CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10694 — JSC FC Lokomotiv v. FC Mariupol

"Lokomotiv v. Mariupol" · CAS confirmed Lokomotiv must pay Mariupol EUR 49,808.22 training compensation for player Mampassi, rejecting waiver and early-training-termination defences.

What happened in Lokomotiv v. Mariupol

FC Mariupol had the player Mark Mampassi (born 12 March 2003) on loan from Shakhtar Donetsk under two successive loan agreements (February–June 2021 and July 2021–January 2022). Each loan agreement contained a clause by which Mariupol waived its right to claim training compensation 'in favor of the release club' Shakhtar Donetsk. In December 2021 Lokomotiv permanently acquired Mampassi from Shakhtar Donetsk; the transfer agreement stated the fee included training compensation. Mariupol then claimed EUR 49,808.22 training compensation from Lokomotiv before the FIFA DRC, which awarded the full amount plus 5% p.a. interest from 28 February 2022. Lokomotiv appealed to CAS, arguing (i) Mariupol had contractually waived its training-compensation rights against any club, including Lokomotiv, and (ii) Mampassi had evidently terminated his training period before age 21. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed both grounds. The waiver clauses, fashioned expressly 'in favor of' Shakhtar Donetsk, could not bind Lokomotiv as a non-party under the privity-of-contracts principle. On early termination, the high 'evident' threshold of Annexe 4, Art. 1(1) FIFA RSTP was not met: Mampassi had never played for Ukraine's senior or U-21 side, was not an established youth-team player, and Lokomotiv's own transfer agreement acknowledged training compensation was still owed. The FIFA DRC decision was confirmed in full.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10694

On 27 January 2023 FC Mariupol lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) seeking EUR 49,808.22 training compensation plus 5% interest from Lokomotiv for the permanent transfer of player Mampassi. Lokomotiv contested entitlement, arguing waiver and early training termination. By decision Ref. No. 12248 of 4 September 2023 (grounds notified via TMS on 6 June 2024), the FIFA DRC accepted Mariupol's claim in full and ordered Lokomotiv to pay EUR 49,808.22 plus 5% p.a. interest from 28 February 2022. Lokomotiv filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS on 27 June 2024 and its Appeal Brief on 7 July 2024. Mariupol filed its Answer on 17 September 2024. The parties agreed to proceed on written submissions only. The Order of Procedure was signed by both parties on 16 December 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10694

• A waiver of training compensation contained in a loan agreement between a former club and a loan club, expressly fashioned 'in favor of the release club', cannot bind a registering club that was not a party to that agreement, by virtue of the privity-of-contracts principle.
• The responsibility to pay training compensation is incumbent on the registering club and cannot be displaced by a clause in a loan agreement to which the registering club is not a party.
• The threshold for establishing early termination of a player's training period under Annexe 4, Art. 1(1) FIFA RSTP is high: termination must be 'evident', meaning there must be absolutely no room for doubt, and the burden lies with the party asserting it.
• Participation in youth representative teams alone is insufficient to establish evident early termination of training; the player must also have played regularly for the first team, been called up for the senior or at least U-21 national team, or been transferred for significant compensation.
• A registering club's own acknowledgement in its transfer agreement that training compensation is included in the transfer fee is contradictory to, and undermines, its subsequent claim that the player's training period had already terminated before the loan period in question.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator addressed two issues sequentially. On the waiver question, he applied the general principle of inter partes effect of contracts: the waiver clauses in the loan agreements were directed 'in favor of the release club' (Shakhtar Donetsk) and Lokomotiv was not a party to either agreement. No contractual mechanism extended the waiver's effect to Lokomotiv, so the FIFA DRC's conclusion that the registering club's obligation cannot be displaced by a third-party loan clause was upheld. On early training termination, the Arbitrator applied the strict 'evident' standard of Annexe 4, Art. 1(1) FIFA RSTP, citing CAS 2018/A/5513 and the FIFA Commentary (2023 edition, p. 366) for the cumulative factors required. He found that Mampassi had played only 16 matches across three youth representative teams over three years, had never appeared for Ukraine's senior or U-21 side, that the loan was between clubs of formally the same league but materially different standing (Shakhtar being a Champions League club), and that salary and social-media notoriety were not determinative. Critically, the Arbitrator noted an internal contradiction in Lokomotiv's position: clause 3.1.e of its own transfer agreement with Shakhtar acknowledged training compensation was embedded in the fee, negating the claim that training had already ended before the loan period. The Respondent's nemo potest venire contra factum proprium argument was thus implicitly accepted as reinforcing the conclusion.

Why Lokomotiv v. Mariupol matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces two pillars of FIFA training-compensation jurisprudence: first, that privity of contract strictly limits the reach of waiver clauses in loan agreements, so a registering club cannot shelter behind a waiver it never agreed to; second, that the 'evident' early-termination threshold is genuinely high and requires a combination of objective indicators, not merely youth-team appearances or salary levels. The panel's use of a party's own transfer-agreement language as evidence against its litigation position adds a practical estoppel dimension to the early-termination analysis.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5513 Sport Club Internacional v. Hellas Verona Football Club S.p.A., award of 25 February 2019 CAS 2023/A/9730 FK Erzeni v. FC 2Korriku & FIFA, award of 22 April 2024 CAS 2021/A/7912 Olympiakos Nicosia v. Club Necaxa, award of 29 March 2023

Frequently asked questions about Lokomotiv v. Mariupol

Can a loan agreement waiver of training compensation bind the future registering club in Lokomotiv v. Mariupol?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the waiver clauses in Mariupol's loan agreements with Shakhtar Donetsk were fashioned expressly 'in favor of the release club' and Lokomotiv was not a party to either agreement. Under the privity-of-contracts principle, those clauses had no impact on Lokomotiv's obligation to pay training compensation to Mariupol.

What standard must be met to prove a player evidently terminated his training before 21 under FIFA RSTP Annexe 4?

The threshold is high: termination must be 'evident', meaning there is absolutely no room for doubt. CAS and the FIFA DRC require a combination of factors to apply simultaneously, including regular first-team appearances, call-up to the senior or U-21 national team, loan in return for transfer compensation to a club at the same level or above, a certain age threshold, or a previous significant transfer fee. In this case, Mampassi had only 16 youth-team appearances across three years and had never played for Ukraine's senior or U-21 side, so the threshold was not met.

Did Lokomotiv's own transfer agreement with Shakhtar affect the early-termination argument in this case?

Yes. Clause 3.1.e of the transfer agreement between Lokomotiv and Shakhtar Donetsk stated that the transfer fee included training compensation pursuant to Articles 20 and 21 FIFA RSTP. The Sole Arbitrator found this internally contradictory with Lokomotiv's claim that Mampassi's training had already terminated before his loan to Mariupol in February 2021, and used it as additional grounds to reject the early-termination defence.

How much training compensation was Lokomotiv ordered to pay Mariupol and from what date does interest run?

Lokomotiv was ordered to pay EUR 49,808.22 as training compensation, plus 5% interest per annum on that amount as from 28 February 2022 until the date of effective payment. This was the amount originally awarded by the FIFA DRC on 4 September 2023 and confirmed in full by CAS on 22 May 2025.

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.