The case involves a contractual dispute between Turkish football club Galatasaray SK and French football player Frank Ribéry, along with Olympique de Marseille (OM). The dispute arose from the early termination of Ribéry’s employment contract with Galatasaray, signed in February 2005 and valid until June 2008. The contract included detailed financial obligations, such as fixed and variable payments, and clauses on termination and dispute resolution. Ribéry terminated the contract in June 2005, citing Galatasaray’s failure to pay salaries and bonuses for four months, amounting to €262,000, despite multiple warnings. He argued this constituted a material breach, justifying termination under FIFA rules and the contract’s terms. Galatasaray later paid €307,143, but Ribéry had already signed with OM.
The case was brought before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in May 2006 that Galatasaray breached the contract without just cause, dismissing the club’s claims against Ribéry and OM. Galatasaray appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking sanctions against Ribéry and OM, including a €10 million penalty for negotiating with another club while under contract, compensation for replacement player expenses, and reversal of the DRC decision. Ribéry countered, requesting confirmation of his justified termination, no sanctions, and payment of unpaid salaries and damages.
The CAS panel, applying FIFA’s Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP 2001) and Swiss law, examined whether Ribéry had "just cause" to terminate the contract. Swiss law considers repeated non-payment or late payment of wages a serious breach, justifying termination. The panel found Galatasaray’s payment delays significant, with unpaid amounts remaining by the termination date. It also deemed the contract’s termination procedure unclear and unenforceable, ruling Ribéry’s termination valid. The panel dismissed Galatasaray’s claims, including allegations of Ribéry’s agent violating FIFA’s Player Agents Regulations, as irrelevant to the termination’s validity.
Regarding financial claims, the panel noted Galatasaray had paid Ribéry between €566,143 and €570,143 by June 14, 2005, exceeding the €537,333 owed under the contract. Thus, Ribéry’s counterclaim for unpaid wages was dismissed. His claim for "collective bonuses" was rejected due to lack of contractual basis and evidence. The panel also dismissed his request for compensation under Article 22 of the RSTP 2001, as his new contract with OM offered improved terms and he provided no proof of financial loss.
The CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, dismissing Galatasaray’s appeal and Ribéry’s counterclaims. The ruling reinforced the importance of timely payment in employment contracts and clarified the enforceability of termination clauses. It also highlighted the precedence of FIFA regulations in resolving football disputes, with Swiss law supplementing gaps. The case set a precedent for contract enforcement and player-club disputes under FIFA’s framework.