CAS 2024/A/10041FC Noah v. Federation Internationale de Football Association
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 4 Aug 2025
Why it matters
This case is highlighted for its clarification of procedural requirements in sports arbitration, particularly concerning FIFA's new Clearing House Regulations and training compensation waivers. It underscores the critical importance of including all directly affected parties, like the club entitled to compensation, in appeal proceedings (mandatory passive litisconsortium). The decision to annul FIFA's ruling and refer the case back, rather than deciding on the merits, sets a precedent for ensuring procedural fairness and proper application of regulations, especially when new rules are in play and communication regarding documentation (like translated waivers) could be clearer.
Summary
FC Noah appealed a decision by the FIFA general secretariat that required it to pay EUR 102,630.14 in training compensation for player Sergei Muradian, despite FC Noah claiming that the player's former club, Zenit, had waived its right to such compensation. The dispute arose after Muradian's transfer, triggering FIFA's Electronic Player Passport (EPP) and Clearing House (FCH) process. Noah had uploaded a Russian-language waiver during the transfer process, but not during the specific EPP review phase as required by the new FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR). FIFA subsequently requested documentation multiple times, but Noah did not provide a translated waiver during the specified period. Noah argued that the waiver was valid, FIFA regulations and CAS jurisprudence recognized waivers, and FIFA's decision violated the pacta sunt servanda principle and FCH objectives. FIFA, however, contended that Noah failed to comply with FCHR requirements by not submitting the waiver in an official language during the EPP review process. Crucially, FIFA argued that Zenit, as the club entitled to the compensation, had a direct financial interest and should have been joined as a co-respondent in the CAS appeal, invoking the principle of "passive mandatory litisconsortium." The Sole Arbitrator found that Zenit indeed had a legal interest and a right to be heard, and its absence prevented a decision on the merits of the waiver's validity. While acknowledging Noah's frustration and FIFA's awareness of the waiver, the Arbitrator determined that rejecting the appeal outright would be unjust given the evidence of the waiver. Therefore, the Sole Arbitrator annulled FIFA's original decision and referred the case back to FIFA, instructing it to reconsider the matter with the benefit of the English waiver and Zenit's statement, ensuring all parties' procedural rights are respected. Arbitration costs were to be borne equally by FC Noah and FIFA.
The detail
Parties: CAS 2024/A/10041FC Noah v. Federation Internationale de Football Association
Outcome: The FIFA general secretariat's decision requiring FC Noah to pay training compensation was annulled, and the matter was referred back to FIFA for a new decision. Arbitration costs are to be borne equally by the parties.
Applicable law: CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (CAS Code), FIFA Statutes, FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR), FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss Law
Issues in play: The case involved the interpretation and application of FIFA's new Clearing House Regulations (FCHR) regarding training compensation waivers and the procedural requirement of mandatory passive litisconsortium under the CAS Code and Swiss law, particularly concerning the inclusion of all directly affected parties in appeal proceedings.
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.