The case involves a dispute over the international transfer of a minor football player, N., under Article 19 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Article 19.1 RSTP generally prohibits the international transfer of players under 18, with exceptions outlined in Article 19.2, designed to protect minors' socio-economic, educational, cultural, family, and psychological well-being. N., a dual US-Hungarian national, moved to Hungary in July 2020 with his mother, citing the need to care for his elderly grandparents during the COVID-19 pandemic. After relocating, N. sought to join Hungarian club MOL Fehérvár FC, prompting an application for an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) under Article 19.2(a) RSTP, which permits transfers if the family’s move is unrelated to football. FIFA denied the transfer, leading N. to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Rui Botica Santos, examined whether the move was genuinely motivated by non-football reasons. The burden of proof rested on N. to demonstrate that football was not the primary factor in the relocation, with the standard of proof being "comfortable satisfaction." The panel assessed the weight of the "football factor" among other reasons for the move, such as family care and employment, and whether the chosen location was influenced by football opportunities. The panel concluded that while multiple legitimate reasons existed for the move, the football-related aspects—such as prior training requests and immediate club involvement—suggested football played a significant role. Thus, the exception under Article 19.2(a) RSTP did not apply, and FIFA’s decision to deny the transfer was upheld.
The case highlights the strict interpretation of Article 19 RSTP to safeguard minors, ensuring exceptions are only granted when football is not the prevailing motive for relocation. The player's mother provided documentation, including proof of employment and residence, to support their claim that the move was for family reasons. However, FIFA and the CAS found inconsistencies, such as the father remaining in the USA and the player's prior connections to the Hungarian club, which undermined the argument that the move was unrelated to football. The CAS emphasized that the exceptions under Article 19.2 are exhaustive and must be applied narrowly to prevent exploitation of minors.
The ruling reaffirms the importance of prioritizing minors' education and holistic development over early professional football commitments. While the decision acknowledges the player's passion for football and the family's frustration, it underscores the need to adhere to strict regulations to protect young players. The player is not barred from playing football locally but cannot be registered internationally until he meets the age requirement or provides compelling evidence for an exception. The case aligns with established CAS jurisprudence, which consistently upholds the protective intent of Article 19 RSTP, ensuring minors' welfare remains the primary consideration in international transfers.