSV, arguing that L. was under 23 at the time of transfer and met FIFA's conditions for compensation. Initially, OB sought €555,000, calculated using FIFA Circular Letter No. 826, which outlines compensation based on player age, club division, and category. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber awarded OB 50% of the claimed amount (€277,500), prompting HSV to appeal to CAS.
HSV contested the decision, arguing it should owe no compensation, while OB maintained its claim for the full amount or a reduced sum. The CAS panel, composed of Stephan Netzle, Goetz Eilers, and Johan Evensen, examined the case under FIFA regulations, as no other applicable law was agreed upon. The panel clarified that contractual clauses distinguishing transfer fees from training compensation were meant to reflect the implications of the Bosman ruling, which prohibited transfer fees within EU and EEA member states. The panel emphasized that the duration of a player's training period should be determined by factors such as the date of signing a first non-amateur contract, games played in the "A"-team, and technical skills.
The panel upheld the use of FIFA Circular Letter No. 826 for calculating training compensation, rejecting HSV's argument that the circular was inapplicable because it was issued after the transfer. The circular was deemed relevant as it clarified existing regulations and was issued before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber decision in 2003. The panel calculated the compensation based on L.'s training period, starting in 1991 and lasting six years, ending in 1997. The amount was determined using average figures between the clubs' categories (€75,000 for ages 16-21 and €10,000 for ages 12-15), totaling €255,000. The panel found this amount reasonable, dismissing HSV's claim that it was too high and OB's demand for a higher sum.
The decision reinforced that adjustments to training compensation must be based on established criteria, and parties objecting to the amount must provide concrete evidence, such as invoices or budgets, to prove disproportionality. HSV failed to demonstrate that OB's actual training costs were lower than the indicative amounts in the circular. The panel also rejected HSV's argument that the short duration of the contract before L. turned 23 justified a reduction, as only economic factors, not time factors, are relevant. Additionally, the panel found no basis in FIFA regulations for splitting compensation if the player's education ended before age 21 but continued playing for the old club. OB, however, provided no evidence to support its claim for higher compensation, such as continued investment in L.'s education after he joined the "A"-team.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the initial compensation amount of €255,000, dismissing both HSV's request for reduction and OB's counterclaim for an increase. The ruling emphasized the importance of documented evidence in such disputes and reinforced the application of FIFA's guidelines. The decision balanced the protection of clubs' investments in player development with fair compensation under established regulations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that HSV must pay OB €255,000 within 30 days of the award's notification, rejecting all other motions and counterclaims. The parties agreed to waive confidentiality, allowing the decision to be made public.