Published and translated by the firm Winter – Dávila & Associés
Paris, September 1, 2025
1. Introduction
This article critically analyzes the CAS award 2024/A/10673 Torres S.R.L. v. FIFA, Club Atlético Independiente and Asociación Atlética Argentinos Juniors, issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), in which the admissibility of the payment of training compensation was discussed with respect to a player registered for the first time as a professional, whose status, however, may have already been reached at clubs other than the claimant beneficiaries.
The dispute brings into tension two pillars of the FIFA system: on the one hand, the requirements that define the status of a professional player under Article 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP); and on the other, the importance of strict compliance with procedural deadlines for uploading documentation into the TMS system.
Throughout the analysis, attention will be given to the way CAS dealt with the evidence submitted out of time by the Italian club Torres S.R.L., and the legal consequences that such admission could have on the security of the system designed by FIFA will be assessed. In this context, the central question arises:
Can a club submit evidence after the deadline and still achieve the revocation of a final FIFA decision before CAS?
2. Factual Background
The Italian club Torres S.R.L. signed Patricio Alexis Goglino as a new player in July 2023 and registered him as a professional on October 10, 2023. This registration automatically triggered the obligation to pay training compensation to the player’s training clubs, in accordance with Article 5 of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR).
On the same day, the player’s Provisional Electronic Player Passport (EPP) was generated, in which Torres was included by default as a participating club. On October 23, 2023, after a process of review and validation, the EPP was made available to the parties for their observations. According to FIFA, the following actors participated in this process: Torres S.R.L., FIGC, AFA, Nuovo Inizio SRL, Lupranese FC, US Breno, and Calvina Sport SSDARL.
The review process was closed on May 15, 2024. On that same day, FIFA formally requested Torres to submit any relevant documents concerning the right to training compensation. This request was reiterated on May 22 and 25, 2024, without receiving any response.
Finally, on May 31, 2024, EPP no. 32649 was approved, and the corresponding Allocation Statement was automatically generated, determining that Torres was required to pay a total sum of EUR 107,561.64 in favor of Independiente and Argentinos Juniors.
YOU CAN ALSO READ: The four Chambers of The Court of Arbitration for Sport
2.1. Arguments of Torres S.R.L.
The Italian club filed an appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting the annulment of the Allocation Statement and, if applicable, the issuance of a new EPP.
As its central argument, Torres maintained that Goglino’s first registration in Italy with the FIGC took place on April 8, 2019, when he joined Parma Calcio 1913, where he completed part of his training. He later moved to Lupranese FC (November 2020 – February 2021) and then to US Breno (until June 2022).
During these periods, the player allegedly signed contracts that qualified him as a professional under Article 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), since he received remuneration higher than the expenses related to his sporting activity.
In August 2022, he signed a contract with Desenzano Calcio, under which he was granted a total of EUR 10,000 over eleven months, in addition to the club covering all of the player’s expenses: accommodation, food, transportation, medical services, sportswear, and laundry.
Torres also invoked Article R57(1) of the CAS Code, concerning the power of full review (de novo), and argued that it had not submitted the contracts during the proceedings before FIFA because they were not in its possession at the time they were requested.
Based on these elements, the club challenged the validity of the assigned training compensation, arguing that Goglino should already have been considered a professional in earlier stages, and therefore—if applicable—the clubs responsible for paying compensation should have been US Breno or Desenzano Calcio, not Torres.
2.2. Arguments of FIFA
FIFA requested the dismissal of the appeal and the confirmation of the Allocation Statement. It based its position on the fact that, once the Provisional Player Passport was generated, Torres had a long period of time to submit documentation in the TMS, specifically from October 23, 2023, until May 15, 2024, without fulfilling that obligation.
After the review process closed, FIFA contacted Torres on three occasions (May 15, 22, and 25, 2024) to request documents proving the player’s prior professional status. Torres did not respond in any of these instances, nor did it provide justification for its omission.
Consequently, FIFA argued that the contracts submitted late should not be admitted in arbitration, since allowing them would compromise the integrity and functionality of the Clearing House, by setting a precedent contrary to the principle of legal certainty—a fundamental pillar of the transfer system and of financial transparency in international football.
2.3. Arguments of Independiente and Argentinos Juniors
Independiente did not submit any response to the appeal. In contrast, Argentinos Juniors requested its dismissal, arguing that Torres S.R.L. should not be allowed to submit new documents after the review process.
It also maintained that accepting new evidence at the arbitral stage would constitute a serious violation of due process, since Torres had not adequately explained its prior inactivity nor justified the late submission.
Photo: Facilities of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
3. Regulatory Framework
3.1 Analysis of Article 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
Given the relevance of the award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), it is pertinent to begin with the analysis of Article 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which provides:
“…A professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs for the same activity. All other players are considered amateurs…”.
Although the text seems clear, the interpretation and application of this rule has been the subject of doctrinal debate. On the one hand, authors such as Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez and Cristian Frega Navia argue that FIFA has adopted an excessively formalistic approach by considering that only a player with a written contract and a fixed monthly salary can be deemed professional. However, they point out that in practice there are players who receive match fees, performance bonuses, or benefits in kind (such as accommodation or per diems), which could also amount to a genuine employment relationship.
On the other hand, lawyer Juan Manuel Rico, in an article published in the Sport Law Institute, proposes a broader and more case-by-case approach. According to his position, the determination of professional status should consider three factors:
a) the existence and type of contract signed;
b) the remuneration received (including indirect or variable payments); and
c) the degree of dependency or importance of the player within the club’s structure.
On this basis, it can be concluded that Article 2 of the RSTP contains open-ended terms subject to diverse interpretations, which generates legal uncertainty for both clubs and players. In this context, it becomes necessary for FIFA to adopt a more specific and operational definition of “professional player” in order to ensure greater certainty and consistency in its practical application, especially in contexts such as the case under analysis.
3.2 Analysis of Article 5 of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations and Article 20 of the RSTP
Article 5 of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (FCHR) establishes the activation of the payment process for compensation—both training compensation and solidarity contributions—once a player is registered as a professional for the first time or transferred as a professional. While the aim is to guarantee transparency and traceability of transfers, doctrine is not unanimous regarding its application.
For James Kitching (2021), the system is a key tool to combat payment evasion and to strengthen trust among clubs, ensuring that amounts owed are settled without delays or unnecessary intermediaries. In contrast, Antoine Duval (2022) warns that the mechanism, by linking exclusively to registration as a professional, leaves out situations in which the employment relationship exists de facto but is not formally contractually recognized, which may lead to abuses and the circumvention of legitimate entitlements.
Meanwhile, Article 20 of the RSTP regulates training compensation, establishing that it must be paid to the training club when a player signs his first professional contract or is transferred before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. The system is calculated according to the categories of the clubs and the years of training, with the declared objective of encouraging investment in youth football.
Juan de Dios Crespo (2015) acknowledges the protective value of the article but warns that in certain cases the amounts set are disproportionate to the actual expenditure on training, generating tensions with the principle of free movement of workers under European law. Along similar critical lines, Stephen Weatherill (2014) considers that the regime may constitute an indirect restriction on the mobility of young players, discouraging their recruitment by clubs in other jurisdictions due to the added costs.
By contrast, Kitching (2019) argues that training compensation is an essential pillar to prevent “free riding” by economically stronger clubs that benefit from the development of players by entities with fewer resources, thus ensuring a more equitable distribution of the fruits of training.
3.3 Analysis of Article R57 – CAS Code of Arbitration
According to Article R57 of the CAS Code of Arbitration, in appeal proceedings the panel has full power of review (de novo), which allows it to issue a new decision, annul the previous one, or remit the case back to the first instance.
However, paragraph 3 introduces a restriction: the tribunal may exclude evidence submitted by the parties if such evidence was available or could have been obtained before the challenged decision was issued.
Despina Mavromati, in CAS Bulletin 1/2014, warns that this provision should only be applied in cases of abusive procedural conduct or unjustified lateness, so as not to undermine the principle of full review.
Likewise, James Kitching argues that exclusion should only be triggered in clear cases of bad faith, since otherwise the scope of R57 could erode the full review that distinguishes CAS from internal bodies of sports federations.
Meanwhile, González de Cossío and Javaloyes emphasize that the review powers also allow hearings to be held or proceedings to continue even if a party does not appear, provided that formal summons requirements have been fulfilled.
Lastly, Roy Levy suggests that the adoption of R57 created a potentially irregular interpretative capacity, standing as a flexible criterion that requires caution in its application.
YOU CAN ALSO READ: The evidences before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
4. Analysis of the CAS Decision
The CAS decision will be analyzed through two main aspects: on the one hand, the determination of the status of professional player, and on the other, the acceptance of late evidence.
4.1. Determination of Professional Player Status
The arbitrator analyzed in depth Article 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) to support his decision. He considered that the first requirement—the existence of a written contract—was met, but that the player’s salary had to be examined in detail.
In his reasoning, he argued that “the financial threshold mentioned in Article 2 of the RSTP is too low,” since a player could be considered professional and yet still need another job to make a living. He noted that the contract might only cover expenses related to sporting activity (training, matches, transportation) without necessarily covering the player’s total cost of living.
He also emphasized that each case must be analyzed taking into account the context of the country in which the player provides services—since wages and costs vary—as well as the type of contract signed.
As for the previous link with the club Desenzano Calcio, the arbitrator verified that the player received a monthly salary of 910 euros, without reimbursements for subsistence or accommodation, which could constitute professional status. However, he stressed that it was not possible to rule on this definitively because the parties involved in those contracts were not part of the proceedings.
Relying on the jurisprudence of CAS awards 2023/A/10002, 10009, and 100010, he recalled that “the consequence of not identifying all proper respondents is not that the appeal is totally inadmissible, but only that the Panel may refuse to issue orders against a person who is a proper respondent but has not been joined, or may limit the scope of its review to the orders sought against the party correctly joined as a respondent.”
4.2. Acceptance of Late Evidence
With regard to the admission of evidence submitted after the EPP review process, CAS based its decision mainly on the consolidated jurisprudence regarding the de novo principle under Article R57 of the CAS Code of Arbitration.
The arbitrator expressly cited CAS awards 2023/A/9940-9941, para. 94, and CAS 2023/A/9730, para. 74, which held that “there is no provision or principle enshrined in the FIFA regulations that requires an exception to the de novo principle in the present case.”
On this basis, and considering the ratio legis of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article R57, he concluded that:
-
The appellant had several opportunities to submit the documentation during the EPP process and, although it acted negligently, it did not do so in bad faith or in abuse of its procedural rights, as it could not obtain a procedural advantage.
-
The authenticity of the evidence was not substantially challenged by the respondent parties.
This approach allowed the incorporation of the documentation, highlighting that CAS’s role is to conduct a broad review of the case when circumstances so warrant.
4.3. Final Decision
In conclusion, the arbitrator admitted the documentary evidence submitted late on the basis of Article R57. He considered that the player’s contract with Desenzano Calcio could have granted him professional status before his transfer, pursuant to Article 2 of the RSTP, but that this could not be determined definitively due to the absence of the relevant parties in the proceedings.
He also negatively assessed the passivity of Torres S.R.L. during the EPP review process, ordering it to pay the costs and instructing FIFA to forward the declarations to the General Secretariat for review and the drafting of a new EPP for the player.
5. Critical Assessment
Understanding the CAS decision is essential, as its interpretation directly impacts the practical application of sensitive rules for the football industry.
With regard to the determination of professional player status (Article 2 of the RSTP), I agree with the arbitrator’s view on the ambiguity of the current wording of the rule. The status of “professional” cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the existence of a contract and a minimum salary threshold; it must take into account the player’s overall economic reality. This includes not only expenses derived from sporting activity (training, equipment, transportation), but also those related to the cost of living—housing, food, children’s education, among others—that in many cases are not covered by the agreed salary.
In this sense, FIFA’s Clearing House should carefully analyze each case, considering not only contractual figures but also the economic context of the country where the player provides services, since the cost of living varies significantly from one jurisdiction to another. A rigid interpretation of Article 2 could generate inequities and undermine the protective purpose of the rule.
With regard to the admission of late evidence under Article R57 of the CAS Code of Arbitration, I consider that its application must be extremely cautious. While the de novo principle seeks to ensure that the arbitrator has all elements to decide, its indiscriminate use can undermine the legal certainty of the compensation system. In this case, Torres S.R.L.’s conduct evidenced procedural negligence: it did not request extensions to obtain the documentation, it did not timely inform that it was awaiting such documents, and, as a result, FIFA issued the Allocation Statements assigning training compensation rights against the Italian club.
The award itself acknowledged that:
“[…] the Appellant had numerous opportunities to submit relevant documents during the EPP review process and, by failing to do so, acted negligently, but nevertheless not in bad faith or in abuse of its procedural rights, as it could not obtain a procedural advantage by doing so.” (CAS 2024/A/10673, para. 136).
From my perspective, the evidence should not have been admitted. Allowing a party that acted with procedural passivity to introduce evidence at an advanced stage of the process sends a counterproductive message: that deadlines and procedural obligations can be relativized without consequences. This undermines the transparency and predictability that the Clearing House seeks to guarantee in matters of training compensation, affecting stakeholders’ confidence in the system.
Photo: Children playing football (pixabay.com)
6. Conclusions
The present CAS case highlights the complexity involved in determining the status of a professional player under Article 2 of the RSTP, as well as the scope of Article R57 of the Code of Arbitration with regard to the admission of late evidence. The award addressed both issues comprehensively, making it clear that the interpretation of professional status cannot be reduced to a mere contractual analysis, but must also take into account the economic and social context in which the player carries out his activity.
While I share the need for a flexible assessment adapted to local realities, I consider that the acceptance of late evidence, even when not submitted in bad faith, should be exceptional and limited to truly justified situations. Procedural passivity, such as that shown by Torres S.R.L., undermines the purpose of FIFA’s Clearing House and compromises the legal certainty of the system.
Ultimately, this award sets an important precedent for the interpretation of training compensation rights and the operation of the compensation system, reminding us that transparency and procedural predictability are pillars that must not be eroded by decisions that, although reasonable in the specific case, may create uncertainty in future practice.
YOU CAN ALSO READ: Burga vs FIFA: Between Criminal Acquittal and Sporting Sanction
7. References
- Cámara de Compensación de la FIFA. (2025). Reglamento de la Cámara de Compensación de la FIFA: Edición de agosto de 2025. FIFA. https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/1afb6405a3a29d4a/original/Reglamento-de-la-Camara-de-Compensacion-de-la-FIFA-Edicion-de-agosto-de-2025.pdf
- Crespo Pérez, J. de D., & Frega Navía, R. (2010). Comentarios al Reglamento FIFA: con análisis de jurisprudencia de la DRC y del TAS (Vol. 10, Colección Derecho Deportivo). Dykinson.
- De Weger, F. M. (2016). The jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (2nd ed.). T.M.C. Asser Press.
- Estatuto de los Jugadores – Artículo 2. (s.f.). vLex España. https://vlex.es/vid/articulo-2-estatuto-jugadores-638410629
- Federación Internacional de Fútbol Asociación. (s.f.). Reglamento sobre el Estatuto y la Transferencia de Jugadores. Sports Law Institute. https://sportslawinstitute.com/estudio-sobre-el-estatus-de-los-jugadores-de-futbol/?utm
- Jurisdeportiva. (2025, junio). Laudo TAS 2024/A/10673 Torres S.R.L. vs. FIFA, Argentinos Juniors e Independiente. https://jurisdeportiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CAS_10673_-_Award__FINAL_for_publ._.pdf
- Kitching, J. (2015, diciembre 21). Not comfortably satisfied: The upcoming Court of Arbitration for Sport case of the thirty-four current and former players of the Essendon Football Club. Asser International Sports Law Blog. https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/not-comfortably-satisfied-the-upcoming-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-case-of-the-thirty-four-current-and-former-players-of-the-essendon-football-club-by-james-kitching
- Mavromati, D., & Reeb, M. (2015). The code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer International. Reseña de Matthew Mitten. https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/book-review-despina-mavromati-and-matthieu-reeb-the-code-of-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-commentary-cases-and-materials-wolters-kluwer-international-2015-by-professor-matthew-mitten
- Sport Legis. (2014, julio 13). The Panel’s right to exclude evidence based on Article R57 para. 3 CAS Code: A limit to CAS full power of review (CAS Bulletin 1/2014, pp. 48–57). https://www.sportlegis.com/2014/07/13/the-panels-right-to-exclude-evidence-based-on-article-r57-para-3-cas-code-a-limit-to-cas-full-power-of-review-cas-bulletin-1-2014-pp-48-57/
- Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte. (s.f.). El Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte. Scribd. https://es.scribd.com/document/644783540/El-Tribunal-Arbitral-del-deporte
- Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte. (s.f.). The new CAS rules: What you need to know. https://d3qfk7u7s63iel.cloudfront.net/topics/blogs/item/the-new-cas-rules-what-you-need-to-know
- Weatherill, S. (2014). European sports law: Collected papers (2nd ed.). T.M.C. Asser Press.
LEGAL NOTICE: This article has been prepared for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal advice directed to particular circumstances. You should not take or refrain from taking any legal action based on the information contained without first seeking professional, individualized advice based on your own circumstances. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.
If you want advice related to the subject of the
article do not hesitate to contact us!
(email: contact@wdassocies.com)
Leave A Comment