CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11492 — Club Deportivo Leganés, S.A.D. v. Cheman des Parcelles Assainies, Fédération Sénégalaise de Football and FIFA

"Leganés v. CPA" · CAS upheld Leganés's appeal after CPA validly and irrevocably waived its EUR 144,986.30 training compensation claim.

What happened in Leganés v. CPA

Senegalese player Modou Alpha Ndiaye (born 3 March 2005), trained at Cheman des Parcelles Assainies (CPA) and later Noliane Football Club, was transferred to Spanish club CD Leganés on 23 February 2024. The FIFA Clearing House issued Allocation Statement AS TC-21849 on 16 May 2025, ordering Leganés to pay EUR 144,986.30 in training compensation to CPA under Article 20 RSTP and Annexe 4. On 28 May 2025, CPA's authorised representative Ms Ndeye Gueye signed a document expressly, voluntarily and irrevocably waiving all current and future claims against Leganés arising from EPP-39143 and AS TC-21849. Leganés appealed to CAS on 5 June 2025. CPA and the Senegalese Football Federation never participated. FIFA contested the appeal but acknowledged the waiver was a 'horizontal' matter between the clubs. Sole Arbitrator Olivier Carrard applied a four-condition test drawn from CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law to assess the waiver's validity, found all conditions satisfied, and upheld the appeal. The case matters because it confirms that a training club's authorised representative can execute a binding, irrevocable waiver of training compensation post-allocation, extinguishing a FIFA Clearing House payment order, and that CAS will give full effect to such waivers when the four cumulative validity conditions are met.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11492

On 16 May 2025, the FIFA Clearing House issued Allocation Statement AS TC-21849 ordering CD Leganés to pay EUR 144,986.30 in training compensation to CPA in connection with EPP ID 39143 for player Modou Alpha Ndiaye. The decision set a 21-day appeal window pursuant to Article 50(1) of the FIFA Statutes. On 28 May 2025, CPA's authorised representative signed an irrevocable waiver of those rights. On 5 June 2025, Leganés filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS, requesting the allocation order be set aside and that no amount be owed to CPA. The Appeal Brief was filed on 11 June 2025. CPA and the FSF never responded. FIFA filed its Answer on 19 September 2025, requesting rejection of the appeal and confirmation of the allocation order, or alternatively referral back to FIFA. A hearing was held by video-conference on 25 November 2025. The Sole Arbitrator was constituted on 27 August 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11492

• A waiver of training compensation is valid under CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law if four cumulative conditions are met: it does not contradict law, public policy or morality; the signatory has authority; the language is clear and unequivocal; and the waiving club holds the right it renounces.
• The waiver signed by Ms Ndeye Gueye on 28 May 2025 as CPA's authorised representative satisfied all four conditions and constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of CPA enforceable against it.
• The waiver of the right to training compensation is not expressly prohibited by the RSTP or Swiss law and must therefore be presumed permissible.
• Where no party contests the authority of the signatory and the waiving club does not participate in proceedings, the Sole Arbitrator may find the waiver duly authorised on the basis of the document's own recitals and the absence of challenge.
• A valid waiver by the entitled training club extinguishes the FIFA Clearing House allocation order, and the case must be referred back to FIFA to amend the decision to reflect that no monetary amount is owed.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a four-condition test derived from CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law. First, he found no mandatory provision in the RSTP or Swiss law prohibiting waivers of training compensation, and no party alleged contradiction with public policy or good morals. Second, he relied on the waiver document's own recital that Ms Gueye was 'duly empowered' as CPA's authorised representative, drew an analogy with CAS 2017/A/5277 where a general manager's authority was uncontested, and noted that CPA never appeared to challenge her authority despite being given the opportunity at the hearing. Third, he found the waiver language — expressly, voluntarily and irrevocably renouncing 'any current or future claim, including any claim for money' linked to EPP-39143 and AS TC-21849 — to be clear and unambiguous, consistent with the DRC standard requiring that renunciation be 'unmistakeable' (FIFA DRC No. 67516) and 'clear and unambiguous' (FIFA DRC No. 412107). Fourth, he confirmed CPA was the Player's training club and therefore the holder of the right it waived. FIFA's argument that Leganés's conduct during the EPP review was inconsistent was not addressed as a ground to invalidate the waiver, which was treated as a purely horizontal matter between the clubs.

Why Leganés v. CPA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms that a FIFA Clearing House training compensation allocation order can be extinguished by a post-issuance irrevocable waiver executed by the entitled training club's authorised representative, provided the four cumulative validity conditions under CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law are satisfied. It reinforces the DRC and CAS line that waivers need not be pre-transfer and that an employee's authority to waive will be presumed when unchallenged, giving new clubs a practical tool to resolve training compensation disputes after allocation.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2017/A/5277 FIFA DRC decision No. 67516 of 8 June 2007 FIFA DRC decision No. 412107 of 26 April 2012

Frequently asked questions about Leganés v. CPA

Can a training club waive its FIFA training compensation after the Clearing House has already issued an allocation order?

Yes. In Leganés v. CPA (CAS 2025/A/11492), CPA signed an irrevocable waiver on 28 May 2025, twelve days after the FIFA Clearing House issued Allocation Statement AS TC-21849 ordering Leganés to pay EUR 144,986.30. The Sole Arbitrator held the waiver valid and set aside the allocation order, confirming that a post-allocation waiver is effective provided the four cumulative validity conditions are met.

What are the four conditions for a valid waiver of training compensation under CAS jurisprudence?

According to CAS 2025/A/11492, the waiver must (i) not contradict law, public policy or good morals; (ii) be executed by a person with authority or capacity to act for the club; (iii) be expressed in clear and unequivocal language; and (iv) be made by the club that actually holds the right being renounced. All four conditions must be satisfied cumulatively.

Does the authority of the person signing a training compensation waiver need to be formally proven, or is a recital in the document sufficient?

In Leganés v. CPA, the waiver document itself stated that Ms Ndeye Gueye was 'duly empowered' as CPA's authorised representative. The Sole Arbitrator, relying on CAS 2017/A/5277, found this sufficient because no party — including CPA, which was served but never appeared — challenged her authority. The award confirms that a club cannot later avoid the legal consequences of a waiver signed by its representative when the receiving club acted in good faith.

What happens procedurally at CAS when a training compensation waiver is signed after the FIFA Clearing House allocation order but before the CAS award?

In CAS 2025/A/11492, Leganés filed its CAS appeal on 5 June 2025 and submitted the waiver as evidence. The Sole Arbitrator accepted additional evidence under Article R56 of the CAS Code, assessed the waiver's validity under the four-condition test, upheld the appeal, and referred the case back to FIFA to amend the allocation order to reflect that no monetary amount was owed — rather than simply annulling the order himself.

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.