TAS 2019 A 6795 Gustavo Domingo Quinteros c. FIFA
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 10 Feb 2022
Why it matters
This case clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between FIFA's dispute resolution bodies and national courts in coach contracts. It confirms that a contractual choice of forum (here, Ecuadorian civil courts) can override FIFA's default jurisdiction, provided the chosen forum is competent. The decision reinforces the principle of pacta sunt servanda in sports arbitration and limits FIFA's regulatory reach when parties have expressly agreed on a different forum.
Summary
Gustavo Domingo Quinteros, an Argentine football coach, was hired by the Ecuadorian Football Federation (FEF) in 2015 to coach the Ecuador national team until the end of the 2018 World Cup. In September 2017, after Ecuador failed to qualify, FEF replaced Quinteros with another coach. Quinteros claimed this was a unilateral termination without cause and sought compensation under the contract, including a USD 500,000 penalty clause. He filed a claim before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). FEF argued that the DRC lacked jurisdiction because the contract contained a clause submitting disputes to the civil courts of Guayaquil, Ecuador, or alternatively to the Guayaquil Chamber of Commerce arbitration. The FIFA DRC agreed with FEF and declined jurisdiction. Quinteros appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel, applying FIFA regulations and Swiss law, upheld the DRC's decision. It found that the contractual jurisdiction clause was valid and exclusive, and that the DRC could not override it. The panel noted that FIFA's regulations allow parties to choose other forums, and that the chosen Ecuadorian courts were competent. Therefore, Quinteros had to pursue his claim in Ecuador. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was sent back to the Ecuadorian courts.
The detail
Parties: TAS 2019 A 6795 Gustavo Domingo Quinteros c. FIFA
Outcome: The appeal was dismissed; the CAS panel upheld the FIFA DRC decision that it lacked jurisdiction and that the dispute should be heard by the Ecuadorian civil courts or the Guayaquil Chamber of Commerce arbitration.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations (RSTP), Swiss law subsidiarily, Ecuadorian law for contract interpretation
Issues in play: The collision was between the contractual jurisdiction clause (Ecuadorian civil courts) and FIFA's regulatory framework (which allows coaches to bring claims before FIFA's DRC). The panel had to determine whether the FIFA DRC had exclusive jurisdiction or whether the parties' agreement prevailed.
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.