CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811 — SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate

"Wilhelmshaven" · CAS upheld FIFA training compensation awards against German club for signing Argentine-trained player as his first professional.

What happened in Wilhelmshaven

SV Wilhelmshaven, a German club (DFB/FIFA member), signed player S. (born 1987, dual Italian-Argentine nationality) to his first professional contract effective 8 February 2007. The player had been registered as an amateur with Club Atlético Excursionistas (20 March 1998 – 7 March 2005) and Club Atlético River Plate (8 March 2005 – 7 February 2007), both Argentine clubs affiliated to AFA/FIFA. Both Argentine clubs filed training compensation claims before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 5 December 2008, the DRC awarded Excursionistas EUR 100,000 and River Plate EUR 57,500. Wilhelmshaven appealed to CAS, arguing: the player was already a professional in Argentina; EU free-movement law barred the claims; Article 6(3) of Annex 4 (EU/EEA special provision requiring a contract offer) applied because of the player's Italian nationality; the compensation was disproportionate; and the short contract duration and the club's subsequent category-4 status warranted reduction. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed all grounds of appeal and confirmed both DRC decisions in full, ordering payment of EUR 100,000 to Excursionistas (interest at 5% from 3 April 2009) and EUR 57,500 to River Plate (interest at 5% from 2 April 2009). The case is significant for definitively establishing that Article 6 of Annex 4 is geographically, not nationality-based, and that EU free-movement arguments belong to players, not clubs.

Procedural history of CAS 2009/A/1810

On 14 June 2007, Club Atlético Excursionistas and Club Atlético River Plate each separately initiated proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber seeking training compensation from SV Wilhelmshaven in connection with player S. Excursionistas claimed EUR 100,000; River Plate claimed EUR 60,000. On 5 December 2008, the FIFA DRC accepted both claims, awarding Excursionistas EUR 100,000 and River Plate EUR 57,500, finding the player had been an amateur until signing his first professional contract with Wilhelmshaven, and that the compensation was not disproportionate. The decisions were notified to the parties on 2–3 March 2009. On 23 March 2009, Wilhelmshaven filed two statements of appeal with CAS (CAS 2009/A/1810 against Excursionistas; CAS 2009/A/1811 against River Plate). The two procedures were consolidated with the parties' unanimous consent. Appeal briefs were filed on 2 April 2009. A hearing was held on 26 August 2009 at CAS headquarters in Lausanne; Excursionistas did not appear but the Sole Arbitrator proceeded pursuant to Article R57(3) of the Code.

Key holdings in CAS 2009/A/1810

• A player registered as an amateur with an association, absent any reliable counter-evidence of a written contract and payment exceeding actual expenses, retains amateur status for training compensation purposes under Article 2(2) of the FIFA Regulations.
• Article 6 of Annex 4 to the FIFA Regulations (EU/EEA special provisions, including the obligation to offer a contract) applies exclusively to transfers between associations within the EU/EEA territory and is not triggered by a player's EU nationality when the transfer originates from outside the EU/EEA.
• EU free-movement arguments in CAS proceedings may only be raised by the player himself, not by the football club.
• A club objecting to training compensation as disproportionate must provide clear and convincing concrete evidentiary documents (invoices, training centre costs, budgets, etc.); failing that, the indicative FIFA amounts apply.
• The length of the employment contract between the new club and the player is not a valid basis for reducing training compensation, as only economic factors — not time factors — are relevant to the calculation.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied an adversarial burden-of-proof standard: Wilhelmshaven bore the onus of proving the player was already a professional in Argentina but produced no labour contract or evidence of payment, so the player's AFA amateur registration stood unrebutted. On the EU/EEA contract-offer argument, the arbitrator used objective, grammatical and systematic interpretation of Article 6 of Annex 4, noting its title, the repeated phrase 'inside the territory of the EU/EEA' in paragraphs 1 and 2, the FIFA-UEFA-EU Commission agreement of March 2001 codified in FIFA Circular Letter No. 769, and prior CAS precedent (CAS 2006/A/1125; CAS 2007/A/1338) to conclude the provision is purely geographic. The player's Italian nationality was held irrelevant. The free-movement argument was dismissed in limine as belonging only to the player. On disproportionality, the arbitrator found Wilhelmshaven's two-page auditor statement — lacking accounts, invoices, contracts or payroll slips — insufficient to meet the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard. The short-contract argument was rejected because FIFA Regulations permit only economic, not temporal, adjustments. The club's category-3 status during the 2006/2007 season was held determinative regardless of its category-4 status in surrounding seasons, to preserve certainty and prevent arbitrary outcomes.

Why Wilhelmshaven matters in CAS jurisprudence

Wilhelmshaven is a landmark CAS authority on three points: (1) it definitively confines Article 6 of Annex 4 to geographically intra-EU/EEA transfers, rejecting nationality as a trigger; (2) it confirms that EU free-movement rights are personal to the player and cannot be weaponised by clubs to avoid training compensation; and (3) it reinforces that the indicative FIFA training compensation amounts are presumptively valid and can only be displaced by concrete, auditable financial evidence — a standard that a bare auditor summary cannot satisfy.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2003/A/506 (award of 30 June 2004) CAS 2003/O/500 (award of 24 February 2004) CAS 2003/A/527 CAS 2004/A/560 CAS 2004/A/794 CAS 2006/A/1027 CAS 2006/A/1125 CAS 2007/A/1218 CAS 2007/A/1338 CAS 2008/A/1673

Frequently asked questions about Wilhelmshaven

Does a player's EU nationality (e.g. Italian passport) mean the EU/EEA contract-offer rule applies when he transfers from Argentina to Germany?

No. The Sole Arbitrator in Wilhelmshaven held that Article 6 of Annex 4 to the FIFA Regulations is strictly geographic: it applies only to transfers 'from one Association to another inside the territory of the EU/EEA.' Because player S. transferred from Argentina (outside the EU/EEA) to Germany, his Italian nationality was irrelevant and the Argentine clubs were not required to have offered him a contract before losing their right to training compensation.

Can a German club argue EU free movement of workers to avoid paying training compensation to an Argentine club?

No. CAS confirmed in Wilhelmshaven (citing CAS 2004/A/794 and CAS 2006/A/1027) that free-movement arguments under EU law can only be raised by the player himself, not by the football club. Wilhelmshaven's attempt to invoke freedom of movement on behalf of player S. was therefore dismissed without further consideration.

Can a new club reduce training compensation because the player's contract was very short or because the player turned out to be less skilful than expected?

No on both counts. In Wilhelmshaven the Sole Arbitrator held that only economic factors — not time factors — may be considered when evaluating training costs, so the short initial contract period (8 February 2007 to 30 June 2007) provided no basis for reduction. Equally, the Argentine clubs could not be held responsible for Wilhelmshaven's failure to verify the player's actual value before signing him.

What evidence does a club need to prove training compensation is disproportionate under the FIFA Regulations?

The club must provide clear and convincing concrete documentary evidence — such as invoices, training centre costs, budgets, coaches' and players' contracts, and payroll slips — sufficient to satisfy the arbitrator to a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard. In Wilhelmshaven, a two-page auditor statement claiming costs of EUR 617 per player per annum was held insufficient because it could not be independently verified and did not meet generally accepted accounting and auditing standards.

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.