The National Court of Civil Appeals confirmed a ruling that requires a first division soccer club to pay more than seven million pesos to another entity in the interior of Buenos Aires as benefits for the transfer of a former amateur player. The resolution represents the end of a judicial dispute that pitted two sports institutions over the interpretation and compliance of an agreement signed in 2014.
The case originated when the plaintiff club, dedicated to the training of young footballers in the province of Buenos Aires, initiated legal actions against the first division club after demanding payment of a sum corresponding to the transfer of the economic rights of a player who had emerged from its lower divisions. The plaintiff, a non-profit civil association, has as its main activity the promotion and development of soccer players in youth categories.
The lawsuit presented as its axis the existence of a “Private Agreement for the Recognition of Economic Benefits” signed on March 13, 2014. In that instrument, both entities agreed on the transfer of all the federative and economic rights of a young amateur soccer player, who was less than 20 years old at the time, in exchange for the receiving club recognizing a percentage of future transfers. The document established that, in the event that the player was transferred to another national or foreign institution, the plaintiff would receive 20% of the net amount of the operation, with a cap of 350,000 US dollars.
According to the resolution, The controversy arose when the first division club transferred the player to another institution without paying the sum agreed in the agreement.. Given the lack of payment, the club of origin filed a judicial claim, requesting the collection of 7,372,666 pesos plus interest and costs, based on what was stipulated in the 2014 agreement.
The court of first instance granted the claim. In the ruling handed down on February 21, 2025, the judge considered the contractual link and payment obligation to be proven, condemning the defendant club to pay the amount claimed along with the interest generated from the date of each disbursement. The judge based her decision on the validity of the agreement, the existence of the obligation and the failure to comply with this part. The judge dismissed the claims related to the alleged invalidity of the agreement and rejected the defendant’s claim to deduct certain expenses and taxes.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the convicted sports entity appealed the ruling. Among his main arguments, he maintained that the agreement was never perfected because it had not had the approval of its board of directors, a requirement expressly provided for in a clause of the agreement. Furthermore, he questioned the settlement of the fixed sum, alleging that expenses, taxes and the percentage corresponding to the player himself by collective agreement had not been deducted.
During the appeal process, Chamber A of the Civil Chamber analyzed the objections and reviewed the documentation provided. As stated in the resolution, the judges highlighted that the events judged occurred under the validity of the previous Civil Code, although they clarified that the new provisions can serve as an interpretative guideline. In this sense, the magistrates recalled that the suspensive condition established in the agreement, referring to the approval of the board of directors, can be considered fulfilled in a fictitious manner if the interested party acts as if the agreement were in force.
The main opinion, written by one of the chamber judges, held that the conduct of the defendant club demonstrates that it tacitly waived the condition of formal approval. The court assessed that the player’s transfer was registered in the Argentine Football Association in the name of the first division club and then in favor of a third institution, which shows that the agreement was executed in practice.
The court concluded that if the agreement based on the claim had not been perfected, the transfer could not have been registered or subsequent operations carried out. For this reason, the court considered that all obligations derived from the agreement are enforceable and the invalidity claim should be rejected.
Regarding the settlement of the sum to be paid, the Chamber examined the appellant club’s questions regarding the lack of deduction of certain concepts. The court highlighted that, according to the accounting expert report, the transfer expenses were not paid by the defendant club, but by the institution that finally acquired the player’s rights. This expert conclusion was not challenged by any of the parties.
The ruling also addressed the moment from which interest should be computed. The convicted party had requested that the interest run from 30 days after the receipt of each payment, as agreed in the agreement. However, the first instance ruling had already established that interest was generated from the date on which each disbursement corresponded. The Chamber considered that there was no grievance on this point and maintained what was resolved in the first instance.
The Chamber’s resolution imposed the costs (expenses) of the appeal process on the defendant, confirming the sentence handed down in the first instance in all appealed aspects. In addition, it established that professional fees will be regulated once this procedure is completed in the court of origin.
This case highlights the importance of the agreements signed between clubs for the transfer of economic rights of footballers and its enforceability even when certain formal requirements have not been expressly met. The assessment of the conduct of the parties and the effective execution of the acts provided for in the agreements was decisive for the outcome of the litigation.
Related reading
