CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2013/A/3432 — Manchester United FC v. Empoli FC S.p.A.

"Manchester United v. Empoli" · CAS upheld Manchester United's appeal, finding the DRC erred by awarding training compensation for a period when the player was on loan elsewhere.

What happened in Manchester United v. Empoli

Alberto Massacci (born 27 May 1993) was trained by Empoli FC for several amateur registration periods before being loaned to Cuoiopelli from 29 August 2008 until 30 June 2009. On 1 July 2009 he signed a Scholarship Agreement with Manchester United, who registered him on 13 October 2009. A training compensation dispute arose under Article 20 and Annexe 4 of the FIFA Regulations. Manchester paid EUR 46,397, which it believed covered its full obligation. Empoli claimed EUR 345,000 before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 28 June 2013 the DRC partially accepted Empoli's claim and ordered Manchester to pay an additional EUR 61,936 plus 5% p.a. interest from 13 November 2009, having erroneously treated the player as registered with Empoli for the entire season of his 16th birthday. Manchester appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found the DRC had overlooked the loan period, during which the player was registered with and trained by Cuoiopelli, not Empoli. Only 59 days of that season were spent with Empoli, entitling it to EUR 12,123.28 — an amount Manchester had already paid. The appeal was fully upheld, Empoli's counterclaims were declared inadmissible, and the DRC cost award against Manchester was annulled. The case matters because it clarifies that training compensation must be calculated strictly pro rata for actual registration periods, and that counterclaims cannot be raised for the first time in an answer to a CAS appeal.

Procedural history of CAS 2013/A/3432

On 13 June 2011, Empoli filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) seeking EUR 345,000 in training compensation (EUR 298,603 net of EUR 46,397 already paid by Manchester) plus 5% p.a. interest from 13 November 2009. On 28 June 2013 the DRC partially accepted the claim, ordering Manchester to pay EUR 61,936 plus 5% p.a. interest from 13 November 2009, and assessed procedural costs of CHF 16,000 (CHF 3,000 against Manchester, CHF 13,000 against Empoli). Empoli did not request the grounds of the DRC decision. On 22 November 2013 FIFA notified Manchester of the grounds. On 13 December 2013 Manchester filed a Statement of Appeal before CAS against the DRC decision, challenging the calculation of training compensation for the season of the player's 16th birthday. FIFA was subsequently excluded from the proceedings. Empoli filed its Answer on 2 April 2014, including what the Sole Arbitrator characterised as inadmissible counterclaims seeking EUR 357,123.28. The parties agreed to proceed on written submissions only.

Key holdings in CAS 2013/A/3432

• Training compensation must be calculated strictly pro rata for the period the player was actually registered with and trained by the claiming club, excluding any loan period spent at a third club.
• The DRC committed a substantive error by awarding Empoli training compensation for the full season of the player's 16th birthday when the player was registered with Cuoiopelli on loan for the majority of that season.
• Following the January 2010 amendment to Article R55 of the CAS Code, a respondent may no longer file a counterclaim within an appeal procedure; any such claim must be raised by way of a separate, timely independent appeal.
• Article R57 of the CAS Code, which grants the panel full power to review facts and law, does not permit the panel to go beyond the scope of the appeal as configured by the appellant, and does not authorise awards that are ultra or extra petita.
• Where the appellant had already fulfilled its training compensation obligation before DRC proceedings commenced, it should not bear any of the DRC's procedural costs.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first addressed the preliminary issue of scope, holding that Empoli's prayers seeking EUR 357,123.28 constituted inadmissible counterclaims under the post-2010 CAS Code because they would prejudice Manchester's position rather than merely defend the DRC decision. Relying on CAS 2010/A/2193 Club Cagliari Calcio S.p.A. v. Club Olimpia Deportivo and the Swiss Federal Tribunal decision of 10 December 2010 (ATF 4A10/2010), the arbitrator confirmed that Article R55 no longer permits counterclaims and that Article R57's full review power operates only within the limits set by the appellant's own claims. On the merits, the arbitrator found it uncontested that the player spent only 59 days with Empoli during the season of his 16th birthday, with the remainder of that season spent on loan at Cuoiopelli. FIFA's own letter of 20 December 2013 acknowledged that the loan information had not been placed before the DRC due to an administrative oversight. Applying a pro rata daily calculation (EUR 75,000 ÷ 365 × 59 days = EUR 12,123.28), the arbitrator concluded Manchester had already discharged its full obligation. Empoli's proportionality argument under Article 5.4 of Annexe 4 was dismissed for lack of justification. Because Manchester had paid in full before the DRC proceedings began, the CHF 3,000 cost award against it was also annulled.

Why Manchester United v. Empoli matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that training compensation under FIFA Regulations is strictly pro rata and tied to actual registration and training by the claiming club — loan periods at third clubs break the entitlement. It also provides an authoritative restatement of the post-2010 CAS Code rule that counterclaims are inadmissible in appeal proceedings and must be pursued by separate appeal, citing multiple CAS precedents and the Swiss Federal Tribunal's confirmation in ATF 4A10/2010. The case further clarifies that Article R57's full review power is bounded by the appellant's own prayers for relief.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2010/A/2035 Azovmash Mariupol Basketball Club v. M. TAS 2010/A/2101 UCI c/ M. Aurélien Duval & Fédération Française de Cyclisme CAS 2010/A/2108 Jamaica FF v. FIFA & K. Milutinovic CAS 2010/A/2193 Club Cagliari Calcio S.p.A. v/ Club Olimpia Deportivo CAS 2012/A/2707 AS Nancy-Lorraine v. FC Dynamo Kyiv ATF 4A10/2010 (Swiss Federal Tribunal, 10 December 2010)

Frequently asked questions about Manchester United v. Empoli

Did Manchester United have to pay additional training compensation to Empoli for Alberto Massacci after the CAS award?

No. The CAS amended the DRC decision so that the total training compensation owed to Empoli for Massacci was EUR 12,123.28 (covering only the 59 days he was registered with Empoli during the season of his 16th birthday). Manchester had already paid EUR 46,397 before the DRC proceedings began, which exceeded that amount, so no further payment was required.

Why did the DRC get the training compensation calculation wrong in Manchester United v. Empoli?

FIFA's own letter of 20 December 2013 acknowledged that, due to an administrative oversight, information about the player's loan period with Cuoiopelli (29 August 2008 to 30 June 2009) was never placed before the DRC when it decided the case on 28 June 2013. As a result, the DRC treated the player as having been registered with Empoli for the entire season of his 16th birthday and awarded EUR 75,000 for that season, when in fact only 59 days were spent with Empoli, entitling it to EUR 12,123.28.

Can a respondent file a counterclaim in a CAS appeal procedure to seek a higher award than the first-instance decision?

No. Following the January 2010 amendment to Article R55 of the CAS Code, counterclaims are no longer admissible within an appeal procedure. In this case the Sole Arbitrator declared Empoli's prayers seeking EUR 357,123.28 inadmissible, relying on CAS 2010/A/2193 Club Cagliari Calcio S.p.A. v. Club Olimpia Deportivo and the Swiss Federal Tribunal's decision ATF 4A10/2010. A party wishing to challenge a first-instance decision must file its own separate, timely appeal.

How is training compensation calculated when a player is on loan during the relevant season under FIFA Regulations?

Training compensation is calculated strictly pro rata based on the number of days the player was actually registered with and trained by the claiming club during the relevant season. In this case, because Massacci spent the majority of the season of his 16th birthday on loan at Cuoiopelli, Empoli was entitled only to a pro rata share of EUR 75,000 for 59 days (EUR 75,000 ÷ 365 × 59 = EUR 12,123.28), and Cuoiopelli was the club entitled to compensation for the loan period.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses 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.