CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9749 — Roberto Luiz Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers Sports Club Limited

"Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers" · CAS overturned FIFA's zero-compensation ruling, awarding a coach USD 84,000 plus EUR 1,250 after unjust dismissal.

What happened in Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers

Roberto Luiz Bianchi Pelliser, a Brazilian-Spanish football coach, signed an 18-month employment contract with Ugandan club Vipers Sports Club Limited on 3 January 2023 at USD 6,000 net per month. After just two months, on 8 March 2023, the Club terminated the contract citing 'non-satisfactory performance', paying USD 12,000 (two months' salary) purportedly as payment in lieu of notice under Article 3 of the contract. The Coach filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber, which found termination without just cause but awarded zero additional compensation, treating the two-month payment as a pre-agreed liquidated damages clause. The Coach appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator found that Article 3 para. 2 of the contract — providing for two months' notice or payment in lieu — applied only to termination with just cause and could not cap compensation for unjust dismissal. Applying Article 6 para. 2(a) of Annex II of the FIFA RSTP, the Sole Arbitrator awarded the residual value of the contract (16 months at USD 6,000 = USD 96,000), less the USD 12,000 already received as compensation, yielding USD 84,000. The Club was also ordered to reimburse EUR 1,250 for a return flight ticket. The case matters because it clarifies that a contractual notice-period clause cannot substitute the FIFA RSTP's mandatory compensation regime for unjust termination.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9749

On 24 March 2023, the Coach filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal (Players' Status Chamber) seeking USD 90,000 as residual contract value, EUR 1,250 for a return flight ticket, and USD 18,000 for moral damages and specificity of sport. On 23 May 2023, the Single Judge of the Players' Status Chamber (case ref. FPSD-9738) found termination without just cause but rejected all compensation claims, holding that the two-month payment already made by the Club satisfied the contractual liquidated damages clause in Article 3, and dismissed the flight ticket and moral damages claims. The Coach appealed to CAS on 21 June 2023 (Statement of Appeal in Spanish) and 22 June 2023 (in English), filing his Appeal Brief on 18 July 2023. The Respondent filed its Answer on 7 August 2023. A hearing was held by videoconference on 8 July 2024. The Sole Arbitrator was appointed on 24 April 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9749

• Article 3 para. 2 of the contract, providing for two months' notice or payment in lieu, applies only to termination with just cause and cannot serve as a compensation clause capping liability for termination without just cause.
• In the absence of a contractual provision governing compensation for unjust termination, Article 6 para. 2(a) of Annex II of the FIFA RSTP applies, entitling a coach who has not found new employment to the full residual value of the prematurely terminated contract.
• The burden of proving that a coach deliberately failed to mitigate damages by not seeking new employment lies with the club; absent such evidence, no mitigation deduction is warranted.
• A contractual notice-period clause cannot be invoked by a club to simultaneously justify sending warning notices and paying compensation in lieu of notice — reliance on contradictory facts is impermissible.
• The 'specificity of sport' is a correcting factor, not an independent head of compensation, and where the residual-value award is already fair and proportionate, no additional amount under that criterion is warranted.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed, in agreement with the Single Judge, that the Club terminated the contract without just cause, as sporting performance cannot justify early termination under longstanding FIFA Football Tribunal jurisprudence. The central dispute was whether Article 3 para. 2 — the notice/payment-in-lieu clause — capped the Coach's compensation. The Arbitrator interpreted the clause textually: it explicitly refers to termination 'with just cause', so it cannot govern the consequences of unjust termination. The Club's contradictory position — simultaneously claiming it sent warning notices and that it paid compensation in lieu of notice — further undermined its reliance on the clause. Because the contract was silent on compensation for unjust termination, the Arbitrator applied Article 6 para. 2(a) of Annex II of the FIFA RSTP as the primary applicable regulation under Article R58 of the CAS Code and the Haas-doctrine, which restricts party autonomy in favour of applicable sports regulations. Ugandan labour law was relegated to subsidiary application only for issues not covered by FIFA regulations. The Arbitrator rejected the Club's mitigation argument for lack of evidence, applied the positive-interest principle to award the full residual value (16 months × USD 6,000 = USD 96,000), deducted USD 12,000 already received, and fixed compensation at USD 84,000. On the flight ticket, the Arbitrator found the original return ticket invalid at termination and the replacement ticket sent two hours after departure equally invalid, ordering EUR 1,250 reimbursement. Requests for moral damages, specificity-of-sport uplift, and sporting sanctions were all dismissed.

Why Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a contractual notice-period clause expressly limited to termination 'with just cause' cannot be repurposed as a liquidated damages cap for unjust termination, preventing clubs from using procedural notice provisions to circumvent the mandatory compensation regime of Article 6 para. 2(a) of Annex II of the FIFA RSTP. It also reaffirms the primacy of FIFA regulations over national labour law in coach-employment disputes adjudicated through the FIFA/CAS system, consistent with the Haas-doctrine.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7499 CAS 2014/A/3626 CAS 2020/A/7605 CAS 2017/A/5111 CAS 2017/A/5228 CAS 2020/A/6994 CAS 2021/A/7815 CAS 2007/A/1358 CAS 2006/A/1206 CAS 2010/A/2090 CAS 2019/A/6483

Frequently asked questions about Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers

Did Vipers Sports Club have just cause to terminate Bianchi Pelliser's contract?

No. Both the FIFA Players' Status Chamber and the CAS Sole Arbitrator found that the Club terminated the contract without just cause. The termination letter cited 'non-satisfactory performance and not living to the Employer's expectations', but longstanding FIFA Football Tribunal jurisprudence holds that sporting team results or performance cannot justify early termination of an employment contract.

Can a two-month notice/payment-in-lieu clause in a coaching contract cap compensation for unjust dismissal?

No, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 3 para. 2 of the contract — which provided for two months' prior written notice or payment in lieu — explicitly applied only to termination 'with just cause'. Because the Club terminated without just cause, that clause was inapplicable, and compensation was instead calculated under Article 6 para. 2(a) of Annex II of the FIFA RSTP, yielding the full residual value of the contract.

How was the USD 84,000 compensation figure calculated in Bianchi Pelliser v. Vipers?

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 6 para. 2(a) of Annex II of the FIFA RSTP, which entitles a coach who has not found new employment to the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract. The contract ran until 30 June 2024, leaving 16 months at USD 6,000 per month, giving a residual value of USD 96,000. From that figure, USD 12,000 already received by the Coach as compensation was deducted, resulting in a final award of USD 84,000.

Was the Coach entitled to reimbursement for his return flight ticket from Uganda to Spain?

Yes. Article 5 of the contract entitled the Coach to one return air ticket to Spain per year. The original return ticket (scheduled for 3 April 2023) became invalid upon the March 2023 termination, and the Club's replacement ticket sent on 11 March 2023 was transmitted two hours after the flight's 04:15 departure. The Sole Arbitrator found the Club failed its contractual obligation in good faith and ordered reimbursement of EUR 1,250.

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.