CAS 2020 A 6792
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This case clarifies the binding nature of conditional extension agreements in football employment contracts. It confirms that a promise to extend a contract upon satisfaction of a condition (e.g., non-relegation) can be enforceable, and that the contra proferentem rule applies to agreements drafted by the club. The decision also illustrates the calculation of compensation under Article 17 RSTP, including deduction of mitigation earnings.
Summary
PAS Lamia 1964 FC, a Greek football club, signed a one-year employment contract with Spanish player Noe Acosta Rivera for the 2017-2018 season. Alongside the contract, they signed an additional agreement stating that if the club remained in the Super League after the 2017-2018 season, the player's annual salary in the next contract would be at least EUR 65,000. The club did stay up, but refused to extend the contract, claiming the additional agreement was only a promise and not binding. The player terminated the contract and filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which found the club liable for breach without just cause and ordered compensation of EUR 32,945. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction because the contract contained a clause referring disputes to Greek football bodies, and that the additional agreement was not binding. The CAS sole arbitrator rejected the jurisdiction challenge, noting that the player was no longer registered with the Greek federation after the contract expired, so Greek bodies had no jurisdiction. On the merits, the arbitrator held that the additional agreement was a binding extension clause: it contained essential terms (parties, duration, minimum salary) and was subject only to the condition of non-relegation, which was satisfied. The reference to signing a 'newer contract' did not negate the binding effect; the word 'will' indicated consent was already given. Applying the contra proferentem rule (since the club drafted the agreement), the arbitrator interpreted it in favor of the player. Thus, the club's refusal to extend constituted termination without just cause. For compensation, the arbitrator used the EUR 65,000 annual salary as a reference, deducted the player's earnings from subsequent clubs (EUR 654.50 monthly salary plus EUR 26,400 from AEL Larissas), resulting in EUR 32,055 (correcting a miscalculation in the FIFA decision). The club was also ordered to pay 5% interest from the date of the claim and a ban on registering new players if not paid within 45 days. The appeal was partially upheld only to correct the compensation amount.
The detail
Parties: PAS Lamia 1964 FC v. Noe Acosta Rivera & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2020 A 6792
Outcome: The appeal was partially upheld; the compensation amount was reduced from EUR 32,945 to EUR 32,055 plus 5% interest p.a. from 29 August 2018, and the Club was ordered to pay CHF 2,000 towards the Player's legal costs.
Quantum: EUR 32,055
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss Code of Obligations, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The key issue was whether an additional agreement signed alongside the employment contract constituted a binding extension clause or a mere promise. The tribunal applied contract interpretation principles, including contra proferentem, to determine that the agreement was binding and that the Club's refusal to extend the contract amounted to termination without just cause.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.