The case involves a dispute between Antalyaspor A.Ş., a Turkish football club, and Richard Danilo Maciel Sousa Campos, a professional football player, regarding the termination of an employment contract due to unpaid salaries and other financial obligations. The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The player terminated his contract with the club on December 14, 2018, citing just cause under Article 14bis of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which allows termination if a club fails to pay at least two consecutive monthly salaries after a written warning and a 15-day grace period. The club had failed to pay the player €225,000 in salaries for the 2017/2018 season and later defaulted on additional payments under a new contract signed in July 2018. The player issued a warning letter on November 27, 2018, demanding payment of €432,500 within 15 days, but the club failed to comply, leading to the termination.
The DRC ruled in favor of the player on December 5, 2019, ordering the club to pay €486,000 in outstanding remuneration and €802,399 in compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% annual interest. The club appealed to CAS, arguing the termination was unjustified and contesting the compensation amount. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Fabio Iudica, examined the case under Swiss law and FIFA regulations. The club claimed the termination notice was invalid because the 15-day deadline expired on a non-working day (December 15, 2018), but the arbitrator ruled the termination on December 14 was valid, as the provision did not exclude non-working days. The arbitrator also upheld the player's right to terminate under Article 14 RSTP, given the club's persistent failure to meet financial obligations, which constituted a fundamental breach of contract.
The club further disputed the DRC's compensation calculations, arguing the player was only entitled to €431,832.93 and that the award should be reduced by earnings from subsequent contracts with Al-Wahda and Dinamo Minsk. The arbitrator rejected these claims, noting the DRC had already accounted for mitigating factors and that the club's calculations were flawed. The arbitrator also dismissed the club's request to deduct €115,000 based on a Turkish debt collection order, citing lack of evidence. The CAS upheld the DRC's decision in full, confirming the player's termination was justified and the compensation amounts were correct. The club was ordered to bear all arbitration costs and pay the player CHF 7,000 for legal fees.
The case underscores the strict enforcement of financial obligations in football contracts and the legal protections available to players when clubs fail to meet their commitments. It also highlights the importance of adhering to contractual deadlines and the principle of ne ultra petita in arbitration proceedings. The CAS ruling reinforced the player's right to terminate the contract and seek redress for unpaid wages, emphasizing the club's failure to remedy its breaches despite repeated opportunities.