{"id":9549,"date":"2026-03-10T17:09:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T16:09:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mkpartner.com.pl\/awarding-more-than-claimed-can-sports-courts-award-damages-in-excess-of-the-amount-claimed\/"},"modified":"2026-03-10T17:21:07","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T16:21:07","slug":"awarding-more-than-claimed-can-sports-courts-award-damages-in-excess-of-the-amount-claimed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mkpartner.com.pl\/en\/awarding-more-than-claimed-can-sports-courts-award-damages-in-excess-of-the-amount-claimed\/","title":{"rendered":"Awarding more than claimed \u2013 can sports courts award damages in excess of the amount claimed?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Awarding more than claimed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Awarding more than claimed \u2013 The ne ultra petita principle<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the basic principles of civil procedure is the prohibition of adjudicating beyond the claim (the ne ultra petita principle). This principle means that the court may only award the amounts claimed by the plaintiff in the statement of claim. For example, if the claimant demands payment of PLN 10,000.00 in the statement of claim, the court cannot award him PLN 15,000.00, even if it is clear to the parties and the court that the claimant is entitled to the additional PLN 5,000.00. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is obvious to Polish lawyers. However, it turns out that this principle is not always so easily accepted by international courts. An interesting illustration of this issue is case TAS 2024\/A\/10719 Federaci\u00f3n Boliviana de F\u00fatbol v. Gustavo Adolfo Costas, in which CAS had to assess whether FIFA had ruled ultra petita by awarding a benefit that the claimant had not sought at all. This case provides a good starting point for considering the scope of CAS and FIFA admissibility to award benefits beyond the parties’ claims. TAS 2024\/A\/10719 Federaci\u00f3n Boliviana de F\u00fatbol v. Gustavo Adolfo Costas <\/strong>, in which CAS <\/a>had to assess whether FIFA had ruled ultra petita by awarding a benefit that the claimant had not sought at all. This case provides a good starting point for considering the scope of CAS and FIFA admissibility to award benefits beyond the parties’ claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dispute arose from the termination of the contract between the Bolivian Football Federation and Argentine coach Gustavo Adolfo Costas. The coach was hired in 2022, but after a series of poor results, the federation decided to terminate the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Costas filed a claim against the federation, alleging that the contract had been terminated without just cause and demanding compensation. In the first instance, FIFA awarded him compensation. The problem is that this compensation also included the coach’s salary for November 2023. The coach did not request this remuneration either before FIFA or later before CAS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bolivian federation appealed this decision to CAS. From the perspective of this article, the key argument in appealing this ruling was precisely FIFA’s ruling above and beyond the coach’s claim. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAS assessment in the Costas case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

CAS found that the FIFA proceedings violated the ne ultra petita principle. It was established in the case that the coach never requested payment of remuneration for November 2023. This request was not raised at any stage of the court proceedings. However, FIFA still awarded this remuneration solely because the coach was in fact entitled to it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claim was also not raised at the appeal stage before CAS. As a result, CAS corrected FIFA\u2019s earlier decision and limited the amounts awarded to only those claims that had actually been raised by the claimant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\"Zas\u0105dzenie<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Significance of the judgment for sports dispute practice<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This case confirms an important legal issue. It sets a limit on the principle of protecting the weaker party \u2013 i.e., the player or coach \u2013 which is followed by the FIFA Football Tribunal. One such limit is the principle of being bound by the claim. Even if the coach or player is entitled to higher amounts, neither FIFA nor CAS can award them without such a claim being made by the party. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, this issue was not so obvious to FIFA, which assumed that awarding a higher claim than requested was justified. This also confirms that sometimes, in order to protect their interests, clubs must appeal to CAS against FIFA’s decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

CAS clearly indicated that the adjudicating body cannot award a benefit that the claimant did not seek, but which was nevertheless awarded by FIFA to the coach. This ruling sets one of the limits on the tendency of FIFA courts to protect the rights of players and coaches in disputes with clubs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a procedural perspective, this case also serves as a reminder of the principle of civil proceedings: it is the parties who set the limits of the dispute, and the court’s task is to resolve them, not to extend them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zas\u0105dzenie ponad \u017c\u0105danie <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We also encourage you to explore our other publications<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n