CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

TAS 2024/A/10462 — Club Atlético Huracán v. Sportivo Luqueño

"Huracán v. Luqueño" · CAS upheld FIFA's award ordering Huracán to pay USD 1,597,200 plus interest for failing to pay a player transfer fee.

What happened in Huracán v. Luqueño

On 25 August 2023, Club Atlético Huracán (Argentina) and Sportivo Luqueño (Paraguay) signed a transfer agreement for player Marcelo De La Cruz Pérez Mosqueira. Huracán agreed to pay USD 1,100,000 net for the player's federative rights and 50% of his economic rights, plus USD 22,000 in administrative expenses. The agreement included a 30% penalty clause, 16% annual interest on late payment, and a clause requiring the losing party in any dispute to pay 10% of the total award as legal fees. Huracán failed to pay. A partial amendment (Adenda) was signed on 24 October 2023, acknowledging the breach and offering a refinancing option requiring USD 300,000 by 3 November 2023. Huracán again failed to pay. Luqueño filed before FIFA's Player Status Chamber, which on 20 February 2024 ordered Huracán to pay USD 1,122,000 plus 16% annual interest from 26 August 2023, USD 145,200 as additional remuneration, and USD 330,000 as contractual penalty. Huracán appealed to CAS, challenging the USD 145,200 award and arguing the combined clauses constituted an excessive 'triple penalty.' CAS rejected the appeal in full, confirmed the FIFA decision, and ordered Huracán to bear all arbitration costs. The case matters because it affirms that contractually assumed currency risk, penalty clauses, interest, and legal-cost indemnity clauses are each legally distinct and enforceable under Swiss law.

Procedural history of TAS 2024/A/10462

On 25 August 2023, the parties signed a transfer agreement. Huracán failed to pay USD 1,122,000 by the agreed deadline of 15 September 2023. On 28 September 2023, Luqueño served a formal notice of default. On 24 October 2023, the parties signed an Adenda acknowledging the breach and setting a new partial payment deadline of 3 November 2023 (USD 300,000); Huracán again failed to pay. On 12 December 2023, Luqueño filed a claim before FIFA's Player Status Chamber. On 20 February 2024, the FIFA Single Judge issued the Appealed Decision ordering Huracán to pay: (i) USD 1,122,000 net plus 16% annual interest from 26 August 2023; (ii) USD 145,200 net as additional remuneration; (iii) USD 330,000 net as contractual penalty; and (iv) USD 25,000 in FIFA procedural costs. On 27 March 2024, Huracán filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS under Articles R48 and R49 of the CAS Code, seeking partial annulment of the Appealed Decision, specifically the elimination of the USD 145,200 award.

Key holdings in TAS 2024/A/10462

• Huracán's argument that it was forced to accept the transfer agreement's onerous clauses due to Argentina's economic crisis was rejected because no vitiating factor (error, fraud, duress, or lésion under Arts. 23–31 and 21 of the Swiss Code of Obligations) was alleged or proven.
• The Adenda, even if its operative conditions were not fulfilled, constitutes valid interpretive evidence of the parties' true and common intention under Art. 18(1) CO, clarifying that the 10% legal-fee clause was intended to indemnify Luqueño, not third-party lawyers.
• Huracán was estopped by the principle of good faith (Art. 2 Swiss Civil Code and Art. 156 CO) from invoking its own non-payment of the Adenda's condition to prevent use of that document as an interpretive tool.
• The 30% penalty clause, 16% annual interest, and 10% legal-cost indemnity serve legally distinct purposes and do not constitute a prohibited 'triple penalty' under Arts. 160–163 CO.
• The 10% legal-cost indemnity accrues upon initiation of proceedings, not upon a final and enforceable judgment, because the clause is triggered by the need to resort to dispute-resolution bodies, not by the outcome.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel conducted a de novo review under Art. R57 of the CAS Code. On the question of consent, it found that Swiss law requires proof of a specific vitiating factor (Arts. 23–31 and 21 CO) and that Huracán neither alleged nor proved any such factor; the currency-risk clause (Clause 10) showed the parties had consciously addressed Argentina's economic instability. On the 10% legal-fee clause, the panel applied Art. 18(1) CO, which requires courts to identify the parties' true and common intention rather than rely on imprecise wording. It used the Adenda as a hermeneutic tool reflecting the parties' subsequent conduct, a method endorsed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (ATF 144 III 93; ATF 140 III 86; ATF 129 III 675) and prior CAS awards (CAS 2021/A/7673; CAS 2021/A/7699). It also held that Huracán's attempt to weaponize its own non-payment of the Adenda's condition violated Art. 2 CC (good faith) and Art. 156 CO. On the 'triple penalty' argument, the panel distinguished the penalty clause (liquidated damages), interest (compensation for delayed use of money), and legal-cost indemnity (protection of the net credit) as serving entirely different functions, all legitimate under Arts. 19 and 27 CO. The panel noted that Huracán had registered the player without paying a single dollar, further undermining its equitable arguments.

Why Huracán v. Luqueño matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that under Swiss law, contractually assumed currency risk cannot later be invoked to escape payment obligations, and that penalty clauses, interest rates, and legal-cost indemnity clauses serve distinct legal functions and are not aggregated as a single 'penalty' subject to reduction. It also establishes that a party cannot invoke its own non-performance of a contractual condition to prevent use of the resulting document as an interpretive tool, applying Art. 156 CO and the good-faith principle of Art. 2 CC in the CAS transfer-dispute context.

Cases cited in this award

TAS 2015/A/3980 TAS 2021/A/8426&8429&8441 TAS 2021/A/8447&8448 CAS 2021/A/7673 CAS 2021/A/7699

Frequently asked questions about Huracán v. Luqueño

Why did CAS uphold the USD 145,200 legal-fee award in Huracán v. Luqueño?

The panel found that, despite imprecise wording in Clause 16 of the Transfer Agreement referring to payment 'to the lawyers of the winning party,' the Adenda signed on 24 October 2023 clarified that the 10% was intended to indemnify Luqueño itself so it could cover legal costs without reducing its net credit. Applying Art. 18(1) CO and the Swiss Federal Tribunal's 'subsequent conduct' interpretive method, CAS held the true and common intention was to protect Luqueño's net recovery, making the USD 145,200 (10% of the total award) payable to Luqueño.

Can a CAS panel use an amendment agreement that never came into force as an interpretive tool?

Yes, according to this award. The panel held that even if the Adenda lacked operative legal effect because Huracán failed to pay the USD 300,000 condition, the document remained valid evidence of the parties' subsequent conduct and their true common intention under Art. 18(1) CO. Additionally, Huracán was barred by Art. 2 CC (good faith) and Art. 156 CO from using its own non-payment to prevent the Adenda from being used hermeneutically.

Does combining a 30% penalty clause, 16% annual interest, and a 10% legal-cost indemnity constitute an excessive 'triple penalty' reducible under Swiss law?

No, according to this award. The panel distinguished the three mechanisms: the 30% clause is a liquidated-damages penalty (cláusula penal) under Arts. 160–163 CO; the 16% interest compensates for the delayed use of money; and the 10% indemnity reimburses litigation costs. Because they serve entirely different legal purposes, they cannot be aggregated as a single penalty, and the panel found no basis to reduce any of them under Art. 163 CO.

Can an Argentine club invoke Argentina's currency restrictions or the 'theory of unforeseeability' to avoid paying a transfer fee in USD?

Not in this case. The Transfer Agreement contained an explicit Clause 10 ('Asunción del Riesgo Cambiario') in which Huracán expressly assumed all currency-exchange risk arising from Argentine regulations and waived the right to invoke the theory of unforeseeability ('teoría de la imprevisión'), the 'act of the prince' doctrine, or any similar legal theory. The panel also noted that Argentina's economic instability was a pre-existing, well-known condition, not a supervening event.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses 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.