The case involves a dispute between Association Omnisport Centre Mbérie Sportif (the Appellant) and Union Sportive Tataouine (the Respondent) over training compensation for a professional football player under FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The Appellant claimed compensation under Article 3(2) of the RSTP, arguing that the player had been registered with them as an amateur before re-registering as a professional within 30 months. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially rejected the claim, stating that training compensation is only due under Article 20 RSTP when a player is registered as a professional for the first time or transferred between clubs of different associations, neither of which applied here.
The Appellant appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the interpretation of Article 3(2) RSTP. The CAS clarified that training compensation is payable when a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being reinstated as an amateur, even if the standard conditions under Article 20 RSTP are not met. The reference to Article 20 in Article 3(2) was not meant to impose the same triggering conditions but rather to incorporate procedural aspects of training compensation, such as payment terms and exceptions. The CAS also ruled that the club entitled to compensation in such cases is the last amateur club where the player was registered before re-registering as a professional, not the previous professional club.
The dispute centered on the player's registration history, which included inconsistencies in passports issued by the Gabonese Football Federation (FEGAFOOT). The Respondent alleged that the fourth passport, relied upon by the Appellant, was fraudulent, citing past collusion between the Appellant and FEGAFOOT in a similar case. The Appellant countered that discrepancies were due to evolving player statuses and denied any fraudulent intent. The CAS proceedings involved procedural steps, including language accommodations for submissions in French and extensions for filing the appeal brief.
The Sole Arbitrator emphasized the importance of interpreting FIFA statutes and regulations by examining their literal meaning, context, purpose, and legislative intent. Swiss associations have significant autonomy in interpreting their own rules, and deference is given to their interpretations unless proven unreasonable. The arbitrator concluded that Article 3(2) serves as an exception to the general rule under Article 20, applying when a player re-registers as a professional within 30 months of being an amateur, with compensation going to the last amateur club before re-registration.
In this case, the player was re-registered as a professional after turning 21, and the Appellant was not the last amateur club to train the player. The arbitrator found no evidence of misuse of rights or attempts to circumvent compensation obligations. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA DRC's decision was upheld. The CAS ruled that the appeal was dismissed, the earlier decision was confirmed, and all further requests were denied. The case provided clarity on the interpretation of Article 3(2) RSTP and reinforced the entitlement of amateur clubs to compensation under specific circumstances.