The case involves a dispute between the Finnish Ice Hockey Association (Appellant) and the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) over the interpretation of a Memorandum of Agreement dated September 4, 2001, concerning player transfers to and from the National Hockey League (NHL). The Appellant sought payment of USD 103,687 from the IIHF, which the IIHF denied, leading to an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term "return" in the Memorandum, particularly regarding the transfer of player S. from the NHL's New York Islanders to the Finnish team Jokerit. The IIHF Council had previously ruled against the Appellant's claim, prompting the appeal to CAS. The contractual framework involved agreements between the IIHF, NHL, and national associations, including Finland, establishing a system where NHL clubs pay an annual development fee to the IIHF for player transfers. This fee is distributed among national associations based on a detailed model considering player categories, numbers, and skill levels. Player S., drafted by the New York Islanders in 2002, was transferred multiple times between teams, including Jokerit, with the Appellant arguing these transfers entitled them to additional compensation under the Memorandum. The key legal issue was the interpretation of Article 3.1.2 of the Memorandum, which governs payments when a player returns to their previous club. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator François Carrard, emphasized that the term "return" is legally neutral and should be interpreted based on the parties' intent and the agreement's context. The Appellant argued the player never legally "returned" to Jokerit, as he remained under the jurisdiction of the New York Islanders, while the IIHF contended his physical return to Jokerit before January 15, 2004, constituted a "return" under the agreement. The CAS panel sided with the IIHF, noting the player's substantial contribution to Jokerit by playing 23 games and completing the season. The panel ruled the player's physical return met the Memorandum's terms, dismissing the Appellant's appeal and confirming the IIHF Council's decision. The remaining 50% payment was deemed not payable, and all other claims were dismissed. The decision upheld the IIHF's interpretation of "return" as a factual rather than legal concept, aligning with the agreement's intent and the sport's orderly conduct. The IIHF Council's decision from September 22, 2004, was confirmed, and the ruling stands as final and conclusive, with no further amendments or actions required. The case highlights the importance of precise contractual language in sports governance and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes.