CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11768 — Vasco da Gama SAF v. Osmar Daniel Ferreyra

"Vasco da Gama v. Ferreyra" · CAS confirmed that Vasco da Gama's prolonged silence after placing assistant coach on paid leave constituted unjustified termination, upholding BRL 1,007,470 compensation.

What happened in Vasco da Gama v. Ferreyra

Osmar Daniel Ferreyra, an Argentine assistant coach, was employed by Brazilian club Vasco da Gama SAF under a Second Contract valid until 31 December 2025, providing USD 180,000 net annual remuneration. When head coach Ramón Ángel Díaz was dismissed on 27 April 2024, the Club placed Ferreyra on paid leave rather than terminating him. After the leave expired, Ferreyra sent three notices (17 June, 1 July, and 5 July 2024) requesting instructions to resume duties or confirmation of termination. The Club never responded. On 5 July 2024, Ferreyra declared the contract terminated without just cause by the Club. He subsequently joined Corinthians on 24 July 2024. The FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC) found the Club in breach and awarded BRL 46,550 in outstanding remuneration and BRL 1,007,470 in compensation (five instalments of BRL 201,494), the latter reflecting the Coach's own voluntary mitigation of the contractual penalty clause. Vasco appealed to CAS, arguing the Coach had self-terminated and that mitigation should further reduce any award. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal in full, confirming the PSC decision. The case matters because it affirms that a club's deliberate silence can constitute abusive conduct justifying termination with just cause by the employee, and that freely negotiated penalty clauses are not subject to unilateral mitigation by a tribunal.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11768

On 14 March 2025, Ferreyra filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC) alleging unjustified termination by Vasco da Gama SAF and claiming compensation under clause 7.2 of the Second Contract. On 24 June 2025, the PSC partially accepted the claim, ordering the Club to pay BRL 46,550 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from 6 July 2024, and BRL 1,007,470 as compensation for breach of contract in five instalments of BRL 201,494 each with 5% interest p.a. from staggered dates. The PSC grounded the reduced compensation on the Coach's own voluntary mitigation, avoiding an ultra petita ruling. FIFA notified the grounds of the decision on 21 August 2025. On 11 September 2025, Vasco filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, requesting the award be set aside and the Coach receive no compensation, or alternatively that mitigation be applied more broadly.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11768

• A club's prolonged and unjustified silence in response to an employee's repeated requests to resume duties constitutes abusive conduct under Article 4(2) of Annex II of the RSTP, entitling the employee to terminate the contract with just cause.
• Where parties have freely negotiated a penalty clause governing compensation for early termination, Article 6(2) of Annex 2 of the RSTP — which provides a default mitigation formula — does not apply, as that formula is expressly subject to contrary contractual stipulation.
• A validly agreed penalty clause that is reciprocal and calculated on the residual value of the contract is proportionate and enforceable; neither a tribunal nor a party unilaterally may reduce it, consistent with the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
• Ongoing reorganization bankruptcy proceedings affecting a club may impact enforcement of a CAS award but do not prevent CAS from adjudicating the dispute or render the award invalid.
• The unjust enrichment defence under Article 62 of the Swiss Code of Obligations fails where the compensation received by the coach is grounded in a valid contractual obligation freely entered into by the parties.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first established that, although Ferreyra formally issued the termination letter on 5 July 2024, the Club's conduct — placing him on unilateral paid leave after the head coach's departure and then ignoring three written notices over 39 days — constituted abusive conduct aimed at forcing the Coach to resign or accept worse conditions, satisfying the just-cause standard under Article 4 of Annex II of the RSTP and Swiss law (Art. 337 CO). The Arbitrator emphasised the social function of work and the particular vulnerability of foreign assistant coaches who lack the peer support networks available to players. On the compensation clause, the Arbitrator characterised clause 7.2 as a penalty clause (not merely a liquidated damages provision), found it reciprocal and proportionate because it mirrored the residual contract value, and held it fully valid under Articles 160–163 CO. Crucially, the Arbitrator read Article 6(2) of Annex 2 of the RSTP as a default rule displaced by the parties' own agreement, so the mitigation formula in that article was inapplicable. The Club's unjust enrichment argument was rejected because the Coach's entitlement rested on a valid contractual basis. The bankruptcy proceedings argument was dismissed as relevant only to enforcement, not adjudication.

Why Vasco da Gama v. Ferreyra matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that deliberate employer silence — as a strategy to force an employee's resignation — qualifies as abusive conduct justifying termination with just cause under the FIFA coaches' framework. It also provides clear authority that freely negotiated penalty clauses in coaching contracts displace the RSTP's default mitigation formula, and that only the beneficiary of such a clause may voluntarily reduce it. The decision further confirms that national insolvency proceedings cannot shield a club from CAS adjudication, only from enforcement.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2021/A/8471 CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2018/A/6029 CAS 2016/A/4884 CAS 2015/A/4327 CAS 2016/A/4605

Frequently asked questions about Vasco da Gama v. Ferreyra

Did Vasco da Gama have the right to terminate Ferreyra's contract when head coach Ramón Díaz left?

Clause 7.5 of the First Contract and clause 7 of the Second Contract linked Ferreyra's employment to Díaz's tenure, but the Club expressly chose to retain Ferreyra after Díaz's departure on 27 April 2024, placing him on paid leave instead. By doing so, the Club reaffirmed the validity of the Second Contract, and the right to terminate without compensation under the head-coach-departure provision was waived.

Why was Ferreyra found to have terminated with just cause even though he sent the termination letter himself?

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article 4(2) of Annex II of the RSTP and Swiss law, finding that the Club's 39-day silence in response to three formal notices constituted abusive conduct aimed at forcing the Coach to resign or accept worse conditions. Under CAS jurisprudence, such conduct entitles the aggrieved party to terminate with just cause, meaning the Club — not the Coach — was treated as the party in breach.

Can the BRL 2,143,260 penalty clause in the Vasco–Ferreyra contract be reduced by a tribunal to account for the coach's new salary at Corinthians?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 6(2) of Annex 2 of the RSTP, which provides a mitigation formula deducting new-contract earnings, applies only in the absence of a contractual stipulation. Because clause 7.2 was a freely negotiated, reciprocal, and proportionate penalty clause, it displaced the default rule. Only Ferreyra himself, as the holder of the right, could voluntarily reduce the amount — which he did in his PSC claim, capping the award at BRL 1,007,470.

Does Vasco da Gama's ongoing reorganization bankruptcy proceeding prevent CAS from issuing or enforcing this award?

No. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that insolvency or judicial reorganization proceedings may affect the enforcement of a CAS award but do not prevent CAS from adjudicating the dispute or render the award invalid. The Club itself acknowledged this distinction, and the Arbitrator noted that FIFA regulations do not extend the bankruptcy-closure provision of the FIFA Disciplinary Code to PSC enforcement proceedings.

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.