CAS 2024 A 10551
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 17 Apr 2025
Why it matters
This case clarifies the burden of proof on a former club claiming training compensation under FIFA RSTP Annexe 4 Article 6(3). The CAS held that the club must prove its offer was of equivalent value to the player's first professional contract; failure to do so results in no compensation. It reinforces the adversarial nature of CAS proceedings and the principle that parties cannot rely on the tribunal to fill evidentiary gaps.
Summary
The case concerns a dispute over training compensation for the player Ali Dembele. The player was registered with ESTAC as an amateur from 2018 to 2020, then signed his first professional contract with ESTAC on 1 August 2020. He remained with ESTAC until 1 July 2022. On 25 April 2022, ESTAC offered the player a trainee contract for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 seasons, with monthly remuneration ranging from EUR 778 to EUR 1,202 depending on the league. The player did not accept this offer. Instead, on 28 July 2022, he registered with Torino as an amateur, and later signed a professional contract with Torino on 17 July 2023. ESTAC claimed training compensation from Torino, arguing that the player's registration with Torino as a professional triggered an obligation to pay. The FIFA General Secretariat, through the Electronic Players' Passport process, determined that no club was entitled to training compensation because the player had reacquired professional status with Torino after having terminated his professional activity with ESTAC. Under Annexe 4 Article 6(3) RSTP, only the club with which the player was registered as an amateur directly prior to re-registration as a professional is entitled to training compensation. Since ESTAC was the club that trained the player as a professional, not as an amateur directly before his re-registration, it was not entitled. ESTAC appealed to CAS. The sole arbitrator considered whether ESTAC's offer of a trainee contract was 'at least of an equivalent value' to the player's first professional contract with ESTAC, as required by Annexe 4 Article 6(3) to qualify for an exception. ESTAC failed to produce the first professional contract, and the arbitrator found that ESTAC did not meet its burden of proof. The arbitrator also rejected ESTAC's argument that French domestic regulations automatically made its offer higher. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA decision confirmed. The case underscores the importance of documentary evidence and the burden of proof in CAS proceedings.
The detail
Parties: ESTAC c. Torino FC S.P.A. & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2024 A 10551
Outcome: ESTAC's appeal dismissed; FIFA decision confirmed; no training compensation payable.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Annexe 4; FIFA Clearing House Regulations; Swiss law (subsidiary)
Issues in play: Whether ESTAC was entitled to training compensation for player Ali Dembele after he moved to Torino. The key issue was whether ESTAC's offer of a trainee contract was 'at least of an equivalent value' to the player's first professional contract, as required by Annexe 4 Article 6(3) RSTP.
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.