K.A.A. Gent v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

K.A.A. Gent (Belgium) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/10718

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition)

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes (May 2022 edition) and Article 10.5(b) FIFA Clearing House Regulations

Tribunal

Mr Manfred Nan (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; player transfer; training compensation

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and FIFA's decisions of 12 June 2024 confirmed (17 February 2025), because Gent sued FIFA alone without naming the training clubs that the decisions benefited.

Amount

Training compensation payable by Gent under the Allocation Statement: EUR 422,047.91 in total. Gent asked for a ruling that nothing was due or, in the alternative, a reduction to EUR 198,113.71. The published award omits the costs rulings.

The dispute

Gent signed a Congolese player from Club Sportif Multidisciplinaire Diables Noirs on 1 August 2023 under a transfer agreement in which Diables Noirs waived training compensation. After the FIFA Electronic Players' Passport (EPP) review and a decision of a Single Judge of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, the FIFA General Secretariat issued the player's EPP and an Allocation Statement. These required Gent to pay training compensation to four earlier Congolese clubs: Mokanda, TOTAL, Caïman and Panthère. Gent appealed to CAS and named FIFA as the only respondent. Gent argued that the player had already signed a professional contract with Panthère in 2016, so that no compensation was due, and that his date of birth was 5 April 2005, not 5 April 2002. FIFA argued that it lacked standing to be sued alone, because the training clubs and the two national federations were mandatory co-respondents. On the merits, FIFA argued that it was entitled to rely on the registration data supplied by the federations.

Key holdings

1. CAS has jurisdiction under Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes and Article 10.5(b) of the FCHR, which treats notification of the final EPP and Allocation Statement as a final, appealable decision. The appeal was filed within the 21-day deadline and is admissible. ¶¶ 37–41
2. FIFA issued the appealed decisions, so it cannot reject its own presence as a respondent under Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code. In horizontal disputes, however, FIFA's presence is optional and does not by itself make the appeal admissible against FIFA alone. ¶¶ 50–51
3. Granting Gent's relief would directly and adversely affect the four clubs awarded compensation. Because Gent did not call them as respondents, they were deprived of their right to be heard. FIFA therefore lacks standing to be sued alone, and the Sole Arbitrator is barred from deciding the merits without them. ¶¶ 55–58
4. FIFA is not "best suited" to defend the decisions. It acted only as an independent first-instance body in a horizontal dispute, has no direct knowledge of the player's contracts or date of birth, and cannot verify the new evidence Gent filed at CAS. The views of the training clubs, and of FECOFOOT on the player passport, were needed. ¶¶ 60–64
5. Under Article R48 of the CAS Code, the appellant must name the respondents. Once the 21-day appeal deadline has passed, respondents can in principle no longer be added, and Gent made no request to do so. ¶ 65
6. The dismissal is not a finding that the decisions are correct or that Gent's contentions are wrong. The questions of the player's professional status and his year of birth required at least the participation of Mokanda, TOTAL, Caïman and Panthère. The appeal is dismissed and the decisions of 12 June 2024 are confirmed. ¶¶ 66–69; operative part

Procedural history

1. 1 August 2023Gent and Diables Noirs sign the transfer agreement, with no transfer fee and a waiver of training compensation by Diables Noirs.
2. 5 September 2023The player is registered as a professional with Gent via TMS, and a provisional EPP is generated.
3. 6 June 2024The FIFA General Secretariat refers the EPP to the FIFA DRC under Article 10(3) FCHR.
4. 12 June 2024A Single Judge of the FIFA DRC issues the FIFA DRC EPP Decision. The FIFA General Secretariat then issues the EPP Decision and the Allocation Statement, totalling EUR 422,047.91.
5. 3 July 2024Gent files its Statement of Appeal with CAS, naming FIFA as the only respondent. The Appeal Brief follows on 12 July 2024.
6. 22 August 2024Sole Arbitrator Manfred Nan is appointed.
7. 17 October 2024The Sole Arbitrator decides not to hold a hearing and closes the evidentiary proceedings.
8. 17 February 2025Award: appeal dismissed for FIFA's lack of standing to be sued alone, and the decisions are confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Manfred Nan Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• training compensation
• Electronic Players' Passport
• EPP
• FIFA Clearing House Regulations
• Allocation Statement
• standing to be sued
• passive mandatory joinder
• consorité passive necessaire
• horizontal dispute
• right to be heard
• Article R48 CAS Code
• Article 75 Swiss Civil Code
• FIFA RSTP
• amateur status
• player date of birth
• FECOFOOT
• Congolese training clubs

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