The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between Balikesirspor FC and player Ermin Zec regarding the termination of an employment contract due to unpaid salaries. The case centered on whether Zec had just cause to terminate his contract after the club failed to pay his salaries for March, April, and May 2015, totaling EUR 140,000. Despite multiple warnings and partial payments from the club, the outstanding amount remained unpaid, leading Zec to terminate the contract unilaterally on June 2, 2015. The CAS panel, applying Swiss law and FIFA regulations, determined that repeated non-payment of salaries constituted a material breach, justifying termination under Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The panel emphasized that such breaches undermine the trust essential for contractual performance and upheld Zec's right to terminate the contract with just cause.
The contract included clauses adjusting Zec's salary if the club was relegated to a lower division. The panel validated these clauses under Swiss law, noting that future salary adjustments based on league status do not violate mandatory employment protections. However, since the club breached the contract while its league status was uncertain, it bore the risk, and compensation calculations assumed the higher division salary. The panel left open whether the club could later reclaim any overpayment once its league status was confirmed.
Regarding compensation, Zec sought EUR 1,800,000 for the remaining contract period, minus earnings from subsequent contracts. The panel adjusted this amount, reducing it by EUR 300,000 per season due to the club's relegation, based on a contractual clause. Zec contested this reduction, arguing it should only be EUR 200,000 per season under a different clause. The panel rejected this argument, upholding the validity of the salary reduction clause. The panel also considered Zec's earnings from new contracts with Gabala SC and Kardemir Karabük SK, deducting these amounts from the compensation. The final net entitlement was set at USD 210,000.
The club argued that Zec failed to mitigate his damages by accepting lower-paying contracts, but the panel found that Zec had acted reasonably by securing new employment. The panel referenced Article 337c of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which requires the injured party to mitigate damages in good faith. Since the club provided no evidence of Zec's deliberate inaction or refusal of reasonable offers, the panel concluded that Zec fulfilled his obligation to mitigate losses.
The CAS upheld the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision, ordering the club to pay the outstanding EUR 140,000 plus 5% annual interest from the respective due dates and additional compensation for breach of contract. The panel dismissed the club's appeal, reinforcing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and the importance of contractual compliance in professional sports. The ruling underscores the legal consequences of failing to meet financial obligations and the player's right to terminate a contract with just cause due to unpaid salaries. The case highlights the balance between contractual fairness and the enforcement of agreed terms, ensuring equitable outcomes in employment disputes.