CAS 2023 A 9712
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 26 Apr 2024
Why it matters
This case is significant for clarifying the strict interpretation of the 'coach' definition under FIFA RSTP, which is crucial for establishing FIFA's jurisdiction over employment disputes. It underscores that a contractual designation, even if seemingly related to coaching, must align precisely with the regulatory definition, supported by clear evidence of actual duties. The decision reinforces the claimant's burden to prove their status and highlights the importance of unambiguous contractual terms in sports employment, setting a precedent for how roles like 'football analyst' are distinguished from 'coach' in FIFA's regulatory framework.
Summary
João Tiago Conde Rodrigues Santo, a Portuguese national, was employed by a Honduran football club as a 'football analyst' under a contract spanning 2021-2024. After his salary payments ceased and his contract was terminated, Mr. Santo filed a claim with the FIFA Players Status Chamber (FIFA PSC) seeking USD 45,382 for breach of contract. The FIFA PSC, however, decided it did not have the authority (competence) to hear his case, ruling that he was a 'football analyst' and not a 'coach' as defined by the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Mr. Santo then appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS proceedings focused on whether Mr. Santo's role met the FIFA RSTP definition of a 'coach,' which is essential for FIFA's competence in employment disputes of international dimension (Article 22(c) RSTP). The FIFA RSTP defines a 'coach' as an individual whose employment duties include 'training and coaching players, selecting players for matches and competitions, making tactical choices during matches and competitions.' The applicable law also included the CAS Code of Sport-related Arbitration, FIFA's Procedural Rules, and Swiss law, particularly Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code on the burden of proof and Article 18(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations on contract interpretation, which emphasizes ascertaining the true common intention of the parties. The Sole Arbitrator at CAS dismissed Mr. Santo's appeal, confirming the FIFA PSC's original decision. The Arbitrator found that Mr. Santo failed to prove he was a 'coach' under the FIFA RSTP definition. While Mr. Santo presented evidence such as his UEFA B Diploma coaching certificate, witness statements from former coaches, and video footage, the Arbitrator deemed this insufficient. The contract explicitly named his role as 'football analyst' and detailed duties consistent with analysis and support, not direct coaching responsibilities like selecting players or making tactical decisions. The Arbitrator noted that the contract did not require him to lead training sessions or coach, and his salary was significantly lower than an assistant coach. The Arbitrator reiterated CAS jurisprudence that the role expressly stated in an employment contract generally prevails over a different functional description, unless there is conclusive evidence of a contrary true intention. The absence of the Club as a party in the CAS proceedings also made it difficult to interpret the contract's true intention. Consequently, the CAS ruled that FIFA lacked competence to hear the dispute. The award was rendered without costs, partly because Mr. Santo had been granted legal aid. The decision implies that while Mr. Santo's claim for breach of contract could not be heard by FIFA's bodies, his contract did include a clause allowing him to pursue his claim before the National Court of Arbitration of Football (TNAF) in Honduras.
The detail
Parties: Joao Tiago Conde Rodrigues Santo v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2023 A 9712
Outcome: The appeal filed by João Tiago Conde Rodrigues Santo against the FIFA Players Status Chamber's decision of 30 May 2023 is dismissed, and that decision is confirmed. The award is rendered without costs.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) (March 2023 edition), Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (March 2023 edition), CAS Code of Sport-related Arbitration, and subsidiarily, Swiss law (including Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code and Article 18(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations).
Issues in play: The central legal issue was the interpretation of the term 'coach' under Article 22(c) and definition 28 of the FIFA RSTP, which determines FIFA's competence to hear employment disputes. Principles of contract interpretation under Swiss law (Article 18(1) SCC) were invoked to ascertain the true intention of the parties regarding the Appellant's role, alongside the burden of proof (Article 8 SCC) resting on the Appellant to demonstrate he met the 'coach' definition despite his contract stating 'football analyst'.
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.