![\"\"](\"https:\/\/valloni.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/CASBild1-1.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The CAS Award 2025\/A\/11368, rendered on 12 August 2026, clarifies the relationship between compliance with the FIFA Clearing House system and the CAS full de novo<\/em> review jurisdiction, whilst also clarifying the requirements applicable to a contractual offer necessary to preserve entitlement to training compensation in intra-EU\/EEA transfers.<\/p>\n The Dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n The Award addresses a question of significant practical importance within the FIFA Clearing House new regulatory framework: whether a failure to upload a contract renewal offer to the FIFA TMS (Transfer Matching System for international player transfers) definitively bars the training club from claiming training compensation.<\/p>\n The dispute concerned Panathinaikos FC, the Greek club with which a French player had been registered from 23 January 2020 to 30 June 2024, and Como 1907 S.r.l., which registered the player as a professional on 30 August 2024. FIFA was a party to the proceedings in view of its role in the Electronic Player Passport (EPP) procedure and the FIFA Clearing House mechanism.<\/p>\n As the existing contractual relationship approached its expiration, Panathinaikos submitted a renewal offer on 30 April 2024 for a three-year period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2027. The offer provided for remuneration slightly higher than that under the existing contract.<\/p>\n As no agreement was reached, the player became a free agent on 30 June 2024. Following his registration with Como, he was subsequently transferred to a Portuguese club.<\/p>\n The FIFA Decision and the CAS Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n The commencement of the EPP procedure resulted in Panathinaikos receiving several requests to verify the relevant documentation and upload to the TMS any contractual offer relevant for the purposes of Article 6(3) of Annex 4 to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The Greek club failed to comply within the prescribed deadline, notwithstanding final reminders received in March 2025.<\/p>\n By a decision dated 31 March 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat, therefore, rejected the Panathinaikos entitlement to training compensation on the basis that the club had failed to produce evidence of the offer in the EPP procedure.<\/p>\n Panathinaikos appealed the decision to the CAS, seeking its annulment and recognition of its entitlement to training compensation, together with interest.<\/p>\n Como sought dismissal of the appeal.<\/p>\n First, it argued that, although the offer had existed prior to the FIFA decision, it could not be produced for the first time in the arbitration proceedings. Secondly, it challenged the effectiveness of the notification to the player and the genuineness of the Panathinaikos intention to continue the contractual relationship. In the alternative, it disputed the calculation of the amount claimed, arguing that it should be classified as a Category II rather than Category I club.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The CAS De Novo<\/em> Review and the Admissibility of Late Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n The first central issue addressed in the Award concerns Article R57 of the CAS Code of sports-related arbitration, which grants the arbitral panel full power to review the facts and the law.<\/p>\n This de novo<\/em> review jurisdiction is not limited to examining the legality of the challenged decision on the basis of the administrative record. Rather, it enables the CAS to issue an independent decision replacing the decision under appeal.<\/p>\n The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged that Panathinaikos had been negligent. The club had been repeatedly requested to upload the offer to TMS and had failed to do so.<\/p>\n However, the omission had primarily operated to the detriment of Panathinaikos itself, and there was no evidence of procedural manipulation, bad faith or abuse of rights. Against this background, the exclusion of pre-existing evidence should remain an exception and be applied cautiously where admitting the document is necessary for the proper and complete determination of the dispute and does not prejudice the parties\u2019 right to be heard.<\/p>\n The Award also rejects the argument that Article 9.5 of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR) limits the CAS de novo<\/em> review jurisdiction.<\/p>\n That provision requires the training club to upload to the TMS evidence of the offer and its notification but governs the administrative EPP procedure. It does not expressly provide that documents not uploaded to the platform are inadmissible in arbitration.<\/p>\n According to the CAS, the transparency and efficiency objectives pursued by the FIFA Clearing House do not imply a derogation from Article R57 of the CAS Code of sports-related arbitration.<\/p>\n The Contractual Offer in Intra-EU\/EEA Transfers<\/strong><\/p>\n The substantive legal framework is set out in Article 20 of the RSTP and Annex 4.<\/p>\n Training compensation is payable to clubs that have contributed to a player\u2019s training and education upon his first registration as a professional and, subsequently, upon each transfer of the professional player until the end of the calendar year in which he reaches the age of 23.<\/p>\n For transfers between associations belonging to the EU\/EEA territory, Article 6(3) of Annex 4 introduces an essential condition.<\/p>\n The former club seeking to preserve its entitlement must make a written offer to the player at least 60 days before the expiration of the existing contract, on terms at least equivalent to those of the contract due to expire.<\/p>\n The Award draws a clear distinction between the timing requirement and the method of transmission.<\/p>\n The 60-day period constitutes a condition for the validity of the offer. The use of registered mail, by contrast, serves primarily an evidentiary purpose, as it is intended to make the transmission of the offer and the player\u2019s opportunity to receive it verifiable.<\/p>\n Accordingly, alternative means of communication may be acceptable, provided that they can be adequately evidenced.<\/p>\n In the present case, sending the offer by email was not considered sufficient. Article 6(3) permits the use of email only where the club obtains confirmation from the player that he has received a copy of the offer.<\/p>\n Technical evidence that the email was delivered to a server does not amount to the confirmation of receipt required by the provision.<\/p>\n Service by a Judicial Officer<\/strong><\/p>\n The position was different in relation to the notification carried out by a Greek judicial officer.<\/p>\n Como argued that the offer had been addressed to the player\u2019s residence in Koropi, rather than to an address specified in the contract with Panathinaikos.<\/p>\n The CAS rejected this objection, holding that the club\u2019s premises did not constitute an elected domicile of the player and that the relevant place for personal notification was instead the player\u2019s residence.<\/p>\n The judicial officer\u2019s report recorded that the document had been posted at the player\u2019s home, that the competent police authority had been notified, and that the document had also been sent by registered mail in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Greek procedural law.<\/p>\n The CAS afforded the official report a presumption of authenticity and correctness and concluded that the offer had been brought within the player\u2019s sphere of control in a manner objectively capable of enabling him to become aware of its contents.<\/p>\n The principle applied is particularly significant: notification of a declaration of intent does not require the addressee actually to have read or become aware of the document.<\/p>\n It is sufficient for the declaration to enter the addressee\u2019s sphere of influence in circumstances in which, exercising ordinary diligence, he could become aware of it.<\/p>\n Since the offer, dated 30 April 2024, had been made on the last day of the applicable 60-day period provided improved terms and had been validly notified, the CAS held that the cumulative requirements of Article 6(3) of Annex 4 to the RSTP had been satisfied.<\/p>\n Neither the fact that the offer had been made on the final day of the applicable period nor that the player\u2019s movement between the first and second teams was sufficient to establish an absence of a genuine intention to continue the contractual relationship.<\/p>\n Calculation of Training Compensation and Classification of the Acquiring Club<\/strong><\/p>\n Having established the entitlement to training compensation, the CAS proceeded to determine the amount payable.<\/p>\n Under Annex 4 to the RSTP, the calculation is based upon the training costs that the new club would have incurred had it trained the player itself.<\/p>\n For intra-EU\/EEA transfers from a lower-category club to a higher-category club, the relevant figure is the average of the annual training costs applicable to the two categories.<\/p>\n Panathinaikos was classified as a Category II club, with an indicative annual cost of \u20ac60,000 (around Sw. Frs. 56,192).<\/p>\n Como was classified in the TMS as a Category I club, with an indicative annual cost of \u20ac90,000 (around Sw. Frs. 84,803).<\/p>\n Como sought reclassification as a Category II club, arguing that its investment in youth development and infrastructure was lower than that of the leading Serie A clubs.<\/p>\n The CAS rejected that request.<\/p>\n The classification of clubs falls within the competence of the national associations and must be kept up to date in the TMS. A review of the classification is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, characterised by a manifest discrepancy between the formal classification and the objective position of the club within the national football structure.<\/p>\n Como competed in Serie A and was formally classified by the FIGC as a Category I club. No manifest inconsistency had been established.<\/p>\n Nor had Como demonstrated any manifest disproportion in the amount resulting from the applicable classification.<\/p>\n The threshold under Article 5(4) of Annex 4 to the RSTP is high and requires compelling economic evidence. General assertions concerning a club\u2019s lower spending capacity compared with the leading clubs in the league are insufficient to displace the FIFA standardised and predictable categorisation system.<\/p>\n Applying the average of \u20ac60,000 (around Sw. Frs. 56,192) and \u20ac90,000 (around Sw. Frs. 84, 803), the relevant annual training cost was, therefore, set at \u20ac75,000 (around Sw. Frs. 70,240).<\/p>\n For the training period from 23 January 2020 to 30 June 2024, the CAS awarded \u20ac32,786.89 (around Sw. Frs. 30,908.37) pro rata for the 2019\/2020 season and \u20ac75,000 (around Sw. Frs. 70,240) for each of the following four seasons, resulting in a total amount of \u20ac332,786.89 (around Sw. Frs. 313,756.47).<\/p>\n Interest: The New FIFA Clearing House Regime<\/strong><\/p>\n Panathinaikos had sought interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the thirty-first day following the player\u2019s registration with Como.<\/p>\n The CAS rejected the claim, distinguishing the previous case law relating to the regulatory framework predating the FIFA Clearing House.<\/p>\n Under the previous system, the payment obligation arose directly upon registration, and case law generally recognised interest accruing from the thirty-first day.<\/p>\n Under the regime governed by the FCHR, by contrast, the payment obligation is triggered by the formal payment notification issued by the FIFA Clearing House.<\/p>\n Article 13.4 of the FCHR provides that, in the event of non-payment within the prescribed deadline, an administrative levy of 2.5% is imposed in favour of the training clubs, in lieu of default interest.<\/p>\n Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n The award partially upholds the Panathinaikos appeal, sets aside the FIFA decision and orders Como to pay \u20ac332,786.89 (around Sw. Frs. 313,756.47) by way of training compensation.<\/p>\n The remaining claims, including the claim for interest, were dismissed.<\/p>\n The decision is significant in at least four respects.<\/p>\n For clubs, the practical lesson is clear: any offer intended to preserve entitlement to training compensation should be prepared in good time, made on terms at least equivalent to those of the existing contract, and notified by means capable of generating verifiable evidence.<\/p>\n The relevant documentation should also be uploaded to the TMS promptly.<\/p>\n\n