The case involves a dispute between Club Adanaspor, a Turkish football club, and Vedran Naglic, an assistant coach, regarding the termination of Naglic's employment contract. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed the matter, focusing on whether the club had just cause to terminate the contract and the responsibilities of both parties concerning work permits and licenses. Club Adanaspor hired Naglic as an assistant coach in September 2016 under a two-year contract tied to the head coach, Krunoslav Jurcic. The club terminated Naglic's contract in November 2016, citing his failure to provide a necessary coaching license and obtain a Turkish work permit. Naglic contested this, arguing the contract did not impose these obligations on him and that the termination was unjust. He filed a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) for unpaid salaries and compensation, leading to a ruling in his favor in September 2017, which ordered the club to pay EUR 167,400 plus interest.
The club appealed to CAS, arguing Naglic lacked the necessary qualifications and deceived them about his credentials. Naglic countered that the club failed to verify his qualifications or secure his work permit, emphasizing that his role as an assistant coach fell under FIFA's jurisdiction. The CAS panel examined whether Naglic's role qualified as an "assistant coach" or a "physical trainer," as his duties involved fitness training but his contract labeled him an assistant coach. The panel concluded the contract's designation should prevail, affirming FIFA PSC's jurisdiction. The panel also found the club did not have just cause for termination, as it failed to prove it had requested the necessary documents or warned Naglic of consequences for non-compliance. The panel upheld the compensation amount, adjusted for Naglic's subsequent earnings, and confirmed the 5% annual interest from January 2017.
The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and mutual obligations in employment disputes within football. It highlights the club's responsibility to verify a coach's credentials before hiring and secure necessary work permits, while the employee must assist in the process. The panel's decision reinforced FIFA's jurisdiction over such disputes and the legal protections available to coaches under its regulatory framework. The ruling also emphasized the principle of mitigating damages, as Naglic's part-time employment reduced the compensation owed. Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld the appeal, adjusting the compensation amount but affirming the club's liability for unjust termination. The case serves as a reminder of the consequences of unilateral contract termination without valid justification and the financial liabilities that may arise for clubs in such scenarios.