DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19039
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Britt Curtis
Assombalonga
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Britt Curtis Assombalonga, Great Britain
Represented by Andrew Bennett
RESPONDENT:
Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19039
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 July 2024, the British player Britt Curtis Assombalonga (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Amed Sportif Faaliyetler (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract valid from the date of signing until 30
June 2026.
2.
On 11 February 2025, the parties signed a “Termination and Settlement Agreement”
(hereinafter: the Termination Agreement) to end their contractual relationship prematurely
and settle the financial consequences.
3.
Clauses 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of the Termination Agreement provided, quoted verbatim:
“1.2 The Club shall pay the Player net 292.500-EUR as early termination compensation
and 89.000-EUR December and January' salary- in accordance with this Mutual
Termination / Termination Protocol. In other words, the Player accepts, declares and
undertakes that with the payment of net 381.500-EUR to him by the Club, he has no rights
and receivables arising and to arise from the Club. The net 381.500-EUR to be paid by
the Club shall be paid as follows:
•
•
•
•
131.500-EUR net will be paid on 28.02.2025.
100.000-EUR net will be paid on 28.03.2025.
100.000-EUR net will be paid on 28.04.2025.
50.000-EUR net will be paid on 28.05.2025.
3. If any of the aforementioned installments are not paid when due, the Player will send
a warning letter to the Club by email and give 7 days for payment. Without prejudice to
any other rights or remedies available to the Player if the Club fails to pay the installment
within the 7-day period, all amounts set out in clause 1.2. which have not yet been paid,
whether or not the date set out in clause 1.2. has passed or will pass, shall immediately
and automatically accelerate and become immediately due and payable by the Club to
the Player.
4. Interest shall accrue and be payable by the Club to the Player on any instalment or
part of the amount under clause 1.2. that is not paid in accordance with clause 1.2. at
the rate of 10% per annum. Such interest will accrue on a daily basis from the date of
this default until the date of payment”.
4.
On 1 March 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, demanding payment of
the first instalment of the Termination Agreement within 7 days. The Player referred to
clause 1.2 of the Termination Agreement, acknowledging that the Club’s failure to remedy
the breach would result in the entire debt and applicable penalties being accelerated.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19039
5.
On 10 March 2025, the Player sent a second email to the Club, this time confirming that he
had not received full payment within the delay period. The Player then requested EUR
381,896.30, consisting of accrued interest on the first instalment and the balance of the
accelerated debt. He stressed that payment should be made “without delay”.
6.
On 11 March 2025, the Player acknowledged receipt of a partial payment of EUR 70,000
but insisted on his entitlement to the accelerated amount of EUR 312,044.26 “without any
further delay”.
7.
On 12 March 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letters, stating that it had paid the first
instalment on time and that any delay was due to a bank closure over the weekend. The
Club provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Pursuant to the Termination and Settlement Agreement dated 11.02.2025 between the
parties, the first installment payment of 131.500 has been paid by our Club. Our Club
made the payment on time, but due to the closure of the intermediary banks over the
weekend, the receipt has been reissued. Therefore, the installment amount may have
arrived late in your bank account. We would like to state that we are in good faith about
payments by making our payment despite the delay caused by the disruptions between
different banks and the procedure of sending money different banks. We hereby declare
that we are still bound and loyal to the contract.
You can be sure that the next installment payments will be made on time.
At this point, we advise you not to apply for a judicial remedy. Because as a result of FIFA
and CAS proceedings, there is a possibility that you may reach the amount of receivable
in more than 1 year. Therefore, at this point, our request from you will be to adhere to
the installment payments specified in the contract between the parties. You can be
assured that our Club will fulfill its payment obligations regarding the remaining
installments on time and in full. If do you agree to continue to obey the settlement
agreement we will make the payment regularly as stated in the settlement agreement.
We look forward to have your response”.
8.
On 25 March 2025, the Player reminded the Club that the second instalment was due by
28 March 2025, without prejudice to his right pursuant to clause 1.3 of the Termination
Agreement.
9.
On 28 March 2025, the Club replied to the above email, stating that it had completed a wire
transfer to the Player on that date, however, the payment would not be credited until
Wednesday due to the Ramadan national holiday.
10. On the same date, the Player requested confirmation of the transaction.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19039
11. On 2 April 2025, the Player acknowledged receipt of EUR 25,000 out of the EUR 100,000,
which corresponded to the second instalment of the Termination Agreement. He reiterated
his position that the accelerated debt was outstanding.
12. On 10 April 2025, the Player sent the Club a further notice of default in which he (i)
confirmed receipt of the following partial payments – EUR 70,000 on 9 March 2025, EUR
61,500 on 12 March 2025 and EUR 25,000 on 2 April 2025; (ii) claimed that the Club still
owed him EUR 225,000 plus interest; and (iii) requested payment of EUR 227,537.40 in full
within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 25 April 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
14. According to the Player, the Club failed to timely pay him the first instalment (EUR 131,500)
(due 28 February 2025). He alleged that after a partial payment of EUR 70,000 and a
subsequent payment of EUR 61,500 (both late), the remaining instalments
became immediately due under the acceleration clause in the Termination Agreement.
15. The Player claimed that the Club also failed to timely pay the second instalment (EUR
100,000) and only paid EUR 25,000 on 2 April 2025. Hence, as of the claim date, EUR
225,000 net remains unpaid, and interest is accrued in accordance with clause 1.4 of the
Termination Agreement.
16. As a result, the Player requested the following relief:
“33. Based on the foregoing, the Claimant respectfully requests that FIFA:
a. Declares that the Respondent is liable to the Claimant in the amount of €225,000 net
plus interest;
b. Orders the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the amount of €225,000 net plus
interest at 10% per annum from 8 March 2025 to the date of effective payment; and
c. Imposes upon the Respondent such sanction under Article 12bis(4) FIFA RSTP as the
honourable FIFA DRC considers appropriate”.
b. Position of the Club
17. On 20 May 2025, the Club responded to the Player’s claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19039
18. In response, the Club argued that it had already made the necessary payments to the
Player and provided bank receipts as evidence. The Club contended that the Player’s claim
failed to account for these payments and that, therefore, the Club had fully met its
obligations. The Club emphasized that it had acted in good faith throughout the process,
maintaining respectful and cooperative communication with the Player, as demonstrated
by email and WhatsApp correspondence submitted together with the claim.
19. The Club also challenged the Player’s demand for 10% annual interest, arguing that this
rate was excessive and inconsistent with FIFA’s precedent decisions, which typically apply
a 5% annual interest rate. It requested that the claim for 10% interest be rejected
accordingly. Furthermore, the Club asserted that the Player’s overall claim was unfair and
inflated, as it did not consider the payments already made.
20. The Club submitted the following relief:
“7.2 Consider the amounts paid and the good faith of the Respondent while evaluating
the Claimant’s requests, according to the reasons explained above and the bank receipts
provided by the Respondent, and set off the mentioned amount from the Claimant’s
requests.
7.3 Finally, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that
the judicial costs and the attorneyship fees that the Respondent is faced with shall be
paid by the Claimant. If not, to award a minimum amount of procedural cost in
connection with the temporary amendment to the Procedural Rules declared with the
Circular 1720”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 25 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
6 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 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.
22. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 an British player and a Turkish club.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19039
23. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
24. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
25. 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 above-mentioned 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
26. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for overdue payables brought by a player against a club.
27. The DRC first recalled the parties’ positions, acknowledging that (i) the Player claimed to be
entitled to a total of EUR 225,000 net, plus interest, based on the Termination Agreement;
and (ii) the Club alleged that it had complied with its financial obligations and, alternatively,
that its cooperation and good faith should be taken into account to limit when determining
the applicable interest rate.
28. In light of the above, the Chamber found that the Club had the burden of proving that it
had complied with its obligations under the Termination Agreement. However, with regard
to the partial payments made to the Player, the DRC found it clear and unequivocal that (i)
the Club defaulted inter alia on the payment of the first instalment; (ii) the Player placed
the Club in default and granted a 7-day deadline as agreed; and (iii) the breach was not fully
remedied within this deadline, triggering the acceleration / interest clauses contained in
the Termination Agreement (i.e., clauses 1.3 and 1.4).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19039
29. Contrary to the Club’s position, the Chamber considered that the alleged good faith was
not a legal argument that justified a departure from the pacta sunt servanda. In fact, the
DRC emphasized that the Player had apparently granted the Club enough opportunities to
avoid litigation, but to no avail.
30. Similarly, the Chamber pointed out that the interest rate stipulated in the Termination
Agreement fell within the threshold accepted in the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
Therefore, it saw no reason to depart from the parties’ contractual freedom in this case.
31. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Player be awarded EUR 225,000 net as the
outstanding amount plus 10% interest p.a. from 9 March 2025 (i.e., the day after the date
when the acceleration clause was triggered).
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
32. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
33. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the
Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
34. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations were met in the case at hand.
35. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that the Club had previous offenses within the last two years, the Chamber
decided to impose a fine of USD 15,000 on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit.
c) of the Regulations.
36. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19039
38. 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
40. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
41. 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.
d. Costs
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19039
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Britt Curtis Assombalonga, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, must pay to the Claimant EUR 225,000 net as
outstanding amount plus 10% interest p.a. as from 9 March 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A fine in the amount of USD 15,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid to
FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the following
bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-19039:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230 | IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N | SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19039
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11