The case involves a dispute between MKE Ankaragücü Spor Külübü, a Turkish football club, and J., a professional Czech football player, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute centered on the validity and enforceability of an employment agreement signed on July 20, 2007, and the club’s subsequent termination of the contract. The player was on loan from FC Wacker Innsbruck to Ankaragücü, with an option for a permanent transfer. After a medical examination revealed the player had bronchitis asthma, the club terminated the loan agreement and refused to honor the employment contract, claiming the player concealed his health condition. The player argued his condition was medically managed with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) and did not impair his performance.
The CAS tribunal clarified key legal principles, defining a "precontract" as a preliminary agreement to later formalize a contract, distinct from a final contract with agreed essential terms. It ruled that bad faith in negotiations, such as hiding critical information, could justify contract repudiation, but found no bad faith here as the player’s condition did not hinder his performance. The tribunal also held that a player’s illness does not breach a contract unless it affects performance, meaning the club lacked just cause for termination. Additionally, the player had just cause to terminate due to the club’s failures, including unpaid salaries and denying access to training facilities.
The club appealed a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision ordering it to pay the player EUR 75,106 for breach of contract. The club argued the agreement was a "precontract" contingent on medical clearance and signing a uniform contract with the Turkish Football Federation. It claimed the player’s health issues and doping-related medication justified termination. The player countered that the club breached the contract by not fulfilling obligations like housing and salary payments, and by failing to request an International Transfer Certificate (ITC), preventing his registration.
The CAS Panel upheld the DRC’s decision, finding the employment agreement valid and enforceable. It rejected the club’s argument that the agreement was conditional, emphasizing that essential terms were agreed upon, making it a final contract under Swiss law. The Panel also dismissed claims about the player’s health, noting he had played professionally before and after the dispute, and his condition was managed. The club’s failure to pursue the ITC was deemed unjustified, and its unilateral decision to terminate the contract was invalid. The Panel affirmed the player’s termination with just cause and upheld the compensation awarded by FIFA.
The case underscores the importance of good faith in contract negotiations, the binding nature of employment agreements in football, and the high burden of proof required to justify termination based on health claims. It also highlights clubs’ responsibilities in fulfilling contractual obligations and the legal consequences of unilateral breaches. The CAS ruling reinforced the principle that contractual terms must be honored unless clear legal grounds for invalidity are established.