The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 19, 2021, in the dispute between Hellas Verona FC and the Latvian Football Federation (LFF) & JFC Skonto, concerning training compensation for the player Aleksejs Saveljevs. The case revolved around whether Hellas Verona was obligated to pay training compensation to Skonto, the player's former club, and whether the transfer involved a "bridge transfer" designed to circumvent FIFA regulations. The panel, composed of João Nogueira da Rocha, Marco Balmelli, and Gareth Farrelly, addressed several legal issues, including the definition of a club under FIFA Statutes, the necessity of registration in FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS), and the criteria for training compensation claims.
The panel clarified that a club is defined as such if it participates in competitions organized by a member association, including youth championships, and that TMS registration is only mandatory for clubs involved in international transfers of professional players. It also ruled that standing to sue under Swiss law depends on whether a party has a substantive right at stake, allowing Skonto to bring a claim despite not being registered in TMS. The case involved Saveljevs, who was registered with Skonto from ages 7 to 17 before moving to Hellas Verona via FK Svyturys in Lithuania. Skonto claimed €140,000 in training compensation, with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) awarding €127,500. Hellas Verona appealed, arguing Skonto lacked standing and that the transfer was legitimate.
The panel examined whether the transfer to Svyturys constituted a bridge transfer, a mechanism used to avoid training compensation. It found the transfer lacked sporting rationale, as the player was registered with Svyturys for less than a month without playing any matches, and quickly moved to Hellas Verona. The panel upheld the DRC's conclusion that this was a bridge transfer, reinforcing FIFA's stance against such practices. Hellas Verona argued it was not responsible for compensation, as the player's first professional registration was with Svyturys, and that Skonto had not offered the player a contract, which under FIFA rules could negate compensation claims. The panel rejected these arguments, emphasizing that requiring clubs to offer contracts to all young players would be impractical and contrary to the spirit of FIFA regulations, which aim to incentivize youth development.
The panel affirmed Skonto's entitlement to compensation, noting the club's significant investment in the player's training and the unfairness of allowing Hellas Verona to benefit without contributing. It upheld the DRC's calculation of €127,500, based on FIFA's training compensation standards, and dismissed Hellas Verona's appeal. The ruling clarified key legal principles, including the definition of a club, the role of TMS, and the criteria for bridge transfers, while reinforcing the importance of protecting clubs' investments in youth development. The decision sets a precedent for similar disputes, ensuring fairness and compliance with FIFA regulations. The CAS's final ruling dismissed all other motions, bringing the matter to a close.