CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2021/A/8326 & CAS 2021/A/8332 — Arnaldo Manuel Amaral Teixeira v. Al Nassr Saudi Club

"Teixeira v. Al Nassr" · CAS held Al Nassr terminated assistant coach's contract without just cause, awarding EUR 206,364.65 outstanding remuneration and EUR 378,645.95 compensation.

What happened in Teixeira v. Al Nassr

Arnaldo Manuel Amaral Teixeira, a Portuguese assistant football coach, was employed by Al Nassr Saudi Club from January 2019. After Covid-19 disrupted the 2019-2020 season, the parties signed a Second Contract on 1 June 2020 extending the relationship through May 2022 at EUR 800,000 net. On 27 December 2020, following poor sporting results, the Club met the coaching staff and effectively terminated the relationship. The Coach denied any mutual agreement and filed a FIFA claim on 28 January 2021. The FIFA PSC Single Judge awarded EUR 258,576 outstanding remuneration and EUR 315,474 compensation. Both parties appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found the Club terminated the Second Contract without just cause, rejecting the Club's mutual-agreement defence for lack of documentary evidence. He recalculated outstanding remuneration at EUR 206,364.65 (applying a pro-rata monthly rate of EUR 38,095.24 over 21 contract months) and compensation at EUR 378,645.95 after deducting EUR 273,565.40 received from FK Spartak Moscow. The Coach's claim for additional compensation under Art. 337c para. 3 SCO was declared inadmissible as it had not been raised before the PSC. Both appeals were partially upheld. The case matters because it clarifies how Annex 8 FIFA RSTP interacts with contractual termination clauses and how mitigation is calculated for coaches.

Procedural history of CAS 2021/A/8326

On 28 January 2021, the Coach filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Committee (PSC) seeking outstanding salaries, compensation for breach of contract, bonuses, and 5% p.a. default interest. The Club filed its answer on 30 March 2021 requesting full dismissal. On 27 July 2021, the Single Judge of the PSC issued the Appealed Decision, ordering the Club to pay EUR 258,576 as outstanding remuneration (with 5% p.a. interest from respective due dates) and EUR 315,474 as compensation for breach of contract (with 5% p.a. interest from 28 January 2021), and CHF 22,000 in procedural costs. FIFA notified the grounds on 1 September 2021. The Coach appealed on 19 September 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8326) seeking higher compensation and additional damages under Art. 337c para. 3 SCO. The Club appealed on 22 September 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8332) seeking a finding of mutual termination and reduced compensation. The cases were consolidated before Sole Arbitrator Bernasconi. A hearing was held on 22 May 2022 in Lausanne.

Key holdings in CAS 2021/A/8326

• The Second Contract was terminated unilaterally by Al Nassr without just cause on 27 December 2020, as no written termination agreement existed and the Coach's letter of 2 January 2021 expressly described a unilateral termination.
• The FIFA RSTP of January 2021 (including Annex 8) applies to the dispute because the Coach filed his claim on 28 January 2021, after the regulations entered into force on 1 January 2021, pursuant to Art. 26 para. 2 of the FIFA RSTP of January 2021.
• The clausula rebus sic stantibus principle and Covid-19 guidelines did not justify a unilateral 50% salary reduction, as the season was ultimately completed and the Club produced no conclusive evidence of binding regulatory authority to impose such a reduction.
• Outstanding remuneration under the Second Contract is calculated on a pro-rata basis at EUR 38,095.24 per month (EUR 800,000 over 21 months), yielding EUR 147,788.65 for 118 days worked, not as advance payments.
• The Coach's claim for additional compensation under Art. 337c para. 3 SCO was inadmissible before CAS because it was not raised before the PSC, limiting CAS's full power of review to issues dealt with in the appealed decision.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first resolved the applicable law question by applying Art. 26 para. 2 FIFA RSTP January 2021, holding that since the claim was filed after 1 January 2021, the new regulations governed. He then rejected the Club's mutual-termination argument because no written agreement existed and the Coach's 2 January 2021 letter explicitly characterised the termination as unilateral. On outstanding remuneration, the Arbitrator rejected the advance-payment characterisation, noting that instalments falling due on 30 June — one month after season-end — were inconsistent with advance payments, and that Art. XI of the Contract required written amendments. He calculated monthly remuneration over 21 months (not 9-month seasons) because a coach's duties continue between seasons. On compensation, he applied Art. 2 Part VI of the Second Contract (which expressly incorporated Swiss-law mitigation) rather than the default Annex 8 formula, consistent with the 'unless otherwise provided for in the contract' carve-out in Art. 6 para. 2 Annex 8. He deducted the full EUR 273,565.40 received from Spartak (gross, without tax adjustment, as the Coach failed to prove actual tax payments or that no taxes were due on the Al Nassr salary). He declined to deduct a notional car benefit from Spartak because no equivalent exercise was performed for the Al Nassr car. The additional Art. 337c para. 3 SCO claim was dismissed as inadmissible for not having been raised at first instance.

Why Teixeira v. Al Nassr matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that the contractual carve-out 'unless otherwise provided for in the contract' in Art. 6 para. 2 Annex 8 FIFA RSTP operates for coaches in the same way Art. 17 para. 1 FIFA RSTP operates for players, allowing parties to contractually specify a Swiss-law mitigation framework. It also establishes that a coach's monthly remuneration for pro-rata purposes should be calculated over the full contract duration including inter-season periods, and that gross Spartak earnings (without unproven tax deductions) are the correct mitigation benchmark.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/4346 CAS 2016/A/4852 CAS 2013/A/3426 CAS 2014/A/3577 CAS 2014/A/3546 CAS 2017/A/5111

Frequently asked questions about Teixeira v. Al Nassr

Did Al Nassr terminate Teixeira's contract by mutual agreement or without just cause?

The Sole Arbitrator found the termination was without just cause. There was no written termination agreement, and the Coach's letter of 2 January 2021 — sent six days after the 27 December 2020 meeting — explicitly stated that 'the Club terminated the Contract unilaterally' and demanded EUR 925,673. The Club failed to meet its burden of proving mutual agreement.

How did CAS calculate the compensation owed to Teixeira after mitigation?

The Sole Arbitrator applied Art. 2 Part VI of the Second Contract, which incorporated Swiss-law mitigation. The residual value of the Second Contract was EUR 652,211.35. From this he deducted EUR 273,565.40 — the total gross amounts received from FK Spartak Moscow (salaries, bonuses, and compensation) — arriving at EUR 378,645.95. Tax deductions were refused because the Coach provided no evidence of taxes actually paid in Russia or of tax-free treatment of the Al Nassr salary.

Was the Coach entitled to additional compensation under Art. 337c para. 3 SCO for Al Nassr's unjustified termination?

No. The Sole Arbitrator declared this claim inadmissible because it was raised for the first time before CAS and had not been presented to the FIFA PSC. CAS's full power of review is limited to issues dealt with in the appealed decision, so the prayer for relief of a minimum EUR 100,000 to maximum EUR 200,000 additional indemnity was dismissed.

Which version of the FIFA RSTP applied to the Teixeira v. Al Nassr dispute?

The FIFA RSTP of January 2021, including its Annex 8 on coach contracts, applied. Under Art. 26 para. 2 of those regulations, cases not involving training compensation, solidarity mechanism, or pre-2001 contracts are assessed under the regulations in force at the time the claim is filed. Since the Coach filed his FIFA claim on 28 January 2021 — after the regulations entered into force on 1 January 2021 — the January 2021 version governed.

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.