CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2018/A/6017 — FC Lugano SA v. FC Internazionale Milano S.p.A.

"Lugano v. Inter" · CAS reduced Lugano's joint liability for a player's unjustified contract termination from EUR 133,532 to EUR 120,000, confirming no sporting just cause existed.

What happened in Lugano v. Inter

FC Internazionale Milano signed Ivorian defender Yao Guy Eloe Koffi from Parma in January 2012 for EUR 1,000,000. After a successful loan season at Crotone (33 matches, Serie B, 2015/16), the Player returned to Inter but was not fielded in any of Inter's 46 official matches during 2016/17. On 7 June 2017, the Player terminated his contract invoking Article 15 FIFA RSTP (sporting just cause), then signed with FC Lugano SA. Inter counterclaimed before the FIFA DRC, which found no sporting just cause and ordered the Player and Lugano jointly to pay EUR 133,532. Lugano appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the finding of no sporting just cause, adding a decisive ground: the Player never gave Inter a prior warning of his dissatisfaction, which is a prerequisite for any premature termination — whether for sporting just cause or just cause. The same reasoning defeated the subsidiary Article 14 argument. On quantum, the Sole Arbitrator reduced the compensation from EUR 133,532 to EUR 120,000, applying a downward adjustment to reflect the general market reality that a player's value decreases as his contract nears expiry. The case matters because it firmly establishes that a prior warning to the club is a necessary condition for invoking Article 15 FIFA RSTP, and it clarifies the age-based presumptions governing 'established professional' status.

Procedural history of CAS 2018/A/6017

On 22 June 2017, the Player lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) seeking recognition of sporting just cause and moral damages of EUR 143,000. On 10 August 2017, Inter filed a counterclaim for EUR 4,700,000 and requested Lugano be held jointly and severally liable. On 31 July 2017, Inter instructed the FIGC to deny the Player's ITC; on 17 August 2017, the Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee provisionally registered the Player for Lugano. On 7 June 2018, the FIFA DRC rejected the Player's claim, partially accepted Inter's counterclaim, and ordered the Player and Lugano jointly to pay EUR 133,532 to Inter. The grounds were communicated on 29 October 2018. On 19 November 2018, Lugano filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code. The Player sought to intervene but was rejected. A hearing was held in Milan on 4 June 2019.

Key holdings in CAS 2018/A/6017

• A player invoking Article 15 FIFA RSTP (sporting just cause) must give the club a prior warning of his dissatisfaction before terminating; absent such warning, the termination is unjustified.
• Players under 21 are presumed not to be 'established professionals'; between ages 21 and 23 the player's development — not age alone — determines established status; only from age 23 is there a presumption of established professional status.
• The Player's circumstances under Article 15 FIFA RSTP are not a separate fourth cumulative criterion but are relevant to assessing whether the player is an 'established professional'.
• Lugano, as the Player's new club, is jointly and severally liable for compensation under Article 17(2) FIFA RSTP regardless of whether it induced the breach.
• Compensation under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP is calculated on the positive-interest principle; the average of the remaining salary under the breached contract and the new contract is an appropriate base, subject to discretionary adjustment for factors such as the proximity of contract expiry.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed that conditions (ii) and (iii) of Article 15 FIFA RSTP were met (fewer than 10% appearances; termination within 15 days of last match). On the 'established professional' question, he held that players under 21 are presumed not established, and that between 21 and 23 the player's development must be assessed. At 21.5 years, the Player had passed his training period but had not yet completed his education. The Sole Arbitrator found it unnecessary to resolve this question definitively because the termination failed on a separate, decisive ground: the Player never warned Inter of his dissatisfaction. Drawing on Swiss Federal Tribunal case law and CAS 2007/A/1369, the Sole Arbitrator held that premature termination is an ultima ratio requiring a prior opportunity for the employer to cure the situation. The Player admitted he never complained. The same reasoning disposed of the Article 14 just-cause argument. On quantum, the Sole Arbitrator accepted the FIFA DRC's averaging methodology (EUR 143,000 residual Inter salary vs EUR 105,000 Lugano salary = EUR 124,000 average, plus EUR 9,532 pro-rata June salary = EUR 133,532) but applied a downward discretionary adjustment to EUR 120,000 to reflect the general market reality that player values decline as contracts approach expiry. He rejected using unexercised option clauses or the non-amortised transfer fee as bases for compensation.

Why Lugano v. Inter matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is significant in CAS jurisprudence for establishing that a prior warning to the club is a necessary precondition for invoking sporting just cause under Article 15 FIFA RSTP, not merely a factor in the analysis. It also articulates a clear age-based framework — presumption against established status below 21, case-by-case development assessment between 21 and 23, presumption of established status from 23 — providing practitioners with a structured analytical tool for Article 15 disputes.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2007/A/1369 CAS 2006/A/1029 CAS 2011/A/2682 CAS 2017/A/5090 CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2008/A/1519-1520

Frequently asked questions about Lugano v. Inter

Did the player have sporting just cause to terminate his contract with Inter in the Lugano v Inter CAS case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that even assuming the Player could be considered an established professional, he failed to give Inter any prior warning of his dissatisfaction before terminating on 7 June 2017. The Player admitted he never complained to Inter during the entire 2016/17 season. Without such a warning, the termination under Article 15 FIFA RSTP was unjustified.

What is the prior warning requirement for sporting just cause under Article 15 FIFA RSTP after Lugano v Inter?

CAS 2018/A/6017 held that a player must notify the club of his dissatisfaction with his lack of playing time before invoking Article 15 FIFA RSTP, because termination is an ultima ratio. This requirement is drawn from Swiss Federal Tribunal case law on just cause and was previously applied in CAS 2007/A/1369. Silence during the season is treated as acceptance of the situation and bars a subsequent sporting just cause termination.

How did CAS calculate the compensation Lugano had to pay Inter in CAS 2018/A/6017?

The Sole Arbitrator used the positive-interest principle under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, averaging the residual value of the breached Inter contract (EUR 143,000 for the 2017/18 season) and the Player's Lugano salary for the same period (EUR 105,000), yielding EUR 124,000, then adding a pro-rata portion of June 2017 salary (EUR 9,532) for a base of EUR 133,532. He then applied a discretionary downward adjustment to EUR 120,000 to reflect the general market reality that player values decline as contracts near expiry.

At what age is a player presumed to be an 'established professional' under Article 15 FIFA RSTP according to Lugano v Inter?

According to CAS 2018/A/6017, players under 21 are presumed not to be established professionals. Between ages 21 and 23, the player's individual development — not age alone — must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Only from age 23, when the FIFA RSTP education period ends, is there a presumption that a player has become an established professional.

Topics: Training compensation & solidarity 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.