CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11047 — Facundo Leonel Viggiano v. ASD Piano Della Lente

"Viggiano" · CAS overturned FIFA DRC's rejection of a player's bonus claim after new FIGC match-statistics evidence was admitted on appeal.

What happened in Viggiano

Argentinian footballer Facundo Leonel Viggiano signed a 2023/24 employment contract with Italian amateur club ASD Piano Della Lente, entitling him to EUR 10,800 in monthly instalments, a EUR 400 sign-on fee, and four performance bonuses totalling EUR 2,000 (appearances, goals, and playoff success). The club never paid the bonuses. After a written default notice in July 2024, the player filed a FIFA DRC claim in August 2024. The DRC, by majority, rejected the claim because the player had not provided documentary evidence of his appearances and goals. On appeal to CAS, the player obtained official statistics from the FIGC/Abruzzo Regional Committee confirming 28 appearances and 15 goals in 2023/24, as well as playoff participation. The Sole Arbitrator admitted this new evidence under Article R44.3 and conducted a full de novo review under Article R57. He found the EUR 2,000 bonus entitlement proven to his comfortable satisfaction and awarded 5% p.a. interest from 1 July 2024. However, the player's request for a two-period registration ban under Article 12bis FIFA RSTP was dismissed because players lack standing to request sporting sanctions against clubs — a matter solely within FIFA's prerogative. The award matters because it illustrates how CAS's de novo review can rescue claims that failed at first instance solely for lack of evidence, and reaffirms the standing limitation on Article 12bis sanction requests.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11047

On 19 August 2024, Viggiano filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber – Football Tribunal seeking EUR 2,000 in bonus payments plus 5% interest and a two-period registration ban under Article 12bis FIFA RSTP. The club failed to reply. On 31 October 2024 (communicated 12 November 2024), the FIFA DRC rejected the claim by majority, finding the player had not provided documentary evidence of his appearances and goals. The player appealed to CAS on 28 November 2024, within the 21-day limit. FIFA, initially named as a respondent, requested exclusion on 9 January 2025 and was excluded with the player's agreement. The Respondent club failed to file a formal Answer but submitted a brief letter in April 2025 disputing the contract's authenticity. No hearing was held. The player subsequently obtained and submitted FIGC match statistics, which the Sole Arbitrator admitted as new evidence.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11047

• CAS may admit new documentary evidence on appeal under Article R44.3 of the CAS Code even where it is unclear whether such evidence was available or could reasonably have been discovered at the first-instance stage.
• Under Article R57 of the CAS Code, the Sole Arbitrator has full power to review facts and law de novo, enabling a complete reassessment of a claim rejected at first instance for insufficient evidence.
• Official FIGC statistics confirming 28 appearances and 15 goals in the 2023/24 season, together with the uncontested contract terms, satisfy the comfortable-satisfaction standard for entitlement to EUR 2,000 in bonus payments.
• Interest on overdue bonus payments is payable at 5% per annum from the date the payments fell due (1 July 2024) in accordance with Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
• A player lacks standing to request the imposition of sporting sanctions (including a registration ban under Article 12bis FIFA RSTP) against a club; that power rests solely with FIFA.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first confirmed jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code and Article 50 of the FIFA Statutes, and admissibility given the appeal was filed within 21 days of the 12 November 2024 notification. On the merits, he identified four issues: existence of the contract, proof of bonus entitlement, interest, and Article 12bis sanctions. On the contract, the signed employment agreement was uncontested in substance (the club's only response was a bare denial by its president of having signed it, which the Sole Arbitrator implicitly rejected). On evidence, he exercised the de novo power under Article R57 and admitted the FIGC statistics under Article R44.3, noting that CAS proceedings are not limited to the record before the first-instance body. The FIGC data — 25 Championship appearances, 1 playoff appearance, 2 Coppa Italia appearances, and 15 goals per journalistic sources — comfortably satisfied all four bonus thresholds. On interest, he applied Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (5% p.a.) as the contract was silent on rates, running from 1 July 2024 as the natural end of the 2023/24 season. On sanctions, he rejected the player's Article 12bis request by reference to consistent CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2006/A/1082 & 1104, CAS 2014/A/3707, CAS 2016/A/4826) holding that only FIFA may impose such sanctions, and noted FIFA's own submission that the dispute was purely horizontal and that the player lacked standing.

Why Viggiano matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that CAS's de novo appellate review under Article R57 can cure evidentiary deficiencies from first-instance proceedings, particularly where official federation records are obtainable on appeal. It also consolidates the well-established CAS principle — drawn from CAS 2006/A/1082 & 1104, CAS 2014/A/3707, and CAS 2016/A/4826 — that players have no standing to request Article 12bis registration bans against clubs, a power reserved exclusively to FIFA.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1082 & 1104 CAS 2014/A/3707 CAS 2016/A/4826

Frequently asked questions about Viggiano

Why did the FIFA DRC reject Viggiano's bonus claim and how did CAS reverse it?

The FIFA DRC rejected the claim by majority because Viggiano had not provided documentary evidence of his appearances and goals at first instance. On appeal, Viggiano obtained official statistics from the FIGC and the Abruzzo Regional Committee confirming 28 appearances and 15 goals in the 2023/24 season. The CAS Sole Arbitrator admitted this new evidence under Article R44.3 of the CAS Code and, exercising full de novo review under Article R57, found the EUR 2,000 bonus entitlement proven to his comfortable satisfaction.

Can a player request a registration ban against a club under Article 12bis FIFA RSTP at CAS?

No. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed Viggiano's request for a two-period registration ban, citing consistent CAS jurisprudence including CAS 2016/A/4826, which held that imposing Article 12bis sporting sanctions is solely within FIFA's prerogative. FIFA itself submitted that the dispute was of a strictly horizontal nature and that the player lacked standing to request such sanctions.

What interest rate applies to unpaid football bonuses in a CAS case governed by Swiss law?

In the Viggiano case, the Sole Arbitrator applied 5% per annum in accordance with Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which sets that rate where an obligation involves payment of interest but the rate is not fixed by contract, law, or custom. Interest was calculated from 1 July 2024, the date the bonus payments were considered to have fallen due at the end of the 2023/24 season.

How did Viggiano prove his 20-appearance and 15-goal bonus thresholds at CAS?

Viggiano submitted a document from the FIGC, obtained after consulting the Abruzzo Regional Committee, confirming he made 28 total appearances for ASD Piano Della Lente in 2023/24 (25 in the Championship, 1 in the play-offs, and 2 in the Coppa Italia Promozione). The same document indicated, based on journalistic sources described as 'purely indicative,' that he scored 15 goals, satisfying both the 10-goal and 15-goal bonus thresholds under the contract.

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.