CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/9158 — Jorge Hernán Crespo v. São Paulo Futebol Clube

"Crespo" · CAS upheld a coach's standing to claim under an image-rights contract and increased his compensation to BRL 2,037,150 plus USD 200,000.

What happened in Crespo

Argentine coach Jorge Hernán Crespo signed a two-year employment contract and a parallel image-rights contract with São Paulo Futebol Clube on 15 February 2021. The Club terminated both agreements unilaterally on 13 October 2021. Crespo filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC) seeking, among other amounts, USD 200,000 for winning the Copa Paulista 2021 and BRL 2,037,150 as contractual compensation for early termination. The FIFA PSC partially accepted the claim but awarded only BRL 1,358,100 as compensation and denied the Copa Paulista bonus. Crespo appealed to CAS. The Panel held that the image-rights contract and the employment contract together governed the employment relationship, giving Crespo personal standing to sue under the image contract. It further found that the Club had never contested the Copa Paulista title and had expressly acknowledged the debt in a comfort letter of 7 January 2022. The Panel corrected the compensation figure to BRL 2,037,150 (the contractually agreed amount for terminations between 1 July and 31 December 2021), deducted BRL 1,810,800 already paid, and awarded USD 200,000 for the Copa Paulista bonus with 1% monthly interest from 21 January 2022. The case matters because it establishes that a nominally separate image-rights contract can be treated as part of an employment relationship when its duration, dispute-resolution clause, and bonus structure are all tied to the coaching engagement.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/9158

On 4 February 2022, Crespo filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal (Players' Status Chamber) against São Paulo Futebol Clube, seeking multiple amounts including USD 200,000 for the Copa Paulista 2021 bonus and BRL 2,037,150 as contractual compensation for early termination. On 19 July 2022, the FIFA PSC issued its decision partially accepting the claim: it awarded USD 150,000 and USD 116,880 as outstanding image-contract remuneration, and BRL 1,358,100 as compensation for breach of the employment contract, but rejected the Copa Paulista bonus and applied the lower compensation tier. The grounds were notified to Crespo on 1 September 2022. On 21 September 2022, Crespo filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, within the 21-day deadline. CAS was asked to partially set aside the Appealed Decision, award the Copa Paulista bonus of USD 200,000, and increase the employment-contract compensation to BRL 2,037,150.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/9158

• The image-rights contract and the employment contract together governed the employment relationship between the Coach and the Club, because they were signed on the same date, the image contract's duration was tied to the coaching tenure, bonuses were linked to sporting results, and the image contract itself referenced FIFA RSTP Annex 8 and submitted disputes to FIFA jurisdiction.
• Article 5.8 of the image contract expressly granted the Coach personally (not only the Company) the right to claim unpaid amounts, establishing his standing to sue before FIFA and CAS.
• The Club's comfort letter of 7 January 2022, in which it acknowledged the Coach's personal entitlement to amounts under the image contract, constitutes relevant subsequent conduct and an interpretation criterion under Swiss law (ATF 144 III 93; ATF 140 III 86; ATF 129 III 675).
• Because the Club terminated the employment contract on 13 October 2021, which falls between 1 July and 31 December 2021, the applicable contractual compensation under Clause 3 of the employment contract is BRL 2,037,150 net, not BRL 1,358,100.
• Interest of 1% per month on the Copa Paulista bonus of USD 200,000 runs from 21 January 2022, being 30 days after the first documented default notice of 21 December 2021, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the image contract.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel approached the case by first resolving the threshold question of standing before addressing quantum. On standing, it examined four factors holistically: (i) the structural and temporal links between the two contracts (same signing date, duration of image contract tied to coaching tenure, bonus structure tied to sporting results); (ii) the explicit language of Article 5.8 of the image contract granting the Coach personal standing to claim; (iii) the parties' own classification of the image contract as an employment agreement in Article 9.5; and (iv) the Club's comfort letter of 7 January 2022 acknowledging the Coach's personal entitlement. The Panel applied Swiss law's doctrine of subsequent conduct as an interpretive tool, citing ATF 144 III 93, ATF 140 III 86, and ATF 129 III 675. It rejected the Club's argument that the image contract was a purely civil/commercial arrangement, finding that the employment elements overwhelmed any genuine image-licensing purpose. On the Copa Paulista bonus, the Panel noted the Club never contested the championship and had acknowledged the debt in writing. On compensation quantum, the Panel applied a plain reading of Clause 3 of the employment contract: termination on 13 October 2021 falls within the 1 July–31 December 2021 window, triggering BRL 2,037,150. The Panel agreed with the Club that prior partial payments and their specific dates must be factored into interest calculations.

Why Crespo matters in CAS jurisprudence

Crespo establishes that a nominally separate image-rights contract can be recharacterised as part of an employment relationship for FIFA/CAS jurisdictional purposes when its duration, dispute-resolution clause, bonus structure, and explicit contractual language all point to an employment nexus. It also confirms that a coach personally has standing to sue under such a contract where the contract itself grants him that right, and that a club's post-termination comfort letter acknowledging personal liability constitutes binding subsequent conduct under Swiss law.

Cases cited in this award

ATF 144 III 93 ATF 140 III 86 ATF 129 III 675

Frequently asked questions about Crespo

Why did CAS find that Crespo had standing to sue under the image-rights contract even though it was signed by his company?

The Panel identified several factors linking the image contract to the employment relationship: it was signed on the same date as the employment contract, its duration was tied to Crespo's tenure as coach, bonuses were conditioned on sporting results, and the contract itself referenced FIFA RSTP Annex 8. Crucially, Article 5.8 of the image contract expressly granted the Coach personally (not only the company) the right to claim unpaid amounts, and the Club's comfort letter of 7 January 2022 acknowledged his personal entitlement.

How did CAS calculate the compensation for breach of the employment contract in the Crespo case?

Clause 3 of the employment contract set three compensation tiers depending on when termination occurred. Because the Club terminated on 13 October 2021, which falls between 1 July and 31 December 2021, the applicable amount was BRL 2,037,150 net. The Panel deducted BRL 1,810,800 (eight instalments of BRL 226,350 already paid) and confirmed 1% monthly interest from 13 November 2021, with the Club's specific payment dates to be factored into the interest calculation.

Was Crespo entitled to the Copa Paulista 2021 bonus and how much was it?

Yes. Article 5.4 of the image contract provided USD 200,000 for winning the Campeonato Paulista. The Club never contested the championship during the CAS proceedings, press releases confirming the title on 23 May 2021 were uncontested, and the Club's comfort letter of 7 January 2022 expressly acknowledged the debt. The Panel awarded USD 200,000 (gross, as stated in Article 5.4) plus 1% monthly interest from 21 January 2022.

What law did the CAS panel apply in the Crespo v. São Paulo case and why not Brazilian law?

The Panel applied the FIFA RSTP (August 2021 edition) as primary law and Swiss law subsidiarily, pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code and Article 56 par. 2 of the FIFA Statutes. Brazilian law was excluded because both parties agreed to submit disputes directly to FIFA regulations, Article 22(c) of the FIFA RSTP governs international employment disputes of this nature, and the contracts themselves referenced the FIFA RSTP, leaving no room for a different national law.

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.