CAS 2022 A 9221
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 18 Jul 2023
Why it matters
This case is significant for clarifying the application of sporting sanctions under FIFA RSTP Article 17(4). It reinforces that while FIFA DRC has discretion, a club's repeated breaches, even if not meeting a strict numerical threshold, can constitute aggravating circumstances justifying sanctions. It also firmly distinguishes between contractual disputes and disciplinary matters, confirming that settling the former does not automatically lift the latter, thereby upholding the deterrent effect of FIFA's disciplinary regime.
Summary
Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği, a Turkish football club, failed to pay its player, Luka Capan, according to their employment contract signed in August 2021. Capan unilaterally terminated the contract in May 2022 due to significant outstanding payments, including salary and house rental fees. Capan subsequently filed a claim with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). On 15 September 2022, the FIFA DRC ruled in Capan's favor, ordering Bursaspor to pay EUR 157,500 net for outstanding remuneration, TRY 21,000 for rental fees, and EUR 345,105 as compensation for breach of contract, all with 5% interest. Crucially, the FIFA DRC also imposed a ban on Bursaspor from registering new players for two consecutive registration periods, citing Article 17(4) of the FIFA RSTP. Bursaspor appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging both the sporting sanctions and the calculation of compensation. Bursaspor argued that sporting sanctions should be lifted if the parties settle the underlying contractual dispute, that the sanctions were unlawful due to a lack of predictability (suggesting a 'four-breach' threshold for sanctions), and that the compensation was over-calculated, proposing a reduction to minimum wage due to the club's relegation. The CAS Panel, conducting a de novo review, dismissed Bursaspor's appeal and confirmed the FIFA DRC decision in its entirety. Regarding sporting sanctions, the Panel affirmed that Article 17(4) of the FIFA RSTP clearly defines disciplinary offenses and sanctions. It rejected Bursaspor's argument that settlement of the 'horizontal' (contractual) dispute automatically resolves the 'vertical' (disciplinary) element, emphasizing the deterrent effect of sanctions. The Panel found the sanctions predictable and lawful, stating that while FIFA DRC often applies a 'four-breach' threshold, it has discretion to impose sanctions for fewer breaches if aggravating circumstances exist. The Panel identified two such circumstances: Bursaspor's two prior relevant breaches within three months of the appealed decision, and its failure to make the very first payment to Capan, indicating a pre-existing inability or unwillingness to honor obligations. On compensation, the Panel rejected Bursaspor's argument for reduced compensation based on minimum wage, finding no legal basis for an implied term to reduce salary upon relegation, and noting that such a reduction would contradict the principle of good faith under Swiss law. Bursaspor also failed to prove the existence or full discharge of any settlement agreement regarding compensation. Ultimately, Bursaspor's appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA DRC decision, including the financial awards and the player registration ban, was upheld. Bursaspor was ordered to pay the costs of the CAS arbitration and CHF 3,000 to Luka Capan as a contribution to his legal expenses.
The detail
Parties: Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği v. Luka Capan & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2022 A 9221
Outcome: The appeal filed by Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği was dismissed, and the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber's decision was confirmed in its entirety. Bursaspor was ordered to pay arbitration costs and CHF 3,000 to Luka Capan for expenses.
Quantum: EUR 157,500 net, TRY 21,000, and EUR 345,105 as compensation for breach of contract, all with 5% interest p.a. from respective due dates, plus CHF 3,000 for Luka Capan's expenses.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2021 edition), and Swiss law (including Article 2(1) of the Swiss Civil Code).
Issues in play: The core legal issues revolved around Article 17(4) of the FIFA RSTP concerning the imposition of sporting sanctions for breach of contract during the protected period. Key principles included the 'principle of legality' (predictability of sanctions) and the distinction between 'horizontal' (contractual) and 'vertical' (disciplinary) disputes, and whether settlement of the former impacts the latter. The burden and standard of proof in CAS proceedings were also central.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.