CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2010/A/2145 & CAS 2010/A/2146 & CAS 2010/A/2147 — Sevilla FC SAD v. Udinese Calcio S.p.A. / Morgan De Sanctis v. Udinese Calcio S.p.A. / Udinese Calcio S.p.A. v. Morgan De Sanctis & Sevilla FC SAD

"De Sanctis" · CAS set aside the DRC award and fixed compensation at EUR 2,250,055 for goalkeeper De Sanctis's unilateral contract termination without just cause.

What happened in De Sanctis

Morgan De Sanctis, a goalkeeper under a five-year contract with Udinese Calcio (effective 1 July 2005, gross annual salary EUR 630,000 plus loyalty bonus of EUR 350,878 per year), terminated that contract on 8 June 2007 — outside the protected period — and signed a four-year deal with Sevilla FC on 10 July 2007. Udinese filed a FIFA DRC complaint claiming EUR 23,267,594. The DRC awarded EUR 3,933,134 jointly and severally against De Sanctis and Sevilla, using an averaging method that all three parties challenged on appeal. All parties filed CAS appeals on 24 June 2010. The CAS panel, sitting de novo, rejected the DRC's unexplained averaging of old and new contract remuneration and its unsubstantiated EUR 350,000 specificity-of-sport figure. Instead, the panel anchored compensation in Udinese's actual, documented replacement costs (EUR 4,510,000), deducted the salary savings Udinese made by not paying De Sanctis (EUR 2,950,734), and added EUR 690,789 for the specificity of sport (six months' remuneration under the new Sevilla contract), yielding EUR 2,250,055 with 5% annual interest from 9 June 2007. The award matters because it articulates a flexible, evidence-driven methodology for Art. 17 RSTP compensation, confirms that replacement costs are a valid objective criterion, and clarifies that specificity of sport is a correcting factor — not a vehicle for recovering a transfer fee.

Procedural history of CAS 2010/A/2145

On 18 April 2008 Udinese filed a complaint with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber claiming EUR 23,267,594 for De Sanctis's unilateral termination of the Udinese Contract without just cause. The DRC heard the matter on 10 December 2009 and circulated the operative part on 13 January 2010. Following the parties' request for a detailed decision, the DRC notified its full reasoning on 3 June 2010, awarding EUR 3,933,134 (plus 5% interest from 9 June 2007) jointly and severally against De Sanctis and Sevilla, and rejecting all other claims. All three parties — Sevilla (CAS 2010/A/2145), De Sanctis (CAS 2010/A/2146), and Udinese (CAS 2010/A/2147) — filed Statements of Appeal on 24 June 2010, the last permissible day under Art. 63 para. 1 of the FIFA Statutes. Appeal Briefs were filed on 15 July 2010. The three proceedings were joined and a hearing was held on 16 November 2010 in Lausanne. The CAS panel was asked to issue a de novo decision under Art. R57 of the CAS Code.

Key holdings in CAS 2010/A/2145

• The DRC's method of averaging remuneration under the old and new contracts was incorrect and lacked the reasoned explanation required by Art. 14.4 of the FIFA Rules.
• Replacement costs — including a lost transfer fee, a counter-offer fee, and replacement players' salaries — constitute valid 'other objective criteria' under Art. 17.1 RSTP provided there is a logical nexus between the breach and the loss claimed.
• A liquidated damages clause in the new employment contract cannot serve as a contractual remedy for breach of the old contract; it may only assist in assessing the value of the player's services.
• Specificity of sport is a correcting factor, not an additional head of compensation or a back-door mechanism for recovering a transfer fee, and the panel awarded EUR 690,789 (six months' remuneration under the new contract) under this criterion.
• Interest runs at 5% per annum from 9 June 2007, the first day following the date on which the player was in breach, as the 2006/2007 season had already ended before the notice was given.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel began by rejecting the DRC's averaging approach for lacking any written rationale, as required by Art. 14.4 of the FIFA Rules. Applying the positive-interest principle drawn from CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520, the panel sought to place Udinese in the position it would have occupied had no breach occurred. Because Udinese provided concrete documentary evidence of its replacement strategy — bringing back goalkeeper S. (forgoing EUR 1,200,000 transfer fee, paying EUR 250,000 counter-offer fee, committing to three years of salary) and signing experienced goalkeeper A. on a free transfer for three years — the panel accepted these as the most reliable measure of actual loss. It deducted the gross salary savings Udinese made by not paying De Sanctis (EUR 2,950,734 over three years, including loyalty bonus and rent contribution). The panel rejected the CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 full-value-of-services calculation because Udinese provided insufficient evidence of the player's acquisition value; the EUR 1,500,000 Napoli paid two years later was too speculative. The panel rejected the Swiss Code of Obligations Art. 339c(2) eight-month salary cap proposed by Sevilla and De Sanctis, finding no lacuna in the Regulations. For specificity of sport, the panel followed CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 and awarded six months of the new contract's remuneration (EUR 690,789), explicitly refusing to use the criterion to award a transfer fee equivalent. Interest was confirmed at 5% from 9 June 2007.

Why De Sanctis matters in CAS jurisprudence

De Sanctis is a landmark Art. 17 RSTP compensation case establishing that: (i) there is no single mandatory calculation method and panels must adapt to available evidence; (ii) documented replacement costs are a legitimate objective criterion with a required logical nexus to the breach; (iii) specificity of sport is strictly a correcting factor capped at six months' new-contract salary and cannot substitute for a transfer fee; and (iv) the DRC's unexplained averaging methodology was expressly condemned as failing the transparency and comprehensibility standard set in CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2007/A/1298 & 1299 & 1300 CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881 CAS 2007/A/1358 & CAS 2007/A/1359 CAS 2009/A/1856 & 1857

Frequently asked questions about De Sanctis

How did the De Sanctis CAS case calculate compensation under Art. 17 RSTP?

The panel used Udinese's actual replacement costs (EUR 4,510,000 — comprising the lost EUR 1,200,000 transfer fee for goalkeeper S., a EUR 250,000 counter-offer fee, three years of S.'s salary of EUR 1,179,000, and three years of A.'s salary of EUR 1,881,000) and deducted the gross salary savings Udinese made by not paying De Sanctis (EUR 2,950,734 over three years). It then added EUR 690,789 for the specificity of sport, yielding a total of EUR 2,250,055. The panel chose this approach because Udinese failed to provide concrete evidence of the player's market acquisition value, making the CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520 full-value-of-services method inapplicable.

Was De Sanctis inside or outside the protected period when he terminated his Udinese contract?

The breach was outside the protected period. The Udinese Contract was signed on 20 September 2005 — after De Sanctis's 28th birthday on 26 March 2005 — meaning the protected period was two seasons or two years. De Sanctis gave notice on 8 June 2007, more than two years after the contract took effect on 1 July 2005. All parties accepted this finding before CAS, and accordingly no sporting sanctions were imposed on De Sanctis or Sevilla.

What did the De Sanctis case decide about the specificity of sport under Art. 17 RSTP?

The panel held that specificity of sport is a correcting factor, not an additional head of compensation and not a mechanism to award a transfer fee through the back door. Following CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520, the panel awarded six months of De Sanctis's remuneration under the new Sevilla contract — EUR 690,789 — to reflect unquantifiable losses such as the impact on fans and sponsors when a key player departs. The panel expressly rejected Udinese's request for between EUR 5,000,000 and EUR 10,000,000 under this criterion.

Can a liquidated damages clause in a player's new contract be used to calculate compensation owed to the former club under Art. 17 RSTP?

No, according to the De Sanctis panel. Only the old employment contract is relevant when determining whether the parties agreed a contractual remedy for its breach. The EUR 15,000,000 buy-out clause in De Sanctis's Sevilla contract could not serve as a liquidated damages clause for breach of the Udinese contract. The panel noted such a clause in the new contract may assist in assessing the value of the player's services, but Udinese itself conceded the clause was set at an artificially high level, and the panel declined to use it as a basis for compensation.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.