The case involves a legal dispute between Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği (the Club) and professional football player Christian Chagas Tarouco (the Player) regarding unpaid remuneration under a mutual termination agreement signed on 6 August 2018. The agreement stipulated that the Club would pay the Player EUR 243,762.55 in installments, with the Player waiving all other claims. However, the Player later filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) for unpaid amounts, including the agreed sum plus interest and compensation. The Club argued it had already paid EUR 77,705.37 for premiums and submitted payment receipts as evidence. The DRC partially accepted the Player's claim, ordering the Club to pay the outstanding amount with 5% annual interest and imposing a potential ban on registering new players if payment was not made within 45 days. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the DRC's decision and arguing that a miscalculation in the termination agreement led to an incorrect amount being owed. The Club claimed the correct unpaid receivables should have been EUR 200,000, not EUR 243,762.55, due to an exchange rate error in calculating bonus payments. The CAS proceedings, led by Sole Arbitrator Frans de Weger, proceeded without a hearing as both parties eventually agreed to rely on written submissions. The Player failed to submit a timely response to the Club's appeal, and the CAS excluded the late submission from consideration. The Sole Arbitrator examined the case under Swiss law and FIFA regulations, emphasizing the binding nature of the termination agreement and the Club's failure to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of a miscalculation. The arbitrator upheld the DRC's decision, confirming the Club's obligation to pay the full amount plus interest and maintaining the conditional transfer ban. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and procedural deadlines in sports disputes. The Club's appeal was dismissed, and the DRC's decision was fully upheld, reinforcing the principle that signed agreements carry legal consequences and must be honored unless proven otherwise. The case highlights the rigorous enforcement of financial obligations in football contracts and the consequences of non-compliance.