Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2109
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 December 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Younès
Belhanda
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Angela Collins (Australia), member
Daan de Jong (the Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Younès Belhanda, Morocco
Represented by Jan Kleiner; Thomas Normand
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Club Galatasaray SK, Turkey
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez; Juan Crespo Ruiz- Huerta
INTERVENING PARTY:
Club Adana Demirspor, Turkey
Represented by Sezgin Güraslan; Aygin Kuruloglu; Umur Varat
Page 2
REF FPSD-2109
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Morrocan player, Younès Belhanda (hereinafter: player or
Claimant/ Counter-Respondent), and the Turkish club Galatasaray SK (hereinafter: club or
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the
contract”) valid for the 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons, i.e., until
31 May 2021.
2.
Pursuant to art. 3 of the contract for each contractual season (2017/2018, 2018/2019,
2019/2020, 2020/2021), the player was entitled to an annual salary of EUR 3,350,000,
payable as follows each year:
-
3.
EUR 300,000 – 31 August
EUR 300,000 – 30 September
EUR 650,000 – 31 October
EUR 300,000 – 30 November
EUR 300,000 – 31 December
EUR 300,000 – 31 January
EUR 300,000 – 28 February
EUR 300,000 – 31 March
EUR 300,000 – 30 April
EUR 300,000 - 31 May
Additionally, the contract also provided, inter alia, for the following bonus payments:
• “EUR 5,000 - for each point which the team achieves in the TFF Super League and UEFA
competition matches (depending on the attendance of the player) ;
• EUR 100,000 - as extra bonus for each 25 points achieved by the club in Super League
matches in which the player plays.”
4.
Moreover, the club was obliged to pay an amount of EUR 60,000 per season as housing
allowance, payable in ten monthly instalments of EUR 6,000 each.
5.
According to the player, the club constantly failed to pay his salaries and bonus payments as
contractually agreed.
6.
On 8 July 2020, the player sent a letter to the club, requesting payment of his outstanding
salaries in the amount of EUR 900,000, corresponding to his salaries for the period between
March and May 2020, plus a bonus payment of EUR 200,000.
7.
On 14 July 2020, the player received a correspondence from the club, which did not address
the outstanding salaries due, but instead the club referred to the player’s behaviour in a match
which took place on 23 February 2020, stipulating the following:
Page 3
REF FPSD-2109
“You have been banned for a match after receiving your second yellow card as a result of
your behavior against the opponent team's player in the match between our Club and
Fenerbahce dated 23 February 2020.
As you are aware, above incident constitutes a breach of Articles 6/7-a of our Club's
Professional Football Disciplinary Regulation for 2019/2020 season ("Regulation") which was
delivered to you by hand on 08.08.2019.
Therefore, we kindly request you to submit your written defense on the above matter in 48
hours.”
8.
On 16 July 2020, the player replied to the club “within the short deadline of 48 hours” and
in its reply it explained the events which led to the second yellow card, inter alia, stating the
following:
“This behavior of Fenebarhçe’player is the cause of the significant altercation between many
players of both teams and not the behavior of Younès Belhanda who was coming back to
the bench.
The second yellow card is not justified, Younès Belhanda respects the values of the Club and
sport.”
9.
The player indicated that despite its explanation, the club proceeded to impose a fine on the
player of EUR 134,000 and that he shall not be entitled to bonus payments paid for the
Fenerbahçe game.
10. On 3 August 2020, the player formally protested against this fine, mentioning that the
sanction is severe and disproportionate. In this same letter, the player reminded the club that
outstanding salaries and bonus in the amount of EUR 400,000 were still due to the player.
11. The player indicated that the club simply deducted the fine in the amount of EUR 134,000
from his salary, hence on 14 September 2020, he requested a detailed breakdown of the
salaries and bonuses paid out.
12. On 1 November 2020, the player sent another payment reminder to the club indicating that
a total amount of EUR 450,000 in salary was outstanding and further requested that the
amount of EUR 134,000 (fine amount) be paid out to him as well.
13. On 7 March 2021, the club played a match against Sivasspor and the player gave a postmatch interview, where he apparently raised his concerns and disappointment about the
pitch. According to the player, the interview cannot “be perceived as insulting or
inappropriate and it certainly also did not contain any personal criticism to any Board Member,
or to any other person.” In this context the player conducted an interview and stipulated the
following:
Page 4
REF FPSD-2109
"During my interview yesterday, I would like to make it clear that I did not speak about the
President, the Vice President or the Board of Directors. I spoke to the people responsible for
the stadium about the need for more maintenance on the field. I was misunderstood just for
what I said so that we could play in better conditions. Our translator understood that this was
a constructive message and translated it. I respect all management of Galatasaray and I have
a good relationship with everyone in the club."
14. In accordance with the player, the club suddenly terminated his contract on 10 March 2021,
mentioning that the player frequently violated the contract and internal disciplinary
regulations of the club and that his persistent non-compliance thereof rendered the
continuation of the employment contract intolerable for the club.
15. On 11 March 2021, the player immediately contested the validity of the termination and
requested that the club should withdraw the termination and allow him to train again.
16. On 15 March 2021, the player sent a further letter to the club confirming that it refuses to
withdraw the termination.
17. The player indicated that when the club issued the unilateral termination notice, the following
salaries were overdue and outstanding:
Debt (Salary/Bonus)
Due Date
Reason
Salary April 2020
30 April 2020
Unjustified sanction imposed EUR 134,000
against the Player and
deducted from the
April2020
salary
Salary August 2020
31 August 2020
Not paid at all
EUR 300,000
Salary September 2020
30 September 2020
Only partially paid
EUR 196,500.-
Salary February 2021
28 February 2021
Not paid at all
EUR 300,000.-
Salary March 2021
10 March 2021
Pro rata salary March 2021
EUR 87,096.77
Bonus for points achieved with
the presence of the player
10 March 2021
Not paid at all
EUR 186,250
10 March 2021
Not paid at all
EUR 200,000
Bonus for points achieved by
the Club
Total
Overdue Amount
EUR 1,403,846.77
Page 5
REF FPSD-2109
18. On 30 July 2021, the player concluded an employment contract with the Turkish club Adana
Demirspor, valid from September 2021 until 31 May 2024. This contract commenced after
the termination/initial expiry date of the contract he had with the club Galatasaray SK.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 22 March 2021, the player 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/ Counter-Respondent
20. According to the player, there is absolutely no justification for the club's breach of contract
and that the sanction “imposed in July 2020, as an obvious retaliation against the Player,
cannot be taken into account as it’s illegitimate, disproportionate and without any basis. It
therefore also cannot possibly justify a breach of contract. “.
21. The requests for relief of the player, were that the club pay to the player the total amount of
EUR 3,909,645.77 as follows:
(a) outstanding salaries and bonus payments in the amount of EUR 1,017,596.77,
corresponding to his salaries for the remainder of April 2020 (EUR 134,000), the salary
for the month of August 2020 (EUR 300,000); remainder salary payment for the month
of September 2020 (EUR 196,500), the salary payment for the month of February 2021
(EUR 300,000), and the pro rata salary payment for the month of March 2021 (EUR
87,096.77);
(b) bonus payments in the amount of EUR 386,250;
(c) residual value of contract in the amount of EUR 830,903, corresponding to the salaries
due in the period between 10 March and 31 May 2021 (EUR 812,903), plus housing
allowance linked to the period between March and May 2021 (EUR 18,000); and
(d) additional compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,674,996,
corresponding to six monthly salaries.
-
Plus 5% interest p.a. payable on the amounts above, from the respective due dates until
date of effective payment
b. Position of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
22. In its reply to the claim, the club mentioned that on 23 February 2020, the player received a
red card in a match against Fenerbahçe, accordingly the board of the club imposed a
Page 6
REF FPSD-2109
disciplinary fine on the player on the basis of article 6(7)(a) of the internal regulations of the
club.
23. In this regard, the club mentioned that the player received the club’s internal disciplinary
regulations of 2019/2020, which was signed and initialled by the player.
24. The club further stipulated the following:
(a)
“article 5 of the special provisions of the Employment Contract clearly stipulates that the
player agreed to be subjected to the club’s Disciplinary Regulations. Consequently, the
Club’s Internal Disciplinary Regulations formed an integral part of the contractual
relationship established between the parties.
(b)
Moreover, the Claimant never raised any complaint to the content of the disciplinary
regulations throughout the contractual relationship.”
25. Accordingly, the club indicated that on 21 July 2020, by resolution nr.: 2020/46, the board
of the club imposed a disciplinary fine on the player of EUR 134,000 – 4% of the 2019/2020
season guaranteed compensation “since he breached Article 6(7)(a) of the internal
regulations of the club.”
26. The club indicated that the interaction with the other player which led to the red card “wasn’t
a completely normal interaction in a heated derby match, it was an assault” and the board
believed that it justified the imposition of a fine.
27. In this context, a fine was imposed in accordance with article 8(7)(a) the internal disciplinary
regulations of the club, which stipulates the following:
a)
“Except for the first yellow cards encountered within the scope of football rules as a result
of the position, any yellow and/or red card shown to the player shall lead to a fine of at
least 2% of guaranteed season value of the Player; according to the decision by the
Board”
28. Additionally, the club referred to article 8(7)(d) of the internal disciplinary regulations of the
club which stipulates:
“In the event player is imposed with a ban from game or deprivation of rights by TFF, FIFA or
UEFA, this shall lead to a fine of at least 2% of guaranteed season value of the Player; for
each game of ineligibility, according to the decision of the Board. Moreover, per point and
premium – if any – payments for such ineligible games shall not be paid.”
29. Lastly, the club mentioned that although the event occurred in February 2020, the fine was
imposed in July 2020, on the basis of article 7 of the internal disciplinary regulations of the
club, as well as the interruption due to COVID-19 interruption.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2109
30. Moreover, the club wished to clarify its reasons for the salary reduction of the player and
mentioned the following:
- “In April 2020, the club’s sent a letter to each player to renegotiate the contracts with “a
clear reference to the mentioned guidance of the FIFA” in light of the COVID-19 pandemic
and the economic position of the club;
- on 6 June 2020 the club sent a waiver to the player, but the player did not agree to waive
a part of his remunerations;
- the club did not try to impose “a unilateral salary reduction of no less than 30% against
the Player, however, without prejudice, the club reserved the right to apply a reduction
to the Player’s guaranteed fee for the 2019/2020 season in accordance with FIFA circulars
nr.1714 and 1720 and deduct the reduced amount from the Player´s remunerations that
would become due”
31. The club further indicated that it made the following deductions in respect of the player’s
salary:
-
-
-
-
“salary reduction of April 2020 (disciplinary fine – Fenerbahçe match);
salary of August 2020: The club did not pay the salary of August 2020 since it, without
prejudice, reserved its right to reduce the Claimant’s salary for the 2019/2020 season by
15%, as it was agreed and performed with all the squad;
salary of September 2020: The club paid EUR 103.500 to the Player on 29.07.2020 since
it, without prejudice, reserved its right to reduce the Claimant’s salary of 2019/2020
season by 15%, as it was agreed and performed with all the squad;
salary of February 2021: The club did not perform the payment of salary of February 2021
due to the deduction of the disciplinary fine, amounting to 10% percentage of the net
salary of the 2020/2021 football season, i.e., EUR 335.000, related to the violation of
Article 6- 1 (a) of the internal disciplinary regulations of the Club (interview); and
salary of March 2021, which was not due at the time of the termination”
32. The club further explained that on 7 March 2021, during an interview, the player made
statements to the media which were damaging to the reputations of the board members of
the club, afterwards the club informed the player that he violated the internal disciplinary
regulations and article 16 of the employment contract. Therefore, a disciplinary fine,
amounting to 10% percent of his net salary for the 2020/2021 football season, i.e., EUR
335,000 was imposed on the player, due to the said violation in particular of article 6-1 (a) of
the internal disciplinary regulations of the club, which states:
“Upon commencement of the players' employment with the Club, he shall refrain any acts
against the sportsmanship and ethics, any behaviours and statements, either in press or in
audio-visual media (including social media) in his personal life, during a game or in trainings,
travels; bringing the President, board, technical staff, personnel, teammates and/or the whole
Club family into disrepute or acting in contradiction with the values of the Club.”
Page 8
REF FPSD-2109
33. On 10 March 2021, the club sent a notice of termination to the player “after taking into
consideration the entire background history of the player, especially his temper and several
breaches of provisions of the internal disciplinary regulations the Club and the Employment
Contract”.
c. Counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
34. In continuation the club maintained that the player caused serious damage to the club
referring to the “severity of the attacks performed by the Player in a public manner before
the press”, which in return definitely had an impact on the opinion of the club’s shareholders.
35. In this context, the club indicated that the damage caused is clear, “since the public image of
the club, especially in front of its shareholders, was compromised.”
36. Accordingly, the club is of the opinion that the player should compensate the club for the
said damages.
37. In conclusion the club mentioned the following:
(a) that it terminated the contract with just cause, due to the player´s breach of contract,
which entitles the Club to receive compensation;
(b) that the disciplinary fines imposed on the player are correct and should be deducted from
any amount due by the club to the player;
(c) financial measures were taken considering “the FIFA Covid-19 guidelines”, hence the
player´s salary reduction of 15% of his 2019/2020 remuneration, is totally fair and
proportionate and is a “lenient measure”. Therefore, the reduction of the annual salary
that affected the salaries of August 2020 and September 2020 should be maintained;
(d) regarding the outstanding bonuses, only EUR 230,395.46 remains unpaid due to the
deduction of EUR 29,000 relating to a disciplinary fine, EUR 61,250 already paid by club
and EUR 604,54 for a traffic ticket
38. The requests for relief of the club were the following:
(a) to dismiss the claim of the player;
(b) to determine that the annual salary reduction that affected the salaries of August 2020
and September 2020 should be maintained;
(c) that the disciplinary fines under stake, which the club applied are correct and should be
deducted from any amount due by the club to the player, especially from the salaries of
April 2020 and February 2021; and
Page 9
REF FPSD-2109
(d) to issue a decision condemning the player to pay the club compensation for the unilateral
breach of contract performed by the player in the total amount of EUR 2,505,899,
corresponding to the following:
-
-
residual value of the player’s contract, EUR 830,903;
six monthly salaries under the specificity of sport due to the most negligent and taunting
attitude displayed by the Player causing irreparable harm to the Club in the amount of
EUR 1,674,996;
plus 5% interest per annum from 10 March 2021, when the club terminated the Contract
with just cause.
39. Alternatively, in the case that the FIFA DRC determines that the club terminated the contract
without just cause, that a decision is issued determining:
(a) that no additional compensation for breach of contract shall be paid by the Club to the
Player;
(b) that the player shall be compensated by 50% of the compensation he is awarded, i.e.,
50% of the residual value of the Employment Contract: EUR 415,451.50; and
(c) the player assume the entirety of the FIFA DRC administration and procedural fees.
d. Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s reply to Counterclaim
40. The player reiterated that at the date of termination the club was in “very serious payment
default towards the player”, which it did not dispute in its reply and counterclaim.
41. The player further argued that the club tries to “justify these payment defaults with farcical
disciplinary sanctions or with an ex-post salary reduction because of COVID-19.”
42. Moreover, according to the player the club refers to old and isolated incidents, which took
place in 2018 and 2019, which are irrelevant and misrepresented by the club. “In reality, the
club never took any issue with those past events, it took no disciplinary action, it issued no
warning, and it even publicly supported the player” and therefore it cannot justify a breach
of contract in 2021.
43. Furthermore, the position of the club, according to which there was an “inevitable path towards termination is not credible at all also for the following reason: Only three months before
the termination, in December 2020, repeated meetings were held with the Player to discuss
a possible extension of contract.”
Page 10
REF FPSD-2109
44. In conclusion the player respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to reject
the counterclaim of the club, charge all cost of the proceedings to the club and order the club
to make the following payments to the player:
-
EUR 134,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 1 May 2020;
EUR 300,000.plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2020;
EUR 196,500 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2020;
EUR 300,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 1 March 2021;
EUR 87,096.77 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 11 March 2021;
EUR 186,250 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 11 March 2021;
EUR 200,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 11 March 2021;
EUR 830,903 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 11 March 2021; and
EUR 1,674,996 plus interest at 5% p.a. as from 11 March 2021.
e. Position of the Intervening Party
45. On 5 November 2021, the entire case file was sent to the player’s new club, Adana Demirspor
(the “Intervening party”) for its comments on the matter at hand.
46. On 16 November 2021, the Intervening Party provided its feedback and stipulated the
following:
“The expiration date of the Employment Contract concluded between Mr. Younes Belhanda
and Galatasaray A.S. is 31.05.2021. Our Club and Mr. Younes Belhanda have signed an
Employment Contract on 30.07.2021 which is already submitted to the ongoing case.
Therefore we would like to inform you that we do not have any other documentary to
provide.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
47. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 22 March 2021 and submitted for decision
on 16 December 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021
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.
48. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. a) OR b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
Page 11
REF FPSD-2109
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Moroccan player and
a Turkish club, with the involvement of another Turkish club.
49. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 March 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
50. 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
51. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
52. 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 whether the club had validly
imposed fines on the player, whether the club could in view of the financial consequences of
the COVID-19 pandemic validly reduce the player’s yearly income for the 2019/2020 season
by 15% and whether the club had just cause to prematurely terminate the contract with the
player.
53. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether the
fines were proportionate and whether during the imposition of it, a due process was
followed, whether the salary reduction of 15% could be validly applied and whether the club
had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 10 March 2021.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2109
54. First of all, the members of the Chamber wished to address the fine of EUR 134,000 which
was imposed on the player on 21 July 2020, for receiving a second yellow card in the
Fenerbahçe match on 23 February 2020.
55. In this respect, the Chamber analysed the aforesaid fine imposed on the player and noted
that the club had in principle followed a due process while investigating whether a fine should
be imposed on the player. In this respect, the DRC remarked that the player was requested
to present his defense, he was duly notified of the decision and the legal basis for the fine is
clearly explained to the player.
56. Moreover, the player allegedly agreed and signed the Disciplinary Regulations of the club,
which forms a part of the player’s contract. It also remained uncontested between the parties
that the player had indeed received a red card (two yellow cards), and therefore in principle
was in breach of art. 8 (7) (a) of the club’s Disciplinary Regulations.
57. However, a fine of 4% of the yearly remuneration for one red card (two yellow cards) is not
in line with the provisions of article 8(7)(a) of the club’s Disciplinary regulations, which only
provides for a fine of at least 2% for a yellow and/or red card, furthermore the Chamber
noted that the club took approximately 5 months to apply the penalty, which suggests to be
an attempt by the club to try to set off outstanding financial obligations towards the player .
58. In general, and referring to its well-established jurisprudence, in any case, the Chamber
wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in
general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations
towards players.
59. Secondly, the members of the Chamber addressed the fine of EUR 335,000 which was
imposed on the player for the Sivasspor post-match interview with Bein Sports on 7 March
2021.
60. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the club after the said interview issued a
termination notice to the player together with a fine of 10% of his net salary. However, the
DRC remarked that it appears that also this fine is not in line with the provisions of article 8
of the Disciplinary Regulations of the club which only provides for a fine of at least 1% in
cases of “improper behaviours”. Moreover, the club seems to have broadly interpreted the
provisions of article 6(1)(a) of the Disciplinary Regulations of the club, the club failed to
substantiate the fact that the said statement brought the club and/or its stakeholders into
disrepute or if it caused damage.
61. The members of the Chamber concluded that the club, in the current matter at hand, made
use of its Disciplinary Regulations in an abusive way and set up a construction, leading to the
set-off of its debts against its financial obligations towards the player.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2109
62. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that the club could not set-off its debts towards the
player by means of the imposition of fines and therefore, as a result, the fine of EUR 134,000
imposed on the player as well as the fine of EUR 335,000 i.e.10% of the player’s net salary
were incorrectly imposed on the player. The Chamber deemed that the respective amounts
are under the current circumstances to be considered excessive and that therefore, they could
not have validly been deducted from the player’s remuneration.
63. Furthermore, the Chamber turned its attention to the reduction of 15% of the yearly salary
for the 2019/2020 season in view of the financial consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic
on the club.
64. In this context, the DRC referred to the fact that, in light of the worldwide COVID-19
outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing
appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders,
to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any
response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued
an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarification about
the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
65. According to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines, unilateral decisions to vary the terms of an
agreement are allowed if they are made in line with national law or permissible within the
CBA structures. Thus, if the parties involved cannot reach an amicable settlement, or the issue
is not addressed in national law and CBA’s with a players’ union are not an option, a variation
to the contract can only be allowed if it is made in good faith, are reasonable and
proportionate.
66. The DRC noted that in the matter at hand, it appears that based on the documentation on
file, the club attempted to find a solution with the player regarding the proposed salary
reduction, however the DRC noted that the player did not agree to waive any part of his
salaries, which was confirmed by the club and it is therefore clear that the club failed to reach
an amicable settlement with the player.
67. The DRC concluded that the club had not sufficiently demonstrated that it could validly reduce
the salary of the player, accordingly the player’s salary reduction seems to be unilateral in
nature and therefore it cannot be accepted.
68. In continuation, the DRC addressed the unilateral termination of the contract by the club on
10 March 2021, and took note that article 8(9) of the Disciplinary Regulations of the club,
stipulated the following:
“Regarding the violations which requires the termination of the Contract and which are
foreseen in these Regulations, the Club may terminate the Contract in addition to the fine or
the Club may decide to impose only one of these sanctions.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2109
Without prejudice to the provisions of this Regulations regarding the termination of the
contract and recidivism; in case any violation in accordance with these regulations is repeated
more than five times during the term of the contract of the player (including the contract
extensions) the Board may unilaterally terminate the contract of the Player immediately
without any compensation.”
69. In this regard, the DRC remarked that it would seem that a unilateral termination of the
contract by the club on account of “several breaches of provisions of the internal disciplinary
regulations the Club and the Employment Contract” can only be justified, if the regulations
are violated more than five times during the term of the contract, the violations which were
highlighted by the club does not amount to five.
70. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber indicated that in accordance with the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Chamber, as a general rule, only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without notice. In other
words, only when there are objective criteria, which do not reasonably permit to expect a
continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be
terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in
order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract.
71. On account of the above it seems that the unilateral termination of the contract by the club
cannot be justified and accordingly, the members of the Chamber concluded that the club
had prematurely terminated the contract with the player without just cause.
72. Consequently, the DRC decided that it must at this point reject the counterclaim put forward
by the club.
ii. Consequences
73. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
consequences of the unilateral termination of the contract by the club, without just cause,
on 10 March 2021.
74. First of all, the Chamber decided that the club must fulfil its obligations in accordance with
the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
75. Consequently, the DRC decided that the club is liable to pay to the player his outstanding
remuneration, in the total amount of of EUR 1,303,846.77, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates until date of effective payment, corresponding to the following:
-
EUR 134,000 - balance of fine imposed;
EUR 300,000 - August 2020 salary;
Page 15
REF FPSD-2109
-
EUR 196,500 - September 2020 salary;
EUR 300,000 - February 2021 salary;
EUR 87,096.77 - March pro-rata salary; and
EUR 286,250 - relating to outstanding bonus
76. In relation to the bonus of EUR 386,250 as claimed by the player, the DRC took into account
the evidence provided by the player, which indicated that the team achieved 44 points with
him being fielded instead of 61 as suggested by the player in his claim and that as a result,
the amount of EUR 286,250 shall be awarded to the player.
77. 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.
78. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to 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. 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.
79. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player 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 non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
80. 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 from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of EUR 830,903 (i.e. the residual value of the contract for the period between
10 March and 31 May 2021) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
81. In continuation, the DRC remarked that following the early termination of the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute, the player did not sign a new employment
agreement with another club during the overlapping period (i.e. 10 March and 31 May 2021,
the employment contract the player concluded with the Turkish club Adana Demirspor, was
Page 16
REF FPSD-2109
valid from September 2021, accordingly this contract commenced after the termination/initial
expiry date of the employment contract he had with the club. Therefore, no further mitigation
of the amount of compensation shall take place.
82. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 830,903
to the player, corresponding to EUR 812,903 as salary payments plus EUR 18,000 as housing
allowance for the period between March and May 2021, which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
83. 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 22 March 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
85. 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.
86. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the
request of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, 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/Counter-Claimant
in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
87. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant shall make full payment (including all applicable interest)
to the bank account provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the Bank Account
Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
88. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
Page 17
REF FPSD-2109
d. Costs
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 18
REF FPSD-2109
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Younès Belhanda, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Galatasaray SK, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the
following amount:
(a) EUR 1,303,846.77 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 134,000 as from 1 May 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 300,000 as from 1 September 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 196,500 as from 1 October 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 300,000 as from 1 March 2021;
- on the amount of EUR 87,096.77 as from 11 March 2021; and
- on the amount of EUR 286,250 as from 22 March 2021
(b) EUR 830,903 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%interest
p.a. as from 22 March 2021 until the date of effective payment
▪
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
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. 24bis 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/ Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration the ban shall be of 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. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
Page 19
REF FPSD-2109
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 20
REF FPSD-2109
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).
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
Page 21