What is Locus Standi?

Locus Standi is a platform for the dispute-resolution world. It brings together arbitration, mediation and adjudication events, jobs and internships, and landmark arbitral awards explained in plain English, alongside the qualifications and pathways into the field. It was established in London at LIDW26 by the alumni of Queen Mary University of London.

Can Locus Standi help me understand a dispute?

Yes. Locus Standi offers free dispute help: paste your contract's dispute-resolution clause and a short note on what happened, and it works out the type of dispute, the governing law, your options, the right forum to file in, and drafts a basic document to start from, all in plain English.

What is the agentic AI case officer?

Locus Standi's workspace includes an AI case officer that helps practitioners run their matters: tracking stages and deadlines, raising alerts, organising to-dos and documents, and drafting. It is built for arbitrators, mediators and the institutions that administer disputes.

Where can I find arbitration events and internships?

Locus Standi keeps a live calendar of arbitration, mediation and adjudication events with one-tap calendar export, and a board of arbitration jobs and internships from institutions including the PCA, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and AIAC.

CAS 2022 A 8668 (CAS)

Why it matters

This case is significant for clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in football transfer disputes. It affirms that the FIFA DRC lacks competence to adjudicate claims between clubs from the same national association, even when an international solidarity contribution is involved. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reinforced the principle of national federations' autonomy, stating that such domestic disputes should be resolved through national bodies, and CAS will not expand FIFA's jurisdiction where national remedies are available. It highlights the importance of exhausting domestic legal channels.

Summary

Torino Football Club (Italy) appealed a decision by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) concerning a solidarity contribution payment. Torino had acquired a player from UC Sampdoria (Italy) and, as the new club, was responsible for paying a solidarity contribution to KKS Lech Poznan (Poland), a former training club of the player, as per FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Torino paid Lech Poznan but argued that due to Italy's domestic "clearing house" system, it was unable to deduct this solidarity contribution from the transfer fee paid to Sampdoria, leading to an alleged overpayment to Sampdoria and unjust enrichment. Lech Poznan initiated proceedings before the FIFA DRC against Torino for the outstanding solidarity contribution, which the DRC upheld, ordering Torino to pay EUR 105,948.49. In those proceedings, Torino requested the FIFA DRC to include Sampdoria as a party and order Sampdoria to reimburse the alleged overpayment. The FIFA DRC, however, declared Torino's requests inadmissible, stating it lacked competence to hear disputes between clubs belonging to the same national association (Torino and Sampdoria) under Article 22 of the RSTP. Torino appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Sampdoria should be a party to the appeal, that FIFA was competent to decide on the reimbursement of overpayment, and that the financial burden should ultimately rest on Sampdoria due to unjust enrichment. Torino contended there was a "lacuna" in FIFA's regulations regarding such domestic disputes involving international solidarity payments. The CAS Panel, applying FIFA Regulations (specifically the August 2020 edition of the RSTP) and subsidiarily Swiss law, dismissed Torino's appeal. The Panel confirmed that the FIFA DRC was correct in its finding that it lacked competence to adjudicate Torino's claim against Sampdoria. CAS emphasized that Article 22 of the RSTP clearly defines FIFA's jurisdiction, which does not extend to disputes solely between clubs of the same national association, even if the underlying issue relates to an international solidarity mechanism. The Panel found that Torino had not provided sufficient evidence that the FIFA DRC was the "only remedy" and noted that Torino had not attempted to approach any national body within Italy to resolve the dispute, despite Sampdoria confirming the existence of such a national arbitration tribunal. CAS concluded that expanding FIFA's jurisdiction in such a case would impede on the autonomy and internal competence of national associations like the Italian Football Federation (FIGC). Consequently, the CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision. Torino was ordered to bear the full costs of the arbitration and pay CHF 5,000 to Sampdoria as a contribution towards its legal fees.

The detail

Parties: Torino Football Club v. KKS Lech Poznan & UC Sampdoria & FIFA

Case number: CAS 2022 A 8668

Outcome: Torino Football Club's appeal was dismissed, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision was confirmed, and Torino was ordered to pay CHF 5,000 to UC Sampdoria and bear the arbitration costs.

Quantum: CHF 5,000

Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP, August 2020 edition), CAS Code (R47, R49, R58, R64.4, R64.5), Swiss law (subsidiary), Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (SCCP) (Art. 59, 60).

Issues in play: The core issue was the competence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to adjudicate a dispute between two clubs from the same national association (Torino and Sampdoria) regarding solidarity contributions, under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) Article 22. The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) regulations and clearing house system were also central to Torino's claim of overpayment and unjust enrichment.

Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗

Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.

Back to the awards board