CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11025 — FC Partizan v. Ericksson Patrick Correia Andrade

"Partizan v. Correia Andrade" · CAS partially reduced breach-of-contract compensation from EUR 937,575 to EUR 909,422.52 by including Qarabag housing and car allowances in mitigation calculation.

What happened in Partizan v. Correia Andrade

Cape Verdean professional footballer Ericksson Patrick Correia Andrade terminated his employment contract with Serbian club FC Partizan on 20 June 2023 with just cause, citing unpaid loyalty fees (March, April, May 2023 totalling EUR 150,000), an unpaid UEFA Conference League bonus of EUR 50,000, and outstanding housing reimbursement of EUR 19,400. He subsequently signed with Azerbaijani club Qarabag FK on 12 July 2023 for a two-year deal worth USD 500,000 net (approx. EUR 462,425), plus monthly housing (AZN 1,700) and car (AZN 500) allowances. The FIFA DRC on 22 August 2024 awarded the player EUR 19,400 in outstanding remuneration, EUR 200,000 net in outstanding loyalty fees and bonus, and EUR 937,575 net as compensation for breach of contract (residual value EUR 1,250,000 minus EUR 462,625 mitigation plus EUR 150,000 additional compensation). Partizan appealed to CAS, challenging only the quantum of the breach-of-contract compensation. The Sole Arbitrator partially upheld the appeal, finding that the Qarabag housing and car allowances (EUR 28,152.48 over 24 months) constituted salary under Swiss law and must be deducted as additional mitigation. The appeal was otherwise dismissed: no team bonuses were proven, no bad faith was established, and the EUR 150,000 additional compensation (three monthly loyalty fees) was confirmed. The final compensation was reduced to EUR 909,422.52 net.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11025

On 9 April 2024, the Player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) seeking recognition of just-cause termination and payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation. On 22 August 2024, the FIFA DRC issued its decision partially accepting the claim, awarding EUR 19,400 in outstanding housing payments, EUR 200,000 net in outstanding loyalty fees and bonus, and EUR 937,575 net as compensation for breach of contract (calculated as EUR 1,250,000 residual value minus EUR 462,625 Qarabag mitigation plus EUR 150,000 additional compensation). The grounds were notified on 31 October 2024. On 20 November 2024, FC Partizan filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code. On 10 December 2024, Partizan withdrew its appeal against FIFA. The appeal was limited to the quantum of the breach-of-contract compensation, the alleged bad faith of the player, and the additional compensation calculation. CAS held a hearing in Lausanne on 17 June 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11025

• Contractually guaranteed housing and car allowances under a new employment contract constitute 'salary' within the meaning of Article 17(1)(ii) RSTP and must be deducted from the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract as part of the mitigation calculation.
• Alleged team or collective bonuses that are not evidenced by bank statements, pay slips, or credible testimony cannot be deducted from compensation as mitigated earnings; the burden of proof lies with the party asserting receipt of such bonuses.
• A player does not act in bad faith merely because the optional third year of a new contract carries a substantially higher salary (USD 450,000 versus USD 250,000 per year), particularly where the optional year was never exercised and the player's diminished bargaining position at the time of signing is corroborated by witness evidence.
• Additional compensation under Article 17(1)(ii) RSTP corresponding to three monthly salaries is properly calculated by reference to the contractual monthly remuneration actually received, including loyalty fees where these constitute the principal form of monthly payment, not solely the net monthly base salary.
• Pursuant to Article R44.3 of the CAS Code, a sole arbitrator cannot order a third party (here Qarabag FK) that is not a party to the proceedings to produce documents; requests for Qarabag's financial reports and bonus confirmations were therefore rejected.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the balance of probabilities standard, acknowledging the Appellant's evidentiary difficulties in accessing information about the Qarabag Contract. On housing and car allowances, the arbitrator relied on Article 322 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which defines salary to include benefits in kind with economic value, and found the AZN 1,700 and AZN 500 monthly allowances were contractually guaranteed, regular, and quantifiable, totalling EUR 28,152.48 over 24 months. On team bonuses, the arbitrator found no bank statement entries, no documentary evidence, and consistent credible testimony from both the player and his agent that no bonuses were received; Qarabag's UEFA revenues alone did not establish distribution to players. On bad faith, the arbitrator noted the Appellant provided no concrete proof of intentional structuring; the optional third year was never exercised, the player's weaker bargaining position was corroborated by the agent's witness statement, and the Qarabag Contract was financially less favourable than the Partizan Contract. On additional compensation, the arbitrator rejected restricting the calculation to net base salary, finding the DRC's reliance on the loyalty fee as the principal monthly payment consistent with the RSTP's text and the principle that additional compensation should reflect the actual value of the player's services at termination.

Why Partizan v. Correia Andrade matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that contractually guaranteed in-kind allowances (housing, car) in a player's new employment contract must be included in the Article 17 RSTP mitigation deduction, consistent with the Swiss law definition of salary under Article 322 SCO. It also confirms that unproven speculative team bonuses cannot reduce compensation, and that additional compensation under Article 17(1)(ii) RSTP is calculated on the player's actual principal monthly remuneration—including loyalty fees—not solely the base salary, reinforcing the DRC's established practice.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2017/A/5465 CAS 2017/A/5374 CAS 2018/A/5624 CAS 2006/A/1130 CAS 2011/A/2426 CAS 2014/A/3625

Frequently asked questions about Partizan v. Correia Andrade

What did CAS decide in Partizan v. Correia Andrade about housing and car allowances in mitigation?

The Sole Arbitrator held that the Qarabag Contract's monthly housing allowance of AZN 1,700 and car allowance of AZN 500 constituted salary under Article 322 of the Swiss Code of Obligations because they were contractually guaranteed, regular, and quantifiable. Accordingly, their total value of EUR 28,152.48 over 24 months had to be deducted from the residual value of the Partizan Contract as part of the Article 17(1)(ii) RSTP mitigation calculation, reducing the compensation from EUR 937,575 to EUR 909,422.52 net.

Can a club deduct unproven team bonuses from breach-of-contract compensation under Article 17 RSTP?

No. In this case, CAS applied the balance of probabilities standard and found that FC Partizan failed to establish that the player received any team or collective bonuses from Qarabag. The player's bank statements showed no corresponding entries, and both the player and his agent testified consistently that no such bonuses were paid. The mere fact that Qarabag achieved sporting success and received UEFA revenues did not prove distribution to the player.

How is the three-monthly-salary additional compensation under Article 17(1)(ii) RSTP calculated when a contract includes loyalty fees?

The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the FIFA DRC's approach of using the player's actual principal monthly remuneration—here the EUR 50,000 monthly loyalty fee—rather than restricting the calculation to the net base salary alone. The award states that the RSTP's wording does not support excluding regular contractual remuneration such as loyalty fees, and that the calculation should reflect the actual value of the player's services at the time of termination, resulting in EUR 150,000 additional compensation (three times EUR 50,000).

Was FC Partizan's bad faith argument against the player successful in the Partizan v. Correia Andrade CAS case?

No. Partizan argued that the player intentionally structured the Qarabag Contract—with a low first/second-year salary of USD 250,000 per year and a high optional third year of USD 450,000—to maximize compensation from Partizan. CAS rejected this, finding no concrete proof of intentional manipulation, noting that the optional third year was never exercised by Qarabag, that the player's diminished bargaining position was corroborated by his agent's witness statement, and that the Qarabag Contract was financially less favourable than the Partizan Contract.

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.