DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18069
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kembelly
Felicio Campos
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI, Qatar
CLAIMANT:
Kembelly Felicio Campos, Brazil
Represented by Wallace Joacir Alves de Oliveira
RESPONDENT:
Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18069
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
• the Brazilian player Kembelly Felicio Campos (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
• the Turkish club Amed Sportif Faaliyetler (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF).
2.
The Player and the Club are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties.
3.
On 7 September 2023, the Club sent an employment offer to the Player, stating as follows,
quoted verbatim:
“As Amed Sportive Activities Club, we would like to see KEMBELLY FELICIO CAMPOS with
passport number GH368619 in our team in the 2023-2024 TFF Women's Football League
season. As Amed Sportive Activities Club, all expenses of the player will be covered by our
club.
A preliminary contract was signed between Vice President Ali Riza YILDIRIM and athlete
KEMBELLY FELICIO CAMPOS and the player accepted the offer. Accommodation, food,
health and flight tickets will be provided by our club. As the embassy. The deal with the
player was set at $1100”.
4.
According to the Player, on the same date, the Parties also signed a contract entitled
“Protocol” (hereinafter: the Contract), valid for the 2023/2024 season.
5.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Player would be entitled to the following remuneration,
quoted verbatim:
“2- A $1100 pay deal was reached with the player. Salary will be paid monthly throughout
the season and at the end. The money to be given to the manager alter negotiating with
the player is. Payment will be made only once.
3- The monthly minimum wage agreement for the player has been formed, and the
minimum wage will be paid when the league begins or at the end of the season as a
whole, based on the 10-month minimum wage agreement”.
6.
It must be noted that the copy of the Contract provided by the Player only contained her
signature.
7.
On 12 September 2023, the Player flew from Sao Paulo (Brazil) to Istanbul (Türkiye).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18069
8.
On 15 September 2023, the Club registered the Player in the FIFA Transfer Matching System
(TMS) as an amateur (Transfer ID no. 747626).
9.
Also according to the information available in TMS, the 2023/2024 season in amateur
football in Türkiye ran as from 14 August 2023 until 30 June 2024.
10. On 21 January 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, demanding payment of
USD 2,200 within 10 days. The Player also requested to be provided with a signed copy of
the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 4 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
12. In her claim, the Player alleged that she signed the Contract and complied with its terms,
but that the Club failed to pay her two of her salaries.
13. The Player alleged that she contacted the Club by WhatsApp on several occasions, but to
no avail.
14. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“a) Declare that the labor contract signed between the parties is valid and binding;
b) Establish that [the Club] has unlawfully breached the contract for non-compliance with
its financial obligations;
c) Condemn [the Club] to pay the outstanding salaries of $ 2,200:
d) Impose a sporting sanction on [the Club], banning it from registering new players for
two entire and consecutive registration periods;
e) Order the club to pay interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the overdue salaries;
f) Condemn the club to bear all legal costs and expenses incurred by the claimant”.
b. Position of the Club
15. On 11 March 2025, the Club responded to the Player’s claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18069
16. The Club initially confirmed that it actually had a contract with the Player but claimed that
it had no outstanding debts. The Club claimed that it had settled its debts, but failed to
upload any documentation to support its allegation.
17. In particular, despite referring to an alleged “Annex-1”, the Club did not attach any exhibits
to its response.
18. Finally, the Club requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“7.1. The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal
about the present case.
7.2. Consider the amounts paid and good faith of the Respondent while evaluating the
Claimant requests according to the reasons explained above and according to the bank
receipts which was provided by the Respondent and setoff 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
19. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 February 2025 and submitted for
decision on 1 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
20. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 Brazilian player and a Turkish club.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18069
1 and 2 and art. 29, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
22. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
consider evidence not filed by the Parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
23. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for outstanding remuneration brought by a player against a club.
25. The Single Judge noted that the Parties did not dispute that they had entered into an
employment relationship. The Single Judge therefore considered that the Contract, even
though it contained only the Player’s signature, the Contract was in fact concluded and was
valid and binding on the Parties.
26. Next, the Single Judge noted that, on the one hand, the Player claimed that the Club had
failed to pay her 2 months’ salary despite the fact that she had provided services for the
entire season. On the other hand, the Club argued that the Player had not taken into
account the payments already made, which allegedly covered the entire debt.
27. In this context, the Single Judge noted that the Club, as the employer and debtor in the
present case, had the burden of proving that it had fulfilled all its financial obligations
towards the Player. However, the Single Judge found that the Club had not provided any
evidence in support of its position and had therefore failed to discharge its burden of proof.
28. As a result, the Single Judge decided that the Player was entitled to the balance of USD
2,200.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18069
29. In addition, and as the Player’s request for relief was unspecified, the Single Judge decided
that the outstanding amount should bear interest from the date of the claim (i.e., 4
February 2025) until the date of effective payment.
ii. Article 12bis of the Regulations
30. The Single Judge 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.
31. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due form more than 30 days, and granted the Club with
10 days to cure such breach of contract.
32. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in mind
that this is the second offense by the Club within the last two years, the Single Judge decided to
impose a reprimand on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) of the Regulations.
33. In this connection, the Single Judge wished to highlight 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
34. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
35. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
36. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18069
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
37. 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.
38. The Single Judge 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
39. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
40. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
41. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18069
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kembelly Felicio Campos, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 2,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 February 2025
until the date of effective payment.
3.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18069
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 – 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. 10