CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10673 — Torres S.r.l v. FIFA & Club Atlético Independiente & Asociación Atlética Argentinos Juniors

"Torres v. FIFA" · CAS annulled a FIFA Clearing House training-compensation allocation and remitted it for a new EPP after new contracts raised doubts about the player's amateur status.

What happened in Torres v. FIFA

Torres S.r.l, an Italian club, registered Argentine player Patricio Alexis Goglino as a professional on 10 October 2023, triggering a FIFA Clearing House (FCH) Electronic Player Passport (EPP) review. On 31 May 2024, FIFA approved EPP Nr. 32649 and issued an Allocation Statement requiring Torres to pay EUR 107,561.64 in training rewards to Club Atlético Independiente and Asociación Atlética Argentinos Juniors. Torres appealed to CAS, arguing that contracts with Italian clubs US Breno and Desenzano Calcio showed the player had already acquired professional status under Art. 2 para. 2 RSTP before joining Torres, meaning the training-compensation trigger under Art. 5 FCHR had not been met. FIFA opposed admission of the new contracts, arguing Torres had over 133 days and three explicit requests to upload them during the EPP process. The Sole Arbitrator admitted the evidence, finding Torres acted negligently but not in bad faith or abuse of procedural rights, consistent with recent CAS jurisprudence. Because Desenzano Calcio and US Breno were not parties and could not be bound, a final ruling on professional status was impossible; the award therefore annulled the Appealed Decisions and remitted the matter to the FIFA general secretariat to generate a new EPP and Allocation Statement. The case matters because it reaffirms the de novo standard under Art. R57 and limits exclusion of late evidence to genuine bad faith.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10673

On 10 October 2023, Torres registered the Player as a professional, automatically generating a provisional EPP. The EPP was released for review on 23 October 2023 and the review process closed on 15 May 2024. FIFA contacted Torres on 15 May, 22 May and 25 May 2024 requesting relevant documents; Torres did not upload any. On 31 May 2024, FIFA approved EPP Nr. 32649 and issued an Allocation Statement ordering Torres to pay EUR 107,561.64 in training rewards to Independiente and Argentinos Juniors. Torres filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 21 June 2024, within the 21-day limit under Art. 57 para. 1 FIFA Statutes. Torres filed its Appeal Brief on 11 July 2024. Argentinos Juniors answered on 30 September 2024; FIFA answered on 25 October 2024; Independiente filed no answer. A hearing was held on 28 January 2025. Torres asked CAS to set aside the Appealed Decisions and order FIFA to generate a new EPP.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10673

• No provision in the FIFA regulations restricts the CAS Sole Arbitrator's full de novo power under Art. R57 para. 1 of the Code in EPP/training-compensation appeals.
• Evidence not submitted during the FCH EPP review process may be admitted before CAS absent bad faith or abuse of procedural rights, even where the appellant acted negligently.
• A player is a professional under Art. 2 para. 2 RSTP if, cumulatively, they have a written contract and are paid more for their footballing activity than the expenses they effectively incur, regardless of whether they earn a living from football alone.
• Failure to join all relevant parties (here Desenzano Calcio and US Breno) does not automatically require dismissal of the appeal; the Panel may instead limit the scope of its review or remit the matter.
• Where new evidence raises considerable doubt as to whether the training-compensation trigger under Art. 5 FCHR occurred, the Sole Arbitrator may annul the Appealed Decision and refer it back to the previous instance under Art. R57 para. 1 of the Code.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first determined the scope of review. Citing CAS 2023/A/9940-9941 and CAS 2023/A/9730, he confirmed that no FIFA regulation restricts the de novo standard in EPP cases. He then assessed whether Art. R57 para. 3 warranted exclusion of Torres's new contracts. Applying CAS 2023/A/9995 and CAS 2023/A/9895–9917, he rejected FIFA's argument that negligent non-submission during the EPP process equates to bad faith: Torres had nothing to gain by withholding the contracts, and the Respondents did not substantially challenge their authenticity. He distinguished CAS 2023/A/9682, which involved a party that had culpably failed to meet preclusive deadlines, finding that case inapplicable. On the merits, the Sole Arbitrator examined the Desenzano Calcio contract (EUR 10,000 for eleven months, approximately EUR 910/month, no board and lodging reimbursement) and the US Breno contract (EUR 2,000 for four and a half months, approximately EUR 445/month) against the low financial threshold in Art. 2 para. 2 RSTP and the Commentary's case-by-case approach. He found reasonable grounds to doubt that the Art. 5 FCHR trigger applied. However, because Desenzano Calcio and US Breno were absent, a binding ruling was impossible, so he annulled and remitted rather than dismissed.

Why Torres v. FIFA matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award consolidates the post-2023 CAS line that negligent failure to submit documents during the FCH EPP review process does not, without more, constitute bad faith or abuse sufficient to exclude evidence under Art. R57 para. 3. It also confirms that no FIFA regulation carves out an exception to the de novo standard in FCH cases, and it illustrates how the low financial threshold of Art. 2 para. 2 RSTP can displace training-compensation obligations even for lower-division Italian clubs, provided the relevant contracts are properly examined.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5808 CAS 2023/A/9940-9941 CAS 2023/A/9730 CAS 2023/A/9682 CAS 2023/A/9995 CAS 2023/A/9895-9917

Frequently asked questions about Torres v. FIFA

Can a club introduce new player contracts at CAS that it never uploaded during the FIFA Clearing House EPP review process?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that Torres acted negligently by not uploading the contracts despite three explicit FIFA requests over 133 days, but negligence alone does not constitute bad faith or abuse of procedural rights under Art. R57 para. 3 of the CAS Code. Because the Respondents did not substantially challenge the authenticity of the contracts, the evidence was admitted and assessed on the merits.

What salary level makes a player a 'professional' under Art. 2 para. 2 RSTP for training compensation purposes?

The threshold is deliberately low and case-specific: the player must have a written contract and receive more than the expenses effectively incurred for their footballing activity. In this case the Sole Arbitrator found the Desenzano Calcio contract (approximately EUR 910 per month with no board and lodging reimbursement) and the US Breno contract (approximately EUR 445 per month) provided reasonable grounds to treat the player as a professional, consistent with the FIFA Commentary's examples including GBP 400/month in England and EUR 250/month plus food and accommodation in Portugal.

What happens when a CAS appellant fails to join clubs whose contracts are central to the dispute?

The award confirms that non-joinder does not automatically require dismissal. Citing CAS 2013/A/3437, the Sole Arbitrator noted that the consequence is that the Panel may decline to make orders against absent parties or limit its review. Here, because Desenzano Calcio had not even been included in the EPP review process and could not be bound, the Sole Arbitrator annulled the Appealed Decisions and remitted the matter to the FIFA general secretariat to generate a new EPP and Allocation Statement.

Does the FIFA Clearing House process restrict CAS's de novo review power in training compensation appeals?

No. The Sole Arbitrator followed CAS 2023/A/9940-9941 and CAS 2023/A/9730 in holding that there is no provision or principle in the FIFA regulations that demands an exception from the de novo principle in EPP/training-compensation cases. FIFA's argument that admitting late documents would undermine FCH integrity and open the door to forgery was rejected as unproven to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.