CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10812 — Pedro Miguel Marques Costa Filipe v. Al Tai Club

"Pepa v. Al Tai" · CAS dismissed a Portuguese coach's appeal for a €100,000 performance bonus after finding the parties had settled their compensation dispute.

What happened in Pepa v. Al Tai

Pedro Miguel Marques Costa Filipe ('Pepa'), a Portuguese football coach, signed a one-season employment contract with Saudi club Al Tai for 2022/2023, worth a total of €1,300,000 including a €400,000 downpayment, €90,000 monthly salary, and performance bonuses. The Club dismissed him on 23 January 2023, citing unsatisfactory results. The Coach subsequently signed with Brazilian club Cruzeiro Esporte Clube and received a 'Mitigated Compensation' from Al Tai calculated as the residual contract value minus Cruzeiro earnings. In November 2023, the Coach demanded an additional €100,000 bonus under Art. 3(3) of the Employment Contract, arguing the Club finished ninth in the Saudi League — within the fifth-to-tenth bonus bracket — and that under Art. 156 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, the Club's wrongful dismissal should be treated as having prevented fulfilment of the bonus condition. FIFA's PSC rejected the claim in June 2024, finding the parties had settled and the Coach was estopped from seeking more. CAS confirmed the PSC decision. The case matters because it reinforces that a coach who accepts mitigated compensation without reservation may be estopped from later claiming conditional bonuses, and that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to disprove a settlement.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10812

On 17 July 2022, Al Tai Club and Coach Pepa signed an employment contract for the 2022/2023 season. The Club dismissed the Coach on 23 January 2023. The Coach subsequently joined Cruzeiro Esporte Clube on 23 March 2023 and received Mitigated Compensation from Al Tai. On 20 November 2023, the Coach sent a default notice demanding €100,000 as a performance bonus. On 22 May 2024, the Coach filed a claim before FIFA's Players' Status Chamber seeking €370,000 total compensation plus 5% interest. On 27 June 2024, the FIFA Single Judge of the PSC rejected the claim in full without costs, finding the parties had settled their differences and the Coach was estopped from claiming more. The grounds were notified on 29 July 2024. The Coach filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 19 August 2024, limiting his CAS claim to the €100,000 bonus. The Respondent failed to file a timely Answer; its late submission of 15 October 2024 was declared inadmissible after the Appellant objected.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10812

• A coach who accepts mitigated compensation calculated under Art. 6 of Annex 2 RSTP without reservation creates a legitimate expectation that the amount is fully satisfactory, estopping him from later claiming additional compensation (venire contra factum proprium).
• Where a claimant fails to challenge or even address the first-instance tribunal's principal finding — here, that a settlement was reached — CAS will not disturb that finding on appeal.
• Under Art. 8 of the Swiss Civil Code, the burden of proof lies with the party deriving a claim from a fact; the Coach failed to discharge that burden by not disproving the existence of a settlement agreement.
• A respondent's answer filed beyond the Art. R55 CAS Code deadline is inadmissible where the appellant objects to its inclusion in the file.
• An appellant who does not include a first-instance claim in the Statement of Appeal or Appeal Brief is deemed to have implicitly waived that claim before CAS.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator identified that the PSC's primary ground for rejection was not the general rule that conditional bonuses are excluded from breach-of-contract compensation, but rather that the parties had settled their dispute when the Coach accepted the Mitigated Compensation without reservation. The Arbitrator noted that the Appellant's entire appeal focused on challenging the PSC's secondary reasoning about conditional bonuses under Art. 156 SCO, while completely ignoring the principal settlement finding. Because the Appellant neither contested nor provided evidence against the settlement conclusion, and because the Appellant himself had supplied his Cruzeiro contract to facilitate the Mitigated Compensation calculation — demonstrating active participation in the process — the Arbitrator was comfortably satisfied that a settlement had been reached. Independently, the Arbitrator applied the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium: by accepting payment without objection or reservation of rights until November 2023, the Coach had generated a legitimate expectation on the Club's part that the matter was closed. The Arbitrator also noted the Appellant had implicitly waived the Art. 6 Annex 2 RSTP additional compensation claim by omitting it from the CAS relief sought. Arguments under Art. 156 SCO and CAS 2020/A/6798 were therefore not determinative.

Why Pepa v. Al Tai matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that acceptance of mitigated compensation without reservation can constitute a binding settlement barring subsequent claims for conditional bonuses, even where the underlying dismissal was without just cause. It also illustrates the CAS principle that an appellant who fails to challenge the primary ground of a first-instance decision cannot succeed on appeal by attacking only secondary reasoning, and confirms that implicit waiver of claims not carried forward to CAS relief requests will be enforced.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6798 Galatasaray Sportif Sinai ve Ticari Yatirimlar A.S. v. Igor Tudor CAS 2012/A/2874

Frequently asked questions about Pepa v. Al Tai

Did Pepa win his €100,000 bonus claim against Al Tai at CAS?

No. CAS dismissed Pepa's appeal in full on 14 April 2025. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the FIFA PSC's finding that the parties had settled their compensation dispute when the Coach accepted the Mitigated Compensation without reservation, estopping him from claiming the additional €100,000 bonus under Art. 3(3) of the Employment Contract.

Can a coach claim a performance bonus under Art. 156 SCO when dismissed before the bonus condition is fulfilled?

In principle, Art. 156 SCO provides that a condition is deemed fulfilled where one party prevents its fulfilment in bad faith, and the Coach argued this in CAS 2024/A/10812. However, the Sole Arbitrator did not reach that question because the Coach had already accepted mitigated compensation without reservation, which was treated as a settlement precluding any further claim — the Art. 156 SCO argument was therefore not determinative.

What happens at CAS if a respondent misses the deadline to file its answer?

In CAS 2024/A/10812, Al Tai Club failed to file its Answer by the 30 September 2024 deadline under Art. R55 of the CAS Code. Its late submission of 15 October 2024 was declared inadmissible after the Appellant objected, and the Sole Arbitrator proceeded to decide the case solely on the Appellant's written submissions, as permitted by Art. R32 of the CAS Code.

Does accepting mitigated compensation without reservation prevent a coach from later claiming bonus payments in a FIFA/CAS dispute?

Based on CAS 2024/A/10812, yes. The Sole Arbitrator found that by accepting the Mitigated Compensation — calculated as the residual contract value minus Cruzeiro earnings — without any objection or reservation of rights, Coach Pepa created a legitimate expectation on Al Tai's part that the settlement was final, and was estopped under the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium from demanding the additional €100,000 bonus nearly ten months later.

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.