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 2023 A 10010 (CAS)

Why it matters

This is one of the first CAS cases interpreting the FIFA Clearing House Regulations. It clarifies that a club must join all potentially affected training clubs as respondents in an appeal against a FIFA Clearing House decision, even if a waiver exists. The case underscores the strict procedural deadlines under the FCHR and the importance of joining all parties with a direct interest.

Summary

FK Liepāja, a Latvian football club, appealed a FIFA decision requiring it to pay EUR 38,517.62 in training compensation to Ukrainian club FC Inhulets Petrove for player Artem Malysh. The transfer triggered training rewards under FIFA's RSTP and FCHR. During the EPP review process, FK Liepāja failed to upload a waiver from Inhulets within the prescribed deadline. After the decision, it uploaded the waiver, but FIFA stated it was too late. FK Liepāja appealed to CAS, naming only FIFA as respondent. The Sole Arbitrator found that Inhulets had a direct and legitimate interest in the dispute because the waiver's validity could affect its entitlement. By not joining Inhulets, FK Liepāja prevented it from defending its position. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, confirming the FIFA decision. The case highlights the strict procedural requirements of the FCHR and the necessity of joining all interested parties in CAS appeals.

The detail

Parties: FK Liepāja v. FIFA

Case number: CAS 2023 A 10010

Outcome: Appeal dismissed; FIFA's decision requiring FK Liepāja to pay EUR 38,517.62 training compensation to FC Inhulets Petrove confirmed.

Quantum: EUR 38,517.62

Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR) – October 2022 edition, Swiss law subsidiarily

Issues in play: The procedural requirement under FCHR Article 9.7 to upload waivers during the review phase versus the substantive validity of a waiver. The Sole Arbitrator held that failure to join the training club as a respondent prevented it from defending its position, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

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