CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2021/A/8328 & CAS 2021/A/8348 — Rui Carlos Pinho da Vitoria v. Al Nassr Saudi Club

"Da Vitoria v. Al Nassr" · CAS upheld Portuguese head coach's claim for EUR 3.37M outstanding salary and EUR 5.25M compensation after Al Nassr terminated his contract without just cause.

What happened in Da Vitoria v. Al Nassr

Rui Carlos Pinho da Vitoria, a Portuguese football coach, signed an employment contract with Al Nassr Saudi Club on 7 January 2019 for EUR 7,500,000 net, later extended on 25 December 2019 to cover two additional seasons at EUR 7,000,000 net per season. The amended contract included a liquidated damages clause providing 50% of the remaining contract value as compensation for unjustified termination. On 27 December 2020, following poor sporting results, Al Nassr terminated the contract. The coach filed a claim before FIFA's Players' Status Committee, which awarded EUR 4,279,274 in outstanding remuneration but denied compensation because the coach's earnings at FK Spartak Moscow exceeded the 50% contractual compensation. Both parties appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found the termination was without just cause, recalculated outstanding remuneration at EUR 3,374,082.74 (reducing the PSC figure by treating instalments as earned pro rata rather than fully due), and upheld the liquidated damages clause as valid and not excessive, awarding EUR 5,250,000 in compensation capped by the non ultra petita principle. The case matters because it confirms that contractual liquidated damages clauses for coaches under Annex 8 FIFA RSTP prevail over default mitigation rules, and that a 50% flat reduction clause is not excessive even when the coach earns significant income elsewhere.

Procedural history of CAS 2021/A/8328

On 1 February 2021, the Head Coach filed a claim before the Single Judge of FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) seeking EUR 4,279,274 in outstanding remuneration, EUR 5,250,000 in compensation, SAR 309,000 in bonuses, and 5% p.a. default interest. On 27 July 2021, the PSC partially accepted the claim, awarding EUR 4,279,274 in outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest but rejecting compensation because the coach's Spartak Moscow earnings (EUR 5,345,100) exceeded the claimed 50% residual value (EUR 5,250,000). The PSC also ordered the Club to pay CHF 22,000 in procedural costs. FIFA notified the grounds on 7 September 2021. The Head Coach appealed on 16 September 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8328) seeking higher compensation and additional indemnity under Article 337c SCO. Al Nassr appealed on 27 September 2021 (CAS 2021/A/8348) seeking a finding of mutual termination and reduction or elimination of all compensation. The cases were consolidated before Sole Arbitrator Bernasconi, with a hearing held on 22 May 2022 in Lausanne.

Key holdings in CAS 2021/A/8328

• The Second Contract was unilaterally terminated by Al Nassr without just cause on 27 December 2020, as no written mutual termination agreement existed and the coach's conduct was inconsistent with consent to termination.
• The FIFA RSTP of January 2021 (including Annex 8) applies to disputes filed with FIFA after 1 January 2021, regardless of when the underlying contract was signed, pursuant to Article 26 para. 2 of the FIFA RSTP of January 2021.
• A contractual liquidated damages clause providing 50% of the remaining contract value as compensation for unjustified termination is valid under Article 6 para. 2 Annex 8 FIFA RSTP, which expressly defers to contractual arrangements, and is not excessive under Article 163 para. 3 SCO.
• Outstanding remuneration under the Second Contract must be calculated on a pro rata basis treating the EUR 14 million total as payable over 21 months (EUR 666,666.66 per month), not as advance payments, yielding EUR 2,644,808.74 for 118 days worked.
• The clausula rebus sic stantibus and tacit acceptance arguments based on COVID-19 salary reduction proposals were rejected because the contract required written amendments and no binding regulatory framework imposed salary reductions on the parties.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first determined applicable law, holding that Article 26 para. 2 FIFA RSTP of January 2021 directs application of the January 2021 version to cases filed after its 1 January 2021 entry into force, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily. On termination, the arbitrator found no documentary evidence of mutual agreement and noted the coach's lawyer characterised the termination as unilateral in a letter six days later. On outstanding remuneration, the arbitrator rejected the Club's advance-payment theory because instalments fell due in June, one month after season-end, and nothing in the contract labelled them advances; he also rejected COVID-19 salary reduction arguments for lack of binding regulatory authority and absence of a written amendment. Monthly remuneration was calculated at EUR 666,666.66 based on EUR 14 million over 21 months, recognising that a head coach's duties continue between seasons. On compensation, the arbitrator held that Article 6 para. 2 Annex 8 FIFA RSTP expressly defers to contractual arrangements, making the 50% liquidated damages clause operative. Applying Article 163 para. 3 SCO, the arbitrator found no manifest contradiction between justice and the agreed amount, noting that Swiss and CAS jurisprudence require massive imbalance before interfering with freely negotiated clauses. The non ultra petita principle capped the award at the coach's subsidiary claim of EUR 5,250,000. Additional compensation under Article 337c para. 3 SCO was excluded as incompatible with the liquidated damages regime.

Why Da Vitoria v. Al Nassr matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms that contractual liquidated damages clauses in coach employment contracts take precedence over the default mitigation framework of Annex 8 FIFA RSTP, mirroring the Article 17 RSTP regime for players. It establishes that a 50% flat-reduction clause without a mitigation obligation is not excessive under Article 163 para. 3 SCO even where the coach earns substantial income elsewhere, and clarifies that the January 2021 FIFA RSTP applies to all disputes filed after its entry into force regardless of contract date.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/4346 CAS 2013/A/3374 CAS 2014/A/3555 CAS 2015/A/3999 CAS 2016/A/4852 CAS 2013/A/3426

Frequently asked questions about Da Vitoria v. Al Nassr

Did Al Nassr terminate Da Vitoria'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 lawyer sent a letter on 2 January 2021 explicitly stating the Club had terminated the contract unilaterally and demanding EUR 9,601,331. The Club failed to meet its burden of proving mutual consent.

How did CAS calculate the compensation owed to Da Vitoria under the liquidated damages clause?

The Sole Arbitrator upheld the contractual clause providing 50% of the remaining contract value. The residual value was EUR 11,355,191.30 (EUR 14 million total minus EUR 2,644,808.74 already earned), making the clause amount EUR 5,677,595.65. However, the non ultra petita principle capped the award at the coach's own subsidiary claim of EUR 5,250,000.

Was the 50% liquidated damages clause in Da Vitoria's contract valid despite his argument that it violated Article 362 SCO?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 6 para. 2 Annex 8 FIFA RSTP expressly defers to contractual arrangements, making the clause operative. Under Article 163 para. 3 SCO, a penalty is only reduced if there is a massive imbalance; accepting 50% of the residual value cannot be considered excessive, and Swiss and CAS jurisprudence require far greater disproportion before judicial interference.

Did Al Nassr's COVID-19 arguments justify reducing Da Vitoria's outstanding salary?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected both the clausula rebus sic stantibus argument and the tacit acceptance argument. The contract required written amendments (Article XI), the 2019-2020 season was ultimately completed, and the Club produced no evidence that Saudi Pro League decisions or FIFA guidelines were binding on the parties or imposed mandatory salary reductions.

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.