The case involves a legal dispute between Kayserispor Kulübü Dernegi (the Club) and professional footballer James Troisi (the Player) regarding the termination of an employment contract and subsequent settlement agreement. The Club and the Player entered into an employment contract in 2009, which included monthly payments and bonuses. In 2012, the Player terminated the contract due to unpaid amounts and filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The parties later signed a settlement agreement in August 2012, where the Club agreed to pay the Player €800,000 in two installments, with a €500,000 penalty for late payments. The Club made the first payment late and partially, and failed to make the second payment on time, prompting the Player to demand the penalty. The Player sought enforcement through the DRC, requesting €500,225 (including the penalty and bank deductions), interest, and sporting sanctions. The DRC partially accepted the claim, ordering the Club to pay €300,000. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the penalty was excessive. The CAS panel upheld the DRC's decision, noting that counterclaims could not be filed by the respondent in their answer, limiting the panel's ability to review the penalty beyond the DRC's award. The panel emphasized that increasing the penalty would constitute a counterclaim, which is not permissible under the CAS Code. The case highlights the limitations of de novo review in CAS proceedings and the enforceability of settlement agreements under FIFA regulations. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, citing FIFA statutes, and deemed the appeal admissible as it met procedural requirements. The applicable law included FIFA regulations and Swiss law, specifically the Swiss Code of Obligations, governing penalty clauses. The settlement agreement required the Club to pay two installments of €400,000 each by specified dates. The first payment was delayed and made with a bank fee deduction, while the second installment was not paid on time, leading the Player to invoke the penalty clause. The Club argued the delay was due to a miscalculation, but the CAS found this irrelevant to the breach. The DRC had reduced the penalty to €300,000, deeming the full amount disproportionate. Since the Player did not appeal this reduction, the CAS upheld the DRC's decision. The CAS concluded the Club breached the settlement agreement by failing to meet payment obligations, triggering the penalty clause. The decision underscores the binding nature of contractual terms and the consequences of non-compliance. The Panel also ruled the Club was responsible for covering bank fees totaling €225, as it had agreed to do so in a September 2012 email. Interest of 5% annually was applied to overdue amounts, with the first installment accruing interest from 29 September 2012 and the second from 12 January 2013. The penalty amount of €300,000 would accrue 5% interest starting 30 days after the DRC's decision notification. The CAS dismissed the Club's appeal, confirming the DRC's decision and ordering the Club to pay €300,000 plus interest from 26 April 2015, and €225 plus interest from 5 February 2013. The case highlights the importance of adhering to contractual terms and the procedural constraints in sports arbitration. The final decision, issued on 30 March 2016, concluded the case in favor of the Player.