Swiss Federal Supreme Court Judgment of 6 November 2025, A. v. B. & C.
Motion to set aside CAS Award (CAS 2020/O/7140) of 18 March 2025
On 6 November 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFT) dismissed a motion against a CAS award concerning a football agent commission dispute (4A_192/2025). The case arose from a three-year exclusive representation agreement between a professional player (the Player) and his agent (the Agent). The contract provided for a minimum 10% commission on the player’s gross annual salary in case of transfer or renewal. It also included fixed contractual penalties if the Player signed without the Agent’s involvement. The Player transferred to a new Chinese club without including the agent.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator partially upheld the claim, ordering the Player to pay 10% of his gross salary for three seasons, plus USD 500,000 as a contractual penalty, with interest. Before the SFT, the Player argued that CAS had ruled ultra petita because it awarded amounts in different currencies. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the claim sought 10% of the gross salary, without limiting the currency. There was therefore no decision beyond the request.
The Player also alleged a violation of his right to be heard, challenging the method used to calculate the gross salary and arguing that an expert report should have been ordered. The SFT recalled that it does not review evidence freely in international arbitration, but only verifies procedural guarantees under Article 190 PILA. As such, it reiterated that disagreement with the assessment of evidence is not a ground for annulment and that the Player had been able to present his arguments.
Finally, the Player invoked a breach of substantive public policy. He argued that awarding both commission and contractual penalty was excessive and violated fundamental principles. The SFT dismissed the plea, stressing that CAS had applied the contract as agreed by the parties. Pacta sunt servanda was respected, and the case did not involve compulsory arbitration within the meaning discussed in the recent Semenya v. Switzerland judgment (see my note here). The appeal was dismissed in full, confirming the very restrictive scope of public policy in cases related to agency commissions .
