DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16015
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Anastasios Chatzigiovannis
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Anastasios Chatzigiovannis, Greece
Represented by Riza Köklü
RESPONDENT:
MKE Ankaragücü, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16015
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 18 July 2022, the Greek player Anastasios Chatzigiovannis (hereinafter, the Claimant or
the Player) and the Turkish club MKE Ankaragücü (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 18 July 2022
until 31 May 2024.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following remuneration:
“For the football season 2022-2023:
The Club undertakes to pay a total of 495.000 Euros net to the Player for the 2022/2023 football
season for the following terms:
67.500 Euros net on 31.08.2022
67.500 Euros net on 30.09.2022
45.000 Euros net on 31.10.2022
45.000 Euros net on 30.11.2022
45.000 Euros net on 31.12.2022
45.000 Euros net on 31.01.2023
45.000 Euros net on 28.02.2023
45.000 Euros net on 31.03.2023
45.000 Euros net on 30.04.2023
45.000 Euros net on 31.05.2023
Other benefits
- The Club will make an annual contribution of 10.000 Euros net to contribute to the Player’s
accommodation, flight and car expenses by 31.08.2022.
For the football season 2023-2024
The Club undertakes to pay a total of 522.500 Euros net to the Player for the 2023/2024
football season for the following terms:
71.250 Euros net on 31.08.2023
71.250 Euros net on 30.09.2023
47.500 Euros net on 31.10.2023
47.500 Euros net on 30.11.2023
47.500 Euros net on 31.12.2023
47.500 Euros net on 31.01.2024
47.500 Euros net on 28.02.2024
47.500 Euros net on 31.03.2024
47.500 Euros net on 30.04.2024
47.500 Euros net on 31.05.2024
Other benefits
- The Club will make an annual contribution of 10.000 Euros net to contribute to the Player’s
accommodation, flight and car expenses by 31.08.2023”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16015
3.
Moreover, Clause 1 of the General Provisions of the Contract provided as follows:
“All fees to be paid to the Player under this contract are net. If any kind of taxes arises about the
player due to this contract, it will be paid by the club (…)”.
4.
In accordance with Clause 9 of the Contract:
“Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this Contract shall be dealt with exclusively
by the judicial bodies of FIFA and resolved in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players”.
5.
On 30 March 2023, the Player submitted an annual income tax declaration for the fiscal
year 2022 based on his income earned during his employment relationship with the Club.
Pursuant to the tax declaration, the Player was requested to pay the amount of
TRY 749,770,26 as income tax in the following instalments:
- TRY 374,737,68 on 31 March 2023;
- TRY 294,90 on 31 March 2023; and
- TRY 374,737,68 on 31 July 2023.
6.
On 5 June 2024, the Player lodged a claim against the Club before the Football Tribunal,
with reference FPSD-14855. In his claim, the Player argued that, following the expiry of the
Contract, he still had a total amount of EUR 200,000 net in receivables. Furthermore, the
Player stated in his claim that “(…) we hereby state that we reserve our rights to claim for all
taxes –including income tax– that have accrued / will accrue”. Based on the foregoing, the
Player requested the following relief:
“By reserving our every legal right and for the facts and legal arguments that were developed
above, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is respectfully requested:
1. To accept the claim of [the Claimant].
2. To condemn [the Respondent] to pay in favor of the Claimant the total unpaid and overdue
payments of Net EUR 200,000 along with the interest rate of 5% p.a. starting from the below
due dates until the date of effective payment;
• Net EUR 10.000 along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 31 August 2023 until the
date of effective payment.
• Net EUR 23,750 along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 30 September 2023 until
the date of effective payment.
• Net 23,750 along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 28 February 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16015
• Net EUR 47.500 along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 31 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
• Net EUR 47.500 along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 30 April 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
• Net EUR 47.500 along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 31 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
3. To establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent”.
7.
On 14 June 2024, the Player paid TRY 491,949.69 to the tax office.
8.
On 18 June 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Club to provide its position on the
claim (FPSD-14855) by no later than 8 July 2024.
9.
On 27 June 2024, upon request of the Club, the aforementioned deadline was extended
until 18 July 2024.
10. On 23 July 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat informed the Parties about the closure of the
submission-phase. The Club failed to reply to the claim (FPSD-14855) despite being invited
to do so.
11. On 20 August 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested reimbursement of
TRY 491,749.38 as income tax. The Player granted the Club a deadline of ten days to fulfill
its contractual obligations.
12. On 27 August 2024, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed a decision
on the case FPSD-14855 (hereinafter, the Decision), the findings of which were notified to
the Parties also on 27 August 2024, in the following terms:
“Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, (…), is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, (…), must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 200,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,000 net as from 1 September 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,750 net as from 1 October 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16015
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 23,750 net as from 29 February 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 47,500 net as from 1 April 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 47,500 net as from 1 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 47,500 net as from 1 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
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”.
13. On 28 August 2024, the Club requested the grounds of the Decision.
14. On 16 December 2024, the grounds of the Decision were notified to the Parties.
15. On 25 December 2024, the Club presented a Statement of Appeal against the Decision
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16015
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 12 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
17. According to the Player, the Club failed to reimburse him TRY 491,749.38 per his tax invoice
despite the provisions of the Contract.
18. The Player requested the following relief:
“Reserving all our legal rights / the other receivables and on the basis of the facts, legal
arguments that set out above, we respectfully request the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Accept the claims of [the Claimant].
2. Oder [the Respondent] to pay in favour of the Claimant the total overdue and outstanding
tax receivable of net TRY 491.749,38 along with interest rate of 5% p.a. from 3 September
2024 until the date of effective payment.
3. Establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent”.
b. Position of the Club
19. In its reply, the Club sustained that the present claim is inadmissible as it is affected by res
iudicata. In this respect, the Club argued that the previous proceedings (FPSD-14855) and
the present one involve the same parties, the same object and the same cause. In
particular, the Club argued that “Although the claimant identified his request as “outstanding
tax receivable”, it is crystal clear that the claimed amount in the second case is outstanding
remuneration derived from the employment contract as same as the first claim. (…) The Player
made the payments to the tax office, and based on the contract, he had the right to request
these amounts from the club. As a result, the same object and the same cause criteria were
fulfilled for res iudicata effect”.
20. Moreover, the Club argued that the res iudicata effect extends to all the facts existing at the
time of the first decision, whether or not they were known to the parties, stated by them,
or considered as proof in the Decision. In this respect, the Club added that the Player made
a payment to the tax office in the amount of TRY 450,000 in November 2023, thus being
fully aware of this when he lodged the first claim, as well as that he paid the remaining tax
on 14 June 2024, i.e., before the notification of the Decision.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16015
21. The Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the above-mentioned explanations and other reasons that may be considered by the
Chamber, the claim should be considered as inadmissible. We kindly request you decide that the
claim is inadmissible. We hereby reject the case”.
c. Replica of the Player
22. In his replica, the Player initially pointed out that the Club did not dispute the tax receivable
nor the claimed amounts, but that it only argued that the claim should be inadmissible for
the existence of res iudicata.
23. In this respect, the Player argued that only one of the cumulative elements of res iudicata
is met, namely, the same parties. According to the Player, whilst in his first claim he sought
payment of overdue and outstanding salaries, in the present claim he requests
reimbursement of outstanding and tax receivables, and therefore the object and the cause
are different.
24. The Player insisted on the fact that the Club undertook to pay any taxes arising from the
Contract, and argued that it was the Club, and not him, who made the payment of
TRY 450,000 to the tax office on 29 November 2023.
25. The Player sustained that the Club complied with its contractual obligations with regard to
the first payment and that, nonetheless, it failed to pay the remaining part of his tax invoice,
which lead to its collection by the Turkish Tax Authority by freezing his bank accounts on
14 June 2024.
26. Moreover, the Player argued that in his first claim he reserved all his rights in relation to
the reimbursement of taxes. In addition, that the tax office collected the remaining part of
taxes on 14 June 2024, i.e., after the first claim was lodged on 5 June 2024 and, therefore,
“the tax receivable was not demandable from the Club at the time of the first case was filed”.
27. Accordingly, the Player insisted on his entitlement to the reimbursement of the amounts
claimed, and reiterated his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Club
28. In its duplica, the Club insisted on the effect of res iudicata in the present case. In addition,
the Club stressed the following:
- The player paid part of the tax payment (450,000 TRY) in November 2023.
- The player was fully aware of this partial tax payment when he created the first case (FPSD-
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16015
14855) on 5th June 2024. However, the player did not request this amount (450,000 TL) in his
first case.
- Right after the first case was created on 5th June 2024, the player made the remaining part of
the tax payment on 14th June 2024, before the date of the first decision which is 27 th August
2024. After the payment on 14th June 2024, the Player still had a chance to amend his claim
in front of FIFA. However, he did not make it.
- As all the payments were made by the player before the first decision date, res iudicata effect
is valid and should be considered by the chamber in this second case.
29. The Club reiterated its request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. 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 12 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 16 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 par. 1 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.
31. 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 a Greek player and
a Turkish club.
32. 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 (January 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the claim
33. Before moving to the substance of the present case, the Chamber noted that the Club
sustained that the present dispute is inadmissible as it is affected by res iudicata. In
particular, the DRC noted that, according to the Respondent, the dispute already decided
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16015
in FPSD-14855 involves the same parties, the same object and the same cause, as well as
that the res iudicata effect extends to all the facts existing at the time of the first Decision,
whether or not they were known to the parties, stated by them, or considered as proof in
the previous decision.
34. The Chamber also noted that, for his part, the Player denied that the present dispute was
affected by res iudicata, arguing that whilst in his first claim he sought payment of overdue
and outstanding salaries, in the present claim he is requesting the reimbursement of
outstanding and tax receivables. Therefore, the Player sustained that the object and cause
of the two proceedings are different.
35. In view of the above, the DRC acknowledged that its first task was to assess whether the
present claim was affected by res iudicata.
36. In this regard, the DRC remarked that although it concurred with the Club’s allegations as
to the three necessary elements that must concur in order for the res iudicata principle to
apply, i.e., eadem personae, eadem res and eadem causa petendi, the main requirement for
the existence of res iudicata is that the previous decision is final and binding.
37. The DRC remarked that, as outlined by the Chairperson of the Chamber in the expedited
decision submitted by the Club in support of its allegations, “(…) on the basis of the principle
of res judicata, a decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case
in the event that another –competent– body has already dealt with the same matter by passing
a final and binding decision”.
38. It follows from the foregoing that the fact that the first Decision is not yet final and binding
(since the Club has exercised its right to appeal it before CAS) already excludes the
application of the principle of res iudicata, without it being necessary to examine the three
conditions for its application.
39. For the sake of completeness, the DRC wished to point out that in any case, contrary to the
Club’s allegations, the object and cause of the two proceedings are different. Whereas in
the first case the dispute concerned the Club’s failure to pay certain sums agreed in the
Contract as salary, in the present case the Player seeks reimbursement of the taxes he has
had to pay as a result of the Club’s failure to do so.
40. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the DRC also remarked that the Player has proven that
the payment of the taxes for which he now seeks reimbursement was not made until 14
June 2024, whereas his first claim was filed on 5 June 2024. In other words, if the Player had
requested the reimbursement in his first claim, the Decision would have found that specific
request to be premature, as no taxes had been paid by the Player when he lodged his first
claim.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16015
41. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Player
is admissible, as the present dispute is not affected by res iudicata, and that it could
therefore proceed with the analysis of the present dispute as to the merits.
c. Burden of proof
42. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
43. 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
44. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim by a player against a club for reimbursement of taxes.
45. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Player claimed being entitled to TRY 491,749.38 net
as reimbursement based on the tax invoice submitted to the file and after having paid such
amount to the Turkish tax authorities on 14 June 2024.
46. The Chamber also noted that, on its part, the claim remained undisputed by the Club as to
its substance.
47. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that it its task was to assess whether the Club should
be held liable to reimburse the amount of TRY 491,749.38 net paid by the Player to the tax
authorities.
48. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, pursuant to Clause 3 of the Contract, the Parties
agreed that the Club would pay the Player’s salary in net amounts. In addition, the Chamber
also noted that in accordance with Clause 1 of the General Provisions of the Contract, “All
fees to be paid to the Player under this contract are net. If any kind of taxes arises about the
player due to this contract, it will be paid by the club (…)”.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16015
49. The DRC considered that the foregoing clause clearly provided that the Club was liable not
only to pay to the Player his salary in net amounts, but also any taxes that may accrue on
that salary.
50. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Player submitted the relevant evidence to
substantiate its position by presenting the invoice of the Turkish tax authorities requesting
him the payment of the amounts sought and also proof of its payment on 14 June 2024.
51. In light of the clear and unambiguous wording of the foregoing provision, considering that
the Club did not oppose to the claim of the Player as to the substance and the
aforementioned proof, and based on the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Club must reimburse TRY 491,749.38 net to the Player.
52. 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 Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% per annum on the reimbursement, as from 3 September 2024 as requested by the
Player, until the date of effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
53. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a payment for more than 30 days without prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
54. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the Club
a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
55. Accordingly, the DRC confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without a prima
facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the Regulations
was met in the case at hand.
56. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the Club. In addition, the DRC highlighted that,
pursuant to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty.
57. On account of the above, and considering that the Club is a repeat offender within the
meaning of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber decided to impose a fine of USD
4,000 on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. d) of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16015
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
e. Costs
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16015
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Anastasios Chatzigiovannis, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, MKE Ankaragücü, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
TRY 491,749.38 net as reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as from 3 September
2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
A fine in the amount of USD 4,000 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-16015:
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. 14
REF. FPSD-16015
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16015
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. 16