The case involves a dispute between Club Gaziantepspor, a Turkish football club, and Armand Deumi Tchani, a Cameroonian professional football player, regarding alleged breaches of an employment contract. The parties initially signed a contract on June 25, 2007, valid until May 31, 2011, and later signed a second contract on August 21, 2008, with the same validity period. The second contract included annual salaries and payment terms, with a clause requiring any amendments to be in writing. Tchani claimed that an amendment was agreed upon in September 2009, increasing his salary, but the club denied this, arguing the amendment lacked an original signature and only bore the club’s stamp.
In March 2010, Tchani’s lawyer complained about delayed salary payments, threatening termination if the situation did not improve. By June 2010, the lawyer terminated the contract, citing breach of payment obligations. The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) responded that the contract had already expired on May 31, 2010, rendering the termination invalid. Tchani filed a claim with the TFF Dispute Resolution Committee (TFF DRC) in March 2011, seeking unpaid salaries and sanctions against the club. The TFF DRC requested the claim be resubmitted in Turkish, but Tchani failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of the case.
The dispute was then brought before FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in Tchani’s favor, ordering the club to pay outstanding salaries. Club Gaziantepspor appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural issues and contesting the validity of the amendment. The CAS upheld FIFA’s decision, emphasizing that the formal requirements for claim submission were met, regardless of prior proceedings before the TFF DRC. The CAS also clarified that under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence, a contract is considered written only if signed by the parties, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim. The club failed to disprove Tchani’s allegations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator further examined whether Tchani’s claim to FIFA on September 2, 2011, was valid and timely. The arbitrator concluded that the claim was not time-barred, as it was submitted within two years of the disputed salary period (March to May 2010). The arbitrator also determined that the TFF DRC had deemed the claim waived due to Tchani’s failure to comply with procedural requirements, allowing FIFA to proceed. However, the arbitrator found insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the alleged amendment, as it lacked the club’s original signature and the payments made could align with either the original contract or the disputed amendment. Consequently, Tchani was only entitled to the original agreed salary of EUR 375,000 for the 2009/2010 season, with the club ordered to pay the remaining EUR 40,000 plus 5% annual interest from September 2, 2011.
The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual formalities, procedural requirements in sports disputes, and the adversarial nature of CAS proceedings, where parties must substantiate their claims with convincing evidence. The ruling highlights the challenges in proving contractual amendments and the necessity of proper documentation in employment disputes within the sports industry.