Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Caykur Rizespor Kulübü Dernegi v. Loic Remy

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Çaykur Rizespor A.Ș. (Turkey) v. Loic Remy (France), and Loic Remy v. Çaykur Rizespor A.Ș. (consolidated appeals)
Case no.
CAS 2022/A/9328 & CAS 2022/A/9329
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the CAS Code (2022 edition); appeal against a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decision of 27 October 2022
Treaty
None. The FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition) apply, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily (employment contract, article 9)
Tribunal
Fabio Iudica (President), Wouter Lambrecht, Bernard Hanotiau
Sector
Professional football; player employment contract
Outcome
The Club had no just cause to terminate. The Club's appeal was upheld only on one small deduction from compensation. The Player's appeal for additional compensation was rejected.
Amount
The Club claimed EUR 600,000 compensation, EUR 50,000 of January 2022 salary and EUR 542,464.56 of unamortized fixed payment. The Player sought EUR 200,000 additional compensation. The Panel awarded the Player EUR 300,000 outstanding salary plus 5% interest and EUR 391,073.00 compensation plus 5% interest from 10 March 2022, reduced from EUR 400,000 by the DRC.

The dispute

Çaykur Rizespor, a Turkish football club, employed the French player Loic Remy under a contract of 28 August 2020 running until 31 May 2022. For the 2021/2022 season the contract paid him EUR 1,650,000 net. The parties talked about ending the contract early by agreement, but the Player did not sign the draft Termination Agreement of 31 January 2022, which offered EUR 900,000. The Club then sent a Warning Letter on 3 February 2022 and terminated the contract on 4 February 2022, claiming just cause. It relied on the Player's alleged bad faith in the negotiations (an alleged demand for EUR 1,750,000) and on his injuries, absences and poor performance. At that time the Club had not paid the December 2021 and January 2022 salaries. The FIFA DRC found that the Club had no just cause and awarded the Player EUR 300,000 in outstanding salary and EUR 400,000 in compensation. Both sides appealed to CAS: the Club sought a finding of just cause and repayment of sums; the Player sought EUR 200,000 in additional compensation under Article 337c(3) of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

Key holdings

  1. The parties never agreed to end the contract. Drafts exchanged between lawyers, and the Player's lawyer's reply "This is convenient", did not show the mutual intent that article 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations requires. ¶¶ 100–102
  2. Bad faith was not proven. The undated WhatsApp screenshot about EUR 1,750,000 could not be placed in the timeline of the negotiations, and parties may change their positions before terms are agreed. ¶¶ 104–105
  3. The Club had no just cause to terminate on 4 February 2022. Its real reasons were the Player's injuries and poor performance and its wish to sign another foreign player. Poor performance does not justify termination, and the fact that it was caused by injuries makes the Club's liability worse. Pressing the Player to sign while two salaries were unpaid was abusive conduct. The alleged unjustified absences were not proven: there were no sanctions, disciplinary proceedings or written warnings. ¶¶ 106–113
  4. The Player's per-match pay of EUR 8,927.50 under his new contract is deducted from compensation because of his duty to mitigate. The EUR 4,000 accommodation allowance is not deducted, because it covers costs and is not remuneration. Compensation is therefore EUR 391,073.00. ¶¶ 115–119, 138
  5. No additional compensation. Article 17 RSTP governs the matter and allows extra compensation only where the player terminates for overdue payables. Swiss law, including Article 337c(3) of the Code of Obligations, applies only to fill gaps in the FIFA rules. The majority treated the reliance on Article 337c(3) as a new argument rather than a new claim, so it was admissible, but it failed on the merits. ¶¶ 121–130
  6. The Club's repayment claims were rejected. Article 3.23 (pro-rata return of the fixed payment) applies only where the Player leaves on his own initiative or with his consent, not where the Club terminates without just cause. The claim for EUR 50,000 of January 2022 salary failed because the absence was not shown to be unjustified, and that salary had not in fact been paid. ¶¶ 133–137

Procedural history

  1. 4 February 2022The Club terminated the employment contract, claiming just cause.
  2. 10 March 2022The Player filed a claim with FIFA.
  3. 27 October 2022The FIFA DRC partially upheld the Player's claim, awarding EUR 300,000 in outstanding salary and EUR 400,000 in compensation. The grounds were notified on 18 November 2022.
  4. 8 December 2022Both parties filed statements of appeal with CAS. The two appeals were consolidated by agreement.
  5. 20 January 2023The Panel was constituted.
  6. 14 March 2023Hearing held by videoconference.
  7. 31 August 2023Award: the Club's appeal was partially upheld, the Player's appeal was rejected, and compensation was reduced to EUR 391,073.00.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Anil Gürsoy Artan
For the respondent
Umur Varat · Aygin Kuruloğlu · Laurent Denis

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.

Case ID
CAS 2022/A/9328 & 9329
Claimant
Caykur Rizespor Kulübü Dernegi
Respondent
Loic Remy

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Contractual litigations (except transfer)
Panel: Bernard Hanotiau, Fabio Iudica, Wouter Lambrecht
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.