CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10795 — Fodboldalliancen AC Horsens A/S & Tudor-Stefan Cocu v. FIFA

"AC Horsens & Cocu" · CAS confirmed FIFA's refusal to approve the international transfer of a 16-year-old minor to a Danish second-division club that held only a Category III training classification.

What happened in AC Horsens & Cocu

AC Horsens, a Danish second-division club, sought to sign Tudor-Stefan Cocu, a 16-year-old Romanian player, under the EU/EEA exception in Article 19.2(b) RSTP. On 21 June 2024 the clubs signed a transfer agreement for €150,000; on 5 July 2024 an employment agreement was concluded. The DBU submitted a minor-transfer application to FIFA's Player Status Chamber on 12 July 2024. On 22 July 2024 the PSC rejected the application because AC Horsens held a Category III training classification — the second-lowest of the DBU's three categories (II–IV) — and therefore could not satisfy the 'highest national standards' requirement of Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP. AC Horsens and the player appealed to CAS on 12 August 2024. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, holding that Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP expressly cross-references Article 4, Annexe 4 RSTP, making the FIFA training-cost category system the sole legally relevant criterion. The DBU's internal academy-licensing system was legally irrelevant. The award also found that AC Horsens had failed to provide a structured in-person academic education plan, relying only on online schooling. The case matters because it authoritatively interprets the 'cf.' cross-reference in Article 19.2(b)(iii) as mandatory and forecloses reliance on national internal classification systems to satisfy the highest-standards requirement.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10795

On 12 July 2024 the DBU submitted, on behalf of AC Horsens, an application for prior approval of the international transfer of minor Tudor-Stefan Cocu to the FIFA Player Status Chamber via TMS (reference G-0002851). On 22 July 2024 the Single Judge of the PSC rejected the application, finding that AC Horsens held a Category III training classification — the second-lowest of the DBU's three categories — and therefore could not satisfy Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP. The grounds were communicated on 25 July 2024. On 12 August 2024 AC Horsens and the player jointly filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the Code, also requesting provisional measures. On 30 August 2024 the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division dismissed the provisional-measures application. An appeal brief was filed on 23 August 2024; FIFA's answer was filed on 17 October 2024. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 22 November 2024. The operative part of the award was issued on 18 December 2024 and the full award on 5 May 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10795

• The cross-reference 'cf. Annexe 4, article 4' in Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP is mandatory, making the FIFA training-cost category system the sole legally relevant criterion for assessing whether a club provides adequate football education in line with the highest national standards.
• A club classified in the second-lowest training category of its national association (Category III out of II–IV in Denmark) cannot satisfy Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP, regardless of its performance in any internal national academy-licensing system.
• The applicable standard of proof for establishing an Article 19.2(b) RSTP exception is 'comfortable satisfaction', not 'beyond reasonable doubt', as the proceedings are not equivalent to criminal matters such as doping or corruption.
• FIFA does not lack standing to be sued alone where the appellants' clarified relief is limited to a determination that the Article 19.2(b) RSTP criteria are met, rather than an order compelling the issuance of an ITC that would require the former club's participation.
• Relying solely on online education for a minor transferred internationally fails to satisfy the academic-education requirement of Article 19.2(b)(iv) RSTP, as it deprives the minor of in-person developmental opportunities essential to integration and well-being.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began by clarifying the scope of the appeal: the only question was whether the DBU's application demonstrated compliance with Article 19.2(b)(iii)–(vi) RSTP. He dismissed FIFA's passive-litisconsortium objection because the appellants had narrowed their relief to a declaration of compliance, not an order to issue an ITC, and FC Player had confirmed via an amendment and joint letter that it remained bound by the transfer agreement. On the standard of proof, the arbitrator followed CAS 2020/A/7503 in applying 'comfortable satisfaction', rejecting FIFA's call for 'beyond reasonable doubt' as disproportionate outside doping/corruption contexts. On the merits, the arbitrator held that the word 'cf.' in Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP is not merely illustrative but makes Article 4, Annexe 4 RSTP directly applicable, a reading reinforced by FIFA Circular 1709 and the RSTP Commentary. Because the DBU placed AC Horsens in Category III — the second-lowest of three categories — the club could not satisfy the highest-standards requirement. The arbitrator rejected the argument that Denmark's internal DBU academy-licensing system could substitute for the FIFA classification, finding that permitting such substitution would undermine legal certainty and the strict application of Article 19 RSTP. He added that even under the DBU's own system AC Horsens scored only 3.5 out of 5 stars with a 'medium' rating in individual development. He further found that AC Horsens had not established a structured in-person academic education plan, offering only online schooling, which was inadequate under Article 19.2(b)(iv) RSTP. Accommodation was found to meet very good, if not excellent, standards.

Why AC Horsens & Cocu matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award provides the first detailed CAS analysis of the 'cf.' cross-reference in Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP, authoritatively establishing that the FIFA training-cost category system is the exclusive and mandatory benchmark for the 'highest national standards' requirement. It forecloses any argument that a national association's internal academy-licensing system can substitute for or supplement the FIFA classification, thereby reinforcing legal certainty and the strict protective framework for minor players across all EU/EEA transfer applications.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7503 CAS 2017/A/5244 CAS 2013/A/3140 CAS 2021/A/7807 TAS 2012/A/2862 CAS 2022/A/8592

Frequently asked questions about AC Horsens & Cocu

Why did CAS reject AC Horsens' appeal to sign the 16-year-old Romanian player Cocu?

CAS upheld the FIFA PSC's refusal because AC Horsens held a Category III training classification under the DBU's system, which runs only from Category II (highest) to IV (lowest). Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP requires the receiving club to provide football education 'in line with the highest national standards', and the Sole Arbitrator held that this requirement is assessed exclusively through the FIFA training-cost category system under Annexe 4, Article 4 RSTP. Because AC Horsens was not in the highest available category, the exception could not apply.

Can a club use its national football association's internal academy ranking instead of the FIFA training category to satisfy Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP?

No. The Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2024/A/10795 held that the cross-reference 'cf. Annexe 4, article 4' in Article 19.2(b)(iii) RSTP makes the FIFA training-cost category system the sole legally relevant criterion. The DBU's internal academy-licensing system — under which AC Horsens scored 3.5 out of 5 stars — was found to be legally irrelevant. Allowing national internal systems to substitute for the FIFA classification would undermine legal certainty and the strict application of Article 19 RSTP.

What standard of proof applies when a club tries to prove it meets the Article 19.2(b) RSTP exceptions for transferring a minor?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard, following CAS 2020/A/7503, and rejected FIFA's argument that 'beyond reasonable doubt' should apply. The arbitrator reasoned that the highest standard of proof should be reserved for the most serious cases such as doping or corruption where personal freedom is at stake, and that minor-transfer proceedings do not rise to that level.

Was online-only schooling sufficient to satisfy the academic education requirement for the minor player in the AC Horsens case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that AC Horsens had failed to establish a structured, comprehensive and adequate in-person education plan, and that at the time of the hearing the minor was not attending any classes. The arbitrator held that relying solely on online education deprives the minor of essential developmental opportunities — direct interaction with classmates, teachers and the wider community — and is completely inadequate within the strict framework of Article 19.2(b)(iv) RSTP, particularly when the minor comes from a different culture and language background.

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.