CAS 2014/A/3497 – SK Slavia Praha v Genoa Cricket and Football Club
The case involved a claim for Training Compensation following the signing of a Player on his first professional contract. The Player in question was registered on loan as an amateur player with Czech club SK Slavia Praha, from a third club, for a period prior to his 18th birthday. Genoa CFC signed the Player as a Professional, and SK Slavia Praha subsequently claimed that they were due Training Compensation.
On presentation of the facts of the case to the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), the DRC rejected the claim of SK Slavia Praha and ordered them to pay costs. SK Slavia Praha filed an appeal against this decision with CAS.
In the Appeal, Paolo Lombardi, for Lombardi Associates successfully argued that the counterpart did not offer a contract to the Player, as required by the applicable regulations on Training Compensation. Crucially, he further argued that SK Slavia Praha did not demonstrate that they had a genuine interest in keeping the Player in their team with the interest of prospectively offering the Player a contract, and that they had thus not discharged their burden of proof in claiming entitlement to Training Compensation.
CAS, therefore, rejected the claim by SK Slavia Praha, and ordered that the costs of arbitration be borne by them.
CAS 2014/A/3500 – FC Hradec Kralove v Genoa Cricket and Football Club
This case also involved a claim for Training compensation by Czech club FC Hradec Kralove pursuant to a Player signing a Professional Contract with Genoa CFC.
FC Hradec Kralove claimed before the DRC that Training Compensation was due and their claim was only partially upheld by FIFA. They subsequently appealed the case in front of CAS for a much greater compensation.
The case was argued by Paolo Lombardi, and the main focus was art. 5.3 of Annex 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in force until 1 October 2009, as the period of training under discussion occurred prior to this date. Although this article was subsequently amended, Paolo successfully argued that new regulations do not apply retroactively to facts that occurred prior to their entry into force.
CAS, therefore, rejected the appeal lodged by FC Hradec Kralove and ordered that costs be paid by them.