The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Kayserispor, a Turkish football club, and Erich Brabec, a Slovakian professional footballer, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict stemmed from alleged breaches of their employment contract signed in January 2005, which outlined payment terms, including cash payments and monthly installments, along with additional benefits like an apartment and a car. The dispute escalated during the 2005-2006 season when the player arrived two days late for pre-season training on June 27, 2005, instead of the club's requested date of June 25. The club responded by excluding him from first-team training, citing his late arrival and failure to complete medical tests. The player, through his attorney, accused the club of breaching the contract by denying him training access and withholding a $50,000 payment due on June 20, 2005. The club countered that the player’s late arrival and refusal to follow training protocols justified their actions.
The CAS ruled on several key issues. First, the club’s failure to pay the player on time constituted a breach, but this did not justify the player’s immediate termination of the contract, as the agreement allowed a 60-day grace period for such issues. Second, the player’s two-day delay in joining training was deemed a minor breach that did not warrant contract termination or compensation for the club. Third, the club’s refusal to let the player train was a more significant breach, as his minor lateness did not justify such exclusion. The CAS found that the club exploited the player’s minor breach to justify terminating the contract, thereby causing the fundamental breach itself.
The case also involved jurisdictional and procedural aspects. The CAS confirmed its authority under FIFA Statutes, which recognize CAS as the body for resolving disputes involving clubs, players, and officials. Swiss private international law governed the arbitration due to CAS's location in Switzerland. The parties acknowledged CAS jurisdiction by signing the order of procedure. The dispute was further complicated by the player’s subsequent contracts with other clubs (FC Superfund, FC Aarau AG, and SK Slavia Praha) between 2005 and 2007, which were considered in assessing damages.
Regarding damages, the CAS applied Swiss law, specifically Article 97 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), which entitles the injured party to compensation restoring them to their position had the breach not occurred. However, under Article 44 CO, compensation could be reduced if the claimant contributed to the damage. The tribunal also considered mitigating factors, such as earnings the player might have received elsewhere, and the seriousness of the fault under Article 43 CO. The CAS upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber’s decision, ordering the club to pay €190,000 with 5% annual interest, as the player did not appeal the initial decision, limiting the arbitrator's ability to award a higher amount.
In summary, the CAS determined that both parties breached the contract, but the club’s actions were more severe, particularly in preventing the player from training. The player’s minor delays did not justify the club’s response, and the club’s attempt to use these delays to terminate the contract was deemed a fundamental breach. The ruling emphasized the principle of proportionality in assessing breaches and the need to mitigate damages fairly. The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual terms and the consequences of disproportionate responses to minor breaches in professional sports contracts.