Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

=== ## ===

Three Portuguese coaches—Head Coach Álvaro Pacheco and assistants José Miguel Teixeira and Pedro Teixeira—were hired by Vasco da Gama SAF in May 2024 under individual employment contracts running until 31 December 2024. On 21 June 2024, the Club terminated all contracts immediately and without just cause.

The FIFA Players’ Status Chamber (PSC) rejected Pacheco’s large claim (EUR 729k) and awarded only minimal amounts to the deputies after applying mitigation based on their new contracts with Al-Orobah (Saudi Arabia). All three appealed to CAS.

==== 1. Were the coaches’ contracts invalid “group contracts” prohibited by Annex 2 RSTP? ====
# If not, should termination compensation be governed by the contractual termination clauses or by Article 6 of Annex 2 RSTP?
# Are the contractual termination amounts subject to mitigation or reduction under Swiss law?
# Are the assistants entitled to full contractual compensation or must their new earnings be deducted?
# Can Pacheco’s additional EUR 50,000 “salary advance” claim be heard for the first time before CAS?

==== ### ====

CAS reversed the PSC’s finding that the contracts breached Article 2(1) of Annex 2 RSTP. The contracts:
* Were signed individually, with separate salaries and separate termination clauses.
* Did not establish the head coach as the single paymaster for the whole staff.
* Were individually negotiated (though coordinated), which does not constitute a prohibited “collective” contract.

Result:
The contractual termination clauses are valid and enforceable. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

===== The Sole Arbitrator classified: =====
* Pacheco’s clause (Art. 8.2) → Liquidated damages clause (not a penalty, not a pure buy-out).
* Assistants’ clauses (Art. 8.1) → Buy-out clauses referring back to the default regime of Article 337c CO (damages + mitigation).

Consequences:
* For Pacheco, the amount can be reduced under Article 163(3) CO (excessive liquidated damages), but not mitigated (as parties replaced statutory rules).
* For the assistants, the amounts must be mitigated because their clauses incorporate statutory damages rules.

===== ### =====
* Contractual clause: EUR 850,000 (pro-rated) for 2024 termination.
* CAS held this was excessive, because: - Annual earnings under the contract were EUR 584,000, meaning the liquidated sum exceeded actual salary by 45.55%.
* CAS applied a 10% uplift on the lost earnings (consistent with Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence).

Final Amount:
EUR 551,095.80 + 5% simple annual interest from 9 August 2024 until payment.
(The date reflects the 10-day default after the coaches’ demand letters.)

Mitigation does ''not'' apply to Pacheco because the parties contractually fixed compensation in advance. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

===== - Residual salary/benefits: EUR 59,776.58 =====
* Earnings at new club Al-Orobah: EUR 55,116
* Mitigated compensation: EUR 4,660.58

CAS upheld PSC’s mitigation and award but added interest.

Final Amount:
EUR 4,660.58, plus 5% simple interest from 9 August 2024. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

===== - Residual salary/benefits: EUR 95,829.68 =====
* Earnings at new club Al-Orobah: EUR 93,697.18
* Mitigated compensation: EUR 2,132.50

CAS upheld PSC’s award, with interest added.

Final Amount:
EUR 2,132.50, plus 5% simple interest from 9 August 2024. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

==== CAS refused to impose sporting sanctions on Vasco because: ====
* The contracts were “buy-out type” and did not allow sanctions for termination without just cause.
* Sanctions for non-payment are a matter of FIFA’s enforcement, not CAS merits.
* The coaches lacked a legally protected interest to request sanctions. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

==== Pacheco tried to introduce an additional EUR 50,000 claim for a “salary advance” not raised before the PSC. ====

CAS held:
* New claims are inadmissible unless justified by exceptional reasons (none existed).
* The claim exceeded the scope of the FIFA decision under appeal.

Result: Claim dismissed as inadmissible. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…

==== - All appeals were heard jointly under Article R50 CAS Code. ====
* Witness objections were dismissed: witnesses may have interests, but credibility is a matter of weight, not admissibility.
* Vasco’s Brazilian restructuring/bankruptcy proceedings did not affect CAS jurisdiction or the merits; they may only affect enforcement before FIFA. CAS-1178-1179-1181_-_Final_Awar…