Article 27 of the Professional Football Players’ Status and Transfer Regulations, which provides the justifiable grounds for termination that a club can rely on regarding professional football player contracts, under Turkish law. If the reasons listed in this article exist, there is no need to consider the justifiable grounds for termination under the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, if events other than those listed in this provision arise, an assessment under the Turkish Code of Obligations will be made.
Article 27, mentioned above, firstly grants the club the right to terminate a professional football player contract if the player’s illness or absence from football activities exceeds six months. However, if the illness or absence arises from football activities, there will be no justifiable termination under this article. In fact, in the lawsuit filed by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Department, where the player had an accident caused by his own fault and was permanently paralyzed, and the club subsequently exercised its right of termination to unilaterally terminate the contract, claiming that the termination was unfair, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Department, in its assessment, determined that injury does not give rise to a right of termination in FIFA regulations and precedents, that the right of termination in question was not stipulated in the contract, but was used by the club to terminate the contract, and that the termination made by the club was unfair, and partially accepted the player’s claim for compensation.[2] On the other hand, the doctrine stipulates that football activities should be interpreted broadly within the scope of this article, and that situations such as a football player’s accident on the bus while traveling to an away match or a personal vehicle while traveling to training should also be considered within the scope of football activities. Furthermore, if a football player is ill or on leave outside of football activities and wishes to exercise the termination right mentioned above, the club must notify the player of the termination for just cause by sending a notice to the player via a notary public within 30 days of the occurrence and/or knowledge of the occurrence. Otherwise, the 30-day period is a statute of limitations, and the right of termination cannot be exercised.
Another situation where the aforementioned article grants the club the right to terminate a contract is if the player has been permanently suspended or banned from competition for at least six months. If the club wishes to exercise its right to terminate, it must notify the player via a notary public notification within 30 days of learning of the suspension, stating that the contract is being terminated for just cause. Otherwise, the 30-day period is a statute of limitations, and the right to terminate cannot be exercised.
Furthermore, jurisprudence has developed that a player’s absence can be considered a right of termination. However, not every absence gives rise to a right of termination. Accordingly, for an absence to give rise to a right of termination for the club, it must first be of a long duration. While a short-term absence would also constitute a breach of obligations, it would not be possible to claim the right of termination in this case. Furthermore, to be eligible for termination, the long-term absence must be unauthorized and not be due to any other justifiable reason. Furthermore, before terminating a player based on absence, the club must warn the player and inform them of their return dates and the end of their leave. The club must prove that these notifications were provided.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Department evaluates bans imposed due to a player’s absence based on whether official matches were played during the player’s absence. Indeed, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Department found the four-month ban imposed by the relevant national federation on the player due to the club’s lack of official matches despite the player’s one-month absence severe and decided that a monetary fine would be more appropriate.[3]
On the other hand, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport has issued a precedent-setting decision regarding the termination of contracts of footballers who fail to return from leave on time. In this decision, a contracted player for Al Nasr Club was repeatedly late returning from leave granted to him to compete for the Iranian national team. The decision stated that, prior to the termination of the contract, the club’s silence against the player for ten months, and the absence of any disciplinary action, created the confidence in the player that his actions were excused. Therefore, the club ruled that the subsequent termination of the player’s contract was not justified.
Professional football player contracts may include clauses stipulating that the club may terminate the player’s contract for just cause if the player fails to play in a certain match or fails to score a certain number of goals. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber has issued conflicting decisions regarding whether such clauses constitute a right of termination.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled in a ruling that a contract clause stipulating that the club could terminate a player’s contract if their league appearance rate was below 70% was valid. While the ruling noted that the duration of the contract was solely at the club’s discretion and that there were concerns that the right of termination was unilateral, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that the contract clause in question was drafted in accordance with the mutual will of the parties and that the right of termination was granted only for the end of the season, and therefore, the relevant contract provision was valid. In this context, the Chamber stated that granting the right of termination only at the end of the season would limit the club’s arbitrary actions and provide the player with a degree of legal foreseeability.[4]
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber reversed this decision in another ruling. In the case at issue, the parties’ contract stipulated that the player must play 85% of the team’s matches and score at least 7 goals in the 2005 season, and 15 goals in the 2006 season. Otherwise, the club could terminate the contract. In this case, the club would not pay the player a wage, the player would not seek compensation, and would be subject to a penalty of $50,000. In this ruling, the Chamber ruled that the club’s decision on the number of matches the player would play in was arbitrary. Furthermore, it ruled that such a clause, which ties the contract to a specific number of goals scored, would be ineffective, as it contradicts the spirit of football and the fundamental purpose of team play.[5] In another recent decision, the Chamber ruled, based on similar reasons, that a football player’s playing less than 40% of the club’s league matches would not give rise to a right of termination for the club.[6]
Finally, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber has ruled in many of its decisions regarding individual poor performance that poor performance does not constitute a right to terminate. In one decision, the Chamber invalidated a clause in a contract favoring a club that stipulated that a player’s contract could be terminated due to individual poor performance, and concluded that the club’s termination was without just cause.[7]
[1] This study was prepared by making use of the following master’s thesis; Kızılkaya, Y. (2019). Profesyonel futbolcunun iş ilişkisinin sona ermesi (Master’s thesis, Bursa Uludag University (Turkey)).
[2] FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 07.02.2014, Decision Reference Number 02141221.
[3] FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 10.04.2004, Decision Reference Number 6400276.
[4] FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 04.02.2025, Decision Reference Number 25247.
[5] FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 28.09.2006, Decision Reference Number 96391.
[6] FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 17.09.2009, Decision Reference Number 99673.
[7] FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 28.07.2005, Decision Reference Number 75975.