Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11089
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 December 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Birkir Bjarnason
BY:
Martín Auletta (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo de Medinilla (Spain), member
Jorge Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Birkir Bjarnason, Iceland
Represented by Centrefield LLP
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Mr Umur Varat and Ms Aygin Kuruloğlu
INTERVENING PARTY:
Viking FK, Norway
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11089
I. Facts of the case
1. On 13 August 2021, the Icelandic player Birkir Bjarnason (hereinafter: Claimant/CounterRespondent or Player) and the Turkish club Adana Demirspor A.S. (hereinafter: Club or
Respondent/Counterclaimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2023.
2. According to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player an annual salary of
EUR 600,000 net, payable in ten equal instalments of EUR 60,000 net each between
September and June of each respective season. Each salary instalment was payable by
no later than the 30th day of each month.
3. Furthermore, the Player was entitled to receive EUR 1,500 net as monthly
accommodation allowance.
4. Furthermore, according to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the following
bonuses to the Player:
-
An unconditional bonus at the end of the first season (due 30 June 2022), in the
amount of EUR 100,000 net less any bonuses already received by the Player in that
season as a result of win/draw bonuses contained in the Club’s bonus policy;
- An unconditional advance payment of EUR 100,000 net payable on
30 September 2022;
- An unconditional bonus at the end of the second season (due 30 June 2023), in the
amount of EUR 100,000 net less any bonuses already received by the Player in that
season as a result of win/draw bonuses contained in the Club’s bonus policy.
CTS AND DEFAULT NOTICES
5. In August 2022 during pre-season training, the Player was involved in an incident with a
teammate of his; in this respect, the Player was allegedly kicked in the groin and punched
in the face by the teammate.
6. At an unspecified date after the incident, the Player allegedly complained to the coaching
staff of the Club about the teammate’s conduct, seemingly to no avail.
7. On 30 September 2022, the advance payment of EUR 100,000 net fell due. The Player
allegedly sent several inquiries about the payment of such amount, which the Club
acknowledged but consistently delayed.
8. At an unspecified point in time, the Player, through his agent, allegedly asked the Club
about his role in the squad, as he had experienced diminishing playing time. The Club
allegedly informed the Player that he was a “big part of the Club’s plans” and “one of the
president’s favourite players”.
9. On 30 January 2023, the Club allegedly informed the Player that it intended to deregister
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11089
him with immediate effect and that he was welcome to search for a new club.
10. On 6 February 2023, an earthquake struck large parts of Türkiye and surrounding areas.
The Club is based approx. 200km from the epicentre of the earthquake.
11. Shortly after the earthquake (exact date unclear), the Player liked and reposted various
social media posts related to the earthquake, including one made by his partner, which
expressed concerns about returning to the city in which the Club is based due to
potential safety concerns.
12. On 11 February 2023, the Player was allegedly informed by his agent that his recent
social media activity, including the post made by his partner, angered the president of
the Club. The Player thereafter allegedly contacted the president of the Club to outline
that he meant no offence by his actions.
13. On 13 February 2023, the Club informed the Player that he “will not be on the roster due
to the number of foreigners. So you (i.e. the Player) do not need to come to Antalya.”
Furthermore, in the same set of correspondences, the Club informed the Player that he
would be offered two monthly salaries in order to sign a mutual termination agreement,
and that, were he not to accept such terms, he would be forced to train alone.
14. On 14 February 2023, the Club sent the Player a letter stating that “with your [i.e. the
Player’s] request, a temporary permission to not participating in training camps,
matches, etc. between the said date and 18 February 2023 was granted. The letter
further stated that the Player is expected to return to the facilities to attend trainings on
19 February 2023 once again.
15. On 19 February 2023, a further “permission slip” letter (as the one sent on
14 February 2023) was sent to the Player by the Club to authorize an absence between
19 February 2023 and 22 February 2023.
16. Beyond said date, according to the Player, the Club allegedly consistently informed him
in a verbal manner that he was no longer required to attend training until further notice.
17. On 23 February 2023, the Player’s agent sent a draft settlement agreement to the Club.
18. On 8 March 2023, the Club allegedly sent a notarized warning notice to the Player, to an
address in Istanbul which had been included in the Contract, indicating that the latter
did not attend training (specific dates unclear) and that he was given 7 days to remedy
his conduct.
19. On the same day, the Club arranged for a notary to visit its training session and confirm
attendance. A notary report was produced, corroborating that the Player was not
present at training.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11089
20. On 9 March 2023, the Player’s agent requested an update as to the draft settlement
agreement sent on 23 February 2023.
21. On the same day, the Club once again arranged for a notary to attend its training session
to confirm that the Player was not present at training. A notary report was produced to
this effect.
22. On 14 March 2023, a representative of the Club, in an exchange of WhatsApp
correspondences with the Player’s agent, revealed that the president of the Club was of
the opinion that the Player “did not deserve the guarantee bonus (EUR 100,000)” and
that he would not receive it under any circumstances.
23. On 15 March 2023, the Club responded with a counter-offer of EUR 300,000, payable in
six monthly instalments between May 2023 and October 2023.
24. On the same day, the Club once again arranged for a notary to attend its training session
to confirm that the Player was not present at training. A notary report was produced to
this effect.
25. On the same day, the Player reverted to the Club with a revised settlement offer, in the
amount of EUR 407,500 payable in two instalments on 20 March 2023 and 20 May 2023.
26. On the same day still, the Club informed the Player that it did not have the financial
capacity to make two payments of EUR 407,500 in the space of two months, and offered
EUR 325,000 as a settlement amount payable in seven instalments.
27. On 17 March 2023, the Player informed that his last offer was EUR 400,000 payable in a
schedule chosen by the Club, with the entire amount payable by the end of the season.
28. On 18 March 2023, the Club made its own final offer, in the amount of EUR 350,0000
payable in seven instalments between May 2023 and November 2023.
29. On 22 March 2023, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting the
outstanding amount of EUR 160,000 (advance payment plus salary of February 2023)
within 15 days. In the default notice, the Player also outlined various of the
abovementioned alleged contractual breaches by the Club.
30. On 24 March 2023, the Club arranged for a notary a further time to attend its training
session to confirm that the Player was not present at training. A notary report was
produced to this effect.
31. On 27 March 2023, the Club informed the Player via WhatsApp that the Contract was
terminated as of 25 March 2023, enclosing a unilateral termination letter as well as a fine
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11089
of EUR 200,000 for the Player’s alleged contractual breaches.
32. On 31 March 2023, the Player informed the Club that he would lodge a claim before FIFA.
33. On 24 April 2023, the Club sent the Player the documents referred to in its termination
letter also via WhatsApp, namely the various notary reports and the warning dated
8 March 2023.
34. On 31 March 2023, the Player signed an employment contract with the Norwegian Club
Viking FK- (hereinafter: the New Club or Intervening Party) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 December 2023 (hereinafter: the New Contract).
35. In accordance with the New Contract, the Player was entitled to receive NOK 65,000
(approx. EUR 5,500) per month as salary.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11089
II. Proceedings before FIFA
36. On 27 July 2023, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
37. On 11 September 2023, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player.
38. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
39. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause;
the Player alleged that he was being driven out after an altercation with another Player,
received his salaries with constant delay, and eventually completely excluded from the
squad by not being invited to attend a training camp and instead forced to train alone.
40. The Player alleged that the Club also, deceitfully, never communicated the warning letter
and notary reports of the absence from training, and whilst on one hand verbally stating
that the Player should abstain from attending training, marked him as absent to his
detriment.
41. The Player emphasised that he never received the warning letter dated 8 March 2023, as
the address to which this letter was sent was a “random” address in Istanbul, outside the
city in which not only the Player, but also the Club were based (namely Adana).
42. The Player also relied on witness statements by himself as well as his agent to corroborate
the above lines of argument and allegations as to the Club’s conduct.
43. The Player thus argued that the termination of the Contract by the Club was without just
cause, and claimed the following amounts:
-
EUR 61,500 corresponding to the salary of February 2023;
EUR 61,500 corresponding to the salary of March 2023;
EUR 100,000 corresponding to the advance payment due on 30 September 2022;
EUR 179,007.75 corresponding to the residual salaries under the Contract;
EUR 100,000 for the guarantee bonus in 2022/2023, payable on 30 June 2023;
EUR 300,000 aggravated damages for the sporting impact on the Player (missing out
on national team duty due to lack of playing time).
44. The total amount requested corresponded to EUR 802,007.75. All amounts were requested
in net, with interest as from the respective due dates.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11089
b. Counterclaim of the Club
45. The Club firstly denied that the Player suffered a decreased playing time as a result of the
incident with another teammate. In this respect, the Club argued that in August 2022, when
the incident occurred, he was involved in two of four matches, with the two remaining ones
being on the bench.
46. The Club further asserted that, if there was any decrease in playing time, this was solely
attributable to a professional decision by the coach due to sporting merit, which may not
be held against the Club.
47. It was equally put forward by the Club that, despite acting in good faith to find a solution
to mutually terminate the Contract, the Player refused to make reasonable efforts to settle
the disagreement and was set on lodging a claim before FIFA.
48. The Club also outlined that it never deregistered the Player until the date of termination,
thus demonstrating that until that point it attempted to keep the Player under contract.
The Club enclosed a statement from the Turkish Football Federation stating that the Player
had indeed been registered until 18 March 2023.
49. Moreover, the Club wished to stress that it paid the advance of EUR 100,000 in cash, and
that the request for said amount by the Player is erroneous. The Club further outlined that
the first time the Player formally raised this was when he sent his default notice on 22
March 2023. The Club thus invoked the principle of in tempore non suspect to argue that the
Player had, in fact, received the amount and that his course of actions is contradictory.
50. As for the Player’s participation in the training camp in Antalya, the Club insisted that the
former was present, contrary to his own statement.
51. The Club denounced the Player’s absence from training, and asserted that it had outlined
in its correspondence of 19 February 2023 that he is, unless otherwise instructed, expected
to attend training after 22 February 2023 again.
52. The Club also outlined that the notice was sent to the Player’s address contained in the
Contract, meaning that the successful notification thereof is unquestionable.
53. Lastly, the Club described that it had made payments of TRY 260,000 (approx. EUR 13,623)
in the concept of match bonuses, which are under the Contract deductible from the annual
bonus of EUR 100,000 payable on 30 June 2023.
54. The Club thus argued that the termination of the Contract was with just cause by itself and
requested the amount of EUR 150,000 as compensation, which it estimated as a justified
amount in line with sporting specificity.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11089
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
55. The Player largely reiterated the points from his previous submission, adding the following
arguments.
56. The Player emphasised that the incident in August 2022 was of great significance in slowly,
but consistently ostracizing the Player from the squad.
57. He also wished to stress that the address to which the warning was sent clearly did not
belong to the Player, as he allegedly stayed at the Adana Grand Sheraton Hotel during his
entire stay.
58. The fact that the Player was not deregistered before the termination of the Contract does
not, in his opinion, change the fact that the Club was in breach – the fact that he was
prohibited from attending training and not involved in any matches speaks for itself.
59. The Player vehemently denied the notion that he received the advance of EUR 100,000 in
cash, and stated that there was no evidence provided by the Club to corroborate this
allegation.
d. Position of the New Club / Intervening Party
60. Despite having been invited to do so, the New Club failed to provide its position to the
claim.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11089
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
61. 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 27 July 2023 and submitted for
decision on 7 December 2023. 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.
62. 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. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between an Icelandic player and a Turkish
club, with a Norwegian club as intervening party.
63. 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 (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 February 2023, the May 2023 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
64. 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
65. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11089
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
66. 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 lawfulness of the
contractual termination by the Club, and the corresponding liability to pay compensation
for a potential breach of contract by either party.
67. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether or not
the Club had a just cause to terminate the Contract prematurely, and as a result, which
party must pay compensation to remedy the unlawful breach of contract leading thereto.
68. Prior to entering the analysis of the matter, the Chamber recalled the parties’ submissions,
starting with the Player, who argued that the Contract was terminated abusively by the
Club. The Player had insisted that the Club was in breach of contract itself, by excluding the
Player from training, as well as failing to comply with the financial terms of the Contract.
69. On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the Club’s line of argument, who alleged that
it had warned the Player on various occasions that he had been absent from training and
that he was obligated to return, and that such breach of contract permitted it to unilaterally
terminate the Contract with just cause. The Club emphasised that the notification of the
warning was lawful and nonetheless ignored by the Player.
70. Moreover, the Chamber deemed it important to recall the wording of art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which a party asserting a certain fact also bears the burden
of proving its veracity.
71. Lastly, the Chamber reiterated its own jurisprudence as well as the provisions under
art. 14 of the Regulations, in accordance with which a premature contractual termination
may only be the result of a substantial or frequent enough breach of contract by the
counterparty. Where there are more lenient measures available to remedy the parties’
contractual relationship, these should be readily turned to as opposed to departing from
the contract outright. Indeed, a premature contractual termination should only be an
ultima ratio measure.
72. Having established the above, the Chamber proceeded to consider the matter on its merits,
and preliminarily wished to point out that the Player had provided no evidence of various
purported conversations that took place between himself and the Club – either in writing
or verbally.
73. Thus, neither the complaints about the alleged altercation in August 2022, the informal
reminders to pay the advance of EUR 100,000 or the Club’s intention to deregister him
could be corroborated in the matter at hand.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11089
74. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note that the following evidence had been adduced by
the Player, which it deemed significant in order to paint the picture of the contractual
relationship between the parties:
-
-
WhatsApp messages to the Player’s agent that the Player was not required to attend
the camp in Antalya and that he would be offered a settlement of two monthly
salaries, which if turned down, would result in his exclusion from training;
Instructions not to partake in training between 14 February 2023 and
22 February 2023;
Various settlement negotiation letters between February 2023 and March 2023;
WhatsApp messages to the Player’s agent from the Club stating that “he does not
deserve the advance payment and [the Club] will not give it to him”;
The termination of the Contract via WhatsApp.
75. The Chamber also observed that the Club’s allegation that the Player had, indeed, been in
the training camp in Antalya, was not corroborated by any evidence. Equally, the Club had
not challenged the authenticity of the text messages sent to the Player’s agent, in which
the latter was seemingly told to inform the Player that he was not required to attend the
camp.
76. The Chamber considered that this went hand-in-hand with the warning letter in which the
Club urged the Player to return to training. Whilst the Chamber noted that it was
successfully remitted to the address stated in the Contract, it was able to take note of
several aspects that undermined the conclusion that such warning may have effectively
reached the Player.
77. Firstly, the Chamber noted that the Contract had been signed more than two years prior
to the remittance of said warning, a considerable amount of time in which the Player could
likely have obtained a different address.
78. This was underpinned by the fact that the main place of performance of the Contract – the
city in which the Club is based – is more than 900km away from the address indicated in
the Contract, which, had it truly been the place of residence of the Player, would have made
the regular attendance of training and matches – i.e. the performance of the Contract’s
main obligations – virtually impossible.
79. Moreover, the Chamber noted that whilst there was a proof of remittance of the warning
on file, there was no corresponding proof of receipt, which further cemented the
conclusion of the Chamber that the warning never reached the Player.
80. Consequently, the abovementioned facts led the Chamber to the intermediary conclusion
that the Player had, at the earliest from 13 February 2023, been excluded by the Club from
training, and prevented to carry out his contractual obligations as required.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11089
81. Having said that, the Chamber also wished to point to the fact that the Club, though it had
alleged several breaches of contract in its correspondence with the Player to negotiate a
settlement agreement, provided no evidence or any specific explanation thereof.
82. Thereafter, when the Club was formally put in default for having failed to remit the amount
of EUR 100,000 corresponding to the advance due that season, not only did it fail to contest
the non-payment, but asserted in writing that the Player simply “did not deserve” the
advance payment at all.
83. The Chamber deemed that, had the Club truly believed that the Player had been in breach
of his obligations, to the extent of permitting the former to withhold payment of a
substantial sum under the Contract, it would have expressly indicated this in reply to the
Player’s default notice.
84. Lastly, the Chamber noted that the Club did not contest the non-payment of the salaries of
February 2023 and March 2023.
85. Summarising the above points, the Chamber considered it clear that the Club was not only
in breach of its financial obligations during the course of the Contract, but had also
behaved abusively towards the Player by excluding him from training, without displaying
any real intention of remedying the contractual relationship.
86. Therefore, the Chamber was able to reach the conclusion that the Club fell far short of the
standard of ultima ratio, outlined by the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and had
terminated the Contract without just cause to the Player’s detriment.
ii. Consequences
87. 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
Club.
88. The Chamber observed that the failure to pay the salaries of February 2023 and March
2023 remained undisputed, in the amount of EUR 61,500 net each.
89. Furthermore, as for the advance payment requested by the Player, the evidence on file
suggested that said amount had been deliberately withheld by the Club, with the allegation
of a cash payment by the latter remaining uncorroborated. Thus, the Chamber deemed
that the amount of EUR 100,000 net had equally remained unpaid.
90. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, EUR 223,000 net (i.e.
EUR 61,500 net times two, plus EUR 100,000 net).
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-11089
91. In addition, 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 at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the following dates:
-
On the amount of EUR 100,000 net, as from 1 October 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of EUR 61,500 net, as from 1 March 2023 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of EUR 61,500 net, as from 28 March 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. 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 270,872 net (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, or
EUR 184,500 net corresponding to the three salaries between April 2023, May 2023 and
June 2023, plus EUR 86,372 net as the residual bonus amount that would have fallen due
on 30 June 2023) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-11089
96. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to 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
DRC 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.
97. Indeed, the Player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 5,500 per month (that
is, NOK 65,000). Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages
in the total amount of EUR 16,500, that is, three times EUR 5,500.
98. 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 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 did not take place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and
therefore decided that the Player shall not receive additional compensation.
99. 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 254,372 net to the Player (i.e. EUR 270,872 minus EUR 16,500), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
100. 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 28 March 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
101. 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.
102. 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-11089
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. 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
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-11089
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Birkir Bjarnason, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Adana Demirspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 223,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 100,000 net as from 1 October 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 61,500 net as from 1 March 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 61,500 net as from 28 March 2023 until the date
of effective payment.
- EUR 254,372 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 28 March 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is 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. 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 / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-11089
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-11089
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. 19