CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11556 — Clube Desportivo Nacional Futebol SAD v. FIFA, Club Africain and Fédération Tunisienne de Football (FTF)

"Nacional v. FIFA & Club Africain" · CAS declared Nacional's appeal inadmissible because it was filed 40 days late after valid TMS notification of the FIFA training-compensation decisions.

What happened in Nacional v. FIFA & Club Africain

This case concerned training compensation of EUR 335,576.21 allegedly owed by Portuguese club Clube Desportivo Nacional Futebol SAD to Tunisian club Club Africain following the international transfer of player Labidi Chiheb after expiry of his contract. On 30 April 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat issued an Electronic Players' Passport (EPP No. 49219) and Allocation Statement (TC-21092) through TMS, making the decisions available to Nacional at 17:21 Swiss time. FIFA also sent informative emails to Nacional's three registered TMS managers on the same day. Nacional did not access TMS between 15 April and 9 July 2025 and only learned of the decisions when the Portuguese Football Federation forwarded them on 11 June 2025. Nacional filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 30 June 2025, arguing notification occurred on 11 June 2025. The proceedings were bifurcated on FIFA's request to address admissibility first. The Sole Arbitrator held that valid notification occurred on 30 April 2025 via TMS under Article 10(3) FIFA Procedural Rules, making the dies ad quem 21 May 2025. The appeal was filed 40 days late and declared inadmissible. The case matters because it confirms that TMS availability constitutes valid notification even where the club fails to log in, and that clubs bear full responsibility for procedural disadvantages arising from non-compliance with the daily TMS review obligation.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11556

On 30 April 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat issued EPP No. 49219 and Allocation Statement TC-21092 via TMS, requiring Nacional to pay EUR 335,576.21 in training compensation to Club Africain. Nacional did not access TMS between 15 April and 9 July 2025. On 11 June 2025, the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) forwarded the decisions to Nacional. On 30 June 2025, Nacional filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, asserting notification occurred on 11 June 2025. On 10 July 2025, CAS initiated proceedings under reference CAS 2025/A/11556. On 6 October 2025, FIFA requested bifurcation to address admissibility as a preliminary matter. On 29 October 2025, the Sole Arbitrator granted bifurcation. A videoconference hearing on admissibility was held on 10 February 2026. The FTF did not participate at any stage. The Sole Arbitrator was asked to determine whether the appeal was timely filed.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11556

• Valid notification of the Appealed Decisions occurred on 30 April 2025 when they were made available in TMS, in accordance with Article 10 FIFA Procedural Rules and Article 21 FCHR, regardless of whether Nacional actually accessed TMS on that date.
• Under Article 10(3) FIFA Procedural Rules, clubs must review TMS at least once per day and are responsible for any procedural disadvantages arising from failure to do so.
• The relevant point in time for notification is when the party has the possibility to become acquainted with the content of a decision, not when it actually does so.
• A subsequent notification of the same decisions by the FPF on 10 or 11 June 2025 was irrelevant because valid notification had already occurred on 30 April 2025 via TMS.
• The appeal filed on 30 June 2025 was inadmissible as it was filed 40 days after the dies ad quem of 21 May 2025, calculated from the dies a quo of 1 May 2025 under Article 11(1) FIFA Procedural Rules and Article 50(1) FIFA Statutes.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the Swiss law 'sphere of control' doctrine, under which a decision is notified when it enters the addressee's sphere of control and the addressee has the possibility to become acquainted with its content, regardless of actual reading. He found that TMS availability on 30 April 2025 at 17:21 Swiss time satisfied this standard, relying on Article 10(3) FIFA Procedural Rules (daily review obligation) and Article 21(1) FCHR (which incorporates those rules into the EPP process). Nacional's argument that the decisions were not clearly labelled as appealable in TMS was rejected as irrelevant: since Nacional did not access TMS at all between 15 April and 9 July 2025, it could not know whether the labelling was clear or confusing, and it provided no evidence such as screenshots to support the confusion argument. The Sole Arbitrator also noted that FIFA went beyond its regulatory obligations by sending informative emails to Nacional's three registered TMS managers, yet this additional step did not prompt Nacional to review TMS. Nacional's onboarding difficulties with the FIFA Clearing House SAS portal were dismissed as unrelated to TMS access. The panel declined to treat the FPF's forwarding of the decisions as the operative notification date.

Why Nacional v. FIFA & Club Africain matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that TMS availability constitutes valid notification of FIFA General Secretariat decisions for CAS appeal-deadline purposes, even where the club never logs in during the relevant period. It confirms that the Article 10(3) FIFA Procedural Rules daily-review obligation is not merely an internal administrative duty but directly determines when appeal deadlines begin to run, placing the full risk of non-compliance on clubs and foreclosing arguments based on subsequent re-notification by national associations.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2004/A/574 CAS 2019/A/6253 CAS 2019/A/6294 CAS 2020/A/7494 CAS 2022/A/8598 CAS 2006/A/1153

Frequently asked questions about Nacional v. FIFA & Club Africain

Was Nacional's appeal against the FIFA training compensation decision declared admissible?

No. The Sole Arbitrator declared the appeal inadmissible because Nacional filed its Statement of Appeal on 30 June 2025, which was 40 days after the dies ad quem of 21 May 2025. The 21-day deadline ran from 1 May 2025, the day after valid notification via TMS on 30 April 2025.

Does TMS availability count as valid notification of a FIFA EPP decision even if the club never logs in?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that notification occurs when the party has the possibility to become acquainted with the content of a decision, not when it actually does so. Because Article 10(3) FIFA Procedural Rules obliges clubs to review TMS at least once per day, the decisions were validly notified on 30 April 2025 when they were made available in TMS at 17:21 Swiss time, regardless of Nacional's failure to log in.

Can a club rely on its national federation forwarding a FIFA decision to restart the CAS appeal deadline?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the FPF's forwarding of the Appealed Decisions to Nacional on 11 June 2025 was irrelevant because valid notification had already occurred via TMS on 30 April 2025. A subsequent notification by a national association cannot reset a deadline that has already expired.

How much training compensation was at stake in the Nacional v. Club Africain case and who was it for?

The FIFA General Secretariat's Allocation Statement TC-21092 required Nacional to pay EUR 335,576.21 in training compensation to Club Africain (Tunisia) in connection with the transfer of player Labidi Chiheb. Because the appeal was declared inadmissible, the Allocation Statement became final and binding without examination of the merits.

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.