Galatasaray SK v. Domenec Torrent Font

At a glance

Parties

Galatasaray Sportif A.S. (Turkey) v. Domenec Torrent Font (Spain)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/9299

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; FIFA RSTP (March 2022 edition), Swiss law applying subsidiarily

Treaty

None. Contract clause (Article 6 of the employment contract) and Article 57 of the FIFA Statutes

Tribunal

Leanne O'Leary (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; coach employment contract

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (30 May 2023). The Club had no just cause to dismiss the coach. Compensation stays at the full residual value but is payable in the contractual instalments, not as a lump sum.

Amount

Outstanding remuneration of EUR 261,000, EUR 261,000 and EUR 6,000, plus EUR 1,500,000 as compensation in ten instalments of EUR 150,000 (31 August 2022 to 31 May 2023). Interest at 5% p.a. on all amounts. The cost orders are not reproduced in the published award.

The dispute

Galatasaray hired Domenec Torrent Font as head coach of its first team on 14 January 2022. The contract ran until 31 May 2023. Article 4 of the contract provided that, if the Club terminated without just cause, it would pay the coach the residual value of the contract, in instalments and with no deduction for mitigation. The Club did not pay the salary and housing allowance for April and May 2022. A new board was elected and on 20 June 2022 it proposed a negotiated termination. The coach then served a default notice, and on 21 June 2022 the Club dismissed him for just cause. It relied on his alleged unauthorised absence, his failure to report to the board, the team's poor results, the timing of the default notice and, raised for the first time on appeal, a post-match interview. The FIFA Players' Status Chamber awarded him outstanding pay and EUR 1,500,000 as a lump sum. Galatasaray appealed. It argued that it had just cause, that the first-instance decision went ultra petita, and that Article 4 was invalid or excessive because the coach had held more bargaining power.

Key holdings

1. The ne ultra petita objection fails. A CAS appeal is heard de novo, so any procedural flaw before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber is cured by the CAS proceedings. ¶¶ 52–53
2. The Club did not prove any breach by the coach. Its only evidence of absence was an inspection report covering one morning (21 June 2022), which cannot establish a month of unauthorised absence. There was no proof that the Club ever asked him for reports, and the demand for unpaid salary during termination talks started by the Club was reasonable. The termination was therefore without just cause. ¶¶ 67–94
3. Unsubstantiated allegations of poor team results do not justify dismissing a coach without notice. Poor results can be a ground for termination only if the contract expressly says so and clearly defines "poor results". This contract did neither. ¶¶ 77–79
4. The Club could not rely on the post-match interview of 1 May 2022. It was not given as a reason in the Dismissal Letter, and the Club did not show that it was unaware of the interview when it terminated. ¶¶ 88–91
5. The compensation clause in Article 4 is valid. It is clearly drafted and both parties were represented by lawyers. The Club did not prove that the coach had greater bargaining power. A liquidated damages clause does not have to be reciprocal, and the Club did not show an excessive commitment giving the coach undue control. ¶¶ 103–108
6. The coach's request to set aside the instalment terms is rejected. The residual value of EUR 1,500,000 is payable in the contractual instalments, not in one lump sum, because the no-mitigation term offsets any disadvantage of payment by instalment. Interest at 5% p.a. runs from the day after each instalment fell due. ¶¶ 109, 112–113
7. The coach was employed until 21 June 2022, so the defence of inadimplenti non est adimplendum fails. He is entitled to all salary and housing allowance outstanding up to that date. The amounts awarded at first instance are confirmed. ¶ 111; operative part

Procedural history

1. 14 January 2022The Club and the coach sign the employment contract.
2. 21 June 2022The Club terminates the contract for just cause by the Dismissal Letter.
3. 25 July 2022The coach files a claim with the Players' Status Chamber of the FIFA Tribunal.
4. 29 September 2022The Players' Status Chamber partially accepts the claim and awards EUR 1,500,000 compensation as a lump sum, plus outstanding pay. Its grounds are notified on 17 November 2022.
5. 30 November 2022Galatasaray files its Statement of Appeal with CAS. Four related appeals concern other members of the coaching staff (CAS 2022/A/9300 to 9303).
6. 31 January 2023Leanne O'Leary is appointed Sole Arbitrator.
7. 15 March 2023The Sole Arbitrator decides to determine the case on the written submissions, without a hearing.
8. 30 May 2023Award: appeal partially upheld on the mode of payment of compensation only.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Leanne O'Leary Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Galatasaray
• football coach
• termination without just cause
• FIFA RSTP Annexe 2
• Article 6 Annexe 2 RSTP
• liquidated damages clause
• compensation clause
• inequality of bargaining power
• poor results
• ne ultra petita
• de novo review
• Article 337 Swiss Code of Obligations
• subsequent reasons for termination
• payment by instalments
• residual value
• inadimplenti non est adimplendum
• FIFA Players' Status Chamber

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