DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17372
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Endri Çekiçi
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Endri Çekiçi, Albania
Represented by Çağlar Akoğlu
RESPONDENT:
Siltas Yapi Pendikspor Futbol A.Ş., Türkiye
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17372
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 August 2023, the Albanian player Endri Çekiçi (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant)
and the Turkish club Siltas Yapi Pendikspor Futbol A.Ş. (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 17
August 2023 until 30 June 2025.
2.
Pursuant to the “Payment and Special Provisions” section of the Contract, the Club undertook
to pay to the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) a fixed monthly
remuneration of EUR 20,000 net between September 2023 and June 2024 and between
September 2024 and June 2025 (i.e., a total fixed remuneration of EUR 400,000 net).
3.
Also, on 17 August 2023, the Parties concluded the so-called “Protocol”, in accordance with
which the Club undertook to make the following additional payments to the Player:
“FOR 2023/2024 FOOTBALL SEASON
o 300.000 EURO NET will be paid as down payments as follows:
➢ 200.000 EURO has been paid on 17.08.2023.
➢ 100.000 EURO will be paid on 24.08.2023.
o 400.000 EURO NET total will be paid in ten equal instalments between September 2023 –
June 2024 as 40.000 EUR for each month. (In addition to the 200.000 Euros salary written
in the TFF Professional Player Contract, 400.000 Euros will be paid to the Player by the
Club. To put it more clearly, the Player will be paid total net salary of 600.000 as a result
of 200.000 Euros specified in the TFF Professional Player Contract and 400.000 Euros
specified in this Protocol. Thus, the Player will receive a monthly salary of 60.000 Euros
for months between September 2023 and June 2024).
FOR 2024/2025 FOOTBALL SEASON
o 300.000 EURO NET will be paid as down payment on 31.08.2024.
o 400.000 EURO NET total will be paid in ten equal instalments between September 2024 –
June 2025 as 40.000 EUR for each month. (In addition to the 200.000 Euros salary written
in the TFF Professional Player Contract, 400.000 Euros will be paid to the Player by the
Club. To put it more clearly, the Player will be paid total net salary of 600.000 as a result
of 200.000 Euros specified in the TFF Professional Player Contract and 400.000 Euros
specified in this Protocol. Thus, the Player will receive a monthly salary of 60.000 Euros
for months between September 2024 and June 2025).”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17372
4.
On 14 June 2024, the Club sent an email to the Player summoning him for a meeting
scheduled for 25 June 2024.
5.
On 5 July 2024, the Player’s and the Club’s legal representatives exchanged several
WhatsApp messages where they discussed the terms for the termination of the Contract.
The Parties agreed to conclude two separate agreements: one regarding the Contract and
another one for the Protocol.
6.
In the context of the negotiations, the legal representatives of the Parties exchanged the
following WhatsApp messages:
[Player]: “I am checking immediately. Ms. Yasemin is ok if we write the amount as 200, pls.”
[Club]: “General wording is not enough :)”
[Player]: “Let’s write pls. I am done really :)”
[Club]: “In the event that the aforementioned 20.000 Euro is not paid until 23.07.2024, the
Player shall be entitled to receive 200.000 Euro amounts agreed in the Player’s contract
registered with the TFF as termination compensation. The parties have agreed on this
matter. Is it good like this.”
[Player]: “Yes, let’s put the same also to protocol its okay.”
[Club]: “In the event that the aforementioned 20.000 Euro is not paid until 23.07.2024, the
Player shall be entitled to receive 200.000 Euro amounts agreed in the Player’s contract
registered with the TFF as termination compensation. The parties have agreed on this
matter. Is it good like this.”
7.
On 5 July 2024, the Parties mutually terminated the Contract.
8.
The following documents were submitted to the Football Tribunal:
o A first version of the “Termination and Settlement Agreement” submitted by the Player
(hereinafter, the Player’s Termination Agreement), which is only signed by the Player,
allegedly concluded on 5 July 2024, in accordance with which:
“1.2. The Parties have agreed that the Player has a total receivable of NET 80.000 EURO as
salary (March, April, May and June salaries), in relation to his receivables from the Club
arising from the Professional Football Player Contract and its annexes with the starting date
of 17.08.2023 and ending date 30.06.2025. The said NET 80.000 EURO, paid to the Player
by the Club on signature of this agreement. However, the Club accepts, declares and
undertakes that the Club will pay NET 20.000 EURO to the Player as termination
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17372
compensation. The said NET 20.000 EURO will pay to the Player by the Club until 23.07.2024
at the latest.
In the event that the aforementioned 20.000 Euro is not paid until 23.07.2024, the Player
shall be entitled to receive 200.000 EURO amounts agreed in the Player’s contract registered
with the TFF as termination compensation.”
o A first version of the “Termination and Settlement Agreement for Protocol” submitted by
the Player (hereinafter, the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement), also only signed by
the Player and allegedly concluded on 5 July 2024, in accordance with which:
“1.2. The Parties have agreed that the Player has a total receivable of NET 160.000 NET as
salary (March, April, May and June salaries) in relation to his receivables from the Club
arising from the Protocol dated 17.08.023 [sic] and its annexes. However, the Club accepts,
declares and undertakes that the Club will pay NET 80.000 EURO to the Player as
termination compensation. The said NET 240.000 EURO, NET 20.000 EURO paid to the Player
on signature of this agreement and NET 220.000 EURO will be paid to the Player by the Club
until 24.07.2024 at the latest. (More specifically, two mutual termination agreements have
been signed with the Player, this Termination and Settlement Agreement for Protocol and
the Termination Agreement dated 05.07.2024. NET 100.000 EURO agreed in the Termination
and Settlement Agreement dated 05.07.2024 and NET 240.000 EURO agreed in this
Termination and Settlement Agreement for Protocol will be paid to the Player in total NET
340.000. The said NET 340.000 EURO, NET 100.000 EURO paid to the Player on signature of
this agreement and NET 240.000 EURO will be paid to the Player by the Club until 24.07.2024
at the latest).
In the event that the aforementioned 240.000 Euro is not paid until 24.07.2024, the Player
shall be entitled to receive 700.000 EURO amounts agreed in the Protocol dated 17.08.2023
as termination compensation.”
o A second version of the Termination Agreement submitted by the Club, allegedly
signed by both Parties on 5 July 2024 (hereinafter, the Club’s Termination Agreement), in
accordance with which:
“1.1. The parties terminate by mutual agreement all contractual relationship undersigned
between them and expressly declare not to have any claims whatsoever against the other.
The parties waives [sic] all his rights to each other because of the demand and mutual intent
of both parties about the early termination of the TFF Professional Player Contract with
expiry date 30.06.2025.
1.2. In this context; the Player accepts and undertakes to release the Club irrevocably for all
the obligations set in the Contract and also the other agreements, arrangements and
understandings made by and between the parties regarding the same period and for any
other claims / compensation related to employment contract(s) and their annexes. The Club
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17372
also hereby explicitly and irrevocably releases the Player from any and all obligations from
the employment contract between the Parties, and its annexes.”
o A second version of the Protocol Termination Agreement submitted by the Club, only
signed by the Club (hereinafter, the Club’s Protocol Termination Agreement, allegedly
signed on 5 July 2024, pursuant to which:
“1.2. The Parties have agreed that the Player has a total receivable of NET 160.000 EURO as
salary (March, April, May and June salaries) in relation to his receivables from the Club
arising from the Protocol dated 17.08.2023 and its annexes. However, the Club accepts,
declares and undertakes that the Club will pay NET 80.000 to the Player as termination
compensation. The said NET 240.000 EURO, NET 100.000 EURO paid to the Player on
26.07.2024 and NET 140.000 EURO will be paid to the Player by the Club until 02.08.2024 at
the latest.”
9.
Also, on 5 July 2024, the Club paid EUR 100,000 to the Player.
10. On 23 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default, denouncing that it had sent a
forged version of the termination agreement to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) (i.e.,
the Club’s Termination Agreement). The Player also requested the Club the payment of
EUR 940,000 under the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol
Termination Agreement allegedly signed on 5 July 2024. The Player granted the Club a
deadline of 10 days to fulfil its contractual obligations.
11. On 3 October 2024, the Club replied to the Player rejecting his claims, and informed him
that he had acknowledged not having any claims against it in the Club’s Termination
Agreement.
12. On 14 January 2025, the Player concluded a new employment contract with the Turkish
club Adanaspor A.Ş., valid as from 14 January 2025 until 30 June 2025.
13. According to this new employment contract, the Player is entitled to receive EUR 175,000
net in 5 monthly instalments of EUR 35,000 net from January to May 2025, as well as a signon fee of EUR 50,000 net.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17372
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 5 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
15. The Player argued that at the end of the 2023/2024 season, the Club got relegated from
the Turkish Super League, and that he was informed by the Club that it wished to terminate
the Contract.
16. The Player contended that the terms of the agreement for the termination of the Contract
were exchanged via WhatsApp, and that, on 5 July 2024, he signed both the Player’s
Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement, leaving the
copies at the Club for its signature, as the President of the Club was not present. In this
regard, the Player argued that he has never received a signed copy by the Club of the
Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement.
17. The Player asserted that he signed three payment receipts that would be handed by his
representatives to the Club upon payment of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000 and EUR 140,000
respectively. In this regard, the Player acknowledged having received EUR 100,000 on 5 July
2024 and USD 100,000 on 26 July 2024. The Player also confirmed having handed the Club
two receipts for EUR 100,000 each.
18. According to the Player, on 23 July 2024, the Club contacted his agents and tried to change
the conditions of the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol
Termination Agreement. In this regard, the Player stated that the President of the Club
signed another termination agreement regarding the Protocol (i.e., the Club’s Protocol
Termination Agreement), removing the penalty clause included in the initial Player’s
Protocol Termination Agreement and changing the payment dates. The Player asserted
that he refused to sign the Club’s Protocol Termination Agreement.
19. Moreover, the Player contended that, on 5 July 2024, the Club also presented him with a
one-page version of the termination agreement (i.e., the Club’s Termination Agreement)
whereby he acknowledged not having any receivables from the Club. The Player argued
that he also refused to sign it.
20. The Player contended that the Club accepted that it owed the Player EUR 240,000 under
the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement. In this regard, the Player pointed out that
“The Club must explain how it is possible that the Player has a document in his hand (despite he
is not agreed) which says that the Club will pay 240.000 Euro to the player for termination and
the Club informs TFF as the parties will not pay any amount to each other.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17372
21. The Player argued that he did not sign the Club’s Termination Agreement submitted by the
Club to the TFF, and therefore contended that it has to be considered that the Club
terminated the employment relationship without just cause. As such, the Player claimed to
be entitled to EUR 40,000 net as outstanding remuneration for the 2023/2024 season and
to compensation in the amount of EUR 900,000 net, representing the residual value of the
Contract and the Protocol. In the alternative, the Player claimed being entitled to
EUR 900,000 net under the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol
Termination Agreement.
22. The Player requested the following relief:
“1. The Claimant would like to request from the FIFA Football Tribunal to decide that the
Respondent terminated the contract without just cause,
2. The Claimant would like to request from the FIFA Football Tribunal to decide that the
Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 40.000 net with its interest of 5% p.a. accrued
from 30 June 2024 until the effective payment date as the unpaid amount of 2023/2024
salary.
3. The Claimant would like to request from the FIFA Football Tribunal to decide that the
Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 900.000 with its interest of 5% p.a. as
compensation accrued from the termination date i.e. 13 September 2024 until the effective
payment date as the residual value of the contract and agreement.
4. Or alternatively the Claimant would like to request from the FIFA Football Tribunal to
decide that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 900.000 with its interest of 5%
p.a. according to the mutual termination agreements accrued from 24 July 2024 until the
effective payment date.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
23. In its reply, the Club initially objected to the admissibility of the videos mentioned by the
Player in his claim, as they were recorded without its consent.
24. As to the merits of the case, the Club argued that, on 5 July 2024, the Parties concluded the
Club’s Termination Agreement, whereby the Player declared not having any claims against
it. According to the Club, the Player and his representatives retained custody of the Club’s
Termination Agreement and took the documents with them. In this regard, the Club
asserted that it took a picture after the Player signed the Club’s Termination Agreement as
a precautionary step.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17372
25. The Club contended that it undertook its best efforts to complete the registration of the
Club’s Termination Agreement with the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter, the TFF),
but that this process was delayed due to the Player’s failure to provide it with the original
version of the document.
26. The Club asserted that the Club’s Termination Agreement, which was duly signed by the
Player on 5 July 2024, is valid and binding between the Parties, as the Player was given a
period of reflection and the Club’s Termination Agreement contained reciprocal
concessions of equivalent value. In this regard, the Club argued that the Club’s Termination
Agreement was first presented to the Player on 25 June 2024, and that it was only signed
on 5 July 2024.
27. In addition, the Club argued that the Club’s Termination Agreement includes reciprocal
concessions of comparable value between the Parties. In this regard, the Club sustained
having committed to pay to the Player EUR 340,000, which included EUR 40,000 as
outstanding remuneration and EUR 300,000 as compensation for the early termination of
the Contract, i.e., representing one third of the value of the Contract. The Club added that
this was not included in the Club’s Termination Agreement, but that it was verbally agreed
upon the Parties.
28. The Club argued that it fulfilled its financial obligations arising from this verbal agreement,
as it paid to the Player the following amounts:
o EUR 100,000 in cash, on 5 July 2024, which was acknowledged by the Player.
o EUR 100,000 in cash, upon signature of the Termination Agreement, which is
allegedly evidenced by the video recording.
o EUR 140,000 on the same date, prompting the Player to sign an additional
termination document confirming that no debts existed between the Parties, i.e., the
Club’s Termination Agreement.
29. According to the Club, the Player did not prove that it prepared or subsequently modified
the versions of the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol Termination
Agreement on which he bases his claim, nor that it forged the Club’s Termination
Agreement by adding the Player’s signature. Moreover, the Club argued that the Player
himself confirmed that he signed all the documents presented to him.
30. The Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the factual and legal considerations, as well as the documentation referenced
and enclosed above, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) to render the following decision:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17372
1. Dismissal of the Claim. To reject and dismiss the Player’s Statement of Claim in its entirety
as unfounded and unsubstantiated.
2. Confirmation of validity and authenticity. To confirm and uphold the validity and
authenticity of the Termination and Settlement Agreement as a binding document
accurately reflecting the mutually agreed terms between the parties.
3. Disciplinary sanctions. To impose appropriate disciplinary sanctions on the Claimant for
advancing baseless and unsustainable criminal allegations against the Respondent.
4. Reimbursement of fees. To order the Claimant to reimburse the Respondent for all costs,
expenses, and fees incurred in connection with these proceedings, including but not
limited to attorney’s fees.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
31. In his replica, the Player initially asserted that the video recordings and the transcripts
should be admissible. Alternatively, the Player argued that the transcripts submitted by the
Club should be deemed inadmissible on the basis of the objections raised by the Club in
this regard.
32. The Player reiterated that it only signed the Player’s Termination Agreement and the
Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement, and denied having signed the Club’s Termination
Agreement as argued by the Club. Alternatively, the Player contended that if it were
accepted that it signed such document, it would be null and void in accordance with Turkish
law.
33. The Player insisted that, under the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s
Protocol Termination Agreement, the Club undertook to pay him EUR 340,000, and that the
Club did not submit any proof of the alleged payment made. In this regard, the Player
confirmed having handed two payment receipts to the Club for the total amount of EUR
200,000, thereby arguing that EUR 140,000 remains unpaid.
34. The Player argued that it was not him but rather the Club that drafted the Player's
Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement. In this regard,
the Player referred to the WhatsApp conversation which demonstrates that the Club
presented him with the said documents.
35. The Player reiterated his request for relief.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17372
d. Duplica of the Respondent
36. In its duplica, the Club argued that the Player implicitly acknowledged having signed the
Club’s Termination Agreement, and also rejected that it should be declared null and void
based on Turkish law.
37. The Club insisted that it did not prepare the Player’s Termination Agreement and the
Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement as argued by the Player. In this regard, the Club
asserted that the Player failed to explain how he managed to submit these documents
along with his claim if they were never sent to the Player.
38. The Club reiterated that the Player acknowledged having signed all the documents
required to terminate the employment relationship, thereby confirming the authenticity of
the Club’s Termination Agreement, and that he did not file a claim before the criminal
authorities in Türkiye.
39. The Club reiterated its request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 30 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 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.
41. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Albanian player
and a Turkish club.
42. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17372
b. Burden of proof
43. 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
44. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
45. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that this is a claim
by a player against a club for breach of contract and, in the alternative, for overdue
payables arising from the termination of the employment relationship and the financial
terms allegedly agreed between the Parties.
46. The Chamber started the analysis of the present case by briefly recalling the Parties’
submissions, starting with the Player, who argued the following:
o On 5 July 2024, he signed the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s
Protocol Termination Agreement. The Player left the copies at the Club for signature,
but never received a signed copy of the aforementioned agreements.
o Pursuant to the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol
Termination Agreement, the Club undertook to pay him EUR 100,000 and EUR
240,000, respectively, by 23 July 2024.
o In accordance with the aforementioned two agreements, in case the Club failed to
pay the agreed amounts by 23 July 2024, the Club would be liable to pay to the
Player, as a contractual penalty, the residual value of the Contract and the Protocol
in the total amount of EUR 900,000, i.e., EUR 200,000 and EUR 700,000, respectively.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17372
o Although the Club did not sign the Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s
Protocol Termination Agreement, the terms of these two agreements were
exchanged and agreed via WhatsApp.
o The Club forged the Club’s Termination Agreement. As a consequence, it has to be
considered that the Club unilaterally terminated the employment relationship
without just cause. According to the Player, he is entitled to EUR 40,000 net as
outstanding remuneration and EUR 900,000 net as compensation, representing the
residual value of the Contract and the Protocol.
o In the alternative, and considering that the Club has only paid EUR 100,000 and USD
100,000 of the EUR 340,000 agreed under the Player’s Termination Agreement and
the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement, the Player is entitled to EUR 900,000,
as defined above.
47. The Chamber then recalled that the Club, for its part, contended the following:
o The Parties agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and it was verbally
agreed that the Club would pay the Player EUR 340,000 as compensation for the
early termination. According to the Club, this sum included EUR 40,000 as
outstanding remuneration and EUR 300,000 as compensation.
o The Club has already complied with the aforementioned verbal agreement, as it has
paid the Player EUR 340,000.
o The existence of the aforementioned agreement and the payments made is
evidenced by the Club’s Termination Agreement which the Player also signed and
where he acknowledged not having any claims against the Club.
48. In view of the Parties’ submissions, the Chamber first noted that it remained undisputed
that the Parties had agreed to mutually terminate the Contract and the Protocol, as
confirmed by the Player, who argued having signed the Player’s Termination Agreement
and the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement on 5 July 2024.
49. In this context, the Chamber concluded that the Club did not unilaterally terminate the
employment relationship and, therefore, it decided that the Player’s claim for breach of
contract could not be upheld.
50. Having been established the above, the members of the Chamber went on to analyse the
Player’s alternative claim for overdue payables arising from the Player’s Termination
Agreement and the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17372
51. The Chamber first noted that both the Player and the Club argued to have submitted videos
of the date of the alleged signature of the different agreements, as well as transcripts of
those videos. The Chamber, however, noted that no videos were presented as evidence,
and therefore decided that the transcripts provided have little probative value. As a
consequence, the Chamber underscored that the existence of an agreement between the
Parties regarding the financial terms of the termination of the Contract and the Protocol
had to be made based on the Parties’ submissions and the other evidence on file.
52. In this regard, the Chamber first noted that it remained undisputed that the Club
undertook to pay EUR 340,000 to the Player in exchange for the mutual termination of the
Contract.
53. While, as argued by the Player, this is the total amount payable based on the Player’s
Termination Agreement, the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement and also the Club’s
Protocol Termination Agreement, the Club, for its part, confirmed that it was verbally
agreed that it would pay EUR 340,000 to the Player.
54. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Player acknowledged having received EUR
100,000 and USD 100,000, but denied having received the remaining EUR 140,000. In fact,
the Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club forged the Club’s Termination
Agreement, by means of which the Player declared not having any claims against the Club.
Regarding the position of the Club, the Chamber took note that it contended to have
already paid the agreed amount, as evidenced by the fact that the Player signed the Club’s
Termination Agreement.
55. At this point, the DRC considered appropriate to remark that FIFA’s deciding bodies are not
competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified
signature or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent
national criminal authority. In order to be able to solve such disputes in a satisfactory and
timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation and conclusion of a potential
criminal investigation, the Football Tribunal adopts a practical procedure in such cases,
namely, to request the party who claims the authenticity of the disputed document to
provide its original version via regular mail. If for a layman the document appears to be
authentic and in line with the further documentation on file, such document is considered
as authentic for the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.
56. The Chamber noted that the Club was not able to submit the original version of the Club’s
Termination Agreement within the deadline granted by the FIFA general secretariat,
arguing that the Player retained such document. At the same time, the Chamber also noted
that the Player contended that it was the Club who retained all the documents he was
instructed to sign.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17372
57. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously established that the Club’s Termination
Agreement could not be taken into account in the context of the present dispute. In other
words, the Chamber decided that the Club’s Termination Agreement did not constitute
proof of the payment of EUR 140,000, as argued by the Club.
58. Therefore, and considering that no proof of payment regarding the disputed amount was
submitted by the Club, the Chamber decided that the Player is entitled to EUR 140,000 as
outstanding amount.
59. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal, the DRC decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the aforementioned amount as from 24 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment, as requested.
60. Lastly, the Chamber addressed the Player’s claim for the residual value of the Contract and
the Protocol. The DRC recalled that, according to the Player, the Parties agreed that if the
Club failed to make the agreed payments by 23 July 2023, it would be liable to pay
EUR 900,000 as the residual value of the Contract and the Protocol, in accordance with the
Player’s Termination Agreement and the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement.
61. The Chamber, nonetheless, noted that neither the Player’s Termination Agreement nor the
Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement submitted were signed by the Club. According to
the Player, the terms of the termination were discussed and agreed via WhatsApp between
the Parties’ legal representatives.
62. In this regard, and after having carefully analysed the WhatsApp messages exchanged
between the Parties, the Chamber noted that, on 5 July 2024, the Club literally sent the
following message to the Player, which was included in the Player’s Termination Agreement
presented by the Player:
“In the event that the aforementioned 20.000 Euro is not paid until 23.07.2024, the Player
shall be entitled to receive 200.000 EURO amounts agreed in the Player’s contract registered
with the TFF as termination compensation.”
63. The Chamber also noted that, in reply to the aforementioned message, the Player stressed
that “Yes, let’s put the same also to protocol its okay.”
64. In view of the above, the Chamber determined that the Parties had clearly reached an
agreement by means of which the Club undertook to pay an additional amount of EUR
200,000 as a contractual penalty in case the payment of EUR 20,000 was not made by 23
July 2024. The Chamber further underscored that the Club did not dispute the authenticity
of the aforementioned WhatsApp messages exchanged with the Player.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17372
65. Considering that the Club failed to pay the aforementioned amount as agreed, the
Chamber established that the contractual penalty was triggered, and therefore the Club is
liable to pay the Player said penalty, in the amount of EUR 200,000.
66. The Chamber considered that a contractual penalty of EUR 200,000 is reasonable in view
of the total outstanding amount and the particularities of the case at hand. In particular,
the Chamber underscored that such amount corresponded to the residual value of the
Contract, which the Club undertook to pay in case it failed to remit the payment as agreed.
67. The Chamber, by recalling the legal principle of non bis in idem, further established that no
interest should be applicable over the penalty.
68. Lastly, the Chamber determined that the foregoing contractual penalty for the Player’s
Termination Agreement cannot be extended to the Player’s Protocol Termination
Agreement. In fact, the Chamber stressed that, although the Player requested that a
contractual penalty also be included in the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement, it
cannot be established, based on the evidence on file, that the Club also agreed to said
contractual penalty for the Player’s Protocol Termination Agreement.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
69. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
70. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
71. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
72. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the club. The DRC also highlighted that
a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more
severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
73. On account on the above, and considering that the Respondent is a repeat offender, the
Chamber decided to impose a fine of USD 10,000 on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17372
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
77. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
78. 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
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17372
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Endri Çekiçi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Siltas Yapi Pendikspor Futbol A.Ş., must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 140,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest per annum as from 24 July 2024
until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 200,000 as contractual penalty.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A fine in the amount of USD 10,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-17372:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17372
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17372
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 20