CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9670 & CAS 2023/A/9671 — LOSC Lille v. Sporting Clube do Portugal & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

"Leão / LOSC Lille v. Sporting" · CAS confirmed €16,500,000 compensation against LOSC for Rafael Leão's contract breach, rejecting both clubs' appeals on quantum.

What happened in Leão / LOSC Lille v. Sporting

Rafael Leão terminated his employment contract with Sporting CP in June 2018, claiming the club failed to protect him after fan violence. He signed with LOSC Lille the following day. Sporting pursued compensation through multiple forums: the Portuguese Tribunal Arbitral do Desporto (TAD), which reduced the contractual penalty from €45,000,000 to €16,500,000; the FIFA DRC, which initially declined jurisdiction; and ultimately CAS (CAS 2020/A/7054), which upheld Sporting's compensation claim and remitted quantum to the FIFA DRC. The DRC fixed compensation at €16,500,000 plus 5% p.a. interest from 9 August 2018, holding LOSC jointly and severally liable under Article 17.2 RSTP. Both clubs appealed: LOSC sought reduction to zero, arguing Leão's liability was never properly established and the contractual clause was disproportionate; Sporting sought an increase to at least €30,500,000 plus sell-on fees, equating LOSC's €47,000,000 profit from Leão's sale to AC Milan with its own damage. The Panel confirmed the DRC's €16,500,000 figure, holding that Article 17.1 RSTP limits compensation to the value of services at the time of breach, that subsequent transfer fees are speculative and excluded, and that the Panel's scope was confined to quantum. The case matters because it authoritatively limits the 'objective criteria' under Article 17.1 RSTP to circumstances at the time of breach, rejecting profit-based or future-contract approaches.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9670

Leão terminated his Sporting contract on 14 June 2018 and signed with LOSC on 2 August 2018. TAD (Portugal) on 18 March 2019 awarded Sporting €16,500,000, reducing the €45,000,000 contractual clause as manifestly excessive. The FIFA DRC on 20 February 2020 declined jurisdiction due to lis pendens. Sporting appealed to CAS (CAS 2020/A/7054), which on 21 February 2022 upheld Sporting's compensation claim but remitted quantum to the FIFA DRC. LOSC's challenge to the Swiss Federal Tribunal was dismissed. On 4 April 2023 the FIFA DRC fixed compensation at €16,500,000 plus 5% p.a. interest from 9 August 2018, holding LOSC jointly and severally liable. LOSC filed CAS 2023/A/9670 on 17 May 2023 seeking reduction to zero; Sporting filed CAS 2023/A/9671 on 18 May 2023 seeking an increase. The cases were consolidated on 26 May 2023. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 26 March 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9670

• The Panel's scope of review was limited to quantum of compensation, as the prior CAS award (CAS 2020/A/7054) had established LOSC's liability as res judicata and remitted only the amount to the FIFA DRC.
• Article 17.1 RSTP limits compensation to the value of the player's services at the time of breach; subsequent transfer fees (LOSC's €47,000,000 sale to AC Milan) are speculative and cannot be included as 'objective criteria'.
• LOSC's payment of the DRC-adjudicated sum under reservation of rights did not constitute acquiescence barring its appeal.
• The contractual penalty of €45,000,000 in Article 11 of the Employment Contract was manifestly excessive under Portuguese law as found by TAD, and the Panel declined to substitute its judgment on that point.
• The FIFA DRC's quantification of €16,500,000 plus 5% p.a. interest from 9 August 2018 was upheld as reasonable and consistent with the objective criteria under Article 17.1 RSTP.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first resolved the scope issue: because CAS 2020/A/7054 had established liability and remitted only quantum, this Panel could not revisit whether Leão's termination was lawful or whether LOSC was liable at all. On quantum, the Panel applied Article 17.1 RSTP, noting its list of criteria is indicative but that the provision's structure — referencing 'the new contract' and capping the time horizon at five years — signals a temporal limitation anchored to the moment of breach. The Panel rejected Sporting's profit-equalling-damage argument: there was no evidence that Leão's value increase was exclusively attributable to Sporting's training, and the LOSC-to-Milan transfer was not foreseeable at the time of breach. The Panel also rejected the 'fake contract' exception, finding no evidence the LOSC deal was a sham. Expert testimony from Professor Thomas Probst on Swiss CO Articles 143-144 and perte de chance was noted but the Panel resolved the case primarily on RSTP grounds. The Panel found persuasive that both TAD and the FIFA DRC independently reached €16,500,000, and that neither party provided sufficiently substantiated arguments to displace that figure. The CJEU ruling in C-650/22 was held inapplicable as the dispute was already concluded.

Why Leão / LOSC Lille v. Sporting matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award authoritatively establishes that Article 17.1 RSTP compensation is anchored to the economic position of the parties at the moment of breach, not to subsequent transfer profits. It confirms that a new club's joint and several liability under Article 17.2 RSTP cannot be inflated by speculative future transfers, and that Article 17 RSTP is not a substitute for contractually negotiated sell-on clauses. The award also clarifies that payment under reservation of rights does not constitute acquiescence barring appeal.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7054 CAS 2020/A/7417 CAS 2016/A/4580 CAS 2015/A/309 CAS 2007/A/1380 CAS 2005/A/968

Frequently asked questions about Leão / LOSC Lille v. Sporting

Why was LOSC Lille held jointly and severally liable for Leão's contract breach with Sporting?

Under Article 17.2 RSTP, when a professional is required to pay compensation for breach of contract, the professional and his new club are jointly and severally liable. CAS 2020/A/7054 had already established that Leão breached his contract with Sporting and that LOSC, as the new club, shared that liability. The present Panel's scope was confined to fixing the quantum of that liability, which it confirmed at €16,500,000 plus 5% p.a. interest from 9 August 2018.

Could Sporting claim LOSC's €47,000,000 profit from selling Leão to AC Milan as part of its compensation?

No. The Panel held that Article 17.1 RSTP limits compensation to the value of the player's services at the time of breach, not to profits from subsequent transfers. The LOSC-to-Milan transfer was not foreseeable when Leão left Sporting in 2018, making any such claim speculative. The Panel also noted that Sporting had not argued the LOSC contract was a sham designed to facilitate the Milan transfer, and there was no evidence to that effect.

Did LOSC's payment of the DRC-ordered €16,500,000 prevent it from appealing to CAS?

No. LOSC made the payment explicitly under reservation of its rights and without prejudice to its right to contest the FIFA DRC's quantification, as confirmed in a letter to FIFA dated 12 May 2023. The Panel held that this reservation was effective and that LOSC's appeal was filed in proper form within the statutory 21-day limit, making it admissible.

What effect did the CJEU ruling in case C-650/22 have on the Leão / LOSC v. Sporting dispute?

None. LOSC requested on 9 October 2024 that the Panel account for the CJEU decision in C-650/22. Both Sporting and FIFA argued it should be disregarded. The Panel held that, as the dispute was already concluded on its merits, the CJEU ruling could have no bearing on the outcome and declined to apply it.

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.