CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2017/A/5090 — Olympique des Alpes SA v. Genoa Cricket & Football Club

"Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa" · CAS confirmed that a loan does not break the training compensation chain, obliging Sion to pay Genoa EUR 55,000.

Award date	14 March 2018
Panel	President: Mr Manfred Nan; Arbitrators: Mr Daniele Moro; The Hon. Michael J. Beloff M.A. Q.C.
Outcome	Appeal dismissed; FIFA DRC Single Judge decision of 7 February 2017 confirmed; Sion ordered to pay Genoa EUR 55,000 plus 5% interest per annum from 3 October 2014 until effective payment; Sion to bear all arbitration costs and pay Genoa CHF 5,000 towards legal fees.
Provisions	Art. 20 FIFA RSTP (2014) — Training compensation Art. 10(1) FIFA RSTP (2014) — Loans Art. 1 Annex 4 FIFA RSTP (2014) — Objective / training period ages 12-23 Art. 2 Annex 4 FIFA RSTP (2014) — Payment of training compensation Art. 3(1) Annex 4 FIFA RSTP (2014) — Responsibility to pay training compensation / subsequent transfers Art. 2(1) Annex 6 FIFA RSTP — Obligation to check TMS Claims tab at least every three days Art. 9(4) FIFA RSTP — Sanctions for TMS non-compliance Art. R47 CAS Code — Appeal jurisdiction Art. R48 CAS Code — Admissibility requirements Art. R51 CAS Code — Appeal Brief Art. R54 CAS Code — Constitution of panel Art. R55 CAS Code — Answer Art. R57 CAS Code — Full power of review / de novo Art. R57(3) CAS Code — Discretion to exclude new evidence Art. R58 CAS Code — Applicable law Art. R64.4 CAS Code — Arbitration costs Art. R64.5 CAS Code — Allocation of costs and legal fees Art. 57(2) FIFA Statutes — CAS applies FIFA regulations and Swiss law Art. 58(1) FIFA Statutes (2016) — 21-day appeal deadline to CAS Art. 190(2)(c) Swiss PILS — Prohibition on going beyond claims submitted

What happened in Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa

Moussa Konate, a Senegalese player born 3 April 1993, was registered with Maccabi Tel Aviv (amateur, 2011/12), then transferred to FC Krasnodar (EUR 2,000,000 fee, August 2012), loaned to Genoa for the 2013/14 Serie A season, and subsequently transferred permanently to Sion in September 2014. Genoa claimed training compensation of EUR 57,205 from Sion via FIFA TMS. Sion did not respond to the FIFA proceedings. The FIFA DRC Single Judge on 7 February 2017 partially upheld Genoa's claim, ordering Sion to pay EUR 55,000 plus 5% interest per annum from 3 October 2014. Sion appealed to CAS, arguing that (i) the loan to Genoa triggered a break in the training compensation chain under Article 3(1) of Annex 4 FIFA RSTP, so only Krasnodar owed Genoa compensation, and (ii) the Player had already completed his training before joining Genoa. The CAS Panel dismissed both arguments, confirming that a loan does not interrupt the training period and that the Player had not completed his training before or during his time at Genoa. The award matters because it consolidates the well-established CAS jurisprudence that loan spells are excluded from the lending club's compensation period but do not sever the chain, and it applies a multi-factor, case-by-case analysis to the early-completion-of-training defence.

Procedural history of CAS 2017/A/5090

On 21 September 2016, Genoa lodged a training compensation claim of EUR 57,205 against Sion via FIFA TMS. Sion failed to respond despite being invited to do so. On 7 February 2017, the FIFA DRC Single Judge partially accepted Genoa's claim and ordered Sion to pay EUR 55,000 plus 5% interest per annum from 3 October 2014. The grounds were communicated on 20 March 2017. On 10 April 2017, Sion filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, seeking cancellation of the decision and a finding that no training compensation was owed. Genoa filed its Answer on 11 July 2017. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 21 November 2017. FIFA renounced intervention but provided its file and TMS screenshots. The Panel admitted new evidence and arguments submitted by Sion, finding Sion's non-participation in FIFA proceedings was negligent rather than in bad faith.

Key holdings in CAS 2017/A/5090

A loan of a player to another club does not interrupt the continuing training period for the purposes of training compensation under Article 3(1) of Annex 4 to the FIFA RSTP; the loan period is excluded from the lending club's compensable period but does not sever the chain.
The club that permanently acquires a player (Sion) is liable to pay training compensation to a club that trained the player on loan (Genoa), provided the relevant prerequisites in Article 20 and Annex 4 FIFA RSTP are fulfilled.
The burden of proving that a player completed his training before the age of 21 lies with the club asserting that fact, and the assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis considering multiple factors including match appearances, level of league, salary, transfer fee, and national team inclusion.
The mere fact that a player is part of a first team — as substitute or regular starter — does not per se mean he is no longer being trained for the purposes of training compensation.
Article R57(3) of the CAS Code grants panels discretion to exclude new evidence where a party acted in bad faith or abusively, but negligent non-participation in first-instance proceedings does not justify exclusion; legal arguments are not subject to exclusion under that provision at all.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel adopted the reasoning of CAS 2015/A/4335 and CAS 2014/A/3710 wholesale, finding those precedents 'exhaustively deal with the issue at hand in an entirely convincing way.' On the loan-chain question, it held that Article 3(1) of Annex 4 FIFA RSTP uses the word 'effectively' to ensure clubs are compensated only for training actually rendered; a loan does not constitute a permanent transfer and therefore does not reset the chain, but the loan period is carved out of the lending club's compensable window. On early completion of training, the Panel applied FIFA Circular Letter No. 801 and a multi-factor test drawn from CAS 2006/A/1029 and CAS 2014/A/3486, rejecting the view that regular A-team play is alone decisive. It found the Player had never played professionally for Maccabi Tel Aviv before his transfer, played only as a substitute at Krasnodar for between 1 and 32 minutes per match across 12 of 26 games, and was excluded from the Senegal national team from November 2012 to May 2014. The Panel discounted the Player's written statement that Genoa 'never trained' him because it was made during his employment with Sion and he was unavailable for cross-examination. On admissibility, the Panel distinguished negligence from bad faith and declined to exercise its Article R57(3) discretion to exclude Sion's new evidence.

Why Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces the settled CAS doctrine — crystallised in CAS 2014/A/3710 and CAS 2015/A/4335 — that a loan does not sever the training compensation chain but is carved out of the lending club's compensable period. It also provides a detailed application of the multi-factor, case-by-case test for early completion of training under FIFA Circular Letter No. 801, and clarifies that Article R57(3) CAS Code targets bad faith, not mere negligence, preserving the de novo character of CAS appeals.

Decision: Appeal dismissed; FIFA DRC Single Judge decision of 7 February 2017 confirmed; Sion ordered to pay Genoa EUR 55,000 plus 5% interest per annum from 3 October 2014 until effective payment; Sion to bear all arbitration costs and pay Genoa CHF 5,000 towards legal fees.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881 CAS 2014/A/3486 CAS 2015/A/4335 CAS 2014/A/3710 CAS 2013/A/3119 CAS 2012/A/2908

Frequently asked questions about Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa

Does a loan break the training compensation chain under FIFA RSTP?

No. The CAS Panel in Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa confirmed that a loan does not constitute a permanent transfer and therefore does not interrupt the training compensation chain under Article 3(1) of Annex 4 FIFA RSTP. The loan period is simply excluded from the lending club's compensable window, and the club that permanently acquires the player remains liable to compensate the loan club for the period it effectively trained the player.

Can a new club at CAS submit evidence it never filed in the FIFA proceedings?

Generally yes, unless the panel exercises its Article R57(3) CAS Code discretion to exclude it. In this case the Panel held that discretion should be reserved for bad faith or abusive conduct, not mere negligence. Because Genoa itself acknowledged Sion's failure to respond to the FIFA TMS claim was negligent rather than deliberate, the Panel admitted all of Sion's new evidence and legal arguments.

What factors determine whether a player has completed his training before age 21 for training compensation purposes?

The Panel applied a multi-factor, case-by-case test drawn from FIFA Circular Letter No. 801 and CAS jurisprudence including CAS 2006/A/1029 and CAS 2014/A/3486. Relevant factors include: regularity and role in the A-team, level of the league, salary and transfer fee, loan fee, national team inclusion, and public notoriety. Regular A-team play is an important but not decisive factor; the burden of proving early completion lies with the club asserting it.

Is a player who plays for a club's first team still being 'trained' for FIFA training compensation purposes?

Yes. The Panel in Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa expressly rejected the argument that inclusion in a first team means a player is no longer being trained. It held that the mere fact a player is part of the first team — whether as substitute or regular starter — does not per se mean he is outside the training compensation regime, and found that Konate was effectively trained by Genoa during the 2013/14 Serie A season.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Olympique des Alpes v. Genoa — free

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.