CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2011/A/2596 — Anorthosis Famagusta FC v. Ernst Middendorp

"Middendorp" · CAS upheld FIFA PSC's award of EUR 156,036 to a coach dismissed without just cause after one poor result.

What happened in Middendorp

Anorthosis Famagusta FC, a Cypriot club, hired German coach Ernst Middendorp on 11 May 2009 under two concurrent agreements running from 1 June 2009 to 30 May 2010, providing a combined net salary of EUR 20,000 per month. On 23 July 2009, the club lost to OFK Petrovac and was eliminated from the UEFA Europa League qualification. The club summoned Middendorp the next day and terminated his contracts on 25 July 2009 for alleged 'just cause', citing poor team performance and breach of internal regulations. Middendorp filed a claim with FIFA on 3 August 2009. The FIFA Players' Status Committee (PSC) on 24 January 2011 found the termination was without just cause and awarded EUR 156,036 (EUR 200,000 remaining salary minus EUR 43,963.27 earned at Maritzburg United FC) plus 5% annual interest. Anorthosis appealed to CAS. The panel dismissed the appeal, confirming FIFA PSC jurisdiction over coach-club disputes of international dimension, rejecting poor sporting results as just cause, holding Art. 17 RSTP inapplicable to coaches, and applying Art. 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations to calculate compensation. The case matters because it authoritatively settles that Art. 17 RSTP does not govern coach compensation and that poor results alone cannot constitute just cause for termination.

Procedural history of CAS 2011/A/2596

On 3 August 2009, coach Ernst Middendorp lodged a claim with FIFA against Anorthosis Famagusta FC seeking EUR 200,000 plus 5% interest following his dismissal on 25 July 2009. He later amended his claim to EUR 187,236.63 after disclosing earnings of ZAR 418,761 (EUR 43,963.27) from Maritzburg United FC. The FIFA Players' Status Committee issued its decision on 24 January 2011, partially accepting the claim and ordering Anorthosis to pay EUR 156,036 plus 5% interest per year from 24 January 2011, and CHF 13,000 in procedural costs (CHF 8,000 to FIFA, CHF 5,000 to Middendorp). The decision with grounds was notified to the parties on 30 September 2011. Anorthosis filed its statement of appeal with CAS on 10 October 2011 and its appeal brief on 21 October 2011. Middendorp filed his answer on 27 October 2011. Both parties agreed to proceed on written submissions only. The CAS panel was constituted on 14 November 2011.

Key holdings in CAS 2011/A/2596

• Arts. 22 and 23 RSTP are directly applicable to coaches by explicit extension, making the FIFA PSC prima facie competent to hear employment disputes between a club and a coach of international dimension unless a national independent arbitration tribunal is specifically referenced in the contract.
• The absence of sporting results cannot, as a general rule, constitute per se just cause to terminate a contractual relationship.
• Art. 17 RSTP is not applicable to disputes concerning coaches, as Art. 1 RSTP limits its scope to 'players' and the FIFA Statutes no longer contain the provision in Art. 33.4 of their 2001 version equating coaches with players.
• Under Art. 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations, termination without just cause of a fixed-term employment contract obliges the employer to pay everything the employee would have earned until the agreed end date, subject to mitigation for amounts earned, saved, or intentionally not earned after dismissal.
• A club that never challenged FIFA PSC competence during first-instance proceedings is deemed to have accepted that competence and cannot contest it for the first time before CAS.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel addressed three issues sequentially. On jurisdiction, it found that Arts. 22(c) and 23 RSTP explicitly extend FIFA PSC competence to coach-club disputes of international dimension; the contractual clause submitting disputes to Cypriot sporting authorities did not trigger the exception because it did not specifically reference an independent arbitration tribunal as required by Art. 22 RSTP. The panel also noted Anorthosis had never challenged FIFA's competence at first instance. On just cause, the panel applied the general burden-of-proof principle under Art. 8 of the Swiss Civil Code and CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2003/A/506; CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811; CAS 2009/A/1975), finding Anorthosis failed to prove Middendorp knew of the internal regulations or had committed any breach justifying termination. It confirmed that poor sporting results cannot per se constitute just cause. On compensation, the panel rejected application of Art. 17 RSTP to coaches, citing CAS 2008/A/1464 & 1467, and instead applied Art. 337c CO. It accepted EUR 200,000 as the undisputed remaining salary, deducted the agreed mitigation amount of EUR 43,963.27 earned at Maritzburg United FC, and rejected Anorthosis's claim of further mitigation for lack of proof, arriving at EUR 156,036 with 5% interest under Art. 104 CO.

Why Middendorp matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is a leading CAS authority establishing that Art. 17 RSTP does not apply to coaches and that compensation for wrongful dismissal of a coach must instead be calculated under Art. 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations. It also confirms that poor sporting results alone cannot constitute just cause for termination of a coach's contract, and clarifies the conditions under which the FIFA PSC exception clause for national independent tribunals is triggered under Art. 22 RSTP.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2003/A/506 CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811 CAS 2009/A/1975 CAS 2008/A/1464 & 1467 CAS 2011/A/2321

Frequently asked questions about Middendorp

Does Art. 17 RSTP apply to coaches dismissed without just cause?

No. The CAS panel in Middendorp held that Art. 17 RSTP is not applicable to coaches because Art. 1 RSTP limits its scope to 'players'. The panel cited CAS 2008/A/1464 & 1467, noting that the FIFA Statutes no longer contain the provision in Art. 33.4 of their 2001 version that equated coaches with players. Compensation for a coach dismissed without just cause must instead be calculated under Art. 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

Can a football club terminate a coach's contract for just cause based on poor sporting results?

No. The panel in Middendorp confirmed that the absence of sporting results cannot, as a general rule, constitute per se just cause to terminate a contractual relationship. Anorthosis terminated Middendorp's contract after a single defeat against OFK Petrovac that eliminated the club from UEFA Europa League qualification, and the panel found this did not amount to just cause. The club also failed to prove Middendorp had knowledge of the internal regulations it relied upon.

How is compensation calculated for a coach wrongfully dismissed from a fixed-term contract under Swiss law?

Under Art. 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations, the employer must pay everything the employee would have earned until the agreed end of the contract. In Middendorp, the panel calculated EUR 200,000 (10 months at EUR 20,000 net per month) as the base amount. It then deducted EUR 43,963.27 earned by Middendorp at Maritzburg United FC as mitigation under Art. 337c para. 2 CO, arriving at EUR 156,036, with 5% annual interest under Art. 104 CO from 24 January 2011.

Is FIFA PSC competent to hear disputes between a club and a coach even if the contract refers disputes to national sporting authorities?

Yes, unless the contract specifically references a national independent arbitration tribunal as required by Art. 22 RSTP. In Middendorp, the contracts submitted disputes to 'competent sporting organs and/or authorities of Cyprus' but did not specifically name an independent arbitration tribunal, so the exception clause was not triggered and FIFA PSC jurisdiction was upheld. The panel also noted that Anorthosis had never challenged FIFA's competence during the first-instance proceedings and could not do so for the first time before CAS.

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.