The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute between Elaziğspor Kulübü Derneği, a Turkish football club, and player Hervé Germain Tum over the termination of an employment contract due to unpaid salaries. The player terminated his contract unilaterally after the club failed to pay his salaries for October, November, and December 2012, totaling EUR 95,000. The player had orally notified the club of his intention to terminate if payments were not made, followed by a formal termination letter on January 16, 2013. The club contested the termination, arguing that the player did not provide proper written notice as required by the contract and that the unpaid amount was insufficient to justify termination.
The CAS panel examined whether the player had just cause to terminate the contract under FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The panel found that the player’s oral warning was sufficient, as FIFA regulations do not strictly mandate written notice, and the club failed to refute the player’s claims. The panel emphasized that persistent non-payment of salaries, regardless of the amount, undermines the employment relationship and justifies termination. The club’s financial difficulties did not absolve it of its contractual obligations.
Regarding compensation, the panel upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber’s decision, awarding the player EUR 95,000 in unpaid salaries plus 5% annual interest and EUR 476,000 as compensation for breach of contract. The compensation was calculated based on the remaining contract value (EUR 675,000) minus the player’s earnings from his subsequent employment with Göztepe (EUR 199,000). The club argued that the compensation was disproportionate, citing the player’s limited playing time and alleged failure to mitigate damages, but the panel rejected these claims, noting the player’s efforts to secure new employment and the club’s responsibility for the breach.
The club’s procedural non-compliance, including missed deadlines and failure to provide required documents, further weakened its case. Despite requesting a hearing, the club later withdrew due to financial constraints, leading the panel to decide based on written submissions. The panel confirmed the FIFA decision, dismissing the club’s appeal and ordering it to pay the awarded amounts. The case underscores the importance of contractual adherence in football and the rights of players to terminate agreements with just cause due to breaches by clubs. It also clarifies the procedural and evidentiary standards for such disputes, reinforcing the balance between contractual freedom and regulatory protections under FIFA’s framework. The decision aligns with established jurisprudence, prioritizing contractual stability and deterring unilateral breaches by clubs.