Olympiakos Nicosia Football Club v. Club Necaxa

At a glance

Parties

Olympiakos Nicosia Football Club (Cyprus) v. Impulsora del Deportivo Necaxa S.A. de C.V. (Club Necaxa, Mexico)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/7912

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal under Article R47 et seq. of the CAS Code; FIFA regulations apply first, Swiss law fills any gaps

Treaty

FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Article 20 and Annexe 4

Tribunal

Prof. Ulrich Haas (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football: training compensation

Outcome

Appeal upheld (29 March 2023). The FIFA DRC decision of 18 February 2021 was set aside and Necaxa's claim for training compensation was dismissed.

Amount

Necaxa claimed EUR 45,000 before FIFA. The FIFA DRC had awarded EUR 41,095.89 plus 5% interest per year from 5 March 2020. CAS awarded nothing. The costs part of the operative section is redacted.

The dispute

A Chilean player born on 2 June 2000 was registered with the Mexican club Necaxa for 500 days in the seasons of his 19th and 20th birthdays. Necaxa and the player ended his contract by mutual agreement on 31 December 2019. He then joined the Cypriot club Olympiakos Nicosia and was registered there from 3 February 2020. Necaxa claimed training compensation before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). Olympiakos did not take part in those proceedings. The DRC moved Olympiakos from training category IV, as categorised by the Cyprus Football Association (CFA), to category III. It reasoned that Olympiakos played in the Cypriot top division. On that basis it awarded Necaxa EUR 41,095.89. On appeal, Olympiakos argued three things: Necaxa had waived training compensation, through the player's agent and the termination agreement; the DRC had relied on wrong facts about its competition history; and no compensation was due because it was a category IV club. Necaxa denied any waiver and argued that a top-division club must be placed in the highest category available in Cyprus.

Key holdings

1. Olympiakos's evidence was admitted even though it had not taken part before the FIFA DRC. Following CAS 2017/A/5090, its failure to respond was negligence, not bad faith. That was not enough to exclude evidence under Article R57(3) of the CAS Code. ¶¶ 60–62
2. Necaxa did not waive training compensation. A waiver must be explicit and given by the training club itself. The agent's email of 31 January 2020 did not meet that test, because the agent did not represent Necaxa and no confirmation from Necaxa was produced. The termination agreement covers only the legal effects of the employment contract, and that contract was silent on training compensation. ¶¶ 68–72
3. A termination by mutual agreement is not a termination without just cause, so it does not exclude training compensation. The only live question was whether the player had moved to a category 4 club under Article 2(2)(b) of Annexe 4 RSTP. ¶¶ 73–75
4. National associations are primarily responsible for categorising their clubs. FIFA may re-categorise a club only where there is a manifest discrepancy with FIFA's guidelines, that is, where the association's decision is 'clearly disproportionate'. ¶¶ 77–83
5. On the burden of proof: the club relying on category IV must prove it, and it substantiates its position by producing its national association's categorisation. The claiming club must then show, with substantiation, that this categorisation is clearly disproportionate. Necaxa met that duty by pointing to Olympiakos's participation in the top division. ¶¶ 84–91
6. The CFA did not manifestly exceed its flexibility in placing Olympiakos in category IV. Olympiakos had played mostly in the second division, with top-division seasons only in 2017/2018 and 2019/2020. It invested EUR 154.08 per young player in 2019 and had no training facilities of its own. It lacked the professionalism of an established first-division club, so Necaxa's claim was dismissed. ¶¶ 92–97

Procedural history

1. 31 December 2019Necaxa and the player sign the termination agreement.
2. 3 February 2020The player is registered with Olympiakos.
3. 23 September 2020Necaxa files a claim for training compensation with the FIFA DRC.
4. 18 February 2021The FIFA DRC awards Necaxa EUR 41,095.89 plus interest. Its reasons are notified on 7 April 2021.
5. 27 April 2021Olympiakos files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
6. 28 June 2021The parties are told that Prof. Ulrich Haas has been appointed Sole Arbitrator.
7. 7–8 December 2021Hearing held by videoconference.
8. 29 March 2023Award: appeal upheld, the DRC decision set aside and Necaxa's claim dismissed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Ulrich Haas Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Loizos Hadjidemetriou

For the respondent

Juan Manuel Lopez Ruiz · Jonathan Oliva Garcia

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• training compensation
• FIFA RSTP Annexe 4
• training category
• re-categorisation
• category IV club
• clearly disproportionate
• FIFA Circular 1249
• FIFA Circular 799
• waiver of training compensation
• termination by mutual agreement
• burden of proof
• Article R57 CAS Code
• new evidence
• FIFA DRC
• Cyprus Football Association
• TMS claims tab
• football transfer

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