The case revolves around a legal dispute between Olympique de Marseille (OM), FIFA, Arsenal Football Club, and Mathieu Flamini concerning the validity of Flamini's transfer from OM to Arsenal. Flamini, who had been part of OM's youth academy since childhood, was offered a professional contract by OM in 2004. However, he declined these offers and instead signed with Arsenal. The French Football Federation (FFF) refused to issue an international transfer certificate, arguing Flamini was still bound to OM. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of Flamini's transfer, setting a training compensation fee of €480,000. OM appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the DRC's jurisdiction and arguing FIFA misapplied regulations. OM contended that under French football rules, Flamini was obligated to sign with them, while FIFA maintained OM's contract offers were either late or incomplete, freeing Flamini to join another club.
The CAS addressed procedural issues, including OM's incorrect designation of itself as the respondent, and confirmed its jurisdiction under FIFA statutes. On substantive matters, the CAS applied Swiss law and FIFA's regulations, upholding the DRC's authority over training compensation and contract disputes. The core issue was whether a professional contract existed between Flamini and OM. The CAS found OM's initial offer lacked specific terms, and subsequent negotiations failed to produce a binding agreement. Under Articles 261 and 262 of the French Football Charter, OM was required to notify Flamini of its intent to offer a professional contract by April 30 via registered mail, which it failed to do. The June 29 offer was deemed too late, rendering Flamini free to sign with Arsenal.
OM sought higher training compensation, claiming €826,955 based on their academy costs, but the CAS ruled this evidence insufficient as it only covered one year of Flamini's training. The €480,000 compensation was upheld. OM also requested sporting sanctions and termination compensation, alleging contractual breach. The CAS dismissed these claims, noting Flamini's trainee contract had expired, and he had no obligation to sign with OM due to their regulatory non-compliance. The only applicable sanction was a three-year restriction on Flamini joining another French club, as per Article 261. Arsenal faced no sanctions, as they signed a player not under contract.
The CAS ultimately upheld FIFA's decision, validating Flamini's transfer and the imposed training compensation. The ruling emphasized adherence to contractual deadlines and proper application of football regulations, dismissing OM's appeal on the merits. The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance and clear contractual terms in player transfers.