CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11299 — Iraqi Football Association (IFA) v. Javier Sanchis Benavent

"IFA v. Sanchis Benavent" · CAS dismissed IFA's appeal, confirming USD 210,833.34 compensation to Spanish assistant coach wrongfully terminated without just cause.

What happened in IFA v. Sanchis Benavent

Javier Sanchis Benavent, a Spanish assistant coach, was employed by the Iraqi Football Association under a contract running from 5 November 2022 to 4 November 2026 at USD 100,000 per year. On 1 October 2024, the IFA sent a termination letter purportedly invoking Clause 10.3, which permitted no-fault termination only if made during September/October with 30 days' advance notice. The IFA argued that prior conduct — including suspending the coach's salary from August 2024 and removing him from duties — constituted de facto advance notice. The FIFA Player's Status Chamber (PSC) rejected this, found the termination unlawful, and awarded USD 5,416.67 in outstanding remuneration and USD 205,416.67 in compensation. The IFA appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that the first condition (termination in September/October) was met, but the second (30-day advance notice before 1 September 2024) was not. He further held that Clause 10.4 — which capped IFA's liability at salaries until 4 November of the termination year — was null and void as a potestative, unilateral liquidated damages clause. Compensation was therefore calculated under Article 6(2) of Annexe 2 of the FIFA RSTP as the full residual value of the contract. The appeal was dismissed and the FIFA PSC decision confirmed. The case matters because it reinforces that informal conduct cannot substitute contractual notice requirements and that asymmetric liquidated damages clauses favouring the employer are void.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11299

On 13 November 2024, Javier Sanchis Benavent filed a claim before the Player's Status Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (FIFA PSC), alleging the IFA terminated his contract without just cause and failed to pay outstanding remuneration. The IFA argued it had validly invoked Clause 10.3 of the Contract. On 28 January 2025, the FIFA PSC partially accepted the Coach's claims, awarding USD 5,416.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from 2 October 2024, and USD 205,416.67 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 October 2024. The grounds of the decision were communicated on 10 March 2025. The IFA filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 29 March 2025, within the 21-day deadline, requesting annulment of the FIFA PSC decision and a declaration that the termination was lawful under Clause 10.3. Both parties waived a hearing and the matter was decided on written submissions.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11299

• The IFA's termination on 1 October 2024 was unjustified because, while the first condition of Clause 10.3 (termination during September/October) was met, the second condition (30-day advance notice before 1 September 2024) was not fulfilled.
• Prior conduct such as suspending salary payments and removing the coach from duties cannot constitute 'implicit and substantiated prior notice' for the purposes of Clause 10.3.
• Clause 10.4 of the Contract, which capped IFA's compensation liability at salaries until 4 November of the termination year, is null and void as a potestative and unilateral liquidated damages clause that disproportionately favours the IFA.
• Where parties have not validly regulated compensation for unjustified termination, compensation is determined under Article 6(2) of Annexe 2 to the FIFA RSTP, equalling the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract where no new employment has been secured.
• Interest at 5% per annum applies to the awarded amounts pursuant to Article 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator approached the case by first examining whether the two cumulative conditions of Clause 10.3 were satisfied. He accepted that the termination letter dated 1 October 2024 satisfied the timing condition. However, he rejected the IFA's argument that pre-termination conduct — salary suspension from August 2024, bank account deactivation, and the coach's own WhatsApp messages — amounted to de facto advance notice. He found the bank account deactivation claim unsubstantiated, and held that conduct after 1 September 2024 was irrelevant since notice had to precede that date. He further reasoned that failure to pay one monthly salary cannot serve as notice of termination. Having found the termination unjustified on procedural grounds, the Arbitrator declined to rule on the validity of Clause 10.3 under FIFA regulations or Swiss law. Turning to consequences, he found Clause 10.4 null and void by applying CAS jurisprudence from CAS 2022/A/9165 and CAS 2016/A/4852, holding that a liquidated damages clause is void when it is unilateral and potestative, benefiting only one party. He noted the clause limited IFA's liability to roughly one month's salary against a residual value of 25 monthly salaries, with no reciprocal limitation on the coach. Compensation was therefore calculated as the full residual value under Article 6(2) of Annexe 2 to the FIFA RSTP.

Why IFA v. Sanchis Benavent matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces two important principles in CAS jurisprudence on coach contracts: first, that contractual notice requirements must be strictly and formally observed — informal conduct such as salary suspension cannot substitute written advance notice; second, that asymmetric liquidated damages clauses which cap an employer's liability at a fraction of the contract's residual value while imposing no reciprocal limit on the employee are potestative, unilateral, and void under both CAS precedent and FIFA's contractual stability framework.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6796 CAS 2022/A/9165 CAS 2019/A/6514 CAS 2016/A/4852 CAS 2014/A/3675 CAS 2005/A/983 & 984

Frequently asked questions about IFA v. Sanchis Benavent

Did the IFA validly terminate Sanchis Benavent's contract under Clause 10.3?

No. Although the IFA sent the termination letter on 1 October 2024, satisfying the requirement that termination occur during September or October, it failed to provide the mandatory 30-day advance notice before 1 September 2024. The Sole Arbitrator held that salary suspension and removal from duties did not constitute implicit prior notice, and the termination was therefore unjustified.

Why was Clause 10.4 of the IFA–Sanchis Benavent contract declared null and void?

Clause 10.4 limited the IFA's compensation liability to salaries owed until 4 November of the termination year — roughly one month against a residual contract value of 25 monthly salaries — while imposing no equivalent cap on the coach's liability. The Sole Arbitrator, applying CAS 2022/A/9165 and CAS 2016/A/4852, found the clause potestative and unilateral, disproportionately favouring the IFA, and therefore null and void.

How was compensation calculated for the IFA's breach of Sanchis Benavent's contract?

Because Clause 10.4 was void and the coach had not signed a new employment contract after termination, compensation was calculated under Article 6(2) of Annexe 2 to the FIFA RSTP as the full residual value of the contract. The period from 1 October 2024 to 4 November 2026 — 25 months and four days — yielded USD 205,416.67 net, plus USD 5,416.67 net in outstanding September 2024 salary.

Can an employer's informal conduct — like stopping salary payments — count as advance notice of termination under a FIFA coach contract?

No, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that the failure to pay one monthly salary cannot serve as prior notice of termination, and that the coach's WhatsApp messages seeking clarification of his status demonstrated he had not been notified of termination. Formal contractual notice requirements must be strictly observed, and conduct after the notice deadline (1 September 2024) was irrelevant to the analysis.

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.