The case involves an appeal by Gaziantepspor Kulübü Derneği (the Club) against a decision by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) regarding an employment dispute with professional football player Darvydas Šernas (the Player). The dispute stemmed from the termination of an employment contract signed on 8 January 2013, valid until 31 May 2016, which included specific salary payments and provisions for termination if the Club failed to meet its obligations. The Club acknowledged outstanding debts to the Player in a subsequent agreement but failed to fulfill these obligations, leading the Player to terminate the contract with just cause. The Player sought compensation for unpaid salaries and damages, filing a claim with FIFA’s DRC, which ruled partially in his favor, ordering the Club to pay EUR 150,000 in outstanding remuneration, EUR 100,000 as acknowledged debt, and EUR 750,000 in compensation, with interest.
The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the compensation was excessive and that the Player failed to mitigate damages by accepting lower salaries in subsequent contracts. The Club referenced a prior case (Wanchope v. Al-Gharafa) where a player’s choice to accept significantly lower wages was deemed a personal decision, absolving the club of financial responsibility. The Player countered that he made reasonable efforts to secure employment under challenging circumstances, including limited time and the stigma of ongoing disputes, and distinguished his case from the Wanchope precedent. The CAS panel, comprising Fabio Iudica, Rui Botica Santos, and Manfred Nan, examined its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code and Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes, confirming its authority to hear the appeal. The panel rejected the Club’s request for the case to be decided ex aequo et bono, as this principle requires mutual consent, which was absent.
The panel upheld the principle of "positive interest" under Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations, ensuring the Player is compensated for what he would have earned had the contract been fulfilled. Swiss law, referenced by analogy, requires the injured party to mitigate damages by seeking alternative employment, with earnings from new contracts deducted from the compensation amount. The panel adjusted the compensation to EUR 708,180 by deducting the Player’s post-termination earnings, finding he had acted diligently in mitigating damages. The panel also affirmed the FIFA DRC’s separate consideration of EUR 100,000 as an acknowledged debt, not part of the compensation, due to different interest calculation timelines.
Ultimately, the CAS panel partially upheld the Club’s appeal, reducing the compensation to EUR 708,180 but affirming the Player’s entitlement to the outstanding amounts. The final ruling ordered the Club to pay EUR 150,000 plus 5% annual interest from 31 July 2014, EUR 100,000 plus 5% annual interest from 6 August 2014, and EUR 708,180 plus 5% annual interest from 31 July 2014, until payment. All other claims were dismissed. The decision reinforces the importance of contractual obligations, the duty to mitigate damages, and the equitable application of compensation principles in employment disputes within professional sports.