The case involves a dispute between Club X, a Turkish football club, and a professional football player, D., regarding the termination of an employment contract during the protected period, with FIFA also involved as a respondent. The dispute arose when the player unilaterally terminated his contract due to unpaid salaries, leading to proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The employment contract stipulated monthly payments, but the club failed to pay salaries for several months. After issuing a default notice that went unanswered, the player terminated the contract and signed with another club. The player filed a claim with FIFA DRC seeking unpaid wages, compensation for breach of contract, and additional damages, while the club countered with a claim alleging the player breached the contract.
The FIFA DRC ruled in favor of the player, ordering the club to pay outstanding salaries with interest and compensation for breach of contract. It also imposed a sporting sanction, banning the club from registering new players for two consecutive registration periods. The club appealed to CAS, arguing that the automatic imposition of sporting sanctions under Article 17(4) of the FIFA Regulations was disproportionate and not mandatory. CAS examined whether FIFA DRC had discretion in imposing sanctions for contract breaches during the protected period. While Article 17(4) suggests mandatory sanctions, CAS noted FIFA's practice of evaluating cases individually and emphasized the principle of legality, requiring clear legal bases for sanctions. The tribunal found that FIFA DRC had discretion in deciding whether to impose sanctions but not in determining their severity, which was fixed as a two-registration-period ban.
CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, confirming the financial penalties and sporting sanction. The ruling reinforced that while FIFA has discretion in applying sanctions, the severity is predetermined by regulation, ensuring consistency and fairness. The case highlights the balance between regulatory enforcement and proportionality in sports governance. The club's arguments, including claims of unfairness and lack of warning about sanctions, were dismissed. The Sole Arbitrator emphasized that Article 17(4) clearly defines the offense and sanction, meeting predictability requirements. The sanctions were justified given the club's repeated breaches and failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The decision aligns with CAS jurisprudence, which requires clear legal bases for sanctions and consistency in their application.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, finding no violation of legal principles such as legality, predictability, or proportionality. The case underscores the importance of clubs adhering to contractual obligations and the consequences of repeated breaches. The final award, issued on June 5, 2015, dismissed the club's appeal, affirming the financial penalties and sporting sanctions. The ruling serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of contractual obligations in football and the discretionary yet regulated power of FIFA in imposing sanctions.