CAS RULING ON EPP DISPUTE

Sports

This recent and important ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (Award 2025/A/11285) results from an appeal lodged by Ivoire Académie FC (the Club) against a decision of the FIFA Legal & Compliance Division, which had refused to refer to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) the claim of the Club, which sought the correction of the Electronic Player Passport (EPP) of a player, as well as its share of the solidarity contribution arising from the player’s transfer to the Italian club Atalanta Bergamasca Calcio S.r.l (Atalanta).

The factual background highlights a not infrequent issue, in practice: the failure to include a training club in the EPP process—here, Ivoire Académie FC (IAFC)—despite the existence of documentary evidence attesting to the period during which the player, El Bilal Touré, was trained in Côte d’Ivoire. Such evidence was subsequently confirmed in a separate decision of the FIFA DRC. The omission was due, at least, in part, to the fact that the player had been registered, at a certain stage of his career, under a different name, thereby affecting the traceability of his registration history.

The Sole CAS Arbitrator identified two issues decisive for the ruling.

First, as to the FIFA internal jurisdiction: Article 18.2 of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR) and the related Explanatory Notes confer jurisdiction upon the FIFA DRC over post-EPP claims concerning training rewards. The FIFA General Secretariat is limited to conducting a prima facie review of completeness, manifest jurisdictional defects, and time-bar issues, and is not empowered to adjudicate on the merits. The decision rendered by the FIFA Player Registration & Data Transfer Department “on behalf of the FIFA Tribunal” exceeded this mandate and, therefore, is annulled.

Secondly, the evidentiary record shows that FIFA invited the Ivorian Football Federation (FIF) to participate in the EPP process, implying the existence of indicia linking the player to Côte d’Ivoire. There is no evidence of negligent omissions on the part of FIF. However, Atalanta—being aware that the player had been trained by IAFC (as evidenced, inter alia, by the club’s communication of 23 July 2023)—ought to have requested the IAFC inclusion in the EPP process.

On the basis of these premises, the CAS reached a conclusion of particular importance: since Atalanta was aware of the player’s training at IAFC but failed to prompt the inclusion of the club in the EPP process, the conditions set out in Article 18.2 FCHR are satisfied, and IAFC was entitled to bring a claim before the FIFA DRC.

Accordingly, CAS declared the appeal admissible and upheld it, set aside the FIFA decision, and ordered Atalanta to pay to IAFC the amount of €244,720 (around Sw. Frs.     ) by way of solidarity contribution, together with interest at 5% per annum apportioned in accordance with the schedule indicated, whilst dismissing all other claims.

In light of the foregoing, the binding legal framework may be summarised as follows:

On the merits, Article 18.2 FCHR vests jurisdiction in the FIFA DRC; the General Secretariat lacks authority to rule on the merits, with the consequence that the challenged decision is ultra vires.

The conditions under Article 18.2 FCHR are met, since Atalanta, as the “new club”, despite being aware of the player’s training at IAFC, failed to request the club’s inclusion in the EPP process, thereby entitling IAFC to lodge a claim before the DRC.

The CAS ruling provides decisive guidance on three fronts: the jurisdiction of CAS and the admissibility of appeals against “internal” FIFA decisions; the proper allocation of competences between the FIFA DRC and the Legal & Compliance Division in post-EPP disputes pursuant to Article 18.2 FCHR; and the criteria for the assessment and quantification of solidarity contributions, including the burden of proof and interest.

The core of the CAS ruling lies in the interpretation of Article 18.2 FCHR in the light of the Explanatory Notes (October 2024 edition) and the RSTP framework. CAS clearly reaffirmed that post-EPP disputes relating to training rewards must be adjudicated by the FIFA DRC (Articles 22(1)(d)–(f) and 23(1) RSTP), thereby excluding any decision-making power on the merits on the part of the Legal & Compliance Division. The FIFA General Secretariat is confined to a preliminary review, limited to verifying the completeness of the claim; any manifest lack of jurisdiction of the competent deciding body; and issues of time, without any authority to enter into the merits of the dispute.

From a systemic perspective, the ruling reinforces the principle of functional separation within the FIFA regulatory framework, preventing administrative bodies from exercising de facto adjudicatory powers in the absence of an explicit legal basis. The finding of ultra vires thus constitutes a fundamental safeguard of procedural legality and of the right of access to a competent tribunal.

Of particular interest is also the reasoning concerning the duties of due diligence incumbent upon acquiring clubs. The CAS ruling attaches weight not only to formal knowledge derived from official documentation, but also to knowledge that may be inferred from public sources, such as press releases or media reports. In the present case, Atalanta’s awareness of the player’s training at IAFC ought to have translated into proactive conduct aimed at ensuring the proper inclusion of the training club in the EPP process.

This leads to an evolutive interpretation of Article 18.2 FCHR, introducing a genuine duty of procedural cooperation on the part of the new club. Such an obligation cannot be regarded as merely formal, but assumes substantive significance, directly affecting the standing of the training club to bring a claim and, ultimately, the proper allocation of solidarity contribution payments.

As regards national football associations, the CAS ruling clarifies the scope of the cooperation required in the EPP process. Whilst excluding the existence of an obligation to reconstruct exhaustively and universally the player’s career, the ruling emphasises the importance of taking into account any indicia which may be capable of linking the player to prior registrations, particularly in complex situations, such as the use of aliases or changes of name.

We act in all aspects of association football transfer disputes, including EPP cases, in Italy and elsewhere, and further information may be obtained from the Head of our Italian Law Practice, Avv. Sara Botti, or our Managing Partner, Dr Lucien Valloni, by emailing them at botti@valloni.ch or valloni@valloni.ch respectively.