CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2021/A/8327 & CAS 2021/A/8333 — Luis Miguel Mesquita Esteves v. Al Nassr Saudi Club

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

Award date	28 February 2023
Panel	Sole Arbitrator: Mr Michele A.R. Bernasconi, Attorney-at-law in Zurich, Switzerland; Ad hoc Clerk: Mr Pierre Turrettini, Attorney-at-law in Geneva, Switzerland
Outcome	Both appeals partially upheld; Al Nassr ordered to pay EUR 206,364.65 as outstanding remuneration (EUR 58,576 + EUR 100,000 + EUR 47,788.65, each plus 5% p.a. interest from respective due dates) and EUR 378,645.95 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% p.a. interest from 28 January 2021; arbitration costs split equally; each party bears its own legal costs.
Provisions	Art. 6 para. 2 Annex 8 FIFA RSTP (January 2021) Art. 26 para. 2 FIFA RSTP (January 2021) Art. 29 FIFA RSTP (January 2021) Art. 17 para. 1 FIFA RSTP Art. 337c para. 1 SCO Art. 337c para. 2 SCO Art. 337c para. 3 SCO Art. 339 para. 1 SCO Art. 62 SCO Art. 2 SCC Art. 8 SCC Art. 2 Part VI of the Second Contract Art. R47 CAS Code Art. R48 CAS Code Art. R58 CAS Code Art. R64.4 CAS Code Art. R64.5 CAS Code Art. 56 para. 1 FIFA Statutes Art. 57 para. 1 FIFA Statutes Art. 17.3 FIFA Procedural Rules Art. 17.5 FIFA Procedural Rules Art. 8 Annexe 8 FIFA RSTP

What happened in Esteves v. Al Nassr

Luis Miguel Mesquita Esteves, a Portuguese assistant football coach, was employed by Al Nassr Saudi Club under a contract from January 2019 to May 2020 (EUR 600,000) and a Second Contract from September 2020 to May 2022 (EUR 800,000). Al Nassr terminated the Second Contract on 27 December 2020 following poor sporting results, claiming mutual agreement. The coach denied this and filed a FIFA PSC claim in January 2021. The PSC awarded EUR 258,576 outstanding remuneration and EUR 315,474 compensation. Both parties appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found no evidence of mutual termination — the coach's lawyer had sent a detailed debt breakdown letter on 2 January 2021 characterising the termination as unilateral. CAS recalculated outstanding remuneration at EUR 206,364.65 (reducing the PSC figure by treating the second instalment on a pro rata basis) and recalculated compensation at EUR 378,645.95 after deducting EUR 273,565.40 earned by the coach at FK Spartak Moscow. The case matters because it applies Annex 8 of the FIFA RSTP January 2021 to coaches for the first time in this context, confirms that contractual termination clauses referencing Swiss law override the default FIFA mitigation framework, and addresses Covid-19 salary-reduction arguments in the coaching context.

Procedural history of CAS 2021/A/8327

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. On 27 July 2021, the Single Judge of the PSC partially accepted the claim, ordering Al Nassr to pay EUR 258,576 as outstanding remuneration and EUR 315,474 as compensation for breach of contract, both plus 5% p.a. interest, and CHF 22,000 in procedural costs. The grounds were notified on 1 September 2021. The coach filed his CAS Statement of Appeal on 19 September 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8327) seeking higher compensation and additional indemnity under Art. 337c para. 3 SCO. Al Nassr filed its Statement of Appeal on 22 September 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8333) 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/8327

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 characterised the termination as unilateral.
The FIFA RSTP of January 2021 (including Annex 8) applies to the dispute because the coach filed his claim after 1 January 2021, per Article 26 para. 2 of the FIFA RSTP of January 2021.
Article 2 Part VI of the Second Contract, which provides for payment of the residual value subject to Swiss-law mitigation, overrides the default compensation framework of Article 6 para. 2 of Annex 8 FIFA RSTP, pursuant to the 'unless otherwise provided for in the contract' carve-out.
The coach's request for additional compensation under Article 337c para. 3 SCO is inadmissible before CAS because it was not raised before the PSC and CAS's full power of review is limited to issues dealt with in the appealed decision.
Covid-19 pandemic circumstances and Saudi Pro League guidelines did not justify a unilateral 50% salary reduction, as the FIFA Covid-19 Football Regulatory Issues document was expressly non-binding and no conclusive evidence of a binding Saudi Pro League decision was produced.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first determined applicable law: because the claim was filed after 1 January 2021, the FIFA RSTP of January 2021 governed, per Article 26 para. 2. On mutual termination, the arbitrator found no written agreement and noted the coach's 2 January 2021 letter explicitly described a unilateral termination and demanded EUR 925,673. On outstanding remuneration, the arbitrator rejected the Club's 'advance payment' characterisation because instalments fell due on 30 June — one month after season end — and nothing in the Second Contract labelled them advances. Monthly remuneration was calculated as EUR 800,000 over 21 months (EUR 38,095.24/month), yielding EUR 147,788.65 for 118 days worked. On compensation, the arbitrator applied Article 2 Part VI of the Second Contract (residual value minus Swiss-law mitigation) rather than the default Annex 8 formula, since the contract expressly provided otherwise. The residual value was EUR 652,211.35; the coach earned EUR 273,565.40 at Spartak (fixed salaries plus bonuses per termination agreement). Tax deductions were rejected because the coach provided no evidence taxes were actually paid in Russia or that no taxes were due on the Al Nassr remuneration. The car benefit was excluded symmetrically. The Article 337c para. 3 SCO additional compensation claim was declared inadmissible as a new claim not raised before the PSC.

Why Esteves v. Al Nassr matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is among the first CAS decisions to apply Annex 8 of the FIFA RSTP January 2021 — the new dedicated framework for coach contracts — in a contested compensation dispute. It confirms that a contractual termination clause expressly referencing Swiss-law mitigation displaces the default Annex 8 formula under the 'unless otherwise provided for in the contract' carve-out, mirroring the identical carve-out in Art. 17 para. 1 FIFA RSTP for players. It also establishes that Covid-19 non-binding FIFA guidelines cannot justify unilateral salary reductions for coaches absent a written amendment.

Decision: Both appeals partially upheld; Al Nassr ordered to pay EUR 206,364.65 as outstanding remuneration (EUR 58,576 + EUR 100,000 + EUR 47,788.65, each plus 5% p.a. interest from respective due dates) and EUR 378,645.95 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% p.a. interest from 28 January 2021; arbitration costs split equally; each party bears its own legal costs.

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 Esteves v. Al Nassr

Did Al Nassr successfully argue that the Esteves contract was terminated by mutual agreement?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found no written termination agreement and noted that the coach's lawyer sent a letter on 2 January 2021 explicitly stating 'the Club terminated the Contract unilaterally' and demanding EUR 925,673. The Club bore the burden of proving mutual agreement and failed to discharge it.

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

The arbitrator calculated the residual value of the Second Contract at EUR 652,211.35 (total EUR 800,000 minus EUR 147,788.65 already earned). From this he deducted EUR 273,565.40 received by the coach from FK Spartak Moscow (fixed salaries of EUR 90,522, bonuses of EUR 9,410 under the Spartak Contract, plus amounts from the termination agreement including EUR 104,891 compensation and other items), yielding a net compensation of EUR 378,645.95.

Which version of the FIFA RSTP applied in the Esteves v. Al Nassr case — March 2020 or January 2021?

The FIFA RSTP of January 2021, including its Annex 8 on coach contracts, applied. Under Article 26 para. 2 of the FIFA RSTP of January 2021, 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. Because the coach filed his claim on 28 January 2021 — after the 1 January 2021 entry into force — the January 2021 version governed.

Could Al Nassr reduce Esteves's salary by 50% during the Covid-19 suspension period?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected all three grounds advanced by the Club: (1) tacit acceptance was excluded because Article XI of the Contract required written amendments signed by both parties; (2) the clausula rebus sic stantibus principle did not apply because the 2019-2020 season was ultimately completed and the coach performed his services; and (3) the FIFA Covid-19 Football Regulatory Issues document was expressly 'non-binding' and no conclusive evidence showed the Saudi Pro League imposed a binding salary-reduction obligation on clubs.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Esteves v. Al Nassr — free

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.