The case revolves around a dispute between FC Rubin Kazan, a Russian football club, and Fatih Tekke, a professional football player, concerning unpaid salaries and bonuses. The conflict was initially brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The core issue centered on whether the salary specified in the employment contract was separate from or included in the additional payments outlined in an annex to the contract. The employment contract, signed in 2010, stipulated a monthly salary of $2,000, while the annex stated an annual salary of €2 million net, payable in installments, along with a €100,000 bonus if the club qualified for UEFA competitions. The player claimed unpaid salaries totaling $12,666 and €277,753.43, plus interest, arguing these amounts were owed separately. The club contended that the $2,000 monthly salary was part of the €2 million annual sum and denied liability for the bonus, claiming the conditions for its payment were unmet.
The FIFA DRC partially accepted the player's claim, ordering the club to pay €177,753.43 and $12,666, plus interest, while rejecting other claims. The club appealed to CAS, arguing the DRC misinterpreted the contract terms. CAS examined the admissibility of new evidence under Article R57 of the CAS Code, which allows panels to disregard evidence if it was available earlier and its introduction amounts to abusive conduct. The panel emphasized this provision should be applied cautiously to avoid undermining the principle of de novo review. On the merits, CAS analyzed Russian labor law and football regulations, concluding that neither required salaries to be exclusively stated in annexes. The panel noted the contract allowed for additional payments beyond the basic salary and found no indication the $2,000 monthly salary was subsumed within the €2 million annual amount. The annex explicitly provided for separate payments, reinforcing the player's claim.
The Sole Arbitrator reviewed the club's evidence, including bank certificates and payment confirmations, but found inconsistencies in the club's arguments. While the club initially claimed a debt of €14,685.57 to the player, it later asserted it had overpaid him, a shift deemed not credible. The Arbitrator concluded the club had paid €153,838 for the August 2010 salary but failed to prove additional payments of €5,830.13 and €127,500 were salary-related rather than bonuses. The player denied receiving these payments, and the burden of proof lay with the club. Ultimately, the Arbitrator ruled the club had outstanding obligations to the player, amounting to $12,666 and €9,229.43, plus 5% annual interest from 1 September 2010.
CAS partially upheld the club's appeal, setting aside the FIFA DRC's decision and ordering the club to pay the specified amounts to the player. All other claims were dismissed. The ruling underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, holding the club liable for fulfilling its contractual obligations. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, emphasizing the need for precise documentation and adherence to agreed terms. The decision also reaffirmed the procedural fairness of sports arbitration, ensuring parties have the opportunity to present their case fully while preventing abusive practices.