TAS 2021 A 8213 Club Tijuana c. Aguirregaray & FIFA
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 13 Jun 2022
Why it matters
This case clarifies that players are not 'third parties' under RSTP Article 18ter for the purpose of economic rights agreements, and that such agreements are valid. It also confirms that the FIFA DRC has jurisdiction over disputes concerning economic rights when no exclusive arbitration clause exists, and that a subsequent conditional modification does not override the original agreement if the condition fails.
Summary
The case arose from a dispute between Club Tijuana (Mexico) and Uruguayan player Matias Aguirregaray. On 4 July 2017, the club and player signed an employment contract and a separate 'Economic Rights Transfer Agreement' (Contrato de Cesión) under which the player transferred 50% of his economic rights to the club in exchange for a bonus of USD 450,000 (Bono Especial 2). The player was later loaned to UD Las Palmas and then to Al Fateh FC (Saudi Arabia) with an option to buy. On 5 August 2018, the parties signed a modification agreement (Convenio Modificatorio) that reduced the bonus to USD 200,000, payable only if Al Fateh exercised the purchase option. The option expired unexercised, but on 29 June 2019 the club, player, and Al Fateh agreed a definitive transfer for USD 600,000. The player claimed 50% of that amount (USD 300,000) from the club before the FIFA DRC, which awarded him that sum. The club appealed to CAS, arguing that the DRC lacked jurisdiction (because the modification agreement submitted disputes to the Mexican CCRC) and that the economic rights agreement was void because it violated RSTP Article 18ter (third-party ownership) and lacked object. The CAS sole arbitrator rejected both arguments. On jurisdiction, he held that the modification agreement was subject to a suspensive condition (exercise of the option) that never occurred, so it never took effect; therefore, the original economic rights agreement governed, and it contained no arbitration clause, so FIFA DRC had jurisdiction under RSTP Article 22(b). On the validity of the economic rights agreement, the arbitrator found that players are not 'third parties' under Article 18ter, as confirmed by FIFA Circular 1679 (2019) and consistent with the purpose of the rule. The agreement was valid and the club had to pay the player his 50% share of the transfer fee. The appeal was dismissed.
The detail
Parties: TAS 2021 A 8213 Club Tijuana c. Aguirregaray & FIFA
Outcome: The CAS dismissed the appeal and confirmed the FIFA DRC decision ordering Club Tijuana to pay USD 300,000 plus 5% annual interest to the player for the 50% share of the transfer fee.
Quantum: USD 300,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss Code of Obligations, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case involved the validity of an economic rights transfer agreement between a club and a player, and whether the player was a 'third party' under RSTP Article 18ter (prohibiting third-party ownership). The tribunal also addressed jurisdiction between FIFA DRC and a national dispute resolution chamber (CCRC).
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.