CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2008/A/1705 — Neue Grasshopper Fussball AG Zurich v. Club Alianza de Lima

"Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima" · CAS upheld EUR 305,000 training compensation for a Peruvian player, confirming the DRC's calculation and dismissing Grasshopper's appeal.

What happened in Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima

Peruvian player D., born 21 September 1984, was registered with Alianza Lima on 25 July 2000 and signed an employment contract in November 2002 at USD 250/month. After the contract expired, he signed with Swiss club Grasshopper in January 2007. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on 31 July 2008 ordered Grasshopper to pay EUR 305,000 in training compensation to Alianza. Grasshopper appealed to CAS without first requesting the reasoned decision from FIFA as required by Art. 15 of the DRC Procedural Rules. CAS addressed three threshold issues: whether the unmotivated DRC letter was a 'decision' subject to appeal (yes); whether Grasshopper's failure to request grounds barred the appeal (no, because the DRC's appeal notice was confusingly drafted); and whether the appeal was filed within 21 days (yes, filed 7 November 2008, the last day). On the merits, CAS confirmed the EUR 305,000 figure: the player's loan period (17 August–31 December 2001) was excluded, training was not shown to have ended before age 21, and Grasshopper failed to prove the indicative amount was clearly disproportionate. The case matters for its authoritative treatment of unmotivated decisions, the subsidiarity of Swiss law under FIFA Statutes, and the multi-factor test for early completion of training.

Procedural history of CAS 2008/A/1705

On 31 July 2008, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber issued a decision ordering Grasshopper to pay EUR 305,000 in training compensation to Alianza Lima. Only the findings, not the grounds, were communicated, as permitted by Art. 15 of the DRC Procedural Rules. The decision was notified to the parties on 17 October 2008. Grasshopper did not request the reasoned decision within the 10-day window prescribed by Art. 15(1). Instead, on 7 November 2008, Grasshopper filed its Statement of Appeal directly with CAS. On 17 November 2008, it filed its Appeal Brief. Alianza raised two procedural objections: (1) the appeal was inadmissible because Grasshopper had not requested the grounds, and (2) the 21-day deadline had been missed. FIFA, declining to intervene, also argued the appeal should be dismissed as the decision had become final. CAS constituted a panel on 14 January 2009 and, with both parties waiving a hearing, proceeded on written submissions.

Key holdings in CAS 2008/A/1705

• An unmotivated DRC letter constitutes a 'decision' subject to appeal under Art. R47 of the CAS Code if it bears the formal and material characteristics of a unilateral act intended to produce legal effects, including a heading of 'decision', signature by the FIFA General Secretary, and instructions on how to appeal.
• The referral to Swiss law in Art. 62(2) of the FIFA Statutes is subsidiary only: Swiss law fills lacunae in FIFA regulations but yields wherever FIFA rules contain a ruling, even if the Swiss provision would otherwise be mandatory.
• Art. 15(1) of the DRC Procedural Rules — requiring a party to request grounds within 10 days to preserve the right of appeal — is neither incompatible with Art. 75 of the Swiss Civil Code nor with transnational ordre public, because the burden on the appellant is minimal and the provision serves legitimate goals of legal certainty and efficient administration.
• The 21-day appeal deadline under Art. 63(1) of the FIFA Statutes runs from the day following notification of the decision, not from the day of notification itself, consistent with Art. R32 of the CAS Code and Swiss law.
• Training compensation is calculated only for the period a player was effectively trained by the claiming club; loan periods are excluded unless the loaning club proves it bore training costs during the loan, and early completion of training before age 21 must be established by the appellant through evidence of multiple factors including salary, loan fees, transfer value, national team inclusion, and club status.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first confirmed jurisdiction by applying the broad CAS definition of 'decision' and finding that the DRC letter satisfied all formal and substantive criteria. On the timeliness of the appeal, the panel held that Art. 15 of the DRC Procedural Rules could not be held against Grasshopper because the DRC's own notice was internally contradictory: paragraph 6 stated the decision 'may be appealed' while paragraph 7 conditioned that right on requesting grounds within 10 days. The panel found this inconsistency, combined with established CAS jurisprudence that unmotivated decisions are appealable, meant the restriction was insufficiently transparent to bind the appellant. The panel also expressed doubt whether Art. 15 was within the competence of the FIFA Executive Committee given that appeal time limits are exhaustively regulated in Chapter VIII of the FIFA Statutes, but left that question open. On the merits, the panel applied Art. 5 of Annex 4 of the RSTP and FIFA circular letter no. 826, excluding the loan period (4 months 15 days) and rejecting early completion of training because Grasshopper's internet printouts were insufficient to satisfy the multi-factor test. The panel rejected the disproportionality argument because Grasshopper produced no concrete documentary evidence such as invoices or training budgets, and dismissed the free-movement and discrimination arguments as policy matters already weighed by FIFA in designing the transfer system.

Why Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is a leading CAS authority on three distinct issues: (1) the appealability of unmotivated FIFA decisions, confirming that absence of reasons does not strip a communication of its character as a 'decision'; (2) the subsidiarity of Swiss law under Art. 62(2) of the FIFA Statutes, including its displacement even where Swiss provisions are mandatory; and (3) the multi-factor test for establishing early completion of training under Annex 4 of the RSTP. The panel also issued a notable recommendation that FIFA integrate Art. 15(1) of the DRC Procedural Rules into the FIFA Statutes and improve the clarity of its appeal notices.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2004/A/748 CAS 2004/A/659 CAS 2005/A/899 CAS 2008/A/1583 & 1584 CAS 2004/A/560 CAS 2006/A/1029

Frequently asked questions about Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima

Can a club appeal a FIFA DRC decision to CAS even if it never requested the reasoned decision?

In this case, CAS held that Art. 15(1) of the DRC Procedural Rules — which requires a party to request grounds within 10 days or lose the right to appeal — could not be enforced against Grasshopper because the DRC's own notice was internally contradictory: paragraph 6 said the decision 'may be appealed' while paragraph 7 conditioned that right on requesting grounds. The panel left open whether Art. 15 was even within FIFA's competence given that appeal deadlines are exhaustively regulated in Chapter VIII of the FIFA Statutes.

How is training compensation calculated when a player was on loan during the training period?

Under CAS 2008/A/1705, the loan period is excluded from the training compensation calculation unless the loaning club can demonstrate it bore the costs of the player's training during the loan. In this case, the player was on loan to Bella Esperanza from 17 August 2001 to 31 December 2001 (four months and 15 days), and since Alianza made no claim for that period, it was deducted, leaving a total training period of five years and one month.

What factors does CAS consider when deciding whether a player completed training before age 21?

The panel held that regular performance for a club's 'A' team is not the only or decisive factor. Additional factors include the salary paid to the player, loan fees achieved for his services, transfer value, public notoriety at national and international level, whether the player held the captaincy, and regular inclusion in the senior national team. In this case, Grasshopper's internet printouts were insufficient to satisfy this multi-factor test, so training was deemed to have continued until age 21.

Does Swiss law override FIFA regulations when the two conflict in a CAS arbitration?

No. The panel confirmed that Art. 62(2) of the FIFA Statutes makes Swiss law only 'additionally' applicable, meaning it fills lacunae in FIFA rules but yields wherever FIFA regulations contain a ruling — even if the Swiss provision would otherwise be mandatory. The only limit is transnational ordre public, which requires a breach of fundamental legal principles, not merely a conflict with a mandatory Swiss norm.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.