CAS 2023 A 9882
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 16 Jan 2025
Why it matters
This case is significant because it demonstrates the CAS's willingness to set aside sporting sanctions (player suspension and transfer ban) when the parties reach a settlement, provided the settlement does not violate mandatory rules. It also clarifies that a settlement clause purporting to waive sporting sanctions is invalid, as such sanctions are not freely disposable by the parties. The case highlights the interplay between contractual autonomy and regulatory framework in football.
Summary
The case arose from a dispute over the transfer of Argentine footballer Juan Martin Lucero. In January 2022, Lucero signed a series of contracts with Chilean club Colo-Colo, including an employment contract and an economic rights assignment agreement. The contracts granted Colo-Colo a purchase option for 80% of Lucero's economic and federative rights, exercisable until 1 December 2022. If exercised, Lucero's contract would extend until 2025. If not exercised, Lucero could terminate his contract between 15 and 31 December 2022 without penalty. On 15 November 2022, Colo-Colo notified Lucero that it was exercising the option. However, a dispute arose over the interpretation of the clauses. On 3 January 2023, Lucero sent a communication purporting to terminate his contract by paying USD 1,000,000, invoking a clause in the economic rights agreement. Colo-Colo disputed this, arguing the option had been exercised and the contract remained valid. On 17 January 2023, Lucero signed a contract with Brazilian club Fortaleza. Colo-Colo filed a claim with FIFA, which imposed a four-month suspension on Lucero and a two-window transfer ban on Fortaleza. All parties appealed to CAS. During the CAS proceedings, the parties (Lucero, Colo-Colo, and Fortaleza) reached a settlement agreement on 6 May 2024, resolving the financial aspects. The CAS panel reviewed the settlement and found that most of its terms were lawful, except for clause 1.2, which purported to waive the sporting sanctions. The panel held that sporting sanctions under FIFA RSTP are not freely disposable by the parties and must be determined by the competent body. Therefore, the panel partially revoked the FIFA decision, annulled the sporting sanctions, and homologated the settlement (excluding clause 1.2), ordering the parties to comply with its terms. The panel also allocated costs as agreed in the settlement.
The detail
Parties: & 9935 & 9936 Juan Lucero - Fortaleza Esporte Club - CSD Colo Colo c. FIFA ES
Case number: CAS 2023 A 9882
Outcome: The CAS partially revoked the FIFA DRC decision, annulled the sporting sanctions, and homologated a settlement agreement between the player, Colo-Colo and Fortaleza, ordering them to comply with its terms (except the clause on sporting sanctions).
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss law
Issues in play: The case involved the interpretation of contractual clauses regarding a purchase option and a unilateral termination right, and whether the player's termination was justified or constituted a breach of contract. The collision was between the contractual freedom of the parties and the mandatory sporting sanctions under FIFA RSTP for breach of contract.
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.