The case involves a dispute between Club Samsunspor and player Aminu Umar, adjudicated by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The player terminated his contract with the club in November 2014, citing just cause due to the club's failure to pay outstanding salaries and a sign-on fee totaling EUR 75,000. Despite a seven-day notice to settle the debt, the club failed to comply, leading the player to file a claim with the DRC in January 2015. The DRC ruled in favor of the player in July 2015, ordering the club to pay EUR 75,000 in unpaid wages plus interest and an additional EUR 30,000 as compensation for breach of contract. The DRC also imposed a two-registration-period ban on the club for repeated contractual breaches.
Club Samsunspor appealed the DRC's decision to CAS in September 2015, arguing that the sanctions were disproportionate and lacked prior warning. The club sought provisional measures to prevent enforcement of the decision, claiming it would cause irreparable harm, including potential relegation and financial collapse. The CAS dismissed the request for provisional measures, noting that financial decisions in Switzerland are not immediately enforceable upon appeal. The club also attempted to introduce new evidence during the CAS proceedings, including a bank receipt and payment document, but the Sole Arbitrator excluded this evidence due to procedural non-compliance and lack of justification for the late submission.
The CAS upheld the DRC's decision, confirming that the player had just cause to terminate the contract under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The arbitrator emphasized that non-payment of salaries for over three months constitutes a fundamental breach, justifying termination. The compensation awarded to the player was deemed appropriate, covering unpaid wages and damages for the period of unemployment before securing a new contract. The CAS also affirmed FIFA's authority to impose sporting sanctions ex officio under Article 17 of the RSTP, rejecting the club's argument that such sanctions required a prior request from the player. The arbitrator highlighted the mandatory nature of these sanctions ("shall" rather than "may") and the club's history of contractual breaches as justifying the two-registration-period ban.
The ruling underscores the importance of contractual compliance in football and FIFA's role in enforcing disciplinary measures. The CAS dismissed the club's appeal in its entirety, confirming the DRC's decision and rejecting all additional motions. The case sets a precedent for the enforcement of financial and sporting sanctions in cases of contractual breaches, reinforcing the principle that clubs must fulfill their obligations to players. The decision also clarifies that prior warnings are not required for imposing sanctions, aligning with FIFA's regulatory framework and CAS jurisprudence. The outcome highlights the balance between clubs' financial constraints and the need for regulatory compliance in professional football.