CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10478 — Hapoel Tel Aviv FC v. FIFA

"Hapoel Tel Aviv" · CAS dismissed Hapoel Tel Aviv's appeal against a EUR 135,123.29 training compensation allocation because the beneficiary club, NYRB, was not joined as a respondent.

What happened in Hapoel Tel Aviv

Hapoel Tel Aviv FC registered American player Matthew Frank as a professional in August 2023, triggering the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR) Electronic Player Passport (EPP) procedure. The FIFA general secretariat determined that New York Red Bulls (NYRB) was entitled to training compensation of EUR 135,123.29, notified as Allocation Statement TC-6158 on 21 March 2024. Hapoel Tel Aviv appealed to CAS, arguing it had missed the EPP procedure due to a clerical oversight, that NYRB had subsequently waived its right to compensation, and alternatively that the correct compensation for the actual training period (19 February 2017 – 30 July 2018) should be only EUR 43,232.87. Critically, Hapoel Tel Aviv named only FIFA as respondent and did not join NYRB. FIFA's primary defence was that the appeal must fail for lack of passive mandatory litisconsortium: NYRB's substantive right to receive training compensation would be directly affected by any relief granted, yet NYRB had no opportunity to be heard as a party. The Sole Arbitrator agreed, holding that under Swiss law standing to be sued is a matter of substantive law, that NYRB's entitlement under the Appealed Decision gave it a direct legal interest, and that determining the dispute in NYRB's absence would violate the right to be heard. The appeal was dismissed and the Appealed Decision confirmed. The case matters because it reinforces that training clubs whose compensation entitlements are at stake are mandatory respondents in FCHR appeals before CAS.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10478

On 14 August 2023, Hapoel Tel Aviv registered Matthew Frank as a professional in the FIFA Transfer Matching System, triggering the FCHR EPP procedure. The FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit documentation, including waivers, on 27 February 2024 and again on 4 March 2024; the Club did not respond. On 13 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat approved EPP 28787, finding NYRB entitled to training compensation. On 21 March 2024, the Appealed Decision — comprising the EPP Determination and Allocation Statement TC-6158 directing Hapoel Tel Aviv to pay EUR 135,123.29 to NYRB — was notified. On 8 April 2024, Hapoel Tel Aviv filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, naming only FIFA as respondent. The Appellant later obtained an NYRB waiver dated 31 May 2024 and submitted it with its Appeal Brief filed on 3 June 2024. FIFA filed its Answer on 22 July 2024. A second round of submissions was ordered; the Appellant filed its Reply on 14 November 2024 and FIFA its Rejoinder on 18 November 2024. The Sole Arbitrator decided on written submissions without a hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10478

• Under Swiss law, standing to be sued (légitimation passive) is a matter of substantive law, not procedural law, and requires that a party be named as respondent whenever the requested relief would determine that party's substantive rights.
• NYRB, as the club whose entitlement to EUR 135,123.29 in training compensation under Allocation Statement TC-6158 would be directly affected by any annulment or reduction of the Appealed Decision, was a mandatory respondent whose absence required dismissal of the appeal.
• The presence of NYRB's CFO as a witness and the submission of an NYRB waiver do not substitute for NYRB's participation as a party, and cannot cure the failure to name NYRB as a respondent in the Statement of Appeal.
• An amended Exhibit 3 (the complete NYRB waiver showing the signatory's details) was inadmissible under Article R56 of the CAS Code because it was not 'new' evidence and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.
• The Appellant's request to amend its prayer for relief after filing the Appeal Brief was rejected under Article R56 of the CAS Code, as no exceptional circumstances were disclosed.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed jurisdiction under Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes and Article 10.5(b) FCHR, and admissibility given the Statement of Appeal was filed within 21 days of the 21 March 2024 notification. On the central issue, she applied the Swiss law concept of légitimation passive, noting that neither the FCHR, FIFA Statutes nor the CAS Code prescribes the proper respondents for an FCHR appeal, so Swiss law governs. She reasoned that the Appealed Decision created a concrete right in NYRB to receive EUR 135,123.29, and that every prayer for relief sought by Hapoel Tel Aviv — annulment, recognition of the waiver, or recalculation to EUR 43,232.87 — would alter that right. Determining the dispute without NYRB would therefore violate the right to be heard, a basic principle of procedural justice. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the Appellant's counter-arguments: that FIFA alone issued the decision was irrelevant to whether NYRB's rights were at stake; the disputed NYRB Waiver required a validity determination that could not be made in NYRB's absence; and a witness statement from NYRB's CFO could not substitute for party status. She found her conclusion consistent with CAS 2024/A/10514, CAS 2023/A/10002, CAS 2023/A/10009, and CAS 2023/A/10010. Having dismissed the appeal on this ground, she declined to address the merits of the waiver or the training period calculation.

Why Hapoel Tel Aviv matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates a growing line of CAS jurisprudence — alongside CAS 2024/A/10514, CAS 2023/A/10002, CAS 2023/A/10009, and CAS 2023/A/10010 — establishing that a training club whose compensation entitlement is at stake under the FIFA Clearing House Regulations is a mandatory respondent in any CAS appeal. Clubs challenging EPP determinations must join the beneficiary training club in their Statement of Appeal or face dismissal regardless of the merits, including even where the training club has purportedly waived its rights.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2024/A/10514 CAS 2023/A/10002 CAS 2023/A/10009 CAS 2023/A/10010 CAS 2023/A/9682 CAS 2023/A/10050 VšĮ Telšių Futbolo Ateitis v. FK Arsenal, OFK Grbalj, FK Budva & FIFA

Frequently asked questions about Hapoel Tel Aviv

Why did CAS dismiss the Hapoel Tel Aviv appeal even though NYRB had signed a waiver giving up its training compensation?

The Sole Arbitrator held that NYRB's right to receive EUR 135,123.29 under Allocation Statement TC-6158 was a substantive right that would be directly affected by any relief granted to Hapoel Tel Aviv. Because NYRB was not named as a respondent in the Statement of Appeal, determining the dispute — including the validity of the waiver — in NYRB's absence would violate NYRB's right to be heard, a basic principle of procedural justice under Swiss law. The appeal was therefore dismissed without reaching the merits of the waiver.

Can a club avoid joining the training club as a respondent in a FIFA Clearing House appeal by submitting a witness statement from the training club's representative?

No. The Sole Arbitrator expressly held that the presence of NYRB's CFO as a witness and the submission of the NYRB waiver as evidence did not substitute for NYRB's participation as a party. A witness statement cannot fill the procedural gap created by a failure to name the training club as a mandatory respondent in the Statement of Appeal filed under Article R48 of the CAS Code.

What is the deadline and procedure for appealing a FIFA Clearing House EPP determination and Allocation Statement to CAS?

Under Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes and Article 10.5(b) FCHR, the EPP determination and corresponding Allocation Statement constitute a final decision of the FIFA general secretariat that may be jointly appealed to CAS within 21 days of notification. In this case the Appealed Decision was notified on 21 March 2024 and the Statement of Appeal was filed on 8 April 2024, which the Sole Arbitrator confirmed was within the 21-day deadline. The appellant must identify all respondents — including the beneficiary training club — in the Statement of Appeal.

If a club misses the FIFA Clearing House EPP review process and fails to upload a waiver, can it submit the waiver for the first time in a CAS appeal?

The Sole Arbitrator did not decide this merits question because the appeal was dismissed for failure to join NYRB as a respondent. However, FIFA argued — and the award records — that the FCHR requires waivers to be uploaded during the EPP procedure under Article 9.7 FCHR, that the Appellant was expressly invited to do so on 27 February 2024 and 4 March 2024 and did not respond, and that admitting the waiver at CAS level would circumvent the FCHR system. The Sole Arbitrator left this question open for a case where the training club is properly joined.

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.