The case revolves around a dispute between Club X, a Turkish football club, and Player D, a professional footballer, with FIFA as the second respondent. The conflict originated from an employment contract signed in January 2013, which stipulated a monthly salary of EUR 20,000 for the Player. However, the Player received only one month's salary and terminated the contract in June 2013. In April 2014, the Player filed a claim with FIFA seeking unpaid salaries and compensation for breach of contract. The Club countered by alleging the Player had unjustly terminated the contract. On 30 July 2014, FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled in favor of the Player, ordering the Club to pay EUR 80,000 in outstanding salaries plus interest and imposing a two-registration-period ban on the Club from signing new players.
The Club appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 8 October 2014, requesting provisional measures to stay the decision, arguing it would cause irreparable harm. The CAS noted that financial decisions by Swiss associations like FIFA are generally not enforceable during appeals but allowed the Club to clarify its request. The Club emphasized the sporting sanctions (the registration ban) as a source of irreparable harm, while FIFA opposed the stay, arguing the Club failed to specify the harm, lacked likelihood of success, and that FIFA's interests outweighed the Club's.
The CAS assessed jurisdiction under its Code and FIFA's statutes, confirming prima facie jurisdiction since the appeal was filed within the 21-day limit. The legal discussion focused on the criteria for granting provisional measures: irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and balancing interests. The CAS distinguished between the financial and sporting sanctions in the appealed decision. While financial decisions are typically unenforceable during appeals, the sporting sanctions required further scrutiny. However, the Club's unsupported claim of irreparable harm was insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
Ultimately, the CAS found no grounds to stay the financial decision, as it was already unenforceable during appeal, and the Club failed to substantiate irreparable harm from the sporting sanctions. The order emphasized that provisional measures require cumulative proof of all criteria, which the Club did not satisfy. The case proceeded to further arbitration for a final decision on the merits.
The CAS Deputy President analyzed the request for provisional measures based on established jurisprudence and Article R37(5) of the CAS Code, which requires considering irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and balancing interests. The appealed FIFA decision contained two distinct rulings: a financial decision and a disciplinary decision. Regarding the financial decision, the Deputy President noted that financial rulings by Swiss private law entities like FIFA are not enforceable during appeals, so the request was dismissed on this point. For the disciplinary decision, the Club failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, making further analysis unnecessary. The request for a stay of execution was dismissed entirely, with costs deferred to the final award. The decision highlights the importance of substantiating claims of irreparable harm and reaffirms CAS's adherence to procedural economy in arbitration cases.