Club Deportes Tolima v. FC Honka Espoo

At a glance

Parties

Club Deportes Tolima S.A. (Colombia) v. FC Honka (Football Club Honka Espoo, Finland)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/8318

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code (2020 edition)

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 58(1) of the FIFA Statutes against a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

Tribunal

Francesco Macri (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; player employment and training compensation

Outcome

Appeal rejected and the FIFA DRC decision of 12 August 2021 confirmed (award of 11 August 2022).

Amount

Claimed before the FIFA DRC: EUR 2,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract. Claimed before CAS: EUR 80,547.95 in training compensation plus 5% interest from 5 October 2020, and a CHF 5,000 contribution to costs. Awarded: nothing.

The dispute

Tolima signed a Colombian player, J., born on 6 June 2002, under a first employment contract running from 1 July 2017. Tolima said a second contract extended the relationship to 2023. The player treated the relationship as ended in June 2020 and signed with Honka on 5 September 2020. Tolima then claimed EUR 2,000,000 from the player and Honka before the FIFA DRC as compensation for breach of contract without just cause. Its claim listed training compensation of EUR 80,444 as one element of that compensation. The DRC found the second contract null and void, because it was predated and signed while the player was a minor without his parents' written consent. It held that the player was a free agent and rejected the claim. On appeal to CAS, Tolima dropped its breach-of-contract claim and asked only for training compensation from Honka. Honka filed no Answer; it only sent a letter supporting the FIFA decision.

Key holdings

1. Tolima waived its claim for compensation for breach of contract against the player and Honka. As a result, the part of the FIFA DRC decision that rejected that compensation became final and binding. ¶ 38
2. Before FIFA, Tolima did not make two separate requests for relief. It asked for training compensation only as one element in calculating its compensation for breach of contract. It also never filed a training compensation request through the TMS system, as Article 20 and Annexes 3 and 4 of the FIFA RSTP require. ¶¶ 42–44
3. An appellant cannot change the subject of the dispute on appeal. Here Tolima moved from a breach-of-contract claim to a training compensation claim, in which only clubs (not the player) can be parties. ¶ 46
4. De novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code cannot be wider than the power of the body that issued the appealed decision. The Sole Arbitrator could admit or exclude items of the claimed breach-of-contract compensation, but he could not rule on training compensation. That claim was outside the scope of the first-instance proceedings. ¶¶ 47–51
5. The appeal is rejected, the FIFA DRC decision of 12 August 2021 is confirmed, and all other prayers for relief are dismissed. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 23 February 2021Tolima files a claim against the player and Honka before the FIFA DRC for EUR 2,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
2. 12 August 2021The FIFA DRC rejects the claim. Its grounds are notified on 30 August 2021.
3. 20 September 2021Tolima files its Statement of Appeal with CAS against the player and Honka.
4. 4 November 2021Tolima files its Appeal Brief. It waives the breach-of-contract claim and keeps only a training compensation claim against Honka.
5. 14 December 2021Francesco Macrì is appointed Sole Arbitrator.
6. February 2021 (as printed; probably 2022)The CAS Court Office notes that Honka filed no Answer. The parties agree to a decision on the written submissions and sign an Order of Procedure.
7. 11 August 2022Award: the appeal is rejected and the FIFA DRC decision is confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Francesco Macri Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• training compensation
• FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
• FIFA RSTP
• Annexe 4 RSTP
• Transfer Matching System
• TMS
• scope of appeal
• de novo review
• Article R57 CAS Code
• ne ultra petita
• breach of contract without just cause
• minor player
• predated contract
• free agent
• football
• Colombia
• Finland

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.