The case revolves around a dispute between Parma FC and Manchester United FC concerning training compensation for a player, G., who moved from Parma to Manchester United in 2004 under his first non-amateur contract. Parma claimed EUR 1,356,300 in training compensation based on its own individual calculation, arguing that FIFA’s standard indicative amounts were disproportionate. However, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected Parma’s claim due to insufficient documentary evidence and instead applied the standard amounts, resulting in a significantly lower compensation of EUR 205,000. Parma appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the DRC’s refusal to consider its individual calculation without requesting additional evidence.
The CAS panel examined the DRC’s authority under FIFA regulations, particularly Article 42.1(b)(iv), which allows the DRC to adjust training compensation if the standard amounts are clearly disproportionate. The panel ruled that while the DRC has discretion, it also has an inquisitorial duty to seek further information if it does not outright reject a party’s calculation but finds the supporting evidence insufficient. The panel emphasized that this duty does not shift the burden of proof from the claimant, who must still substantiate their claims. In this case, the CAS found that the DRC should have assessed whether the standard amounts were disproportionate rather than dismissing Parma’s calculation without further inquiry. Consequently, the panel remanded the case back to the DRC for additional fact-finding and a new decision, ensuring a fair evaluation of the proportionality of the compensation.
The dispute highlights the procedural requirements for resolving training compensation claims under FIFA’s regulatory framework. The standard indicative amounts, outlined in FIFA Circular Letter No. 826, serve as provisional measures but can be adjusted if proven disproportionate. The DRC’s role includes evaluating such claims and requesting additional evidence when necessary to avoid arbitrary decisions. The CAS decision underscores the balance between the DRC’s discretionary powers and its obligation to ensure fairness, particularly when a party challenges the standard calculations. The ruling also reinforces the principle that clubs must provide concrete evidence to deviate from the standard amounts, while the DRC must actively engage in fact-finding to uphold due process. Ultimately, the case was sent back to the DRC for further assessment, with instructions to request necessary documentation from Parma, such as invoices and training center budgets, to determine whether the indicative amounts were disproportionate in this specific instance. The decision maintains the integrity of FIFA’s dispute resolution process by ensuring thorough and fair evaluations of training compensation claims.