What is Locus Standi?

Locus Standi is a platform for the dispute-resolution world. It brings together arbitration, mediation and adjudication events, jobs and internships, and landmark arbitral awards explained in plain English, alongside the qualifications and pathways into the field. It was established in London at LIDW26 by the alumni of Queen Mary University of London.

Can Locus Standi help me understand a dispute?

Yes. Locus Standi offers free dispute help: paste your contract's dispute-resolution clause and a short note on what happened, and it works out the type of dispute, the governing law, your options, the right forum to file in, and drafts a basic document to start from, all in plain English.

What is the agentic AI case officer?

Locus Standi's workspace includes an AI case officer that helps practitioners run their matters: tracking stages and deadlines, raising alerts, organising to-dos and documents, and drafting. It is built for arbitrators, mediators and the institutions that administer disputes.

Where can I find arbitration events and internships?

Locus Standi keeps a live calendar of arbitration, mediation and adjudication events with one-tap calendar export, and a board of arbitration jobs and internships from institutions including the PCA, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and AIAC.

CAS 2020 A 7117 (CAS)

Why it matters

This case clarifies the distinction between a 'physical coach' (fitness trainer) and a 'coach' for FIFA jurisdictional purposes. It confirms that the contractual title and actual duties determine standing before FIFA bodies, and that a physical coach, even if holding a UEFA A Licence, is not automatically a 'coach'. The award reinforces the principle of primacy of reality but places a high evidentiary burden on the claimant to prove de facto coaching duties.

Summary

Antonio Luis Servera Santandreu, a Spanish physical coach holding a UEFA A Licence, signed two employment contracts with Chinese club Guizhou Hengfeng FC. The second contract (2018) described him as 'physical coach' with duties to 'fulfil all duties as physical coach' and 'take care and assist in managing of all the players'. The club terminated the contract on 5 June 2018, citing poor sporting results. Servera claimed breach of contract before FIFA, seeking outstanding salaries, bonuses, and compensation. The FIFA Players' Status Committee (PSC) declared the claim inadmissible, ruling that a physical coach is not a 'coach' under Article 6(1) of the FIFA Procedural Rules and thus not entitled to bring a claim before FIFA. Servera appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the FIFA decision. He applied the burden of proof principle from CAS jurisprudence, requiring Servera to prove he was actually working as an assistant coach. Despite witness statements and video evidence, the Arbitrator found the evidence insufficient: the witness statements appeared co-drafted, and being present near the head coach did not prove coaching duties. The Arbitrator noted that Servera himself referred to 'Physical Coach' in his termination correspondence. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that physical trainers fall outside FIFA's jurisdiction for employment disputes.

The detail

Parties: Antonio Luís Servera Santandreu v. Guizhou Hengfeng FC & FIFA

Case number: CAS 2020 A 7117

Outcome: Appeal dismissed; FIFA PSC decision confirmed; Appellant bears arbitration costs.

Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), FIFA Procedural Rules, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration

Issues in play: Whether a physical coach qualifies as a 'coach' under FIFA Procedural Rules Article 6(1) to access FIFA dispute resolution; burden of proof on Appellant to show actual duties as assistant coach.

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.

Back to the awards board