CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11368 — Panathinaikos FC v. Como 1907 S.R.L. & FIFA

"Panathinaikos v. Como" · CAS awarded Panathinaikos EUR 332,786.89 training compensation from Como after admitting a contract-renewal offer not uploaded to FIFA TMS.

What happened in Panathinaikos v. Como

This case concerned Panathinaikos FC's claim for training compensation from Como 1907 S.R.L. following the registration of French player Bilal Abdelrahman Zeeni (born 21 November 2003) with Como on 30 August 2024. The player had been registered with Panathinaikos from 23 January 2020 to 30 June 2024. Panathinaikos sent a contract-renewal offer on 30 April 2024 by email and through a Greek judicial bailiff, but failed to upload it to FIFA TMS during the Electronic Player Passport review process despite multiple reminders. FIFA's General Secretariat determined on 31 March 2025 that Panathinaikos was not entitled to training compensation. Panathinaikos appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator admitted the contract offer into evidence under Article R57 CAS Code, finding no bad faith or procedural manipulation. He held that service by judicial bailiff under Article 128 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure constituted valid notification, entering the player's sphere of influence. Como's Category I status was upheld, yielding an average annual training cost of EUR 75,000 for the EU/EEA calculation. The award matters because it confirms that FCHR upload obligations do not restrict CAS's de novo review power, and that formal bailiff service satisfies Article 6(3) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP notification requirements even without player acknowledgment.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11368

On 30 August 2024, Bilal Abdelrahman Zeeni was registered with Como 1907 S.R.L., triggering the FIFA Electronic Player Passport process. FIFA's Clearing House Department sent automated reminders to Panathinaikos on 16 September 2024, 1 October 2024, 21 March 2025, and 25 March 2025, inviting it to upload the contract-renewal offer. Panathinaikos failed to upload any documentation before the deadline. On 31 March 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat issued its EPP determination concluding that Panathinaikos had not fulfilled the requirements of Article 6 of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP and was therefore not entitled to training compensation. On 18 April 2025, Panathinaikos filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS against Como and FIFA. The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appointed Daan de Jong as Sole Arbitrator. FIFA declined to participate actively. Written submissions were exchanged through August 2025, and the evidentiary phase was closed on 11 August 2025 without a hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11368

• The FCHR obligation to upload a contract offer in FIFA TMS does not restrict CAS's de novo power of review under Article R57 of the CAS Code, and a contract offer not submitted during the EPP process may be admitted in CAS appeal proceedings absent bad faith or procedural manipulation.
• Service of a contract-renewal offer by a Greek judicial bailiff under Article 128 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure — affixing the document at the player's residence, notifying the police authority, and dispatching by registered mail — constitutes valid notification entering the player's sphere of influence and satisfies Article 6(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP.
• Email transmission of a contract offer alone does not satisfy Article 6(3)(i) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP without confirmation from the player that he received a copy of the offer.
• A club's official training category as registered in FIFA TMS may only be departed from in cases of manifest discrepancy or administrative error; general assertions of lower youth-development expenditure do not meet the threshold for re-categorisation or adjustment under Article 5(4) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP.
• Under the FIFA Clearing House regulatory framework, statutory default interest does not accrue from the 31st day after player registration; the payment obligation and any late-payment consequence are triggered exclusively by the FIFA Clearing House's formal determination, with Article 13(4) FCHR providing a 2.5% administrative levy instead of interest.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator addressed three sequential issues. First, on admissibility, he applied Article R57 CAS Code and followed CAS 2023/A/9995 and CAS 2023/A/9730 to hold that the decisive date is the closing of the evidentiary phase before CAS (11 August 2025), not the date of the appealed decision. He found Panathinaikos negligent but not acting in bad faith, and admitted the contract offer on fairness grounds, citing CAS 2017/A/5371 and CAS 2020/A/6753. Second, on notification, he rejected email service as insufficient without player confirmation per Article 6(3)(i) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, but accepted bailiff service under Article 128 Greek CCP as placing the offer within the player's sphere of influence, relying on CAS 2006/A/1153 and Swiss Federal Tribunal Decision 4A_89/2011. He dismissed Como's argument that the contract address in Vrilissia displaced the player's residence in Koropi. Third, on categorisation, he rejected Como's request to be treated as Category II, finding no manifest discrepancy and no clear disproportionality under Article 5(4) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, following CAS 2024/A/10601. On interest, he held that the FCHR's self-contained framework under Article 13(4) excludes statutory default interest, distinguishing pre-Clearing House jurisprudence.

Why Panathinaikos v. Como matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates the line of CAS jurisprudence — following CAS 2023/A/9730 and CAS 2023/A/9995 — confirming that FCHR upload obligations do not curtail CAS's de novo review power under Article R57. It also establishes that formal service by a national judicial officer satisfying domestic procedural law constitutes valid notification under Article 6(3) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, and authoritatively clarifies that the FCHR's 2.5% administrative levy regime entirely displaces pre-Clearing House default interest jurisprudence.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2023/A/9995 CAS 2023/A/9940 & 9941 CAS 2023/A/9730 CAS 2017/A/5371 CAS 2020/A/6753 CAS 2024/A/10601 CAS 2015/A/4248 CAS 2010/A/2316 CAS 2006/A/1153 CAS 2009/A/1757

Frequently asked questions about Panathinaikos v. Como

Can Panathinaikos claim training compensation if it forgot to upload the contract offer to FIFA TMS?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that the FCHR obligation to upload a contract offer in FIFA TMS does not restrict CAS's de novo power of review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. Because Panathinaikos was negligent but not acting in bad faith, the contract offer was admitted into evidence before CAS and the club was awarded EUR 332,786.89 in training compensation.

Does service by a Greek judicial bailiff satisfy the Article 6(3) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP contract-offer notification requirement?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator found that service under Article 128 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure — affixing the document at the player's residence in Koropi, notifying the local police authority, and dispatching a copy by registered mail on 1 May 2024 — placed the offer within the player's sphere of influence. This satisfied the evidentiary and functional purpose of Article 6(3) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP, even though the player did not personally acknowledge receipt.

Can Como argue it should be treated as a Category II club to reduce training compensation even though FIGC registered it as Category I?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that Como's Category I classification by FIGC was entirely consistent with its Serie A status and FIFA Circular No. 1249 guidance. Re-categorisation requires a manifest discrepancy between the assigned category and the objective football pyramid, and adjustment under Article 5(4) Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP requires clear disproportionality proven by compelling economic evidence — neither threshold was met. Como therefore remained Category I, producing an average annual training cost of EUR 75,000 for the EU/EEA calculation.

Does default interest at 5% per annum run from the 31st day after player registration in FIFA Clearing House cases?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the FCHR constitutes a self-contained and exclusive regulatory framework under Article 2(3) of Annexe 4 FIFA RSTP. The payment obligation is triggered only by the FIFA Clearing House's formal determination, and Article 13(4) FCHR replaces statutory default interest with a 2.5% administrative levy. Pre-Clearing House CAS jurisprudence awarding 5% interest from the 31st day after registration was held inapplicable, and Panathinaikos' interest request was dismissed in its entirety.

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.