The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Fenerbahce Futbol AS, a Turkish football club, and Gregory van der Wiel, a Dutch professional player, concerning disciplinary fines imposed by the club and unpaid remuneration. The dispute was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which issued a detailed award addressing multiple legal and procedural issues. The parties had entered into an employment agreement in July 2016, which included provisions for salary, attendance fees, and disciplinary measures. The agreement allowed the club to impose fines for breaches of its disciplinary regulations and to offset these fines against the player’s earnings.
The CAS panel emphasized several key principles in its decision. First, it affirmed the parties' freedom to settle disputes through contractual agreements but noted that tribunals retain the authority to examine claim admissibility if litigation arises. Second, while arbitration deadlines must generally be respected, the panel has discretion to admit late submissions under specific circumstances, as it did in this case by accepting the club’s response filed one day late.
A central issue was the club’s imposition of fines totaling EUR 245,000 for alleged violations, including leaving the city without permission, missing training sessions and a match, and giving an unauthorized interview. The club argued these fines were justified under the employment agreement and disciplinary regulations, which the player had acknowledged. However, the player contested the fines, claiming they were excessive, lacked due process, and were used to pressure him into terminating his contract.
The CAS panel scrutinized each fine. The first fine of EUR 75,000 was deemed arbitrary because the club failed to consider mitigating circumstances, such as the player assisting his girlfriend with immigration issues, and did not allow him to defend himself. The panel rejected the club’s argument that the player implicitly accepted the fine by not contesting it, emphasizing that waivers of rights in employment relationships cannot be assumed lightly.
The second fine of EUR 150,000, imposed for missing a match, was partially upheld. While the panel acknowledged the contractual basis for the fine under the disciplinary regulations, it found the amount excessive, considering the match’s lesser importance and the player’s security concerns. The fine was reduced to EUR 45,000, calculated as three times the player’s match attendance fee.
The third fine of EUR 20,000, for an unauthorized interview, was dismissed entirely. The panel ruled the interview did not involve the club or the player’s employment and thus did not warrant a penalty.
Ultimately, the CAS adjusted the total amount owed to the player to EUR 200,000 after deducting the valid penalty. Interest payments were recalculated accordingly, with 5% annual interest applied to the outstanding amounts from their respective due dates. The panel’s decision underscored the importance of proportionality, due process, and fairness in disciplinary measures, balancing the club’s right to enforce rules with the player’s contractual protections. The ruling also highlighted the need for clear disciplinary regulations and procedural fairness in employment disputes within professional sports. The CAS dismissed all other claims, reinforcing the principles of contractual fairness and reasonable penalties in such cases.