Sporting du Pays de Charleroi v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Sporting du Pays de Charleroi (Belgium) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/10514

Forum and rules

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

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 57 of the FIFA Statutes (Article 50(1), May 2024 edition)

Panel

Fabio Iudica (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; training compensation

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (12 November 2024) because Charleroi did not name A.S. Monaco F.C. as a respondent. The FIFA determination denying training compensation was confirmed.

Amount

Claimed: at least EUR 77,200 in training compensation, excluding interest. Awarded: nothing. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Charleroi, a Belgian first-division club, trained a Belgian player registered with it as an amateur from the age of 12. On 25 August 2023 the player moved as a free agent to A.S. Monaco F.C., where he was registered as a professional for the first time. This registration triggered an Electronic Player Passport (EPP) review under the FIFA Clearing House Regulations. The Single Judge of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber found that Charleroi had not proved that its contract offer dated 17 May 2023 was delivered before 30 June 2023, as Article 6.3 of Annex 4 to the FIFA RSTP requires within the EU/EEA, because the proof of delivery was undated. The FIFA General Secretariat therefore determined on 4 April 2024 that no club was entitled to training compensation. Charleroi appealed to CAS against FIFA alone and claimed training compensation. FIFA objected that Monaco, the alleged debtor, should have been named as a respondent, and in the alternative defended the decision on the merits.

Key holdings

1. Monaco has an interest in the subject matter as the club that may be liable to pay the training compensation. Any decision granting Charleroi's requests would create a payment obligation for Monaco. Monaco therefore should have been summoned, in compliance with its right to be heard. ¶¶ 86–90
2. FIFA also has capacity to be sued under Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code. In the EPP review process FIFA, through the Clearing House, exercised an administrative function in assessing, allocating and distributing training rewards. It did not act only as a first-instance body in a dispute between its indirect members. ¶ 91
3. This is a case of passive mandatory litisconsortium: Monaco was a necessary co-respondent. Under Article R48 of the CAS Code the appellant must name the proper respondents in the statement of appeal. A respondent cannot be added or substituted later, especially after the appeal deadline, and Article R56 does not allow it either. ¶¶ 92–93
4. Two routes for Monaco's participation were unavailable. Article R41.2 applies only where a respondent asks for a third party to be joined, and FIFA made no such request. Monaco itself chose not to apply to intervene under Article R41.3 after the CAS Court Office notified it of the appeal. ¶¶ 94–96
5. Under Swiss law, lack of standing to be sued is a ground to reject an appeal on the merits. Where the relief sought would affect the rights of a third party not named as respondent, the panel has no scope of review. The appeal was dismissed from the outset without ruling on the contract offer. ¶¶ 98–100
6. Charleroi's subsidiary request to send the case back to FIFA for a new decision was dismissed. The FIFA determination on EPP 29610 was confirmed. ¶ 101; operative part

Procedural history

1. 25 August 2023The player transfers from Charleroi to A.S. Monaco F.C. and is registered there as a professional for the first time. An EPP is generated in FIFA TMS.
2. 3 April 2024The Single Judge of the FIFA DRC decides that Charleroi is not entitled to training compensation.
3. 4 April 2024The FIFA General Secretariat notifies its Determination on EPP 29610: no club is entitled to training compensation.
4. 10 April 2024Charleroi files its Statement of Appeal with CAS against FIFA. It completes the statement on 17 April 2024, naming FIFA as the only respondent.
5. 18 April 2024The CAS Court Office notifies Monaco of the appeal and tells it that it may apply to intervene under Article R41.3. Monaco does not apply.
6. 25 April 2024Order on Language: the proceedings are to be conducted in English.
7. 26 June 2024Fabio Iudica is appointed Sole Arbitrator.
8. 12–20 July 2024The parties file submissions on Monaco's standing to be sued.
9. 12 November 2024Award: appeal dismissed and FIFA determination confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Fabio Iudica Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• training compensation
• Electronic Player Passport
• FIFA Clearing House Regulations
• FIFA RSTP Annex 4
• standing to be sued
• passive mandatory litisconsortium
• mandatory joinder
• Article R48 CAS Code
• Article R41.3 intervention
• right to be heard
• contract offer
• EU/EEA transfer
• AS Monaco
• Charleroi
• Article 75 Swiss Civil Code
• football transfer

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