Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14930
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Giorgi Aburjania
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil / Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Giorgi Aburjania, Georgia
Represented by Sami Dinc
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ismail Coskun
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14930
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 June 2023, the Georgian player Giorgi Aburjania (hereinafter, the Claimant or the Player) and
the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with Clause 3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following remuneration:
Season 2023/2024: EUR 350,000 net in the following ten instalments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 35,000 on 31 August 2023;
EUR 35,000 on 30 September 2023;
EUR 35,000 on 31 October 2023;
EUR 35,000 on 30 November 2023;
EUR 35,000 on 31 December 2023;
EUR 35,000 on 31 January 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 29 February 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 31 March 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 30 April 2024; and
EUR 35,000 on 31 May 2024.
Season 2024/2025: EUR 350,000 net in the following ten instalments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.
EUR 35,000 on 31 August 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 30 September 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 31 October 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 30 November 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 31 December 2024;
EUR 35,000 on 31 January 2025;
EUR 35,000 on 28 February 2025;
EUR 35,000 on 31 March 2025;
EUR 35,000 on 30 April 2025; and
EUR 35,000 on 31 May 2025.
According to Clause 3 of the Contract, the Player was also entitled to the following fringe benefits:
A. A house will be provided by the Club. All utility expenses (electricity, telephone, water, etc.) will be paid
by the Player.
B. A car an its insurance during the period of this employment contract. Traffic fines, gasoline and any
other expenses will be paid by the Player.
C. Two round-trip economy class flight tickets to the player’s country per season, provided that the Player
notifies the club in writing at least 1 month in advance.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14930
4.
On 22 April 2024, the Player put the Club in default requesting the payment of EUR 70,000 net,
corresponding to the monthly instalments of February and March 2024 (i.e., EUR 35,000 net each),
as well as TRY 593,700, corresponding to household expenses. The Player granted the Club a
deadline of fifteen days to comply with its financial obligations.
5.
On 14 May 2024, the Player terminated the Contract based on the alleged non-payment of his
monthly remuneration by the Club.
6.
On 23 July 2024, the Player and the Portuguese club AVS-Futebol SAD concluded an employment
contract valid as from 22 July 2024 until 30 June 2025. According to this contract, the Player is entitled
to receive a net monthly remuneration of EUR 2,500 in twelve monthly instalments as from August
2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 12 June 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the Parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
According to the Player, he had just cause to terminate the Contract under art. 14bis of the
Regulations after the Club had delayed at least two monthly instalments, and after he put it in
default granting a 15-day deadline.
9.
The Player claimed being entitled to EUR 105,000 net as outstanding remuneration, corresponding
to the monthly instalments of February, March and April 2024 (i.e., EUR 35,000 each). The Player also
argued being entitled to TRY 816,986 as “house rent”. In this respect, the Player sustained that,
despite the Club’s obligation under the Contract, it did not provide the Player with a house, and
consequently he had to bear this cost.
10. The Player also claimed being entitled to compensation for breach of contract, amounting to EUR
385,000 net, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract, and an additional compensation
corresponding of EUR 210,000 net.
11. The Player requested the following relief:
“1. The Claimant firstly would like to request the esteem Chamber to make a decision that the Respondent
has to pay the overdue and unpaid amount of
- 105,000 Euro (One hundred-five Thousand Euros) net with its 5% p.a. interest starting from the due
dates stated above in 4.3 until the date of effective payment, and
- 816,986 Turkish Liras (Eight Hundred-sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred-eighty six Turkish Liras) net with
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14930
its 24% p.a. interest starting from the due dates stated above in 4.3 until the date of effective payment.
2. The Claimant secondly would like to request the esteem Chamber to make a decision that the unilateral
termination made by the Claimant is with just cause and in line with the jurisprudence of FIFA and the
CAS, in particularly with the Article 14bis of FIFA RSTP.
3. The Claimant thirdly would like to request the esteem Chamber to condemn the Respondent to pay a
compensation of 385,000 Euro (Three Hundred-eighty-five Thousand Euros) net with its 5% p.a. interest
starting from the termination date of 14 May 2024 until the date of effective payment, corresponding to
the guaranteed part of the remaining part of the contractual relation.
4. The Claimant asks FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay an additional compensation of 210,000 Euro
(Two Hundred Ten Thousand Euros), in accordance with the article 17/1(ii) FIFA RSTP with its 5% p.a.
interest starting from the termination date of 14 May 2024 until the date of effective payment.
5. In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file the case herein, we would
like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that the judicial costs and the attorneyship
fees that the Claimant is faced with shall be paid by the Respondent”.
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply to the claim, the Club initially argued that “all receivables of the plaintiff have been paid by
the defendant club and the plaintiff has no receivables”. Accordingly, the Club sustained that the Player
did not have just cause to terminate the Contract, and denied his entitlement to any compensation.
13. The Club also sustained that, based on art. 17 of the Regulations, the compensation should be
mitigated in case the Player signed a new employment contract and that, in any case, the
compensation payable to the Player cannot exceed the residual value of the Contract. The Club
further denied the existence of egregious circumstances in this case.
14. The Club argued that it did provide the Player with a house, but that it was the Player who refused
to stay there. The Club sustained that many players stayed in the houses provided by it. Accordingly,
the Respondent alleged that “the club is not responsible for the rent paid by the Claimant for residing
in another house of his own volition. In this context, the claimant’s rental payment requests must be
rejected”.
15. The Club also sustained that the Player chose an “ultra-luxurious” house in comparison to other
houses for rent in the same address. Furthermore, that the Club did not agree to undertake the cost
of the house chosen by the Player, and rejected the Player’s entitlement to this amount as well as
the interest of 24% p.a. claimed by the Player.
16. The Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, the Club respectfully requests the DRC to decide and/or order as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14930
- Dismiss the case on the grounds that the player’s claims cannot be accepted in accordance with the
contract signed between the parties,
- Provided that it does not mean acceptance, if the case will not be dismissed on equitable reduction in
the calculation of the additional compensation,
- Dismiss the claimant’s claim for the rent,
- Provided that it does not mean acceptance, if your Chamber is of the opposite opinion, to reduce this
amount,
- Provided that it does not mean acceptance, if you decide to the contrary of the above situations, we
request a decision to make an equitable reduction”.
c.
Player’s comments on the alleged payments
17. The Player was invited by the FIFA general secretariat to confirm whether the amounts allegedly
paid by the Club had been received. The Player denied having received the payments claimed.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether
it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter
was presented to FIFA on 12 June 2024 and submitted for decision on 29 August 2024. Taking into
account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the
Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
19. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in
accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Georgian player and a Turkish club.
20. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 12 June 2024, the June 2024 edition of said regulations (hereinafter,
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14930
b. Admissibility of the Player’s submission dated 6 August 2024
21. Upon invitation of the FIFA general secretariat, the Player was invited to provide his comments on
the reply of the Club, “exclusively on the alleged payments made by the Respondent”. Accordingly, the
DRC decided that any other submission not related to the foregoing shall be deemed inadmissible,
as it was unsolicited.
c.
Burden of proof
22. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall
carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4
of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties,
including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
23. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered into the
merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the Parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the
Contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
25. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence
presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the
Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact
been fulfilled.
26. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with
which if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the
player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the
debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club
to fully comply with its financial obligations.
27. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed not having received his remuneration corresponding
to the monthly instalments of February and March 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14930
Claimant provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 22 April 2024, i.e. at
least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 14 May 2024.
28. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the Parties.
Notwithstanding the argument that it had paid the Player in full, the Chamber considered that the
Club failed to meet his burden of proof, as it only submitted an alleged financial balance of
payments, which appeared to be an internal (and unofficial) spreadsheet that was not even
translated into any of the official FIFA languages. As such, the DRC found that this evidence was of
no probative value in accordance with art. 13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, and should therefore
be disregarded.
29. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and consequently the Club should be liable for the
consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
31. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with
the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, are equivalent to three monthly salaries under the
Contract, amounting to EUR 105,000 net (i.e., EUR 35,000 net each).
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, corresponding to his
remuneration for the months of February, March and April 2024.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on
the outstanding amounts as from their due dates until the date of effective payment.
34. In addition, the DRC noted that the Player claimed being entitled to reimbursement of the amounts
paid for rent. Nevertheless, the Chamber was not persuaded by the Player’s position in this respect.
In particular, the Chamber found it decisive that (i) the Contract only referred to the Player’s
entitlement to a house, as opposed to a rent allowance; (ii) the Player did not explain why he had
entered into a different rental agreement on his own; and (iii) the Player did not submit any evidence
to confirm that he had reached an agreement with the Club concerning the reimbursement of his
expenses.
35. Consequently, the Chamber decided that this part of the Player’s claim should be dismissed.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14930
36. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the Player by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be
calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute,
with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up
to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
37. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether
the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract.
38. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
39. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
40. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract until its term.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 385,000 net (i.e. the residual value
of the Contract as from May 2024 until May 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
41. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment contract with
another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to
reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Chamber as well as art. 17 par.
1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into
account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with
the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
42. Indeed, the player found new employment with the Portuguese club AVS-Futebol SAD. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, the Player is entitled to EUR 2,500 net per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of
EUR 25,000 net, that is, EUR 2,500 times ten.
43. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which a
player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional compensation,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14930
should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue payables. In the case
at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took place due to said reason, i.e.
overdue payables by the Club, and therefore decided that the Player shall receive additional
compensation.
44. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
105,000 net, i.e. EUR 35,000 net times three, as the monthly remuneration of the Player.
45. The Chamber reminded the Parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely
terminated contract.
46. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the
case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR 385,000 net to the
Player (i.e. EUR 385,000 net minus EUR 25,000 net plus EUR 105,000 net, limited to a maximum of
EUR 385,000 net), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
47. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said compensation at the rate of
5% p.a. as of 14 May 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par. 1 and 2
of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also
rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant
amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
49. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the
relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of
the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
50. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4,
and 7 of the Regulations.
51. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14930
52. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the Regulations.
e. Costs
53. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “Procedures are
free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent, or match agent”.
Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
54. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of
the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these
proceedings.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of
the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14930
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Giorgi Aburjania, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
EUR 105,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net as from 1 March 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net as from 1 April 2024 until the date of effective payment;
and
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net as from 1 May 2024 until the date of effective payment.
EUR 385,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
per annum as from 14 May 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including
all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following
consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up
to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the
event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art.
24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14930
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13