CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11669 — Apollon Limassol FC v. Pablo Javier Machín Diez

"Machín Diez" · CAS dismissed Apollon Limassol's appeal, confirming EUR 360,000 compensation plus EUR 57,000 outstanding salary owed to dismissed coach Machín Diez.

What happened in Machín Diez

Apollon Limassol FC engaged Spanish coach Pablo Javier Machín Diez on 23 December 2023 under three interlocking contracts valid until 30 June 2025. After the 2023/2024 season ended on 12 May 2024, the Club informed the Coach it wished to end the relationship, negotiations over a mutual termination failed, and the Club signed a replacement coach on 1 June 2024 — nearly a month before formally terminating Machín Diez by notice dated 28 June 2024. The Club later alleged just cause based on the Coach's alleged 45-day absence, failure to prepare pre-season activities, and lack of involvement in recruitment and transfers. The FIFA Players' Status Chamber (decision Ref. No. FPSD-16966, 24 June 2025) rejected those allegations, found termination without just cause, and awarded EUR 360,000 compensation plus EUR 57,000 outstanding remuneration, all with 5% p.a. interest. Apollon Limassol appealed to CAS. Sole Arbitrator Hervé Le Lay upheld the FIFA PSC in full: the Club issued no prior warning, had already hired a replacement, and the Coach had prepared detailed off- and pre-season training plans. The liquidated damages clause in Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement was found proportionate and reciprocal, covering all three contracts including allowances, with no 2.65% GHS deduction. The appeal was entirely dismissed.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11669

On 6 November 2024 the Coach filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (FIFA PSC). The Club responded on 9 December 2024. On 24 June 2025 the FIFA PSC issued decision Ref. No. FPSD-16966, partially accepting the Coach's claim and ordering the Club to pay EUR 19,000 net (outstanding salary, interest from 1 April 2024), EUR 19,000 net (interest from 1 May 2024), EUR 19,000 net (interest from 1 June 2024), and EUR 360,000 net compensation for breach of contract (interest from 28 June 2024), all at 5% p.a. The decision was notified to the parties on 21 July 2025. On 11 August 2025 Apollon Limassol filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS under Article R47 of the CAS Code, Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the FIFA Statutes, and Article 24(5) of the FIFA RSTP. The Appeal Brief was filed on 30 September 2025; the Answer on 12 January 2026. A video-conference hearing was held on 18 March 2026. CAS was asked to overturn the FIFA PSC decision and either award compensation to the Club or reduce/eliminate compensation to the Coach.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11669

• The Club terminated the employment relationship without just cause, as it issued no prior warning, had already contracted a replacement coach on 1 June 2024, and the Coach's alleged absences fell during a period of sporting inactivity when no Club activities were scheduled.
• The liquidated damages clause in Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement is valid and applicable because it is proportionate (compensation equals the residual contract value) and reciprocal (it binds either party equally), and the Club itself invoked it in its own counterclaim.
• The 'full residual economic value' under Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement encompasses amounts owed under all three contracts — the Standard Employment Contract, the Employment Contract, and the Supplementary Agreement — including allowances, as the clause expressly so provides.
• Allowances under Article 1, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Agreement form part of the Coach's remuneration and are not conditional upon proof of actual expenditure, and therefore must be included in the compensation calculation.
• No 2.65% deduction for Cyprus General Healthcare System contributions is warranted because, following termination of the employment relationship, the Club is no longer required to make such contributions on the Coach's behalf.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the Swiss law concept of 'good cause' (Article 337 SCO) as the CAS-recognised equivalent of 'just cause' under FIFA regulations, requiring that a breach be of sufficient severity that continuation of the relationship cannot reasonably be expected and that termination be an ultima ratio measure. He found the Club's allegations unsupported: the Coach's absence occurred during the off-season with no scheduled activities; the Coach had prepared detailed training plans coordinated with medical staff in April 2024; the Club never issued a prior warning; and the Club had already signed a new head coach on 1 June 2024, making the alleged breaches implausible as genuine grounds. On the liquidated damages clause, the Arbitrator relied on established CAS jurisprudence holding that clauses pegged to residual contract value are generally proportionate and that exceeding actual damage does not automatically render a clause excessive. He rejected the in dubio contra stipulatorem argument because a literal reading of Article 2 unambiguously referenced all three contracts. He also rejected the 2.65% GHS deduction on the ground that the obligation to make those contributions ceased upon termination. The Club's own reliance on the clause in its counterclaim further confirmed its applicability.

Why Machín Diez matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that a club which has already contracted a replacement coach and issued no prior warning cannot retrospectively construct just cause from off-season conduct. It confirms that liquidated damages clauses pegged to residual contract value satisfy proportionality and reciprocity requirements under CAS jurisprudence, and that such clauses expressly referencing multiple contracts will be read to encompass all of them. The decision also clarifies that fixed allowances included in a coach's remuneration schedule are not conditional on proof of expenditure and must be included in residual-value compensation calculations.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1062 CAS 2016/A/4846 CAS 2017/A/5465 CAS 2004/A/587 CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2006/A/1100

Frequently asked questions about Machín Diez

Why did CAS find that Apollon Limassol had no just cause to terminate Machín Diez?

The Sole Arbitrator found that the Club issued no prior warning about any alleged breach, that the Coach's absence from Limassol fell entirely within the off-season period when no Club activities were scheduled, and that the Coach had in fact prepared detailed off- and pre-season training plans coordinated with the Club's medical staff in April 2024. Critically, the Club had already signed a replacement head coach on 1 June 2024 — nearly a month before formally terminating Machín Diez on 28 June 2024 — which undermined the credibility of the alleged just cause.

How was the EUR 360,000 compensation figure calculated in the Machín Diez case?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the liquidated damages clause in Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement, which required payment of the 'full residual economic value' of all three contracts for the 2024/2025 season. This comprised EUR 120,000 under Article 2.5.2 of the Employment Contract (ten monthly instalments of EUR 12,000), EUR 220,000 under Article 1.2 of the Supplementary Agreement (additional salary), and EUR 20,000 under Article 1.4 of the Supplementary Agreement (allowances), totalling EUR 360,000 net.

Did the CAS panel in Machín Diez apply the FIFA RSTP Article 6 para. 2 Annex 2 mitigation rules to reduce the compensation?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found the contractual liquidated damages clause in Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement to be valid, proportionate and reciprocal, and Article 2.1 of that clause expressly excluded the Article 6 para. 2 Annex 2 FIFA RSTP calculation method unless a competent FIFA body found the clause inapplicable. Because the clause was upheld, no mitigation for the Coach's subsequent employment with Umm Salal Sport Club Co. was applied.

Were the allowances included in the compensation awarded to Machín Diez, and why?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held that allowances under Article 1, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Supplementary Agreement formed part of the Coach's remuneration on the same footing as his additional salary, and that neither the Contracts nor CAS jurisprudence made their payment conditional on proof of actual expenditure. Accordingly, the EUR 20,000 in allowances for the 2024/2025 season were included in the EUR 360,000 residual-value compensation.

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.