CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11689 — AS Saint Etienne v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

"Saint Etienne v. FIFA (Amougou)" · CAS dismissed ASSE's solidarity contribution appeal because Chelsea FC, a necessary co-respondent, was never named in the Statement of Appeal.

What happened in Saint Etienne v. FIFA (Amougou)

AS Saint Etienne (ASSE) appealed a FIFA General Secretariat determination (EPP 56025, 4 August 2025) that denied ASSE any solidarity contribution from the €15 million permanent transfer of player Mathis Amougou (born 18 January 2006) to Chelsea FC on 3 February 2025. The FIFA Clearing House had found that ASSE's solidarity entitlement was included in the transfer fee, relying in part on a TMS declaration by ASSE employee Caroline Monchanin on 17 July 2025 confirming a waiver of both training compensation and solidarity contribution. ASSE argued the waiver was submitted in error and that Article 5 of the Transfer Agreement merely allowed Chelsea to deduct solidarity amounts from the fee before distributing them — not to extinguish ASSE's share. ASSE filed its CAS appeal on 20 August 2025 naming only FIFA as respondent. FIFA raised a preliminary objection that Chelsea FC, as the contractual counterparty and alleged payment obligor, was a necessary co-respondent whose absence was fatal. The Sole Arbitrator agreed: because granting ASSE's relief would necessarily impose a payment obligation on Chelsea FC, Chelsea had standing to be sued and should have been named in the Statement of Appeal. That omission could not be remedied after the appeal deadline expired. The appeal was dismissed without reaching the merits.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11689

On 4 February 2025, following the 3 February 2025 transfer of Mathis Amougou from ASSE to Chelsea FC for €15 million, provisional EPP 56025 was generated in TMS. During the EPP review process under Article 9 of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR), ASSE employee Caroline Monchanin submitted a TMS declaration on 17 July 2025 confirming ASSE had waived training compensation and solidarity contribution for this transfer. On 4 August 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat issued its determination on EPP 56025, finding that ASSE's solidarity contribution entitlement was included in the transfer fee and that no solidarity contribution was therefore due to ASSE. ASSE filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 20 August 2025 — within the 21-day deadline — naming only FIFA as respondent. FIFA's Answer of 26 September 2025 raised a preliminary objection that Chelsea FC was a necessary co-respondent whose absence required dismissal. The Sole Arbitrator addressed this as a threshold issue, ultimately dismissing the appeal on 18 May 2026 without ruling on the merits.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11689

• Chelsea FC had standing to be sued (passive legitimation) because granting ASSE's requests for relief would necessarily impose a solidarity contribution payment obligation on Chelsea FC as the alleged debtor.
• The dispute contained both 'vertical' elements (ASSE v. FIFA as administrative body) and 'horizontal' elements (ASSE v. Chelsea FC under the Transfer Agreement), making Chelsea FC a necessary co-respondent.
• Under Article R48 of the CAS Code, it is the appellant's exclusive responsibility to identify all necessary respondents in the Statement of Appeal; this obligation cannot be circumvented by requesting joinder at a later stage after the appeal deadline has expired.
• Article R41.2 of the CAS Code on joinder applies only when a respondent seeks to involve a third party, not when an appellant attempts to add a party it failed to name; Article R41.3 requires the third party itself to apply and all parties to consent in writing.
• Where prayers for relief would affect the rights of a third party not named as respondent, there is no scope of review for the CAS panel and the appeal must be dismissed.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began by characterising the dispute. Although ASSE's formal prayers targeted only the FIFA General Secretariat's EPP determination — a classic 'vertical' challenge under Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code — the substance of the claim was inextricably linked to the contractual relationship between ASSE and Chelsea FC. Requests (ii)–(iv) in ASSE's Appeal Brief explicitly asked CAS to interpret Article 5 of the Transfer Agreement and to instruct FIFA to amend the EPP so as to recognise ASSE's solidarity entitlement, which would necessarily translate into a payment obligation on Chelsea FC. The Arbitrator therefore held that Chelsea FC had passive legitimation (légitimation passive) under Swiss law, as it was personally obliged by the claim. He rejected ASSE's argument that Article R41.2 permitted late joinder, noting that provision is available only to respondents. He equally rejected reliance on Article R41.3, since FIFA withheld consent and Chelsea FC itself declined to intervene despite being informed of the proceedings in December 2025. Chelsea FC's informal letter of 15 January 2026 to the CAS Court Office was deemed irrelevant as a substitute for formal party status. The Arbitrator also dismissed the argument that Article R56 re-opened a window for joinder. Citing Swiss Federal Tribunal authority (ATF 126 III 59) and multiple CAS precedents, he concluded that the omission was irremediable once the 21-day appeal deadline had passed.

Why Saint Etienne v. FIFA (Amougou) matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that CAS appeal proceedings involving FIFA Clearing House EPP determinations can raise mandatory litisconsortium issues where the underlying claim is grounded in a bilateral transfer agreement. It clarifies that the 'vertical' framing of an EPP challenge does not insulate an appellant from the obligation to name all parties whose substantive rights would be affected, and that neither Article R41.2 nor R41.3 of the CAS Code provides a post-deadline remedy for an appellant's failure to identify a necessary co-respondent in the Statement of Appeal.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2013/A/3278 CAS 2013/A/3372 CAS 2022/A/8960 CAS 2015/A/3999 CAS 2022/A/9134 CAS 2013/A/3228

Frequently asked questions about Saint Etienne v. FIFA (Amougou)

Why did Saint Etienne lose the Amougou CAS case even though it argued the waiver was submitted by mistake?

The Sole Arbitrator never reached the merits of the waiver argument. The appeal was dismissed on a threshold procedural ground: ASSE failed to name Chelsea FC as a co-respondent in its Statement of Appeal filed on 20 August 2025. Because granting ASSE's relief would necessarily impose a solidarity contribution payment obligation on Chelsea FC, Chelsea had standing to be sued and its absence was fatal to the proceedings.

Can an appellant add a missing respondent to a CAS appeal after the appeal deadline has expired?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that under Article R48 of the CAS Code it is the appellant's exclusive responsibility to identify all necessary respondents in the Statement of Appeal. Once the 21-day appeal deadline has passed, the omission is irremediable; adding a respondent at that stage would amount to filing a new, out-of-time appeal. Article R41.2 (joinder by a respondent) and Article R41.3 (voluntary intervention) do not provide a workaround for an appellant's failure.

What does the Saint Etienne v. FIFA award say about solidarity contribution being 'included' in a transfer fee under Article 5 of the Transfer Agreement?

The Sole Arbitrator expressly declined to rule on the interpretation of Article 5 of the Transfer Agreement or on whether ASSE's solidarity contribution was genuinely included in the €15 million fee. Because Chelsea FC was not a party to the proceedings, the CAS had no power to adjudicate a matter that would affect Chelsea FC's legal and financial position, and the appeal was dismissed without any finding on the merits of the contractual dispute.

Does a FIFA Clearing House EPP determination qualify as a 'vertical' dispute that only requires FIFA as respondent at CAS?

Not necessarily. The Sole Arbitrator found that while the EPP determination had a vertical dimension (FIFA exercising an administrative function under the FCHR), the present case also had horizontal elements because ASSE's entitlement to solidarity contribution had to be assessed against the Transfer Agreement between ASSE and Chelsea FC. Where the outcome of the appeal would directly affect the substantive rights of the contracting counterparty — here Chelsea FC as the alleged payment obligor — that counterparty must also be named as a co-respondent.

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.