CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10849 — Professional Football Club Botev Plovdiv v. Club Madenat Alamal Football Club

"Botev Plovdiv v. Madenat Alamal" · CAS set aside a EUR 125,000 sell-on fee award because the selling club never validly registered the player under FIFA rules.

What happened in Botev Plovdiv v. Madenat Alamal

In August 2021, Bulgarian club Botev Plovdiv signed a Transfer Agreement with UAE-based Madenat Alamal for Nigerian player Tochukwu Nnadi, paying EUR 7,000 via a 'Contract on Financial Donation' and agreeing to pay Madenat 50% of any future sell-on fee. In January 2024, Botev sold Nnadi to Belgian club S.V. Zulte Waregem for EUR 750,000. Madenat claimed 50% of the first instalment (EUR 125,000). The FIFA Players' Status Chamber Single Judge upheld Madenat's claim on 15 July 2024, ordering Botev to pay EUR 125,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 March 2024. Botev appealed to CAS. The Panel found that Nnadi had never been registered with Madenat in the UAE FA or TMS system; the ITC was issued directly from Nigeria to Bulgaria. The Panel further found that the amateur contract Madenat relied upon was signed when the player was a minor without parental consent, rendering it void. Because Madenat held no valid registration rights over the player, the Transfer Agreement was impossible and void under Article 20 SCO, and the sell-on fee clause was unenforceable. The appeal was upheld in its entirety and the FIFA PSC decision was set aside. The case matters because it confirms that sell-on fee clauses are only enforceable where the selling club held properly registered rights over the player.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10849

On 18 February 2024, Madenat filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC) seeking 50% of the transfer fee received by Botev from S.V. Zulte Waregem. Botev replied on 29 May 2024; the parties filed replica and duplica on 4 and 10 June 2024 respectively. On 15 July 2024, the Single Judge of the FIFA PSC (case FPSD-14411) upheld Madenat's claim, ordering Botev to pay EUR 125,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 March 2024, and assessed procedural costs of USD 5,000 against Botev. The decision was notified with grounds on 16 August 2024. Botev filed a Statement of Appeal to CAS on 4 September 2024 (within the 21-day deadline), initially naming FIFA as second respondent but later agreeing to exclude FIFA. Botev filed its Appeal Brief on 7 October 2024; Madenat filed its Answer on 28 October 2024. A hearing was held on 30 September 2025 in Lausanne after an earlier hearing date of 3 June 2025 was aborted due to the Respondent's counsel's non-appearance.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10849

• A club that has never validly registered a player with its national association under FIFA RSTP Article 5 holds no sporting or economic rights over that player and cannot enforce a sell-on fee clause arising from a purported transfer of those rights.
• A transfer agreement is void under Article 20 SCO where its performance was impossible from the outset because the purported transferor lacked any registered rights over the player.
• Payment of an agreed transfer fee does not validate an otherwise void transfer agreement, and the principle of venire contra factum proprium does not apply where the paying party was unaware of the fundamental defect at the time of payment.
• An amateur contract signed with a minor player without parental consent is null and void under Articles 16 and 19 of the Swiss Civil Code and cannot serve as the basis for any valid registration or economic rights claim.
• The burden of proof under Article 8 SCC rests on the party asserting that the counterparty held no rights over a player; that burden was discharged here by reference to the player's Electronic Passport (EPP-36337) and TMS transfer history showing registration only from Nigeria to Bulgaria.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied FIFA RSTP (February 2021 Edition) Articles 5, 7, 9, and 11, together with Swiss law, to assess whether Madenat held valid rights over the player. It examined the player's Electronic Passport (EPP-36337) and TMS transfer history, which showed the ITC was issued by the Nigerian Football Federation directly to the Bulgarian Football Union, with Madenat's attempted TMS entry cancelled on 18 February 2022. The Respondent's own President admitted at the hearing that the player had never been registered with the UAE FA. The Panel rejected Madenat's argument that non-registration was a mere formality, holding that FIFA's mandatory registration system is the exclusive basis for sporting and economic rights. Under Article 20 SCO, the contract was void for impossibility because Madenat could never have executed a valid transfer. The Panel also found the underlying amateur contract void because it was signed when the player was 17 years old without parental consent, contrary to Articles 16 and 19 SCC and Article 19(1) FIFA RSTP on protection of minors. The Panel further held that Botev's payment of EUR 7,000 did not estop it from challenging the contract, as it acted in good faith without knowledge of the defect. The Panel declined to order restitution of the EUR 7,000 in accordance with the principle of non decidere ultra petitum, as Botev had waived that claim.

Why Botev Plovdiv v. Madenat Alamal matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that sell-on fee clauses in football transfer agreements are only enforceable where the purported selling club held properly registered rights over the player under FIFA's mandatory registration system. It confirms that non-registration is not a mere administrative formality but a substantive prerequisite for the existence of transferable economic rights, and that payment of an initial transfer fee does not estop a club from later challenging the agreement's validity where the defect was unknown at the time of payment. The award also applies the FIFA RSTP Article 19 minor-protection framework to invalidate an amateur contract signed without parental consent.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2009/A/1909 CAS 2004/A/635 RCD Espanyol de Barcelona SAD v. Club Atlético Velez Sarsfield CAS 2014/A/3813 RFEF vs. FIFA CAS 2023/A/9953 CAS 2022/A/8592 USD Lavagnese v. FIFA

Frequently asked questions about Botev Plovdiv v. Madenat Alamal

Why did CAS overturn the FIFA PSC decision ordering Botev Plovdiv to pay the EUR 125,000 sell-on fee to Madenat Alamal?

CAS found that Madenat had never validly registered player Tochukwu Nnadi with the UAE Football Association or in the FIFA TMS system. The player's Electronic Passport (EPP-36337) and TMS transfer history showed the ITC was issued directly from Nigeria to Bulgaria, with Madenat's attempted TMS entry cancelled on 18 February 2022. Because Madenat held no registered rights over the player, the Transfer Agreement was void for impossibility under Article 20 SCO and the sell-on fee clause was unenforceable.

Does paying a transfer fee prevent a club from later arguing the transfer agreement was void — i.e., does venire contra factum proprium apply in Botev v. Madenat?

No. The Panel held that the principle of venire contra factum proprium (non-venire contra factum proprium) did not apply because Botev paid the EUR 7,000 in good faith without knowledge that Madenat had no registered rights over the player. The Panel also noted the Latin maxim 'quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere' — a fundamentally flawed agreement cannot be validated over time. Botev's decision not to seek restitution of the EUR 7,000 was treated as a voluntary waiver, and the Panel declined to order repayment under the principle of non decidere ultra petitum.

What role did the player's status as a minor play in the Botev Plovdiv v. Madenat Alamal CAS award?

The Panel found that the amateur contract Madenat relied upon was signed on 9 June 2021 when the player was 17 years old (born 30 June 2003), making him a minor under Swiss law. Madenat's President admitted at the hearing that he knew the player was a minor but did not obtain parental consent. Under Articles 16 and 19 SCC, contracts entered into by minors without parental consent are voidable, and the Panel declared the contract null and void, further undermining any registration or economic rights claim by Madenat.

What is the legal standard for a club to hold enforceable economic rights — including sell-on fees — over a football player under FIFA regulations, as confirmed in Botev v. Madenat?

The Panel confirmed, citing CAS 2004/A/635 (RCD Espanyol v. Velez Sarsfield), that the transfer of economic rights is legally possible only with regard to players who are under contract and duly registered with the relevant national association. A club that has not electronically registered a player with its association and obtained a FIFA ID for that player holds no sporting or economic rights and cannot validly transfer those rights or claim a sell-on fee. The player's presence at a club's premises or participation in friendly matches is insufficient to establish such rights.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses 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.