CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10427 — Right to Dream FC v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association

"Right to Dream" · CAS annulled FIFA's Electronic Player Passport determination and remitted the solidarity contribution dispute to FIFA for reconsideration with the GFA.

What happened in Right to Dream

Right to Dream FC (RTD), a Ghanaian club, claimed solidarity contribution for training player Ernest Nuamah Appiah during the period 1 August 2015 to 18 March 2019 (ages 12–16). When Appiah transferred from FC Nordsjælland to Racing White Daring Molenbeek on 31 August 2023, FIFA's Electronic Player Passport (EPP No. 30421) showed the Player registered with the now-defunct Stadium Youth Club during that contested period. Under Annex 5, Article 2(4) RSTP, FIFA awarded the solidarity contribution to the Ghana Football Association (GFA) in place of the disaffiliated club. RTD argued the EPP was wrong and that it had trained the Player throughout that period, producing an affidavit from the Player, an affidavit from a former co-owner of Stadium Youth Club, match reports, and a revised EPP generated for the Player's subsequent move to Lyon. FIFA opposed the appeal primarily on the ground that the GFA — the entity whose financial rights would be affected — had not been joined as a respondent. The Sole Arbitrator agreed that deciding the merits without the GFA would violate its right to be heard, but exercised the discretion under Article R57 CAS Code to annul the Appealed Decision and refer the matter back to FIFA rather than simply dismissing the appeal. The case matters because it clarifies that a missing mandatory respondent does not automatically doom an appeal: CAS may instead remit to the first-instance body so that the affected third party can be properly heard.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10427

On 23 February 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat issued its determination on EPP No. 30421, awarding the solidarity contribution for the contested period to the GFA on behalf of the disaffiliated Stadium Youth Club pursuant to Annex 5, Article 2(4) RSTP. RTD was notified the same day. On 15 March 2024, RTD filed a joint Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief at CAS within the 21-day deadline, requesting that the EPP be corrected to reflect RTD's registration of the Player from 2 December 2013 to 27 January 2022. RTD named only FIFA as respondent. FIFA answered on 10 May 2024, arguing (a) lack of standing due to the GFA's absence as a mandatory respondent and (b) that the Appealed Decision complied with the RSTP and FCHR. A second round of written submissions followed, including responses to specific questions posed by the Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator declared himself sufficiently informed on 10 December 2024 and proceeded without a hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10427

• The GFA is a mandatory respondent in any CAS appeal that would deprive it of solidarity contribution awarded under Annex 5, Article 2(4) RSTP, because such a decision directly affects its financial rights and right to be heard.
• The failure to join a mandatory respondent does not automatically require dismissal of the appeal; under Article R57 CAS Code the Sole Arbitrator may instead annul the challenged decision and refer the matter back to the first-instance body.
• Under Articles R41.2 and R41.3 CAS Code, neither FIFA nor the GFA is obliged to join or intervene upon the Appellant's demand; it is the Appellant's responsibility under Article R48 to identify and summon all necessary respondents.
• FIFA's legitimate-expectation argument — that by not calling the GFA in time the Appellant created a final and binding EPP — was rejected where correspondence between the Appellant and the GFA continued after the final EPP and the GFA itself appeared to have amended registration data in a subsequent EPP process.
• New evidence produced during CAS proceedings that was not before FIFA (including player affidavits, club affidavits, match reports, and a revised EPP) may justify remittal so that FIFA can assess that evidence together with the GFA.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator identified two main issues: standing (absence of the GFA) and scope of review under Article R57. On standing, he accepted FIFA's position that any decision on the merits would inextricably affect the GFA's financial rights and right to be heard, since overturning the Appealed Decision would effectively transfer solidarity contribution from the GFA to RTD. He rejected the Appellant's argument that the GFA had implicitly waived its entitlement by providing different data in the subsequent EPP for the Player's move to Lyon, finding the position uncertain without the GFA as a party. He also rejected FIFA's legitimate-expectation argument, noting ongoing correspondence between RTD and the GFA and the GFA's apparent amendment of registration data in EPP-44483. On scope of review, the Sole Arbitrator relied on Article R57 CAS Code and the principle articulated in CAS 2023/A/8679 that a panel has full discretion to annul and remit without any party request. He reasoned that new evidence — including affidavits and the revised EPP — had emerged during the CAS proceedings that FIFA had not yet assessed with the GFA, and that the need for a correct outcome outweighed procedural finality. Remittal to FIFA was therefore the proportionate remedy.

Why Right to Dream matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award establishes that in EPP/solidarity-contribution disputes a national association that stands to receive funds is a mandatory respondent at CAS, and that omitting it does not automatically doom the appeal. Instead, CAS may exercise its Article R57 discretion to annul and remit, preserving the third party's right to be heard at first-instance level. The case also signals that new evidence emerging during CAS proceedings — including revised EPPs generated for subsequent transfers — can justify remittal rather than a final merits ruling.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2008/A/1751 CAS 2008/O/1808 CAS 2013/A/3228 CAS 2018/A/6044 CAS 2022/A/9238 CAS 2023/A/8679

Frequently asked questions about Right to Dream

Why did Right to Dream lose its appeal even though it had evidence the EPP was wrong?

The Sole Arbitrator found that the Ghana Football Association (GFA) was a mandatory respondent because overturning the Appealed Decision would directly deprive the GFA of the solidarity contribution awarded to it under Annex 5, Article 2(4) RSTP. Because RTD had not named the GFA as a respondent, deciding the merits would have violated the GFA's right to be heard. Rather than dismissing the appeal outright, the Sole Arbitrator annulled the FIFA decision and referred the matter back to FIFA so the GFA could be properly involved.

How much solidarity contribution was Right to Dream FC claiming in the Ernest Nuamah case?

RTD calculated the disputed solidarity contribution at a minimum of EUR 283,919.20, based on a fixed transfer fee of EUR 25,000,000 for the Player's move from FC Nordsjælland to Racing White Daring Molenbeek on 31 August 2023. This comprised EUR 256,511.16 for the four full calendar years (ages 12–15) and EUR 27,408.04 prorated for 78 days in 2019 (age 15–16).

Can a CAS panel remit a case back to FIFA even if the appellant did not formally request it?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator relied on Article R57 CAS Code and the principle stated in CAS 2023/A/8679 that a CAS panel has full discretion to annul a decision and refer the case back to the previous instance without any particular request from the parties. In this case, remittal was chosen because new evidence had emerged during the CAS proceedings that FIFA had not yet assessed together with the GFA.

What happens to solidarity contribution when the training club no longer exists under the RSTP?

Under Annex 5, Article 2(4) RSTP (February 2024 edition) and Annex 4, Article 3.3 / Annex 5, Article 2.3 RSTP (May 2023 edition), when the club that trained the player has been disaffiliated or no longer exists, the solidarity contribution that would have been due to that club is instead awarded to the relevant national association — in this case the GFA received the amount that would otherwise have gone to the defunct Stadium Youth Club.

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.