CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2017/A/5277 — FK Sarajevo v. KVC Westerlo

"FK Sarajevo v. Westerlo" · CAS upheld FK Sarajevo's conditional written waiver of training compensation as valid and binding, dismissing its EUR 279,166.67 claim.

What happened in FK Sarajevo v. Westerlo

FK Sarajevo trained player F. (born May 1995) from April 2010 until his contract expired on 1 January 2015. On 19 January 2015, Sarajevo's general manager issued a signed, stamped letter stating that Sarajevo would not claim training compensation from the player's new club provided that: (i) the new club paid 10% of any future net transfer fee, and (ii) the new club would not seek compensation if the player returned to Sarajevo. KVC Westerlo signed the player on 31 January 2015 and registered him on 10 February 2015. The player later left Westerlo for Slovakia free of charge in March 2016. Only then did Sarajevo demand EUR 279,166.67 in training compensation. The FIFA DRC rejected Sarajevo's claim on 9 February 2017, finding a valid waiver. Sarajevo appealed to CAS. The panel confirmed that Sarajevo was in principle entitled to training compensation under Article 20 and Annex 4 RSTP, but held that the 19 January 2015 letter constituted a clear, unequivocal, duly authorised unilateral waiver under Swiss law. The waiver did not require bilateral contractual form or written acceptance by Westerlo. Sarajevo's own conduct — waiting over 16 months before claiming — confirmed it had relied on the waiver. The appeal was dismissed. The case is significant for establishing that a unilateral written statement by a training club can constitute conclusive evidence of a valid training-compensation waiver without a bilateral transfer agreement.

Procedural history of CAS 2017/A/5277

FK Sarajevo filed a petition with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 19 July 2016 seeking training compensation of EUR 279,166.67 plus 5% interest per annum as of 19 February 2015 from KVC Westerlo for the professional registration of player F. The DRC, applying the RSTP edition 2014, issued its decision on 9 February 2017 rejecting the claim in full, finding that Sarajevo had clearly and unmistakably waived its right to training compensation through its letter of 19 January 2015. The grounds of the decision were notified to the parties on 21 July 2017. Sarajevo filed a statement of appeal with CAS on 9 August 2017 under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, requesting the DRC decision be set aside and that Westerlo be ordered to pay EUR 279,166.67 plus 5% interest. A three-member panel was constituted and a hearing was held on 11 January 2018 in Lausanne.

Key holdings in CAS 2017/A/5277

• A training club's right to training compensation under the RSTP may be validly waived under Swiss law, as no mandatory provision of the RSTP or Swiss law expressly prohibits such a waiver.
• A valid waiver of training compensation requires a clear and unequivocal declaration by the entitled club; implied waivers are not recognised under Swiss law or CAS/DRC jurisprudence.
• Only the club entitled to training compensation can waive that right; neither the player nor an agent can waive training compensation on behalf of the training club.
• A waiver of training compensation does not require a bilateral contractual agreement or written confirmation by the new club; a unilateral written statement by the training club constitutes compelling evidence of a valid waiver.
• A party's conduct — here, Sarajevo waiting over 16 months before claiming training compensation — can confirm that it relied on and was bound by its own conditional waiver.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied a four-part Swiss law framework for valid waivers: no contradiction with law/public policy/good morals; authority of the person making the waiver; clear language; and the waiving party must hold the right being renounced. On each limb, the panel found in Westerlo's favour. The RSTP contains no express prohibition on waiving training compensation, and Swiss law permits waivers unless expressly barred by mandatory provisions. The letter was signed by Sarajevo's general manager with the president's authorisation, on club letterhead with stamp, satisfying the authority requirement. The wording — 'FK Sarajevo will not ask for training compensation from the new club' — was held to be explicit and specific, not a blanket renunciation but an express conditional waiver of training compensation. The panel rejected Sarajevo's argument that bilateral contractual acceptance was required, reasoning that Swiss law imposes no formal requirement on unilateral waivers and that Westerlo's implicit acceptance (evidenced by the timeline of events and its conduct) sufficed under Article 6 CO. The panel applied the Swiss Vertrauensprinzip (principle of trust, Article 2 Swiss Civil Code) to interpret the declaration as Westerlo could and should have understood it in good faith. Sarajevo's 16-month delay in claiming was treated as decisive circumstantial evidence that it had itself relied on the conditional waiver.

Why FK Sarajevo v. Westerlo matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award provides the most detailed CAS analysis to date of the conditions for a valid waiver of training compensation under Swiss law and the RSTP. It authoritatively establishes that a unilateral written statement by the training club — without a bilateral transfer agreement or written acceptance by the new club — can constitute conclusive evidence of a valid waiver, and that the Vertrauensprinzip governs interpretation of such declarations. It also confirms that a training club's own post-waiver conduct is admissible to establish reliance.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2005/A/811 CAS 2006/A/1189 CAS 2005/A/1003 CAS 2003/A/506 CAS 2008/A/1468 CAS 2009/A/1810-1811

Frequently asked questions about FK Sarajevo v. Westerlo

Can a training club waive its FIFA training compensation in a unilateral letter without a transfer agreement?

Yes. The CAS panel in FK Sarajevo v. Westerlo held that a waiver of training compensation does not require a bilateral contractual agreement or written confirmation by the new club. A unilateral written statement from the entitled training club constitutes compelling evidence of a valid waiver, provided it is clear, unequivocal, and made by an authorised representative. The panel found that Sarajevo's letter of 19 January 2015, signed by its general manager with the president's authorisation on club letterhead, satisfied all requirements.

What are the legal requirements for a valid waiver of training compensation under Swiss law and the RSTP?

The CAS panel identified four cumulative requirements under Swiss law: (i) the waiver must not be contrary to law, public policy or good morals; (ii) the person making the waiver must have the authority to do so; (iii) the waiver must be made in clear and unequivocal language — implied waivers are not recognised; and (iv) the waiving party must actually hold the right being renounced. The panel confirmed that neither the RSTP nor Swiss law expressly prohibits waiver of training compensation, making such waivers permissible.

Can a player or agent waive training compensation on behalf of the training club in the FK Sarajevo v. Westerlo case?

No. The panel expressly held that only the club entitled to training compensation can waive that right. Neither the player nor an agent can be obliged towards a third club to waive training compensation that pertains to the training club. The panel cited DRC decisions Nos. 115377 and 86130B to confirm that agreements between the player and the new club have no legal effect on the former club's entitlement to training compensation.

How did FK Sarajevo's delay in claiming training compensation affect the outcome at CAS?

The panel treated Sarajevo's failure to claim training compensation for over 16 months — from the player's registration with Westerlo in February 2015 until May 2016 — as decisive evidence that Sarajevo itself had relied on the conditional waiver in its letter of 19 January 2015. The panel reasoned that a club owed EUR 279,166.67 would not have waited that long, and only claimed after learning the player had transferred to Slovakia free of charge, thereby triggering no 10% sell-on fee. This conduct confirmed the waiver was binding and irrevocable.

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.