DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16420
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Isaac Cofie
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Isaac Cofie, Ghana
Represented by Professional Footballers Association of Ghana
RESPONDENT:
Umraniyespor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16420
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 September 2023, the Ghanaian player Isaac Cofie (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Umraniyespor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2024.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a total amount of EUR
170,000 net payable in instalments as follows:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
EUR 22,000 due on 30 October 2023
EUR 18,500 due on 30 November 2023
EUR 18,500 due on 30 December 2023
EUR 18,500 due on 30 January 2024
EUR 18,500 due on 28 February 2024
EUR 18,500 due on 30 March 2024
EUR 18,500 due on 30 April 2024
EUR 18,500 due on 30 May 2024
EUR 18,500 due on 30 June 2024
3.
In addition, the Player was entitled to an advance fee of EUR 5,000 net due on the date of
signature, and certain performance bonuses.
4.
By correspondence dated 5 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default of payment,
setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default. According to such
correspondence, the Player was owed the following outstanding amounts:
−
−
−
−
EUR 3,000 as the partial outstanding salary for March 2024
EUR 18,500 as the outstanding salary for April 2024
EUR 18,500 as the outstanding salary for May 2024
EUR 18,500 as the outstanding salary for June 2024
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 3 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Player, he was owed salaries corresponding to part of March 2024, as well
as his entire monthly salaries for April, May, and June 2024, which remained unpaid without
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16420
a prima facie contractual basis in the sense of art. 12bis of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
7.
The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is herewith requesting the FIFA DRC to
determine that the Club has overdue payables towards him and that the Club must pay him the
amount of EUR 58,500 as per the employment contract + 5% interest until the date of effective
payment, specified as follows:
• EUR 3,000 as the last part of the March 2024 salary + 5% interest p.a. from 1 April 2024;
• EUR 18,500 as the salary for April 2024 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2024;
• EUR 18,500 as salary for May 2024 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024;
• EUR 18,500 as the salary for June 2024 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024.”
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
According to the Club, it had remitted all payments due to the Player until that date,
purporting to add payment receipts in support of its allegations.
9.
The Club further alleged that the amount requested by the Player was “unfair and much
more than it should be.”
10. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“7. Request for Relief
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 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
temporary amendment to Procedural Rules declared with Circular 1720.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16420
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. 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, it took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 3 October 2024 and submitted for
a decision on 14 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 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.
12. 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 (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 a Ghanaian player
and a Turkish club.
13. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), the
aforementioned edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
14. 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 he 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
15. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16420
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
16. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of overdue payables on the basis of the
employment contract signed by and between the parties.
17. The Single Judge observed that, according to the Player, he was owed three full monthly
salaries (April, May, and June 2024) in addition to a partial – fourth – monthly salary (March
2024). Conversely, the Club sustained that it had paid all amounts due to the Player. Hence,
the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on the arguments
and evidence presented by the parties, if any amounts were indeed outstanding pursuant
to the Contract.
18. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent bore the burden of proving that
it complied with the payments foreseen in the Contract, as claimed by the Player.
Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that while the Club replied to the claim and referenced
bank receipts as part of its reply, which would have allegedly covered at least part of the
amounts claimed, it – either by oversight or by design – failed to adduce such evidence to
the file.
19. Therefore, and bearing in mind art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and the general
principle of the burden of proof, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not advance any
supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Club had indeed paid all or even part of the
amounts claimed, thus failing to rebut the Player’s allegations.
20. In view of the all the foregoing considerations, and bearing in mind the basic legal principle
of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the
parties in good faith, the Single Judge decided that the Club is held liable to pay the Player
his outstanding remuneration pursuant to the Contract, in the amount of EUR 58,500.
21. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the
Player interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from their
respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
22. In continuation, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16420
23. 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 more than 30 days before, and granted the
Club a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
24. Accordingly, the Single Judge 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.
25. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he
has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the above, and
considering that the Club had incurred previous sanctions, the Single Judge decided to
impose a warning and a fine of USD 11,250 on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par.
4 and 5 of the Regulations.
26. Lastly, the Single Judge 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.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 Player’s request, 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.
30. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16420
31. 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
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16420
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Isaac Cofie, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Umraniyespor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 58,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 3,000 as from 1 April 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,500 as from 1 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,500 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,500 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
A warning and a fine in the amount of USD 11,250 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-16420:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16420
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. 10
REF. FPSD-16420
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 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. 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. 11