CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10839 — Professional Football Club Botev Plovdiv v. Club Centre de Formation National de Football

"Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF" · CAS upheld a 20% sell-on fee owed by Bulgarian club Botev Plovdiv to Ivorian academy CFNF despite the player's amateur status.

What happened in Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF

PFC Botev Plovdiv (Bulgaria) and Club Centre de Formation National de Football (CFNF, Côte d'Ivoire) entered a transfer agreement in June 2022 for amateur player Abdoulaye Kinski David Traore, including a 20% sell-on clause on any future transfer fee. In August 2022, Botev registered the player as a free agent via Russian amateur club Vista, bypassing CFNF. When the player was sold to SV Zulte Waregem (Belgium) on 11 August 2023 for EUR 900,000, CFNF claimed EUR 180,000 (20% sell-on). Botev refused, arguing the contract was invalid because no formal transfer from CFNF had occurred and the player was an amateur. The FIFA Players' Status Chamber ruled for CFNF on 28 June 2024, awarding EUR 180,000 plus 5% p.a. interest from 11 December 2023. Botev appealed to CAS. The Panel dismissed the appeal, finding: (1) Botev's representative Mr Balyberdin had dual roles at Vista and Botev and knew the true facts, so Botev could not invoke defects of consent; (2) the contract's mislabelling of the player as 'professional' was not a material error; (3) the RSTP does not prohibit parties from agreeing transfer compensation for amateur transfers; and (4) a EUR 100,000 donation to an unrelated African academy did not discharge Botev's obligation to CFNF. The case matters because it confirms that sell-on clauses in amateur transfer agreements are enforceable and that a club cannot escape contractual obligations by routing a player through a related feeder club.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10839

On 11 December 2023, CFNF lodged a claim with the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC) seeking payment of a 20% sell-on fee of EUR 180,000 arising from the transfer of player Traore from PFC Botev to SV Zulte Waregem for EUR 900,000. On 28 June 2024, the FIFA PSC (case Ref. Nr. FPSD-13001) accepted CFNF's claim in full, ordering PFC Botev to pay EUR 180,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 11 December 2023, imposing a potential registration ban for non-payment, and assessing procedural costs of USD 20,000 against Botev. On 2 September 2024, PFC Botev filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, initially naming FIFA as Second Respondent; FIFA was subsequently excluded. CAS was asked to set aside the PSC decision and reject CFNF's claim in its entirety. A hearing was held on 8 May 2025 in Lausanne.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10839

• A club's representative's knowledge of the true facts is imputed to the club, precluding the club from invoking defects of consent under Swiss law (Art. 32 CO) where the representative knew the player was registered with a related amateur club when the contract was executed.
• Mislabelling an amateur player as 'professional' in a transfer agreement is not a material or fundamental error sufficient to invalidate the contract where both parties knew the player was an amateur signing his first professional contract.
• The FIFA RSTP does not prohibit parties to an amateur transfer agreement from agreeing on transfer compensation (including a variable sell-on fee) in addition to or in lieu of training compensation.
• An amateur player's contract with a club is 'binding' within the meaning of the RSTP because it produces contractual effects between the parties and triggers RSTP consequences (e.g. training compensation) vis-à-vis third parties.
• A donation of EUR 100,000 made to an unrelated third-party academy does not discharge a contractual obligation owed to the claimant club under a sell-on clause.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first identified the central issue as whether the Contract was valid. On the error/defect-of-consent argument, the Panel applied Swiss legal doctrine (BSK-OR/WATTER, 7th ed. 2020, Art. 32 N. 24) holding that a represented party cannot invoke defects of consent where its representative knew the true facts. Mr Balyberdin, who had dual roles at Vista and PFC Botev, negotiated and executed the Contract and knew the player was registered with Vista as an amateur; that knowledge was imputed to Botev. On the 'professional' mislabelling, the Panel relied on CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2016/A/4843; CAS 2017/A/5172) requiring errors to be 'material' or 'fundamental', and on Art. 18 CO directing courts to give effect to the clear ordinary meaning of contract terms. On RSTP compatibility, the Panel reasoned that Annex 4 RSTP expressly contemplates compensation when an amateur acquires professional status, and that nothing in the RSTP prohibits parties from agreeing transfer compensation for amateur transfers beyond training compensation. The Panel rejected the Donation Agreement defence because CFNF was not a party to it and the recipient academy was unrelated to CFNF; moreover, the very existence of the donation undermined Botev's claim that the Contract was invalid. The Panel applied pacta sunt servanda to enforce the 20% sell-on clause.

Why Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that sell-on clauses in agreements covering amateur player transfers are enforceable under the RSTP and Swiss law, and that clubs cannot escape such obligations by routing players through related feeder clubs. It also confirms that a representative's knowledge of the true facts is imputed to the principal, closing a common evasion tactic. The award reinforces the principle of pacta sunt servanda in the context of academy-to-professional-club agreements and clarifies that the RSTP does not limit transfer compensation for amateur transfers to training compensation alone.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2009/A/1909 CAS 2006/A/1167 (FK Sarajevo v DSC Arminia) CAS 2017/A/5395 (Techiman City FC v GFA) CAS 2016/A/4843 CAS 2017/A/5172 CAS 2012/A/3026 CAS 2014/A/3816

Frequently asked questions about Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF

Can a sell-on clause in an amateur player transfer agreement be enforced under FIFA rules?

Yes. The CAS panel in Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF held that nothing in the FIFA RSTP prohibits parties from agreeing transfer compensation — including a variable sell-on fee — in connection with the transfer of an amateur player. The 20% sell-on clause was enforced, entitling CFNF to EUR 180,000 from the EUR 900,000 sale to SV Zulte Waregem.

Can a club avoid a sell-on fee by registering a player as a free agent through a related feeder club?

No. In Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF, CAS found that PFC Botev's representative Mr Balyberdin held dual roles at both Botev and the feeder club Vista and knew the player was registered with Vista when the contract was signed. Under Swiss law (Art. 32 CO), that knowledge was imputed to Botev, preventing it from invoking defects of consent to escape its contractual obligations to CFNF.

Does mislabelling an amateur player as 'professional' in a transfer contract invalidate the agreement?

No. The panel held that the error was not 'material' or 'fundamental' as required by CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2016/A/4843; CAS 2017/A/5172) because both parties knew the player was an amateur signing his first professional contract with Botev. Under Art. 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, the clear ordinary meaning of the contract — including the 20% sell-on clause — was given effect.

Does paying a donation to a third-party academy discharge a sell-on fee obligation owed to a different club?

No. In Botev Plovdiv v. CFNF, Botev paid EUR 100,000 to Académie Symbiose Foot d'Abobo under a Donation Agreement, arguing this satisfied its obligation to CFNF. The panel rejected this, noting that CFNF was not a party to the Donation Agreement and the recipient academy was entirely unrelated to CFNF. The panel also observed that the very existence of the donation undermined Botev's claim that the original contract was invalid.

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.