The case involves a dispute between KRC Genk and Manchester United FC over training compensation for a young player, Indy Boonen, who moved from Genk to Manchester United. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with determining whether Genk was entitled to compensation under FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Genk argued it had invested in Boonen’s development and had a genuine interest in retaining him, despite being unable to offer a professional contract due to Belgian laws prohibiting employment agreements for players under 16. Genk sought €300,000 in compensation, citing Boonen’s talent, evaluations, and Genk’s reputation for developing top players like Kevin De Bruyne. Manchester United contested the claim, asserting Genk failed to demonstrate a bona fide interest in retaining Boonen, as required by Article 6(3) of Annex 4 of the RSTP.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber initially rejected Genk’s claim, noting the lack of evidence showing Genk’s intent to retain Boonen, such as future plans or communication with his family. Genk appealed to CAS, where the panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Frans de Weger, and Prof. Ulrich Haas, reviewed the case. Genk submitted performance evaluations, press articles, and arguments about its youth academy, but the panel found these insufficient. The evaluations were unsigned and lacked specificity, while press articles, published after Boonen’s departure, did not prove Genk’s interest at the time. The panel also noted Genk’s failure to proactively engage with Boonen or his family, particularly after refusing to retain his brother, Seppe, which led to both players leaving.
The panel clarified that Belgian law does not prevent clubs from making binding offers to minors contingent on their turning 16, rejecting Genk’s claim of a "Belgian exception" to FIFA rules. It emphasized that clubs must demonstrate a genuine interest in retaining a player, either by offering a contract or justifying entitlement to compensation under extraordinary circumstances. Genk failed to meet this standard, as it did not show proactive efforts to keep Boonen or communicate its intentions. The panel upheld FIFA’s decision, dismissing Genk’s appeal and ruling that Manchester United was not obligated to pay training compensation. The case underscores the importance of clubs actively demonstrating their interest in retaining young players, even when legal restrictions prevent formal contracts, and highlights the balance between protecting youth development and ensuring fair player mobility.