CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/9086 — Giresunspor Kulübü Derneği v. Mamadou Diarra

"Giresunspor v. Diarra" · CAS confirmed FIFA DRC award of EUR 307,000 plus TL 308,608.79 income tax against Turkish club for unpaid player remuneration.

What happened in Giresunspor v. Diarra

Mamadou Diarra, a Senegalese professional footballer, signed an employment contract with Turkish club Giresunspor on 4 September 2020 covering the 2020/2021 season, with an automatic extension clause triggered by promotion to the Süper Lig. The club was promoted, extending the contract through 2021/2022. The club fell into arrears on salaries, promotion bonuses, and win bonuses. After a formal notice in October 2021 and only partial payments of EUR 40,000 each in November and December 2021, the player filed a FIFA DRC claim on 1 December 2021. The DRC awarded EUR 307,000 in outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a., TL 308,608.79 in income taxes, and a USD 50,000 fine with reprimand under Article 12bis RSTP. Giresunspor appealed to CAS, arguing additional payments had been overlooked, that the club bore no liability for the player's income tax, and that the fine was excessive. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed all grounds: total entitlement was EUR 549,000, total payments proven were EUR 242,000, leaving EUR 307,000 outstanding; Article 6.4 of the contract clearly placed income tax liability on the club; and the fine was not grossly disproportionate. The appeal was entirely rejected and the DRC decision confirmed. The case is significant for its treatment of salary claims accruing after the filing date and the admissibility of new evidence at CAS.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/9086

On 4 September 2020 Giresunspor and Diarra signed an employment contract. Following the club's promotion, the contract extended to 2021/2022. The player issued a formal notice on 7 October 2021 claiming EUR 267,000 plus TL 308,608.79 in taxes. The club made partial payments of EUR 40,000 on 9 November 2021 and EUR 40,000 on 9 December 2021. On 1 December 2021 the player lodged a claim before the FIFA DRC. The DRC rendered its decision on 9 June 2022, awarding EUR 307,000 in outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. from respective due dates, TL 308,608.79 in income taxes plus 5% interest from 1 April 2021, and a reprimand plus USD 50,000 fine under Article 12bis RSTP. Grounds were notified on 20 July 2022. Giresunspor filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 9 August 2022 and its Appeal Brief on 3 September 2022. The Respondent filed his Answer on 21 November 2022. A video-conference hearing was held on 21 February 2023.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/9086

• The relevant point in time for assessing a salary claim is not when the claim is filed but when the competent body decides upon it, so monthly instalments falling due after filing but before the DRC decision are properly included in the award.
• Bank transfer receipts in Turkish Lira described as match bonuses or seasonal bonuses constitute team bonuses under Article 6.3 of the Employment Contract and are not deductible from the player's individual remuneration claim.
• Where an employment contract stipulates that all payments are net and expressly obliges the club to pay all taxes under Turkish tax legislation, the club bears liability for the player's residual income tax as declared to the Turkish tax authorities, provided the player has complied with his notification obligations.
• CAS may amend a disciplinary fine imposed by a FIFA judicial body only where the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence; mere disagreement with the quantum is insufficient.
• New evidence submitted for the first time at CAS is admissible under Article R57 of the CAS Code unless there are exceptional circumstances such as bad faith or abusive procedural behaviour; no such circumstances existed here.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first established the player's total contractual entitlement at EUR 549,000 (EUR 200,000 for 2020/2021 salary, EUR 100,000 promotion bonus, EUR 19,000 win bonuses, EUR 230,000 for the 2021/2022 period through 28 January 2022), none of which was disputed by the club. He then assessed the payments proven: only EUR-denominated transfers totalling EUR 242,000 were referable to the player's remuneration; TL-denominated payments labelled 'maç primi' or seasonal bonuses were treated as team bonuses under Article 6.3, as the club could not explain their nature at the hearing. The arithmetic yielded EUR 307,000 still outstanding. On income tax, the arbitrator applied the plain wording of Article 6.4, which unambiguously placed tax liability on the club and conditioned it on the player's timely declaration — a condition the player satisfied by his letter of 1 April 2021. On the fine, the arbitrator applied the CAS standard from CAS 2019/A/6278 and CAS 2015/A/4232 requiring gross disproportionality before intervention, finding no such disproportionality. The club's reference to Turkish economic conditions was rejected as insufficient justification. Claims for December 2021 and January 2022 salaries were upheld by reference to Swiss procedural law and CAS 2021/A/8321.

Why Giresunspor v. Diarra matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that salary instalments accruing between the filing of a FIFA DRC claim and the date of the decision are properly included in the award without requiring a new or amended claim, citing Swiss procedural law and CAS 2021/A/8321. It also confirms that a net-salary clause combined with an express tax-indemnity provision in an employment contract places full income-tax liability on the club, and that CAS will not reduce FIFA disciplinary fines absent gross disproportionality.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2021/A/8321 CAS 2021/A/8344 CAS 2019/A/6367 CAS 2019/A/6278 CAS 2018/A/5929 CAS 2015/A/4232

Frequently asked questions about Giresunspor v. Diarra

Did CAS allow Giresunspor to deduct the Turkish Lira bonus payments from the amount owed to Diarra?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that the TL-denominated transfers were labelled 'maç primi' (match bonuses) or seasonal bonuses and therefore constituted team bonuses payable under Article 6.3 of the Employment Contract at the club's discretion. Because the club could not explain their nature at the hearing and provided no evidence linking them to Diarra's individual remuneration, they were not deducted from the EUR 307,000 award.

Is a Turkish club liable to pay a foreign player's income tax when the contract says all payments are 'net'?

Yes, on the facts of this case. Article 6.4 of the Employment Contract expressly stated that the club 'will be always obliged to pay all the taxes' under Turkish tax legislation and that the player 'shall always receive net the indicated amounts.' The Sole Arbitrator applied the plain wording and held the club liable for TL 308,608.79 in residual income tax for 2020, provided — as was satisfied here — that the player had filed his tax return and notified the club in writing, which Diarra did by letter of 1 April 2021.

Can a player claim salary instalments that fell due after he filed his FIFA DRC claim?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator held, relying on Swiss procedural law and CAS 2021/A/8321, that the relevant point in time is not when the claim is filed but when the competent body decides it. Accordingly, the monthly instalments of EUR 30,000 due on 31 December 2021 and 28 January 2022 — both after the 1 December 2021 filing — were properly included in the EUR 307,000 award without requiring a separate claim.

On what standard will CAS reduce a FIFA fine imposed under Article 12bis RSTP?

CAS will only amend a disciplinary fine if the FIFA judicial body exceeded its margin of discretion such that the sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence,' citing CAS 2019/A/6278 and CAS 2015/A/4232. In this case the USD 50,000 fine and reprimand — imposed because the club had delayed payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and had a prior finding of the same violation as an aggravating circumstance under Article 12bis(6) RSTP — was upheld, as mere reference to Turkey's economic conditions did not meet that threshold.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.