The case revolves around a dispute between Eskisehirspor Kulübü (the Club) and Sebastian Andres Pinto Perurena (the Player), with FIFA as a respondent, concerning the termination of the Player's employment contract due to unpaid salaries. The Club and the Player had signed a contract in August 2015, valid until May 2018. By December 2015, the Player issued a default notice for unpaid salaries totaling EUR 150,000, giving the Club 30 days to pay. When the Club failed to comply, the Player terminated the contract in February 2016, citing just cause. The Player then filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking unpaid remuneration, compensation for breach of contract, and sporting sanctions against the Club. The Club did not respond to the claim, leading the DRC to rule in favor of the Player. The DRC ordered the Club to pay EUR 272,000 in outstanding remuneration and EUR 162,000 in compensation, plus interest, and imposed a two-period transfer ban on the Club for breaching the contract during the protected period.
The Club appealed the DRC's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the transfer ban was disproportionate and unjustified. The Club contended that the partial success of the Player's financial claim should not automatically result in a transfer ban and challenged the lack of clear guidelines for imposing such sanctions. The Player and FIFA defended the DRC's decision, emphasizing the importance of contractual stability and the Club's history of similar breaches, which classified it as a repeat offender. FIFA argued that the primary purpose of sporting sanctions under Article 17(4) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) was to deter contractual breaches and uphold stability in football.
The CAS Panel examined the case and upheld the DRC's decision, noting that the breach occurred during the protected period and that the Club's repeated violations justified the sanctions. The Panel rejected the Club's proportionality argument, stating that Article 17(4) RSTP mandates a fixed two-period ban for such breaches, leaving no discretion to reduce its duration. The Panel also dismissed the Club's claim that the ban would harm its competitiveness, noting that the sanction was necessary to address the seriousness of the violations. The CAS concluded that the DRC's decision was legally sound and proportionate, reinforcing FIFA's authority to impose strict sanctions for contractual breaches, particularly for repeat offenders. The appeal was dismissed, and the DRC's decision was confirmed in its entirety.
The case highlights the consequences of contractual breaches in professional football, including financial liabilities and sporting sanctions, and underscores the importance of adhering to employment agreements to maintain stability in the sport. The ruling serves as a reminder of the stringent enforcement measures FIFA and CAS can impose to deter clubs from violating player contracts.