CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10515 — Rizespor AS v. Ronaldo César Mendes de Medeiros & FIFA

"Rizespor v. Medeiros" · CAS partially upheld Rizespor's appeal, removing the EUR 50,000 ranking bonus but confirming the club's liability to reimburse the player's Turkish personal income taxes under a 'net' salary contract.

What happened in Rizespor v. Medeiros

Rizespor AS, a Turkish professional football club, signed a two-season employment contract on 26 July 2021 with Brazilian player Ronaldo César Mendes de Medeiros. The contract stipulated total remuneration of EUR 935,000 net per season, with clause 3.3 stating 'all the amounts stated in this agreement are net.' The player's agent had repeatedly insisted, via WhatsApp, that 'net' meant 'without taxes' before the contract was signed. The club paid withholding tax but did not reimburse the player for additional personal income tax he was required to file and pay directly under Turkish law (TRY 5,238,095.50 for 2021 and 2022 combined). The club was also relegated to Lig 1 after the 2021/22 season. The player filed a claim before the FIFA DRC, which on 8 February 2024 ordered the club to pay EUR 183,000 in outstanding remuneration (including a EUR 50,000 ranking bonus) and TRY 5,241,541.70 in taxes and fees, plus a warning under Article 12bis RSTP. Rizespor appealed to CAS. The panel upheld the tax reimbursement obligation, finding the club knew the player understood 'net' as tax-free but chose not to clarify its different interpretation. However, the panel reversed the EUR 50,000 ranking bonus, finding the mutual intention was that it applied only in the Süper Lig. The warning was confirmed. The case matters because it distinguishes the earlier Bolasie case (CAS 2023/A/9438) and clarifies when a 'net' salary clause shifts personal income tax liability to the club.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10515

The player lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 5 October 2023, seeking outstanding salaries, a ranking bonus of EUR 50,000, reimbursement of Turkish personal income taxes for 2021 (TRY 396,053.71) and 2022 (TRY 4,842,041.79), and a work permit fee of TRY 3,446.20. The FIFA DRC, applying the May 2023 edition of the FIFA RSTP and the March 2023 Procedural Rules, found it competent under Articles 23(1) and 22(1)(b) RSTP. On 8 February 2024, the DRC accepted the player's claim in full, ordering Rizespor to pay EUR 183,000 net and TRY 5,241,541.70 net, plus 5% p.a. interest, and imposed a warning under Article 12bis RSTP. The grounds were notified on 28 March 2024. Rizespor filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 17 April 2024 and its Appeal Brief on 8 May 2024. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 6 December 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10515

• Where a club inserts the term 'net' in an employment contract at the player's specific insistence that it means 'without taxes,' and the club knows the player holds that understanding but chooses not to disclose its different interpretation, the club is contractually obligated to reimburse the player for personal income tax paid directly to the Turkish tax authorities.
• The omission of the words 'super league' from the ranking-bonus provision in clause 3.2 of the contract was an unintended drafting omission; the mutual intention of the parties was that the EUR 50,000 ranking bonus applied only when the club finished in the top seven of the Süper Lig, not Lig 1.
• Under Swiss law (Article 18 SCO), even a textually clear contractual term must be interpreted in light of the parties' true and common intention and the surrounding circumstances; purely literal interpretation is prohibited.
• A warning under Article 12bis(4)(a) FIFA RSTP — the minimum available sanction — is neither grossly disproportionate nor disproportionate where a club delayed payment of EUR 133,000 in outstanding salary without a prima facie contractual basis after being duly put in default.
• A player's ignorance of a national tax regime does not automatically entitle the player to reimbursement, but where the club was aware of the player's tax exposure and the player's agent repeatedly sought confirmation that 'net' meant 'without taxes,' the club's silence and failure to clarify its contrary understanding shifts the contractual risk to the club.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied Article 18 SCO, noting that Swiss law prohibits purely literal interpretation and requires ascertainment of the parties' true and common intention. Finding no common subjective intention — the club intended 'net' to mean payment without withholding deductions, while the player understood it as fully tax-free — the panel moved to objective interpretation under the principle of good faith. Key factors: (1) the term 'net' was inserted into the contract solely at the player's agent's insistence, expressed multiple times via WhatsApp, that it meant 'without taxes'; (2) the club knew of the player's understanding but chose not to rebut it or disclose its different view before signing; (3) the player's salary under the contract would only exceed his Al Wasl FC salary if received free of all taxes; (4) the club had used more explicit tax-indemnity clauses with other players, demonstrating it knew how to draft such provisions. The panel distinguished CAS 2023/A/9438 (Bolasie) because in that case 'net' appeared in a buy-out clause as well, diluting its tax-specific meaning, whereas here 'net' was used exclusively for remuneration. On the bonus, the panel found the omission of 'super league' in paragraph 2 of clause 3.2 was unintentional; the sporting and financial context — including UEFA qualification prospects — confirmed the mutual intent was Süper Lig only. The panel declined to disturb the warning, applying the standard that sanctions should be revised only if evidently and grossly disproportionate or if the substantive merits differ.

Why Rizespor v. Medeiros matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award refines the CAS jurisprudence on 'net' salary clauses in football contracts by distinguishing CAS 2023/A/9438 (Bolasie). It establishes that where a club knowingly allows a player to sign under the belief that 'net' means fully tax-free — and the term was inserted exclusively for remuneration at the player's insistence — the club bears the personal income tax reimbursement obligation. The award also clarifies that bonus provisions referencing 'the season' without naming a specific division will be construed by reference to the division the parties mutually contemplated at signing.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2023/A/9438 (Bolasie case) CAS 2012/A/2806 CAS 2006/A/1018 CAS 2017/A/5172 CAS 2015/A/4057 CAS 2021/A/7909

Frequently asked questions about Rizespor v. Medeiros

Did Rizespor have to pay the player's Turkish personal income tax under the 'net' salary clause?

Yes. The CAS panel held that because the term 'net' was inserted into the contract solely at the player's agent's insistence that it meant 'without taxes,' and the club knew of that understanding but chose not to clarify its different view before signing, the club was obligated to reimburse the player for TRY 5,238,095.50 in personal income tax paid to the Turkish authorities for 2021 and 2022. The panel applied Article 18 SCO and the principle of good faith under Swiss law.

How does the Rizespor v. Medeiros case differ from the Bolasie case (CAS 2023/A/9438)?

In the Bolasie case the CAS panel ruled against the player partly because the word 'net' also appeared in a buy-out clause, suggesting it did not carry an exclusively tax-free meaning. In Rizespor v. Medeiros, 'net' was used only in relation to the player's remuneration and bonuses, and the term was inserted specifically because the player's agent repeatedly demanded it mean 'without taxes.' The panel found these distinctions sufficient to reach the opposite conclusion on tax reimbursement.

Was Rizespor entitled to withhold the EUR 50,000 ranking bonus after being relegated to Lig 1?

Yes. The CAS panel found that the mutual intention of the parties when signing the contract — at a time when Rizespor was competing in the Süper Lig — was that the EUR 50,000 ranking bonus in clause 3.2 applied only to a top-seven finish in the Süper Lig. The omission of the words 'super league' from that specific bonus provision was treated as an unintended drafting error, not a deliberate extension to lower divisions, so the bonus was not payable for finishing seventh in Lig 1.

Was the FIFA warning against Rizespor under Article 12bis RSTP upheld by CAS?

Yes. The panel confirmed the warning, noting it is the minimum sanction available under Article 12bis(4)(a) FIFA RSTP. The club had undisputedly delayed payment of EUR 133,000 in outstanding salary for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis, and the player had properly put the club in default in writing with at least a ten-day deadline. The panel found the warning neither grossly disproportionate nor disproportionate in the circumstances.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.