The case involves a contractual dispute between Yeni Malatyaspor FK, a Turkish football club, and Jody Lukoki, a professional football player, concerning unpaid wages under an employment contract and subsequent Settlement Agreement. The dispute was initially brought before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC), which ruled in favor of Lukoki, ordering the club to pay €210,000 in outstanding amounts plus 5% annual interest, divided into three installments with specific deadlines. The FIFA DRC also stipulated that failure to pay within 45 days would result in a ban on registering new players, enforceable upon Lukoki's request. Yeni Malatyaspor appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the FIFA DRC lacked jurisdiction over certain claims and that the player’s demands were not yet due at the time of filing.
The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, reviewed the case under Article R57 of the CAS Code, which allows for a full reassessment of facts and law but limits the scope to matters previously adjudicated. The panel applied Swiss law as a subsidiary framework and dismissed the club's claim of financial hardship, emphasizing the binding nature of the Settlement Agreement and the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). The panel also clarified that claims need only be due by the time of adjudication, not filing, rejecting the club's argument that the FIFA DRC had overreached by awarding future installments.
Yeni Malatyaspor further contested the admissibility of the appeal, citing procedural deficiencies, but the CAS President deferred this issue to the panel. The club later withdrew its objection after reviewing a similar CAS decision, though it maintained its stance on inadmissibility. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the appeal's admissibility, noting that the initial email submission met the deadline and that subsequent delays in e-Filing were due to administrative reasons. The CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, confirming the club’s obligation to pay the outstanding amounts with interest and dismissing the player’s additional claims for extrajudicial costs. The panel also rejected the club's argument that the employment contract lacked an acceleration clause, reinforcing the enforceability of contractual agreements in football.
The final award, issued on April 27, 2022, resolved the matter based on written proceedings and legal analysis, dismissing the appeal and upholding the FIFA DRC's ruling. The case underscores the CAS's role in resolving sports-related disputes and the enforceability of contractual obligations, even in instances of claimed financial hardship. It also highlights the consequences of non-payment, including potential registration bans under FIFA regulations, and reinforces the principle that financial difficulties do not excuse contractual breaches. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to agreed-upon terms in professional sports contracts.