This appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) delves into a significant dispute between Right to Dream FC (the Club), a Ghanaian football club, and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), football’s global governing body. At its heart, the case revolves around Right to Dream FC’s claim for solidarity contribution related to Ghanaian player Ernest Nuamah Appiah, specifically for the period between August 1, 2015, and March 18, 2019, when the Player was between 12 and 16 years old.
The Club asserts that the Player began his football journey at Real Soccer Angels Football Club from 2009 until December 2, 2013, at which point he transferred to Right to Dream FC. According to the Club, he remained with them until January 27, 2022, before moving to FC Nordsjælland in Denmark. A subsequent transfer on March 18, 2023, from FC Nordsjælland to Racing White Daring Molenbeek in Belgium, initiated the process for allocating training rewards and generating an Electronic Player Passport (EPP) through FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS). Consequently, a provisional EPP (number 30421) was issued on August 31, 2023.
However, this provisional EPP presented a critical discrepancy: it indicated the Player was registered as an amateur with “Stadium Youth Club” in Ghana during the contested period (August 1, 2015 – March 18, 2019), alongside his registrations with Right to Dream FC and FC Nordsjælland. The final EPP, generated on February 23, 2024, after administrative steps for training compensation, reiterated Stadium Youth Club’s registration for the same period.
On February 23, 2024, FIFA’s General Secretariat formally notified Right to Dream FC of its determination based on this first EPP (number 30421), a decision now central to this appeal. This “Appealed Decision” affirmed the Player’s registration with Stadium Youth Club during the contested period. Since Stadium Youth Club was no longer operational, FIFA, in accordance with its regulations, awarded the solidarity contribution that would have been due to that club to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).
Right to Dream FC promptly appealed this decision to the CAS on March 15, 2024. The Club vehemently argued that the EPP was erroneous, insisting the Player was indeed registered with Right to Dream FC, not Stadium Youth Club, during the relevant period. Their appeal sought to overturn the Appealed Decision and compel FIFA to rectify the EPP to accurately reflect their registration of the Player from December 2, 2013, to January 27, 2022. The Club estimated that the disputed solidarity contribution, stemming from the transfer to Racing White Daring Molenbeek alone, amounted to at least EUR 283,919.20, with potential for greater financial loss from future transfers if the error remained uncorrected.
The Club further stated that they had repeatedly contacted the GFA since January 2022 to correct the player passport data and EPP. The GFA reportedly acknowledged the error and rectified the national EPP but cited a technical “block” preventing them from updating FIFA TMS. The Club also reached out to FIFA, only to be redirected back to the GFA and advised to pursue legal remedies.
Interestingly, during the CAS proceedings, the Player transferred again, this time to Lyon, which initiated a new EPP process. A revised EPP (EPP-44483) was subsequently produced, which, according to Right to Dream FC, finally showed them as being entitled to rewards for the contested period. This development followed reported changes made by the GFA to the Player’s registration information during the new EPP review process on August 5, 2024.
Issues for Determination:
The Sole Arbitrator identified two primary issues demanding resolution:
a. The question of standing, specifically concerning the absence of the GFA as a respondent in the appeal.
b. The appropriate scope of the Sole Arbitrator’s review—whether to issue a new decision or annul the existing one and refer the case back to FIFA.
Analysis of the Issues by the Arbitrator:
a. The issue of standing, with the absence of the GFA as a respondent:
FIFA contended that the appeal lacked standing because the GFA, as the rightful recipient of the solidarity contribution due to the defunct Stadium Youth Club under the Appealed Decision, was an indispensable respondent. FIFA argued that Right to Dream FC sought a decision that would directly impact the GFA’s rights and financial standing, and any ruling on the merits without the GFA’s involvement would violate its right to be heard. FIFA emphasized its reliance on the electronic data entered by the GFA in FIFA Connect/TMS for EPP generation and highlighted that only member associations like the GFA could modify registration information during the EPP review process. FIFA declined to consent to the GFA joining the proceedings, asserting it was Right to Dream FC’s responsibility to summon all correct respondents.
Right to Dream FC countered, accusing FIFA of employing “spurious procedural excuses” and suggesting that if the GFA was deemed a mandatory respondent, the Sole Arbitrator could simply allow its participation, to which they had no objection. The Club also presented evidence indicating the GFA had acknowledged an error in the national system but faced a technical “block” in FIFA TMS.
The Sole Arbitrator sided with FIFA, agreeing that Right to Dream FC sought a decision directly affecting the GFA’s rights. Overturning the Appealed Decision and awarding solidarity contribution to Right to Dream FC for the contested period would effectively transfer funds from the GFA. Therefore, the GFA’s involvement was crucial to explain the information it provided to TMS, including when and why, and whether it indeed claimed the awarded monies. The Sole Arbitrator noted that Right to Dream FC had the opportunity to include the GFA as a respondent when filing the appeal but failed to do so. He concluded that proceeding to the merits of the case without the GFA as a party would risk violating the GFA’s right to be heard and jeopardizing its financial position.
b. The scope of the Sole Arbitrator’s review:
Article R57 of the CAS Code grants the arbitral panel broad authority to review facts and law, empowering them to issue a new decision or annul the challenged decision and refer the case back to the original instance. Right to Dream FC, in their second round of submissions, subsidiarily requested that if their primary requests could not be met, the Appealed Decision should be annulled and the case returned to FIFA.
FIFA anticipated this possibility but argued it would be inappropriate, claiming that Right to Dream FC’s failure to timely summon the GFA created a legitimate expectation for the GFA that the EPP was final and binding. However, the Sole Arbitrator was not persuaded by FIFA’s argument regarding the GFA’s legitimate expectation, citing the correspondence between Right to Dream FC and the GFA both before and after the final EPP, as well as the changes reportedly made by the GFA when the new EPP (EPP-44483) for the move to Lyon was generated.
The Sole Arbitrator underscored that CAS panels possess discretion under Article R57 and do not require a specific request from the parties to choose between issuing a new decision or annulling and referring back. Referencing established CAS jurisprudence, he highlighted that annulling and referring a case back is often justified to ensure the highest court deals with a matter only once, allowing for a comprehensive initial review by the originating body.
Right to Dream FC had introduced new evidence during the CAS proceedings, including a national player passport, affidavits, and EPP-44483, which FIFA had not fully considered. The Sole Arbitrator was unable to question the GFA about this evidence since it was not a party. However, referring the case back to FIFA would enable FIFA to make inquiries with the GFA regarding this new evidence and determine if a mistake had indeed occurred, thus allowing for a fresh decision on the solidarity contribution for the contested period.
Ultimately, the Sole Arbitrator was swayed by “the need for the correct outcome,” despite Right to Dream FC’s procedural error in omitting the GFA. Referring the case back to FIFA would facilitate the proper consideration of new evidence in consultation with the GFA, thereby addressing the core factual question of whether the Player was genuinely registered with Right to Dream FC during the contested period.
Final Holding:
Based on this thorough analysis, the Court of Arbitration for Sport partially allowed the appeal filed by Right to Dream FC against FIFA’s decision of February 23, 2024. The Appealed Decision issued by FIFA on February 23, 2024, was annulled, and the matter was referred back to FIFA for reconsideration in light of the information presented during the CAS case. All other prayers for relief were dismissed.
Why this decision is important in sports disputes:
This CAS decision holds significant implications for sports disputes for several key reasons:
Procedural Requirements (Mandatory Joinder): It powerfully reiterates the critical importance of identifying and including all necessary parties, or “mandatory respondents,” in an appeal. This case specifically underscores that any entity whose rights or financial interests could be directly affected by a decision must be afforded the opportunity to be heard. A failure to include such parties, as seen with the GFA here, can prevent the CAS panel from ruling on the merits of a dispute.
CAS Discretion under Article R57: The ruling vividly demonstrates the CAS panel’s authority and willingness, granted by Article R57 of the CAS Code, to annul a challenged decision and remit the case back to the original sports body. This is crucial because it illustrates that even when a party commits a procedural error, like failing to include a mandatory respondent, that precludes a full merits review at CAS, the panel can still opt for a remedy that ensures the core factual dispute is properly investigated by the relevant sports body with all available information.
Ensuring a “Correct Outcome”: The Sole Arbitrator’s explicit statement that “the need for the correct outcome” swayed his decision to refer the matter back to FIFA highlights a fundamental principle. It emphasizes that while procedural rules are essential, CAS ultimately aims to foster a fair process where factual discrepancies can be resolved, even if the initial appeal had procedural flaws.
Interaction between FIFA, National Associations, and Clubs: This case illuminates the complex interplay between FIFA, national football associations (like the GFA), and clubs (like Right to Dream FC) concerning player registration data and the Electronic Player Passport (EPP) system used for calculating training rewards. It underscores that FIFA heavily relies on data provided by national associations, and that these associations play a pivotal role in the EPP review process and in correcting data errors. Disputes frequently arise from alleged inaccuracies in this data, and this decision provides a clear procedural pathway for such issues to be meticulously re-examined by FIFA in collaborative consultation with the relevant national association.
Mokua Manyara
+254733491415
mokua@mnwlaw.co,ke