CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9940 & CAS 2023/A/9941 — 1927 FK Shkupi v. FIFA & FC Aarau & FC Baden

"FK Shkupi" · CAS upheld FK Shkupi's appeal, setting aside FIFA training compensation decisions totalling EUR 90,876.72 because a valid waiver existed.

What happened in FK Shkupi

Player Stefan Mitrev (born 14 February 2003) trained as an amateur with FC Baden (4 August 2017 – 14 July 2019) and FC Aarau (22 July 2019 – 30 July 2021) before signing his first professional contract with FK Shkupi on 16 February 2023. Prior to that signing, on 9 December 2022, FC Aarau and FC Baden wrote to FK Shkupi waiving their training compensation claims in exchange for a 5% sell-on fee on any future transfer. FK Shkupi acknowledged the waiver on 15 December 2022. When the FIFA Clearing House EPP process was triggered, FK Shkupi failed to upload the waiver into TMS despite multiple reminders, including a final notice on 25 July 2023. FIFA consequently issued a Determination Statement (31 July 2023) and an Allocation Statement TC-1454 (2 August 2023) ordering FK Shkupi to pay EUR 90,876.72 in training compensation (EUR 60,739.73 to FC Aarau; EUR 30,136.99 to FC Baden). FK Shkupi appealed to CAS on 22 August 2023. The Sole Arbitrator held the appeal was timely, that CAS's de novo review power under Article R57 was not curtailed by the FCHR, and that the undisputed, authentic waiver required the Appealed Decisions to be set aside. The case matters because it confirms that a valid pre-existing waiver, even if not uploaded in TMS on time, can be considered by CAS on de novo review.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9940

On 31 July 2023 FIFA's General Secretariat issued the Determination Statement on EPP 18779, determining that FC Aarau and FC Baden were entitled to training compensation. On 2 August 2023 FIFA issued Allocation Statement TC-1454 ordering FK Shkupi to pay a total of EUR 90,876.72 (EUR 60,739.73 to FC Aarau; EUR 30,136.99 to FC Baden). Both documents were notified to FK Shkupi via TMS. On 22 August 2023 FK Shkupi filed Statements of Appeal with CAS, docketed as CAS 2023/A/9940 and CAS 2023/A/9941. The CAS Court Office initially queried whether the appeal against the Determination Statement was out of time (21-day deadline from 31 July 2023 would have expired 21 August 2023). The Sole Arbitrator resolved this by finding that the 21-day period ran from notification of the later Allocation Statement (2 August 2023), making the deadline 23 August 2023 and the appeal timely. FC Aarau and FC Baden did not file Answers. FIFA filed a consolidated Answer on 18 December 2023. The Sole Arbitrator decided on written submissions alone.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9940

• The Determination Statement and the Allocation Statement are two distinct appealable decisions, each carrying its own notice of legal remedies, but the 21-day appeal period runs from notification of the later Allocation Statement so as not to prejudice the appellant who relied on Article 10.5 of the FCHR.
• Neither the FCHR nor the Procedural Rules of the Football Tribunal restrict CAS's de novo power of review under Article R57 para. 1 of the Code; no FIFA regulation explicitly or implicitly freezes the evidentiary record at the date of the Appealed Decisions.
• Article R57 para. 3 of the Code grants the panel discretion to exclude previously available evidence, but absent abuse that discretion should be exercised in favour of admission where justice is better served by considering the evidence.
• A valid, undisputed and authentic waiver of training compensation by the entitled clubs, even if not uploaded to TMS during the EPP process, must be given effect by CAS on de novo review and requires the training compensation decisions to be set aside.
• Because FIFA contested FK Shkupi's claim rather than accepting it, FIFA must bear the full arbitration costs; FC Aarau and FC Baden, having neither caused the proceedings nor participated, bear no costs.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first resolved the admissibility question by noting that both the Determination Statement and the Allocation Statement contained separate notices of legal remedies, yet Article 10.5(d) of the FCHR treats them as a single appealable unit whose suspension requires a valid appeal against both. The contradiction between the individual notices and the FCHR could not operate to FK Shkupi's detriment; therefore the 21-day period ran from 2 August 2023, making the 22 August 2023 filing timely. On the merits, the Sole Arbitrator applied the de novo standard from CAS 2018/A/5808, holding that the reference date for assessing correctness is the date the panel deems itself sufficiently informed. He examined whether any FIFA regulation displaced that standard: Article 10 para. 3 of the Procedural Rules only addresses 'procedural disadvantages' in the FIFA process and does not limit CAS's mandate; Articles 10.5 and 18 of the FCHR are silent on restricting de novo review; Article 10.7 of the FCHR requires waivers to be uploaded to TMS but does not bar CAS from considering them if they were not. Turning to Article R57 para. 3, the Sole Arbitrator acknowledged FK Shkupi's negligence in failing to upload the waiver despite multiple TMS reminders, but following CAS 2020/A/6753 confined exclusion to cases of abuse. FIFA had not contested the waiver's authenticity, the waiver was undisputed as permissible under the rules, and there was no evidence of circumvention. Accordingly, the waiver was admitted and the Appealed Decisions set aside.

Why FK Shkupi matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that CAS's de novo review power under Article R57 of the Code is not curtailed by the FIFA Clearing House Regulations, even where a club negligently failed to upload a waiver during the EPP process. It draws a clear line between procedural disadvantages within the FIFA administrative process and the scope of CAS appellate jurisdiction, and confirms that Article R57 para. 3 exclusion is reserved for abuse rather than mere negligence, protecting clubs that hold valid pre-existing waivers.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5808 CAS 2020/A/6753 CAS 2022/A/8598

Frequently asked questions about FK Shkupi

Did FK Shkupi have to pay training compensation to FC Aarau and FC Baden?

No. Although FIFA's Allocation Statement TC-1454 ordered FK Shkupi to pay a total of EUR 90,876.72 (EUR 60,739.73 to FC Aarau and EUR 30,136.99 to FC Baden), CAS set both the Determination Statement and the Allocation Statement aside. The Sole Arbitrator found that a valid waiver signed on 9 December 2022 by FC Aarau and FC Baden, exchanging training compensation for a 5% sell-on fee, meant no training compensation was owed.

Can a training compensation waiver that was not uploaded to FIFA TMS during the EPP process still be used at CAS?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that neither the FCHR nor the Football Tribunal Procedural Rules restrict CAS's de novo power of review under Article R57 para. 1 of the Code. Article R57 para. 3 gives CAS discretion to exclude previously available evidence, but the panel confined that exclusion to cases of abuse; FK Shkupi's failure to upload the waiver was negligent but not abusive, and FIFA did not contest the waiver's authenticity.

Was the FK Shkupi appeal filed on time given that the Determination Statement was notified on 31 July 2023?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator found that the Determination Statement and the Allocation Statement are two distinct decisions, but Article 10.5 of the FCHR treats them as a single appealable unit. Because the Allocation Statement was only notified on 2 August 2023, the 21-day appeal period expired on 23 August 2023, making the 22 August 2023 filing timely. The Sole Arbitrator held that the contradiction between the individual notices of legal remedies and the FCHR could not operate to FK Shkupi's detriment.

Who paid the costs in the FK Shkupi v. FIFA CAS case?

FIFA was ordered to bear the full arbitration costs and to pay FK Shkupi CHF 2,000 as a contribution towards its legal fees. The Sole Arbitrator reasoned that although the CAS proceedings were necessitated by FK Shkupi's own procedural failure before FIFA, FIFA chose to contest the claim rather than accept it, so FIFA must bear the costs. FC Aarau and FC Baden, who neither caused the proceedings nor participated, were ordered to bear only their own expenses, if any.

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.