The case involves a dispute between Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği (the Appellant) and Go Ahead Eagles Voetbal B.V. (the Respondent) over a sell-on clause in the transfer agreement of player Deniz Tűrűç. The original transfer agreement, dated July 27, 2015, included a clause entitling the Respondent to 15% of any future transfer fee received by the Appellant for the player. When the player was transferred to Fenerbahçe SK in August 2019, the Appellant failed to pay the agreed sell-on fee, prompting the Respondent to file a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC). The PSC ruled in favor of the Respondent, ordering the Appellant to pay EUR 300,000 plus interest and imposing a fine. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the sell-on clause was tied to the player's employment contract, which had expired, and was thus no longer enforceable. The CAS Sole Arbitrator rejected this argument, stating that the sell-on clause was part of the transfer agreement and remained valid regardless of the employment contract's expiration. The CAS upheld the PSC's decision, confirming the Appellant's obligation to pay the sell-on fee, interest, and fines, and maintained the potential registration ban if payments were not made.
The Appellant further contested the authenticity of a subsequent transfer agreement, alleging discrepancies in signatures and the absence of records for the named personnel. The Respondent countered by providing evidence, including social media posts and contractual documents, demonstrating that the personnel in question were indeed associated with the Appellant. The Sole Arbitrator found no merit in the Appellant's claims, noting that both versions of the subsequent transfer agreement contained identical material terms. The arbitrator also dismissed the argument that a brief gap between contracts invalidated the clause, emphasizing that the second contract was signed well before its effective date and that the sell-on clause was designed to apply when the player transferred for a fee, not merely upon contract renewal.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and the CAS Code, with both parties acknowledging its role by signing the Order of Procedure. The arbitrator applied FIFA regulations and Swiss law, though Dutch law was considered subsidiary. The ruling underscored the binding nature of sell-on clauses in football transfers and the importance of honoring contractual obligations. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent EUR 300,000 plus 5% annual interest, calculated from specific dates in 2019 and 2020. The Respondent's request for penal interest was dismissed as inadmissible, as it constituted a counterclaim not permitted in CAS appeal procedures. The Sole Arbitrator also noted that FIFA, not being a party to the proceedings, could not be ordered to annul the fine imposed on the Appellant or reimburse legal costs.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the Appellant's appeal and upheld the FIFA PSC's decision in full, confirming the Appellant's obligation to pay the sell-on fee and interest. The case highlights the complexities of football transfer agreements, contractual interpretation, and the enforceability of agreed terms in sports-related disputes. It also demonstrates the procedural challenges of sports arbitration, including language barriers, document translations, and logistical adjustments due to external factors like the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with contractual obligations in football transfers.