CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10551 — Espérance Sportive Troyes Aube Champagne (ESTAC) v. Torino Football Club S.P.A. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

"ESTAC v. Torino" · ESTAC's training compensation claim failed because it did not prove its contract offer to the player equalled his existing contract value.

What happened in ESTAC v. Torino

This case concerned ESTAC's claim for training compensation following Torino's registration of player Ali Bina Dembele (born 5 January 2004). The player had been registered with ESTAC as an amateur from 6 July 2018, then as a professional from 1 August 2020 until 1 July 2022. He joined Torino as an amateur on 28 July 2022 and signed a professional contract on 17 July 2023. The FIFA General Secretariat issued a decision on 17 April 2024 finding no club was entitled to training compensation, reasoning that the player had reacquired professional status and only the club with which he was registered as an amateur immediately prior to re-registration could claim compensation. ESTAC appealed to CAS, arguing either that the player was a professional from July 2022 or, alternatively, that Torino owed training compensation under Article 3(2) FIFA RSTP as the player regained professional status within a short period. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal on a threshold ground: ESTAC failed to prove that its contract offer of 25 April 2022 was at least of equivalent value to the player's existing first employment contract, as required by Article 6(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP. ESTAC never produced the first employment contract concluded on 1 August 2020, making it impossible to assess equivalence. The case is significant for emphasising that training clubs bear the full burden of proving compliance with Article 6(3) Annexe 4 requirements and cannot rely on CAS panels to cure evidentiary omissions.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10551

On 17 April 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat notified the final Electronic Players' Passport (EPP) determination, concluding that no club was entitled to training compensation for player Ali Bina Dembele. The FIFA GS reasoned that the player had reacquired professional status after originally terminating professional activity with ESTAC on 1 July 2022, and that only the club with which the player was registered as an amateur directly prior to re-registration as a professional could claim training compensation. ESTAC filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 6 May 2024, challenging this decision and requesting annulment and an order that Torino pay training compensation of at least EUR 239,534.25 plus 5% annual interest. ESTAC filed its Appeal Brief on 6 June 2024; Torino and FIFA filed their Answers on 5 and 8 July 2024 respectively. A hearing was held by videoconference on 23 January 2025. FIFA did not attend the hearing. The Sole Arbitrator issued his award on 17 April 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10551

• ESTAC failed to prove that its contract offer of 25 April 2022 was at least of equivalent value to the player's first employment contract, as required by Article 6(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, because it never produced the first employment contract concluded on 1 August 2020.
• Where a former club fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, no training compensation is payable, rendering all other disputed issues non-determinative.
• The CAS panel's power under Article R44.3 CAS Code to order production of additional documents is discretionary, not obligatory, and a panel should not exercise it to substitute for a party's own burden of proof.
• Each party bears the burden of proving the facts necessary to establish its claim, consistent with the principle 'ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat', and cannot rely on the panel's ex officio powers to cure evidentiary omissions.
• The Appealed Decision of the FIFA General Secretariat dated 17 April 2024, finding no club entitled to training compensation, was confirmed.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator addressed Torino's alternative argument under Article 6(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP first, finding it dispositive. The provision requires that a former club's contract offer to a player be at least of equivalent value to the player's current contract; if this is not proven, no training compensation is payable. ESTAC offered the player a trainee contract on 25 April 2022, which was timely (at least 60 days before the expiry of the first employment contract on 1 July 2022). However, ESTAC never submitted the first employment contract of 1 August 2020 into evidence, making it impossible to assess equivalence. Even after Torino explicitly raised this argument in its Answer, ESTAC did not seek leave to produce the contract under Article R56 CAS Code. Only at the very end of the hearing did ESTAC indicate willingness to provide it if deemed necessary. The Sole Arbitrator declined to order production ex officio, reasoning that CAS operates an adversarial rather than inquisitorial system, that the discretion under Article R44.3 should not be used to help a party cure its own omission, and that doing so would unjustifiably disadvantage Torino. ESTAC's unsupported reference to a domestic FFF regulatory regime that would allegedly make the offer necessarily equivalent was rejected for lack of evidence. Having dismissed the claim on this ground, the Sole Arbitrator found it unnecessary to decide whether the player was a professional from July 2022 or whether Article 3(2) FIFA RSTP applied.

Why ESTAC v. Torino matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that a training club's failure to produce its own first employment contract with a player is fatal to a training compensation claim under Article 6(3) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, as equivalence of the new offer cannot be assessed. It also reaffirms the adversarial nature of CAS proceedings and the strictly discretionary character of the panel's ex officio evidence-gathering power under Article R44.3 CAS Code, confirming that panels will not exercise that power to rescue a party from its own evidentiary omissions.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2003/O/506 CAS 2014/A/3546

Frequently asked questions about ESTAC v. Torino

Why did ESTAC lose its training compensation claim against Torino in the CAS 2024/A/10551 case?

ESTAC lost because it failed to produce the player's first employment contract concluded on 1 August 2020, making it impossible for the Sole Arbitrator to verify that ESTAC's contract offer of 25 April 2022 was at least of equivalent value as required by Article 6(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP. Without proof of equivalence, the provision expressly states that no training compensation is payable. The Sole Arbitrator declined to order production of the contract ex officio, finding it would improperly substitute for ESTAC's own burden of proof.

Did CAS decide whether Ali Bina Dembele was a professional or amateur when he joined Torino in July 2022?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found it unnecessary to resolve this question because ESTAC's claim was dismissed on the threshold ground of Article 6(3) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP. The question of whether the player was a professional from 28 July 2022 and the alternative argument under Article 3(2) FIFA RSTP regarding re-registration 'shortly afterwards' were both rendered non-determinative by the finding on Article 6(3).

What does the ESTAC v. Torino CAS award say about a panel's power to order document production under Article R44.3 CAS Code?

The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that the power under Article R44.3 CAS Code to order additional document production is discretionary, not obligatory, and that CAS operates an adversarial rather than inquisitorial system. He declined to order ESTAC to produce its first employment contract with the player, reasoning that doing so at such a late stage would amount to helping ESTAC cure an omission for which it had only itself to blame, thereby unjustifiably disadvantaging Torino.

How much training compensation was ESTAC claiming from Torino, and what interest rate did it seek?

ESTAC claimed training compensation of at least EUR 239,534.25 from Torino. It sought interest at a rate of 5% per annum, running from 28 August 2022 until the date of actual payment under its primary claim, or from 18 August 2023 under its alternative claim based on Article 3(2) FIFA RSTP.

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.