Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Galatasaray SK v. Ricardo Segarra Aragay

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Galatasaray Sportif A.S. (Turkey), Appellant, v. Ricardo Segarra Aragay (Spain), goalkeeping coach, Respondent
Case no.
CAS 2022/A/9303
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; FIFA RSTP (March 2022 edition), with Swiss law applying subsidiarily
Treaty
None. Contract clause (Article 6 of the employment contract) and Article 57.1 of the FIFA Statutes
Tribunal
Leanne O'Leary (Sole Arbitrator)
Sector
Football; coach employment contract
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld (30 May 2023), only on how the compensation is paid. The FIFA PSC decision was confirmed in all other respects: the club terminated without just cause.
Amount
EUR 1,500 outstanding housing allowance plus 5% p.a. from 22 June 2022. EUR 133,334 compensation, payable in ten instalments of EUR 13,333.40 from 31 August 2022 to 31 May 2023, plus 5% p.a. on each instalment from the day after it fell due. The costs paragraphs are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

On 17 January 2022 Galatasaray hired Ricardo Segarra Aragay as goalkeeping coach of its first team, under a contract running to 31 May 2023. Article 4 of the contract set compensation for termination by the club without just cause at the residual value of the contract, with no deduction for mitigation, payable on the contract's salary schedule. After a new board was elected on 11 June 2022, the club opened talks to end the contract by agreement. On 21 June 2022 it dismissed the coach for just cause, on the same day as the head coach and three other coaches. The club relied on his alleged unauthorised absence, his failure to submit reports and the team's poor results. The FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC) found that there was no just cause and awarded him EUR 1,500 and a lump sum of EUR 133,334. Before CAS the club argued that it had just cause. In the alternative, it argued that the PSC had decided ultra petita, that Article 4 was invalid or excessive because of unequal bargaining power, and that any compensation was payable only in instalments.

Key holdings

  1. The ne ultra petita objection fails. The Sole Arbitrator reviews the case de novo, so any flaw in the PSC proceedings, such as awarding a lump sum when instalments were claimed, is cured on appeal. ¶¶ 46–47
  2. The club did not prove an unauthorised absence. Its only evidence was an on-site inspection report for the morning of 21 June 2022. It never asked the coach to return and opened no disciplinary proceedings. There was therefore no breach of Article 2.8 of the contract. ¶¶ 61–62
  3. There was no breach of the reporting duty in Article 2.16. The contract did not say when or how reports were due, and the club never asked for them. Unproven poor team results do not justify termination for just cause. Poor results can be a ground only if the contract expressly provides for it and defines the threshold, and the team was already 13th when the coach joined. ¶¶ 65–70
  4. The dismissal of the head coach did not make the coach's own contract 'unbearable', and no contractual provision allowed termination on that ground. The club therefore terminated without just cause and breached the contract. ¶¶ 71–74
  5. Article 4 is a valid liquidated damages clause, and it takes priority over Article 6 of Annexe 2 of the RSTP. No bargaining power favouring the coach was proved, and both parties were represented by lawyers. Lack of reciprocity alone does not invalidate the clause, and the club did not show an excessive commitment that gave the coach undue control. No reduction was made for alleged misconduct, because none was proved. ¶¶ 77–91
  6. The coach was employed until 21 June 2022 and is owed the June housing allowance; the inadimplenti non est adimplendum defence was rejected. The instalment terms in Article 4 are valid and bind the parties, because they are offset by the absence of mitigation. The residual value of EUR 133,334 is therefore payable in instalments with 5% interest from each due date, not as a lump sum. ¶¶ 92–95

Procedural history

  1. 17 January 2022Employment contract signed for the coach to serve as goalkeeping coach until 31 May 2023.
  2. 21 June 2022The club terminates the contract with immediate effect, citing just cause.
  3. 25 July 2022The coach files a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber.
  4. 29 September 2022The PSC partially accepts the claim and awards EUR 1,500 and EUR 133,334 with interest. Its grounds are notified on 17 November 2022.
  5. 30 November 2022Galatasaray files its Statement of Appeal with CAS. Four related appeals concern the other dismissed coaches, CAS 2022/A/9299 to 9302.
  6. 31 January 2023Leanne O'Leary is appointed Sole Arbitrator. The case is decided on the written submissions, without a hearing.
  7. 30 May 2023Award: the appeal is partially upheld on the mode of payment only, and the PSC decision is otherwise confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

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/9303
Claimant
Galatasaray SK
Respondent
Ricardo Segarra Aragay
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Contractual litigations (except transfer)
Outcome: Partially Upheld
Panel: Leanne O’Leary
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.