A.S. Roma v. Sporting Clube de Portugal

II. INTRODUCTION

4. These appeal arbitration proceedings concern the payment of training compensation with respect to the transfer from Roma to Sporting of Mr Etienne Marius Catena (the “Player”), a football player of Ivorian and Italian nationality, born on 1 January 2004. The Player is currently playing with the Italian club Delfino Pescara 1936 (“Pescara”), which, in turn, is currently playing in the Serie C, which is the third level in Italian professional football.

5. Following a claim filed by Roma, the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (the “DRC”) ruled that Roma is not entitled to training compensation for the first registration of the Player as a professional with Sporting (the “Appealed Decision”).

6. Roma is challenging the Appealed Decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), arguing that it is entitled to receive training compensation from Sporting in the amount of EUR 159,865.48, whereas Sporting seeks a confirmation of the Appealed Decision.

VI. JURISDICTION

43. Article R47 CAS Code provides the following:

“An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or if the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to it prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body.”

44. The jurisdiction of CAS, which is not disputed, derives from Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes (May 2022 edition), as it determines that “[a]ppeals against final decisions passed by FIFA’s legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues shall be lodged with CAS within 21 days of receipt of the decision in question”, and Article R47 CAS Code. The jurisdiction of CAS is further confirmed by the Order of Procedure duly signed by the Parties.

45. It follows that CAS has jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide on the present dispute.

VII. ADMISSIBILITY

46. The grounds of the Appealed Decision were communicated to the Parties on 20 December 2022. Roma filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 10 January 2023, i.e., within the time limit of 21 days set by Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes. The Statement of Appeal further complied with the other conditions set forth in Article R48 CAS Code, including the payment of the CAS Court Office fee.

47. The admissibility of the appeal is not disputed by Sporting.

48. It follows that the appeal is admissible.

VIII. APPLICABLE LAW

49. Article R58 CAS Code provides as follows:

“The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law that the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision.”

50. Roma maintains that pursuant to Article R58 CAS Code and Article 26(2) RSTP (August 2021 edition), the matter is governed by the RSTP (June 2022 edition), and subsidiarily by Swiss law. In its submissions, Roma also relies on the applicability of the NOIF.

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 12

51. Sporting maintains that pursuant to Article R58 CAS Code and Article 26(2) RSTP, the matter is governed by the RSTP (August 2021 edition), and subsidiarily by Swiss law.

52. Article 56(2) FIFA Statutes provides the following:

“The provisions of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration shall apply to the proceedings. CAS shall primarily apply the various regulations of FIFA and, additionally, Swiss law.”

53. The Panel finds that, pursuant to Articles R58 CAS Code and 56(2) FIFA Statutes, the regulations of FIFA are primarily applicable, in particular the RSTP. Additionally, should the need arise to fill a possible gap in the various rules of FIFA, Swiss law is applicable.

54. As to the applicable version of the RSTP, the Panel observes that Roma’s claim was filed with the DRC on 24 August 2022, at which point in time the RSTP (July 2022) was in force.

55. Article 26(1) and (2) RSTP (July 2022 edition) provides as follows:

“1. Any case that has been brought to FIFA before these regulations come into force shall be assessed according to the previous regulations.

[…]

2. As a general rule, other cases shall be assessed according to these regulations with the exception of the following:

a) disputes regarding training compensation; […].

Any cases not subject to this general rule shall be assessed according to the regulations that were in force when the contract at the centre of the dispute was signed, or when the disputed facts arose.”

56. With reference to CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2014/A/3652 and CAS 2016/A/4418), the RSTP Commentary provides as follows in this respect:

“According to this exception [i.e. Article 26(2)(a) RSTP], disputes regarding training compensation and the solidary mechanism are assessed according to the version of the Regulations in force when the disputed facts arose (i.e. at the time the player was registered with their new club, which triggers the payment of the relevant training reward), irrespective of the edition of the Regulations in force when the matter is actually brought to FIFA.”

57. Since the Player was registered with Sporting on 10 January 2022, at which point in time the RSTP (August 2021 edition) was in force, the Panel finds that the present dispute is to be decided on the basis of the RSTP (August 2021 edition).

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 13

58. With respect to Roma’s reliance on the NOIF, the Panel finds that in view of the fact that the present arbitration concerns the concept of training compensation as set forth in the RSTP, there is in principle no scope for the application of the NOIF. However, with respect to specific arguments raised by Roma and Sporting on the basis of the NOIF, the Panel will address the relevance and applicability thereof in more detail below.

IX. MERITS — A. The Main Issues

59. The main issues to be resolved by the Panel are the following:

i. Is Roma entitled to training compensation for the Player? ii. If so, what amount of training compensation must Sporting pay to Roma?

i. Is Roma entitled to training compensation for the Player?

a) The applicable regulatory framework

60. The Panel notes that the concept of training compensation is governed by Article 20 RSTP, which summarises the main principles of the system, and Annex 4 RSTP, in which the technical details are set out.

61. Article 20 RSTP provides as follows:

“Training compensation shall be paid to a player’s training club(s): (1) when a player is registered for the first time as a professional, and (2) each time a professional is transferred until the end of the calendar year of his 23rd birthday. The obligation to pay training compensation arises whether the transfer takes place during or at the end of the player’s contract. The provisions concerning training compensation are set out in Annexe 4 of these regulations. The principles of training compensation shall not apply to women’s football.”

62. Article 2(1) of Annex 4 RSTP provides as follows:

“Training compensation is due when:

a. a player is registered for the first time as a professional; or b. a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations (whether during or at the end of his contract) before the end of the calendar year of his 23rd birthday.”

63. The Parties agree that the Player was registered for the first time as a professional with Sporting and that this was before the end of the calendar year of the Player’s 23rd birthday, in principle entitling Roma to receive training compensation from Sporting.

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 14

64. However, since the Player transferred from Roma to Sporting, Article 6(3) of Annex 4 RSTP (“Special Provisions for the EU/EEA”) is applicable as a lex specialis, which provision provides as follows:

“If the former club does not offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable unless the former club can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. The former club must offer the player a contract in writing via registered post at least 60 days before the expiry of his current contract, subject to the temporary exception below. Such an offer shall furthermore be at least of an equivalent value to the current contract. This provision is without prejudice to the right to training compensation of the player’s previous club(s).

i. The contract offer may be made by electronic mail, provided that the former club obtains confirmation from the player that he has received a copy of said offer and can provide such confirmation in case of any dispute.”

65. Roma also relies on the NOIF, which provides as follows in Article 33 (in a translation provided by Roma that remained undisputed):

“1. Young players from the age of 14 take on the qualification of ‘giovani di serie’ when they sign an application for registration with a club competing in one of the professional Leagues and such application is accepted.

2. Players with the qualification of ‘giovani di serie’ are bound to a club, which is therefore allowed to train and coach them with the aim of fielding them in the competition that the club is competing in, until the end of the football season which begins in the year in which the player reaches 19 years of age. During the last football season of such registration, the player qualified as ‘giovane di serie’ is entitled, within the term established each year by the Federal Council, to receive an indemnity determined each year by the League in which the relevant club competes, being the player subject to a relationship of technical training and without this entailing the acquisition of the status of ‘professional’. The club for which the ‘giovani di serie’ is registered has the right to stipulate the player’s first professional contract with a maximum duration of three years. Such right can be exercised exclusively during the last month of registration as ‘giovani di serie’, following the procedures established each year by the Federal Council.”

b) The Player’s registration with Roma

66. Roma maintains, inter alia, that it was not required to offer an employment contract to the Player, as the Player was bound to it until the end of the 2022/2023 season. Specifically, Roma argues that “[u]ntil its abrupt end in 2021, this relationship was renewed annually until 30 June 2018 when the Player was 14, at which point he signed

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 15 the five-season long registration as giovani di serie, which was in force until 30 June 2023”.

67. The Panel notes that there is no evidence on file suggesting that the Player signed any agreement, registration or other document, whereby he committed himself to being registered with Roma for five seasons until 30 June 2023. Although there is also no direct evidence on file establishing that the FIGC registered the Player as a giovani di serie, the Panel notes that it remained uncontested between the Parties that the Player was indeed registered as a giovani di serie. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present appeal arbitration proceedings, the Panel is prepared to proceed on the basis of such premise.

68. The Panel notes that there is also no evidence on file suggesting that Roma finds that the Player breached any obligations towards it by registering for Sporting. There is also no indication that Roma objected to the release of the Player’s International Transfer Certificate by the FIGC on 10 January 2022.

69. The Panel further notes that the Player’s transfer from Roma to Sporting was a transfer of an international nature within the European Union. Accordingly, while Roma may have been subject to the NOIF or any other rules issued by the FIGC, Sporting was not. Whereas the NOIF may have a certain impact at national level, preventing domestic rival clubs from registering the Player, the concept of giovani di serie is not recognised at an international level.

70. In this respect, the Panel notes that the RSTP Commentary provides as follows with respect to domestic concepts related to different forms of registration of players in the context of Article 2 RSTP:

“The Regulations recognise just two categories of players: amateurs and professionals. It is important to recall that article 2 is binding at national level, which means member associations cannot modify these categories or create new ones that differ from those established by the Regulations. Nevertheless, other status categories are regularly encountered at national level. Examples include: the so-called ‘scholar’ status in England and the similar categories of “aspirant” or ‘stagiaire’ in France, ‘giovani di serie’ in Italy, or ‘Vertragsamateure’ in Germany. However, none of these hybrid statuses will be recognised in any dispute brought before FIFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). As CAS has confirmed, there is no provision for additional categories in the Regulations: all players are either professionals or amateurs.” (RSTP Commentary, p. 20-21)

71. The Panel’s finding that the status of the Player is solely to be analysed based on the relevant FIFA rules is supported by CAS jurisprudence:

“There is no room for the application in such a case of different national rules. Pursuant to articles 1 §3, litt. a) and 26 §3 of the RSTP, a national federation is obliged to literally transpose article 2 of the RSTP. The mere fact that a national

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 16 federation registers a player in a way inconsistent with the requirements of the RSTP (e.g. because a club did not inform the national federation that it concluded an employment contract with a player) should not affect the decision as to the true status of the Player and should not remove the Player from the scope of the FIFA regulations and the criteria established in article 2 of the RSTP (CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376, CAS 2008/A/1781, §8.25). As a result, the RSTP, and in particular its article 2, override possible conflicting national rules.” (CAS 2012/A/2711, 2712 & 2713 para. 47 of the abstract as published on the CAS website)

72. Consequently, the Panel finds that the giovani di serie status of the Player is of no particular relevance in this matter. Since it is undisputed that the Player did not have a professional employment contract with Roma, he is considered to have been an amateur player during his indefinite registration with Roma.

c) Was Roma required to offer the Player an employment contract to be entitled to training compensation?

73. Pursuant to Article 6(3) of Annex 4 RSTP, a “former club” is in principle entitled to training compensation if (i) it offers the relevant player an employment contract; or (ii) it can otherwise justify that it is entitled to such compensation.

74. As to the purpose and scope of Article 6(3) of Annex 4 RSTP, the RSTP Commentary provides as follows:

“Paragraph 3 ensures that any potential hindrance to the free movement of players between clubs affiliated to different member associations inside the territory of the EU/EEA should be reduced, not only using specific calculation methods, but also via mechanisms to ensure that only clubs genuinely interested in a player’s services retain their entitlement to training compensation.

i) The general rule: contract offer

To achieve this aim, if a player’s former club fails to offer the player a contract, no training compensation is payable. The intention is clear: either a club shows genuine interest in the player’s services by offering them a contract, or the club loses its entitlement to training compensation.

[…]

iv) Proving genuine interest in a player’s services in the absence of a contract offer

It might be that a training club is not (yet) in a position to offer a contract to a player prior to his being transferred, for example if applicable national legislation does not permit players to sign a professional contract prior to a

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 17 certain age, or if the club is a purely amateur club, or if a club is prohibited by sporting regulations from placing its players under contract. To address circumstances of this kind, the Regulations stipulate that a club that fails to offer a player a contract can submit other evidence to demonstrate that it had a genuine interest in the player’s services and is therefore entitled to training compensation.

While the DRC has repeatedly protected the rights of clubs that cannot offer players contracts due to mandatory national regulations or legislation, recent jurisprudence indicates that such clubs must still show they have taken a proactive stance to justify these rights. Specifically, the fact that a club is prohibited from offering the player a contract because of applicable national legislation does not exempt it from its obligation to justify its entitlement to training compensation. In the absence of any offer, the club must demonstrate that it had a ‘genuine and bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player’ in order to be entitled to training compensation. Even beyond the circumstances described above, the need for a training club to demonstrate a ‘genuine and bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player’ is the decisive element in determining its entitlement to training compensation where there is no contract offer [to] consider.

In a case from 2006, when asked to analyse what might be considered as a justification for an entitlement to training compensation despite the absence of a contract offer, the CAS concluded that the training club had to show ‘a bona fide and genuine interest in retaining him for the future.’ In this specific case, the training club was assumed to have shown this interest, since it was able to provide evidence of regular meetings with the player concerning plans for his future career. It submitted a number of different development plans, which showed the club had been following a clear strategy it hoped would culminate in the player being offered, and signing, a professional contract with them. Consequently, the player’s new club was told to pay training compensation to the training club despite the absence of a contract offer. In a 2017 case, where the club had not offered the player an actual contract, the Panel deemed that the club’s genuine and bona fide interest in the player had been demonstrated by prolonged negotiations with the player’s agent.

On the other hand, a contract offer made solely for the purpose of collecting training compensation, and which is not founded on a genuine interest in retaining the player’s services, will not protect the right to training compensation. This was set out in a 2014 case in which the training club provided no evidence whatsoever to support its entitlement. It should be highlighted that the burden to prove the genuine and bona fide interest lies with the training club claiming an entitlement to training compensation.” (RSTP Commentary, p. 314-317)

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 18

75. While not binding, the Panel considers the RSTP Commentary an authoritative source for interpreting the RSTP. The Panel infers from the above that offering an employment contract is in principle a clear indication of a club’s interest in retaining the services of a football player. However, even if no employment contract is offered, a “former club” may still be entitled to training compensation if it can establish that it had a genuine and bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player. This alternative is particularly relevant in case a “former club” was for some reason barred from offering an employment contract to the player. In case there was no impairment to offer a player an employment contract, but no employment contract was offered, the Panel infers that a restrictive approach is to be applied.

76. The Panel finds that such restrictive approach is supported by the RSTP Commentary as to the purpose and scope of Article 6 of Annex 4 RSTP:

“These provisions are designed to reflect specific circumstances pertaining to certain aspects of EU law, most notably the principle of freedom of movement for workers. They apply exclusively to players moving between member associations within the territory of the EU/EEA. The player’s nationality is irrelevant. The relevant jurisprudence shows that a strict approach is taken. (RSTP Commentary, p. 313)

77. In continuation, the Panel adheres to the following considerations of another CAS panel:

“The purpose of article 6 para. 3 of Annexe 4 to the FIFA RSTP has been described in the decision CAS 2006/A/1152, para 22 et seq as follows:

‘(…) the purpose of the above provision is to ensure that no player, whether amateur or professional, in whom the club has no interest is impeded to accept the offer of another club because he carries some sort of ‘compensation price tag’.’

‘Indeed, in case a club is not interested any more in the services of one of its (...) players and decides to write off the investment made for its training, the player should be free to move to another club with no strings attached. In other terms, the application of an automatic compensation price tag to all amateur players should be deemed unreasonable.’

This Panel adheres to the above finding. Furthermore, this Panel finds that it follows from the above that both alternatives serve a common purpose, i.e. to make the payment of training compensation subject to the condition that the club wanted to retain the services of the player. Only if the club sincerely and honestly pursued this goal shall the free movement of the player be impeded by an automatic price tag calculated as a lump sum. It is in light of this common purpose that both alternatives must be interpreted and that CAS established its jurisprudence in relation to the second alternative, whereby the club must demonstrate (absent any offer) that it had a ‘genuine and bona fide interest in

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 19 retaining the services of the player’ in order to be entitled to a training compensation (see, inter alia, CAS 2012/A/2890 at para. 69 and CAS 2006/A/1152 at para. 23).

Thus, the Panel finds that no formalistic approach is warranted, but that both alternatives must be read and construed in light of the very purpose of the provision, i.e. that (in both alternatives) there must be evidence (be it through an offer or some other means) of a ‘genuine and bona fide interest in retaining the services of the player’. The Panel refers in this respect to the decision CAS 2014/A/3497, para. 65, where the panel stated that the aims of sporting justice should not be defeated by an overly formalistic interpretation of the FIFA RSTP, which would deviate from their original purpose:

‘The Panel also took into account the case CAS 2009/A/1757 to which the Parties were referred in the course of the hearing. It bears in mind that the aims of sporting justice should not be defeated by an overly formalistic interpretation of the FIFA Regulations which would deviate from their original purpose, appreciating that the standards in formal requirements are higher in the case of professionals than amateurs. However, it notes that section 6.3 of Annex 4 of the 2005 Regulations does impose an onus of proof on the former club (in this case the Appellant). This reflects the need to balance the interests of the club involved in being compensated for its effort and expenditure on training a young player on the one hand and the interests of the young player in being able to advance his career on the other hand’.” (CAS 2016/A/4720, paras. 64-66 of the abstract published on the CAS website)

78. In the matter at hand, it is not in dispute that Roma did not offer an employment contract to the Player. It is however in dispute whether Roma was barred from doing so or not. In this respect, domestic law and regulations such as the NOIF may be relevant, as they could theoretically prevent a club from offering an employment contract to young football players.

d) Was Roma barred from offering an employment contract to the Player?

79. Roma argues that, pursuant to Article 33(1) and (2) NOIF, it could not offer the Player an employment contract, and in any event was also not required to offer an employment contract to the Player because of the giovani di serie bond between Roma and the Player in force until 30 June 2023. As such, despite the amateur status held by the Player, he was nevertheless bound to Roma and, consequently Roma to him until 30 June 2023.

80. Sporting submits that Roma’s claim can only be assessed in light of the applicable regulations, which are the RSTP, and that Italian regulations must be disregarded, referring to the RSTP Commentary in which it is explicitly mentioned that the status of giovani di serie will not be recognised in any dispute before FIFA or CAS. In addition, Sporting maintains that Article 33(3) NOIF provides explicitly that Roma could have

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 20 offered the Player an employment contract since he had turned 16, i.e. at least since January 2020, two years before the Player became registered with Sporting, but chose not to offer one to the Player. In this regard, Sporting argues that Roma actually offered employment contracts to players aged 17 years old, referring to a news article of February 2021.

81. While it was initially disputed by Roma, Roma explicitly acknowledged during the hearing that Article 33(3) NOIF expressly provides for the opportunity of an Italian club to offer a player (with the qualification giovani di serie) an employment contract as follows (in a free translation provided by Sporting and not contested by Roma):

“Players with the qualification of ‘giovani di serie’, at the age of 16 and provided that they are not registered on a temporary basis, can enter into a professional contract.”

82. The possibility of offering employment contracts to players of 16 or older is further corroborated by Sporting’s reliance on a news article dated 23 February 2021 suggesting that Roma in the past offered an employment contract to a football player aged 17, which allegation remained uncontested by Roma. The Panel also has no reason to question the accuracy of the news article relied upon by Sporting, which is not disputed by Roma, and considers this to be a confirmation that Roma was not prevented by the NOIF to offer an employment contract to the Player.

83. Furthermore, as indicated supra, the Panel finds that the concept of giovani di serie may well have prevented domestic rival teams from registering the Player, but the giovani di serie bond did not prevent Sporting or the Player from entering into an employment contract. Indeed, Roma does not argue that the Player breached any obligations towards it by registering for Sporting. The Panel finds that the only question is whether Roma is entitled to receive training compensation, which depends primarily on whether or not Roma offered an employment contract to the Player. The Panel notes that Roma did not.

84. In view of the above, the Panel finds that Roma was not barred from offering an employment contract to the Player.

e) Did Roma establish a genuine and bona fide interests in retaining the services of the Player?

85. Roma submits that, even though it did not offer an employment contract to the Player, it nonetheless had a bona fide interest in retaining the services of the Player after training and educating him for over a seven-and-a-half-year period. To support this stance, Roma refers to its letter sent to the Player on 30 June 2021, in which Roma expressed its intention for the Player to remain registered with it for the upcoming football season and to preserve Roma’s ability to register the Player as a professional player.

86. Roma maintains that this letter, especially considered with all other relevant facts and circumstances, is sufficient to demonstrate that Roma had a genuine bona fide interest

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 21 in the Player and that, on a balance of probabilities, the Player would have been offered a professional contract prior to the end date of the giovani di serie bond.

87. Sporting submits that Roma’s burden to demonstrate its genuine interest in retaining the Player’s services cannot be satisfied by only sending a standard notice to the Player, which merely served to summon the Player to the beginning of season 2021/2022. No other evidence was offered by Roma, and therefore it failed to prove that it has ever taken a proactive stance vis-à-vis the Player (and/or his representatives) to demonstrate its desire to maintain him at the club, let alone to offer or discuss the possibility of concluding an employment contract.

88. The Panel observes that Roma’s letter dated 30 June 2021 to the Player provides as follows (in a free translation provided by Roma, not disputed by Sporting):

“Call for resumption of competitive activity for the sporting season 2021/2022 – Catena Etiene Marius Yopougon (Ivory Coast) 1-1-2004

Dear Etienne,

By means of the present letter AS Roma is glad to invite you to attend the training centre “Fulvio Bernardini” in Trigoria on 26 July 2021 at 9am in order to resume the competitive activity in view of the 2021/2022 sporting season.

During the sporting season that is about to end, you showed dedication and commitment which led you to achieve important individual and team results.

On the basis of the bond of registration existing with our club, which expires on 30 June 2023, we wish to continue working with you, keeping alive the option of offering you a professional contract at a later stage.

Best regards

AS Roma SPA

[Three illegible signatures and a stamp of Roma]

The academy manager”

89. The Panel notes that the subject matter of this letter involves the start of the training to resume the 2021/2022 football season, and the letter merely serves as an invitation to the Player to attend this first training. In addition, the letter also confirms that Roma, on the basis of the giovani di serie bond valid until 30 June 2023, wishes to continue working with the Player, “keeping alive the option of offering […] a professional contract at a later stage”.

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 22

90. The Panel observes that Roma has not referred to nor has provided any evidence whatsoever regarding any negotiations or written or oral communications with the Player and/or his representatives and/or his family to discuss the option of offering a professional contract to the Player in the near future. The only communication from Roma to the Player is the 30 June 2021 letter. Also, the Panel notes that Roma did not submit any evidence related to any development plans or evaluation reports which could have established Roma’s continued reliance on the services of the Player. In the same context, Roma was not able to provide evidence of regular meetings with the Player concerning plans for his future career, which would have shown the club had been following a clear strategy it hoped would culminate in the Player being offered, and signing, a professional contract with them.

91. The Panel finds that to only inform the Player, via the letter dated 30 June 2021, of its wish to continue working with him, “keeping alive the option of offering […] a professional contract at a later stage” is without a doubt insufficient to claim training compensation in accordance with Article 6 of Annex 4 RSTP.

92. The Panel feels comforted by CAS jurisprudence. In CAS 2006/A/1152, contrary to Roma in the matter at hand, the “former club” submitted evidence that it already started negotiations with the player for a professional contract, which entitled it to training compensation albeit not offering a contract to the player; in CAS 2014/A/3479, the panel considered that the burden of proof required cannot be met by merely showing that the club treated the player, generally speaking, just as it would with any other young amateur player in its club, which is comparable with Roma inviting the Player to the first training and keeping the option open to offer a contract at a later stage; in CAS 2018/A/5733, the panel emphasized that a club has to demonstrate that it adopted a proactive attitude vis-à-vis the player so as to clearly show a bona fide and genuine interest in retaining him for the future, which Roma failed to do in the present matter.

93. Therefore, the Panel finds that Roma has not justified that it is entitled to training compensation.

f) Is there another reason why Sporting should be required to pay training compensation to Roma?

94. Finally, the Panel also finds that Roma’s arguments that the Appealed Decision is to be set aside because (i) Roma’s interests have been circumvented due to an international club taking advantage of a registration approved by the FIGC, and because (ii) the subsequent transfer of the Player to an Italian club indicates that Sporting has exploited a loophole in the Italian registration system, are to be dismissed.

95. The Panel finds that training compensation may potentially have been awarded to Roma in case it would have established that a so-called bridge transfer had been set up, whereby the ultimate goal was the circumvention of the NOIF by registering the Player with Pescara. However, the Panel finds that such claim would have to be directed against Pescara, which is not a party to the present proceedings. In any event, the Panel finds that,

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 23 based on the evidence at hand, no “bridge transfer” has been established to have taken place or that Sporting abused any right or acted in bad faith.

96. Any arguments raised by Roma suggesting that denying training compensation would be counterintuitive or undermine the training reward system are to be dismissed. Indeed, under the current regulatory framework set forth in the RSTP, the conditions set for receiving training compensation are simply not satisfied.

97. Consequently, the Panel finds that there is no other reason why Sporting should be required to pay training compensation to Roma.

B. Conclusion

98. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that:

i. Roma is not entitled to receive training compensation from Sporting. ii. Roma’s appeal is dismissed, and the Appealed Decision is confirmed.

99. All other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

X. COSTS

(…).

*********

Sporting Clube de Portugal – Page 24