The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on 31 May 2021 in a dispute involving BFC Daugavpils, FC Kairat, and FIFA, addressing procedural and substantive issues related to football training compensation and dispute resolution. The case originated from a proposal issued by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Secretariat on 29 May 2020, which outlined the training compensation Daugavpils owed to Kairat. The proposal became binding after Daugavpils failed to respond within the stipulated 15-day deadline, as per Article 13 of the FIFA Procedural Rules. FIFA subsequently issued a decision on 25 June 2020, confirming the binding nature of the proposal and imposing additional obligations, including a 30-day payment deadline and potential disciplinary action for non-compliance.
Daugavpils appealed to CAS, seeking to annul FIFA’s decision and arguing procedural irregularities, including improper notification of the proposal via FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS) and the lack of a regulatory basis for the binding effect of the proposal. The CAS Panel, composed of Mr. Frans de Weger, Prof. Ulrich Haas, and Prof. Massimo Coccia, examined several key issues, including the admissibility of the appeal, the validity of FIFA’s notification process, and the legal nature of the decision. The Panel ruled that the appeal was admissible, rejecting FIFA’s argument that the decision was merely informative and not appealable. It found that the decision materially affected the parties’ legal positions by confirming the proposal’s enforceability and introducing new obligations.
The Panel also addressed Daugavpils’ claim that the proposal was improperly notified via TMS, rather than email as required by general FIFA Procedural Rules. The Panel concluded that Annex 6 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which governs training compensation disputes, takes precedence as a more specific rule and explicitly mandates communication via TMS. It emphasized Daugavpils’ obligation to regularly monitor the "Claims" tab in TMS, as stipulated by Article 2 of Annex 6, and found the club’s failure to do so unreasonable, even considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The Panel dismissed Daugavpils’ argument that it only became aware of the proposal on 27 June 2020, noting that the club had access to TMS by 10 June 2020 and ample time to respond before the deadline.
Regarding the binding nature of the proposal, the Panel upheld FIFA’s policy under Article 13 of the Procedural Rules and FIFA Circular no. 1689, which treats a party’s silence as acceptance of the proposal. It ruled that Daugavpils’ failure to object within the deadline constituted a waiver of its right to challenge the proposal, creating legitimate expectations for Kairat and FIFA. The Panel also rejected Daugavpils’ claim of unequal treatment, finding no evidence of procedural misconduct by FIFA.
Ultimately, the CAS Panel dismissed Daugavpils’ appeal, affirming FIFA’s decision and confirming the club’s obligation to pay the specified amount to Kairat. The award reinforced the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the regulatory framework governing football disputes, while clarifying the distinction between preliminary proposals and final, binding decisions. The case underscores the role of CAS in ensuring procedural fairness and consistency in sports arbitration.