The case involves a contractual dispute between Club Sivasspor, a Turkish football club, and professional player Nordin Sidibach Wooter, along with AEK Larnaca, a Cypriot club. The conflict arose from the termination of an employment contract signed in August 2006, set to expire in May 2009. The contract stipulated a monthly salary, a sign-on fee, and other benefits, with payments due on the 7th of each month. However, the club delayed salary payments in the early months, leading to the player's departure in early 2007. The player claimed unpaid salaries and unjust fines for disciplinary issues, while the club accused him of unauthorized absences and breach of contract.
The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in 2009 but notified the decision in 2011. The DRC found the club failed to provide properly translated documents to prove salary payments, rendering them inadmissible. It also questioned the validity of the documents and ruled the player had the right to terminate the contract due to unpaid salaries, awarding him EUR 440,000, including lost salary and benefits, with 5% interest. Club Sivasspor appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reviewed the case in detail.
The CAS emphasized that a player's departure without justification does not automatically terminate the contract if the player remains willing to return under proper conditions. It also highlighted that fines must have a clear contractual basis. The panel found the player's departure unjustified, as he could have pursued legal remedies instead of unilaterally terminating the contract. The CAS appointed a handwriting expert to examine disputed payment receipts, with mixed results. Some signatures were confirmed as genuine, while others were inconclusive.
During the hearing, the player represented himself, denying allegations of misconduct and unpaid salaries. He claimed he left due to financial hardship caused by the club's payment delays. The club argued it had fulfilled its financial obligations and imposed legitimate fines for disciplinary breaches. The CAS partially upheld the club's appeal, ruling the termination was justified but ordering the club to pay the player EUR 40,000 (EUR 20,000 for unpaid February salary and EUR 20,000 for the notice period) with 5% interest. The club's claims for compensation and fines were dismissed due to lack of contractual basis.
The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, timely payments, and proper dispute resolution mechanisms in professional football. It also highlights the role of CAS in adjudicating complex contractual disputes, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal standards. The final ruling balanced the interests of both parties, providing compensation for the player while recognizing the club's right to terminate the contract under the circumstances.