CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2010/A/2069 — Galatasaray A.S. v. Aachener TSV Alemannia F.C.

"Galatasaray v. Alemannia Aachen" · CAS upheld EUR 150,000 training compensation for Aachen after finding Galatasaray had signed the player on a professional contract.

What happened in Galatasaray v. Alemannia Aachen

Turkish club Galatasaray signed Turkish-born player Tuncay Onal (born 18 January 1990) on a contract titled 'Professional Football Contract' on 21 January 2008, paying him the Turkish statutory minimum monthly salary of TRY 666 (approximately EUR 315). Onal had been registered as an amateur with German club Aachener TSV Alemannia from 10 July 2002 to 27 June 2007. Aachen claimed EUR 180,000 in training compensation before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 17 September 2009, the FIFA DRC partially granted the claim, awarding EUR 150,000. Galatasaray appealed to CAS, arguing the player was an amateur because his salary merely covered expenses, that Aachen's release letter waived any compensation rights, and that the EU/EEA-specific rule requiring former clubs to offer a contract was discriminatory against non-EU clubs. CAS dismissed the appeal in full, confirming the EUR 150,000 award. The case matters because it clarifies that the decisive criterion for professional status is whether remuneration exceeds actual football-related expenses, and that the burden of proving an amateur arrangement lies with the new club. It also confirms that the EU/EEA contract-offer exception in Annex 4 Art. 6.3 of the FIFA Regulations does not apply to transfers involving non-EU/EEA clubs.

Procedural history of CAS 2010/A/2069

On 4 August 2008, Aachener TSV Alemannia filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber against Galatasaray seeking EUR 180,000 in training compensation for the training of player Tuncay Onal during the period 10 July 2002 to 27 June 2007. On 17 September 2009, the FIFA DRC issued its decision partially accepting the claim and ordering Galatasaray to pay EUR 150,000 within 30 days of notification, plus CHF 10,000 in procedural costs. The motivated decision was notified to the parties on 9 February 2010. On 1 March 2010, Galatasaray filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS pursuant to Arts. 62 and 63 of the FIFA Statutes. On 11 March 2010, Galatasaray filed its Appeal Brief. Aachen filed its Answer on 8 April 2010. A hearing was held on 5 July 2010 in Lausanne. At the hearing, Aachen raised a late admissibility objection which the Panel rejected. CAS proceeded to decide the merits on the basis of written submissions and the oral hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2010/A/2069

• The decisive criterion for distinguishing a professional from an amateur player is whether the remuneration received exceeds the actual costs and expenses incurred by the player in his football activity, not the wording or title of the contract.
• A new club that asserts a player was signed as an amateur bears the burden of adducing evidence — such as pay slips or receipts — demonstrating that payments were strictly reimbursements of football-related expenses and did not exceed those expenses.
• The EU/EEA contract-offer exception under Annex 4 Art. 6.3 of the FIFA Regulations, which relieves a new club of training compensation liability where the former club failed to offer the player a contract, applies exclusively to transfers within the EU/EEA territory and does not benefit clubs such as Galatasaray located outside that territory.
• The 21-day appeal deadline under Art. 63.1 of the FIFA Statutes begins to run only upon receipt of the 'motivated decision,' not upon receipt of the findings, where a party has duly requested the grounds within the 10-day period prescribed by Art. 15 of the FIFA Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players' Status Committee and DRC.
• A challenge to the discriminatory nature of FIFA regulations can only be pursued by a FIFA member through the relevant FIFA bodies having jurisdiction to adopt or amend rules, and falls outside the scope of a CAS appeal against a specific DRC decision.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied the well-established CAS principle, drawn from CAS 2006/A/1177 and confirmed in CAS 2008/A/1781, that the sole relevant criterion for professional status is whether remuneration exceeds actual football-related expenses. It rejected Galatasaray's reliance on the contract's minimum-salary clause, noting that Galatasaray produced no evidence — no pay slips, no expense breakdowns, no cost-of-living data — to show that TRY 666 per month merely reimbursed the player's expenses. The Panel further noted that the salary was subject to Turkish income tax, indicating it was treated as income rather than an expense reimbursement. On the EU/EEA discrimination argument, the Panel held that Art. 6.3 Annex 4 is geographically limited and that, in any event, Galatasaray had not proved Aachen failed to offer the player a contract; to the contrary, the evidence showed the player left at his own initiative. The Panel declined to rule on the alleged discriminatory character of the FIFA regulation, finding such a challenge outside the scope of the appeal and reserved for FIFA's own bodies. Galatasaray's reliance on CAS 2006/A/1072 was rejected as factually inapposite. The Release Letter was found not to constitute a waiver of training compensation rights.

Why Galatasaray v. Alemannia Aachen matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that the professional/amateur distinction under the FIFA Regulations turns exclusively on whether remuneration exceeds actual football-related expenses, and that the new club bears the evidential burden of proving an amateur arrangement. It also authoritatively confirms that the EU/EEA contract-offer exception in Annex 4 Art. 6.3 is geographically confined and cannot be invoked by non-EU/EEA clubs, and that challenges to the discriminatory character of FIFA regulations must be addressed through FIFA's own legislative bodies rather than through CAS appeals.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1072 CAS 2006/A/1177 Aston Villa F.C. v. B.93 Copenhagen CAS 2007/A/1207 Parma F.C. v. Portsmouth City F.C. CAS 2008/A/1781 FK Siad Most v. Clube Esportivo Bento Gonçalves CAS 2009/A/1739 Club Atlético Boca Juniors v. Oscar Guido Trejo & RCD Mallorca SAD & FIFA Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard & Newcastle United FC (European Court of Justice)

Frequently asked questions about Galatasaray v. Alemannia Aachen

Did Galatasaray have to pay training compensation even though the player only received the Turkish minimum wage?

Yes. The Panel held that Galatasaray failed to adduce any evidence — such as pay slips, expense receipts, or cost-of-living data — demonstrating that the monthly payment of TRY 666 (approximately EUR 315) merely reimbursed the player's actual football-related expenses. Because the salary was also subject to Turkish income tax, the Panel treated it as remuneration exceeding expenses, making the player a professional and training compensation of EUR 150,000 payable to Aachen.

Can a non-EU club like Galatasaray rely on the Annex 4 Art. 6.3 FIFA Regulations rule that no training compensation is due if the former club did not offer the player a contract?

No. The Panel confirmed that Annex 4 Art. 6.3 of the FIFA Regulations applies exclusively to transfers between associations within the EU/EEA territory. Because Galatasaray is a Turkish club and Turkey is outside the EU/EEA, it could not benefit from this provision regardless of whether Aachen had offered the player a new contract.

Was Galatasaray's appeal to CAS filed in time given the FIFA DRC issued its findings in October 2009 but the motivated decision only in February 2010?

Yes. The Panel held that under Art. 15.2 of the FIFA Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players' Status Committee and DRC, the 21-day appeal deadline in Art. 63.1 of the FIFA Statutes begins to run only upon receipt of the motivated decision. Since the motivated decision was notified on 9 February 2010 and the appeal was filed on 1 March 2010, it was within the 21-day window and therefore admissible.

How was the EUR 150,000 training compensation figure calculated in the Galatasaray v. Alemannia Aachen case?

Aachen trained the player from his 13th to 17th birthdays (five seasons, 10 July 2002 to 27 June 2007). For the three seasons covering his 13th–15th birthdays, training costs were based on category 4 club rates of EUR 10,000 per season under FIFA Circular No. 1085, totalling EUR 30,000. For the two seasons covering his 16th and 17th birthdays, costs were based on Galatasaray's classification as a category II UEFA club at EUR 60,000 per season, totalling EUR 120,000. The combined total was EUR 150,000.

Topics: Training compensation & solidarity 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.