CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2016/A/4597 — SC FC Steaua Bucuresti v. FC Internazionale Milano SpA

"Steaua Bucuresti v. Inter Milan" · CAS dismissed Steaua Bucuresti's training compensation claim against Inter Milan, finding no circumvention of Article 20 RSTP.

What happened in Steaua Bucuresti v. Inter Milan

Romanian goalkeeper Radu Ionut Andrei (born 28 May 1997) was registered with Steaua Bucuresti as a junior amateur from 11 September 2008 until 2 February 2012. He subsequently joined Italian fourth-division club Pergolettese as an amateur on 18 March 2013, then signed his first professional contract with Pergolettese on 3 July 2013 after the club was promoted to the Lega Pro. On 13 August 2013, Pergolettese transferred the Player to Inter Milan for EUR 315,000, and Inter registered him as a professional. Steaua lodged a training compensation claim before the FIFA DRC in January 2014. The FIFA DRC dismissed the claim on 18 February 2016, finding Pergolettese — not Inter — was the first club to register the Player as a professional, and that no circumvention of Article 20 RSTP was established. Steaua appealed to CAS, arguing the Pergolettese contract failed the 'remuneration test' and that the arrangement constituted a bridge-transfer to avoid training compensation. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the FIFA DRC decision, holding that the AIC minimum wage of EUR 14,086 per year satisfied the RSTP definition of a professional, and that the criteria for circumvention of Article 20 RSTP were not met. The case matters because it applies and refines the bridge-transfer circumvention criteria developed in prior FIFA DRC and CAS jurisprudence.

Procedural history of CAS 2016/A/4597

Steaua Bucuresti lodged a training compensation claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) in January 2014 against both Pergolettese and Inter Milan. On 16 April 2014, the FIGC initially stated the Player was first registered as a professional with Inter; Steaua withdrew its claim against Pergolettese on 11 August 2014. On 21 July 2015, the FIGC corrected its position, confirming Pergolettese had registered the Player as a professional on 3 July 2013. On 18 February 2016, the FIFA DRC dismissed Steaua's claim, finding Pergolettese was the first club to register the Player as a professional and that no circumvention of Article 20 RSTP was established. The reasoned decision was issued on 11 April 2016. Steaua filed its statement of appeal with CAS on 3 May 2016, requesting annulment of the FIFA DRC decision and an order that Inter pay EUR 203,835 in training compensation plus 5% annual interest from 13 September 2013.

Key holdings in CAS 2016/A/4597

• A player paid the AIC-defined minimum wage of EUR 14,086 per year satisfies the RSTP Article 2 definition of a professional, as he receives more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs.
• Pergolettese, not Inter Milan, was the first club to register the Player as a professional, meaning Inter owed no training compensation under Article 20 RSTP and Annex 4, Article 2 RSTP.
• A bridge-transfer circumvention of Article 20 RSTP was not established where the player stayed with the intermediate club for five months (41 days after signing the professional contract), had previously played for that club's junior team, and there was no evidence of prior contact or a pre-signed contract with the upper-level club.
• The fact that Inter paid a transfer fee of EUR 315,000 — significantly higher than the training compensation that would have been due — further negates any inference of circumvention.
• The burden of proving circumvention of Article 20 RSTP lies with the claiming party (Steaua), and failure to discharge that burden results in dismissal of the training compensation claim.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first examined whether Pergolettese's contract with the Player qualified as a professional contract under Article 2 RSTP. He found that payment of the AIC minimum wage (EUR 14,086 per year) to a 16-year-old exceeded the expenses he effectively incurred, satisfying the remuneration test. He then turned to the circumvention question, adopting the Swiss Federal Tribunal's definition of circumvention (SFT 114 Ib 15 para. 3a) and applying criteria drawn from FIFA DRC cases (7101140, 0213936, 10131359) and CAS 2009/A/1757. He weighed four factors: (1) duration at the intermediate club — five months, far longer than the 4–19 days in precedent cases; (2) prior genuine connection — the Player had played for Pergolettese's junior team in 2012/2013; (3) absence of pre-arrangement — no evidence the Player was contacted by or had signed with Inter before moving to Italy; and (4) rational explanation — the Player's family relocated to Italy for work-related reasons, which was undisputed. The Sole Arbitrator rejected Steaua's argument that the short professional registration period alone was sufficient to establish circumvention, and noted that Inter's payment of EUR 315,000 made it economically irrational to use Pergolettese merely to avoid training compensation.

Why Steaua Bucuresti v. Inter Milan matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates and applies the multi-factor bridge-transfer test for circumvention of Article 20 RSTP, drawing on both FIFA DRC precedents and CAS 2009/A/1757. It clarifies that a short professional registration at an intermediate club does not automatically constitute circumvention; duration, prior genuine sporting connection, absence of pre-arrangement, and economic rationality must all be assessed. It also confirms that payment of a national federation's minimum wage satisfies the RSTP Article 2 remuneration test for professional status, providing practical guidance for clubs and agents structuring transfers involving recently promoted lower-division clubs.

Cases cited in this award

FIFA DRC Case 7101140 dated 22 July 2010 FIFA DRC Case 0213936 dated 27 February 2013 FIFA DRC Case 10131359 dated 31 October 2013 CAS 2009/A/1757 SFT 114 Ib 15 para. 3a

Frequently asked questions about Steaua Bucuresti v. Inter Milan

Did Steaua Bucuresti win training compensation from Inter Milan for Radu Ionut Andrei?

No. The CAS Sole Arbitrator dismissed Steaua's appeal and confirmed the FIFA DRC's decision. Because Pergolettese — not Inter Milan — was the first club to register the Player as a professional (on 3 July 2013), Inter owed no training compensation under Article 20 RSTP.

What is the bridge-transfer circumvention test applied in Steaua v. Inter Milan?

The Sole Arbitrator applied criteria from FIFA DRC cases and CAS 2009/A/1757: (1) how long the player stayed at the intermediate club; (2) whether the player had a genuine prior connection to that club; (3) whether a contract with the upper-level club was pre-arranged; and (4) whether there was a rational explanation for the transfer route. In this case all four factors pointed against circumvention, including the Player's five-month stay and his family's work-related relocation to Italy.

Does paying a player only the AIC minimum wage satisfy the RSTP definition of a professional?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that the AIC minimum wage of EUR 14,086 per year paid to the 16-year-old Player exceeded the expenses he effectively incurred, satisfying Article 2 RSTP's requirement that a professional 'is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs.' The contract with Pergolettese was therefore a valid professional contract.

How much did Inter Milan pay Pergolettese for the transfer, and did it affect the circumvention analysis?

Inter Milan paid Pergolettese a transfer sum of EUR 315,000. The Sole Arbitrator found this amount was significantly higher than the training compensation that would have been due had Inter signed the Player directly from Steaua, making it economically irrational to use Pergolettese merely to avoid training compensation. This supported the conclusion that no circumvention of Article 20 RSTP had occurred.

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.