Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15136
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Renat
Dadashov
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Renat Dadashov, Azerbaijan
Represented by Sergio Araujo
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ismail Coskun
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15136
I. Facts of the case
Parties
1.
2.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Azerbaijani player Renat Dadashov (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant), born
on 17 May 1999; and
•
the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF).
The Player and the Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties.
Player’s loan to the Club and their employment relationship
3.
In July 2022, the Player entered in an employment relationship with the Swiss club
Grasshopper Club Zürich (hereinafter: Grasshopper), valid until June 2024.
4.
On 4 September 2023, Grasshopper and the Club entered into a loan agreement by which
the services of the Player were temporarily transferred from the former to the latter
(hereinafter: the Loan Agreement). The loan period was defined as from the date of signing
until 30 June 2024.
5.
Around the same date, the Parties entered into an employment contract valid from 6
September 2023 to 30 June 2024 (hereinafter: the Employment Contract).
6.
According to clause 3 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player,
inter alia, the following concepts:
•
the total remuneration of EUR 550,000 net, payable as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
EUR 55,000 on 30 September 2023;
EUR 55,000 on 31 October 2023;
EUR 55,000 on 30 November 2023;
EUR 55,000 on 31 December 2023;
EUR 55,000 on 31 January 2024;
EUR 55,000 on 29 February 2024;
EUR 55,000 on 31 March 2024;
EUR 55,000 on 30 April 2024;
EUR 55,000 on 31 May 2024; and
EUR 55,000 on 30 June 2024.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15136
•
“a house during the period of this employment contract. All utility expenses (electricity,
telephone, water etc.) will be paid by the Player”.
Correspondence between the Parties
7.
On 3 May 2024, the Player gave notice of default to the Club, demanding payment of EUR
165,000 as salary from February to April 2024 and TRY 237,500 as accommodation
allowance from September 2023 to April 2024. He requested that the default be remedied
within 15 days.
8.
It should be noted that the Player sent the above-mentioned notice by courier to the Club,
to the postal address stated in the employment contract and to his alleged new address in
Turkey.
9.
On 4 June 2024, the Player notified the Club of the termination of the Employment Contract
due to overdue payments. He demanded that the Club pay him the outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract within the next three days, failing
which he would seek redress from FIFA.
10. The Player informed that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Employment Contract and for the overlapping period.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 3 July 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the parties’
position is set out below.
a. Player’s position
12. On 3 July 2024, the Player filed a claim with FIFA for breach of contract.
13. In his claim, the Player stated that the club had failed to meet its financial obligations and
had therefore given cause for the early termination of the Employment Contract in
accordance with art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(RSTP).
14. In light of the above, the Player requested to be awarded the following amounts:
•
EUR 227,333.33 net as outstanding salaries, broken down as follows:
o
o
o
EUR 55,000 net as the salary for February 2024;
EUR 55,000 net as the salary for March 2024;
EUR 55,000 net as the salary for April 2024;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15136
o
o
•
EUR 55,000 net as the salary for May 2024; and
EUR 7,333.33 net as the pro rata salary for June 2024 (i.e., 4 days).
TRY 275,000.02 net as outstanding accommodation allowance, broken down as
follows:
o
TRY 50,000 as the accommodation allowance for the period between 21
September and 20 October 2023;
o
TRY 50,000 as the accommodation allowance for the period between 21
October and 20 November 2023;
o
TRY 29,166.67 as the accommodation allowance for the period between
27 November and 26 December 2023;
o
TRY 29,166.67 as the accommodation allowance for the period between
27 December 2023 and 26 January 2024;
o
TRY 29,166.67 as the accommodation allowance for the period between
27 January and 26 February 2024;
o
TRY 29,166.67 as the accommodation allowance for the period between
27 February and 26 March 2024;
o
TRY 29,166.67 as the accommodation allowance for the period between
27 March and 26 April 2024; and
o
TRY 29,166.67 as the accommodation allowance for the period between
27 April and 26 May 2024.
•
EUR 47,666.67 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Employment Contract (i.e., the balance of June 2024 salary);
•
EUR 2,599.32 as interest on the outstanding salaries and TRY 6,930.37 as interest
on the outstanding accommodation allowance; and
•
Default interest from 4 July 2024 until the date of payment.
15. The Player’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“I. This Claim must be upheld, by proved, declaring that the Respondent was found to be
in breach of the employment contract, namely for non-payment of the salaries of
February, March and April of 2024 and non-payment of the housing monthly rents for all
period of the employment contract, declaring as well that the breach was of such
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15136
seriousness that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual
relationship with the Respondent;
II. This Claim must be upheld, by proven, declaring that the employment contract
termination by the Claimant with just cause, was lawful, once the Respondent was and
still is in breach of that employment contract, namely for non-payment of the salaries of
February, March and April of 2024 and non-payment of the housing monthly rents for all
period of the employment contract;
III. The [Club] be ordered and condemned to pay to the Claimant […] the total sum of
Eur.: 277.599,32 (TWO HUNDRED, SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED, NINETYNINE EUROS AND THIRTY-TWO CENTS) net as outstanding salaries and compensation for
the earlier employment contract termination with just cause - and TRY 281.674,68 (TWO
HUNDRED, EIGHTY-ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED, SEVENTY-FOUR TURKISH LIRA AND
SIXTY-EIGHT CENTS) - as housing monthly rents -, plus interests due for the delay of the
agreed payment calculated from 04.07.2024 until full and effective payment”.
b. Club’s reply
16. On 6 August 2024, the Club submitted its response to the claim of the Player and refuted
his position as follows:
•
the Club argued that the Player’s claims had been paid, but did not provide any
documentary evidence to support of its position;
•
the Player was not entitled to an accommodation allowance, but rather to a
“housing provided by the Club”. Nevertheless, the Player was offered a house that
was equally available to the other members of the Club and he chose another
option by his own choice. Therefore, the Club should not be liable to pay an
accommodation allowance and the Player’s claim should be rejected.
17. The Club’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“In light of the foregoing, the Club respectfully requests the DRC to decide and/or order
as follows:
• Dismiss the case on the grounds that the player's claims cannot be accepted in
accordance with the contract signed between the parties.
• Provided that it does not mean acceptance, if the case will not be dismissed an
equitable reduction in the calculation of the receivables.
• Provided that it does not mean acceptance, if you decide to the contrary of the above
situations, we request a decision to make an equitable reduction”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15136
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 3 July 2024 and submitted for decision on 29
August 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
19. 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 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 Azerbaijani
player and a Turkish club.
20. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 July 2024, the cited edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. 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
22. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15136
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Chamber moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by the Player against the Club.
24. In particular, the DRC acknowledged that the Player terminated the Contract on 4 June
2024, claiming that he had just cause due to overdue payments amounting to more than
two of his salaries (i.e., from February to April 2024). Furthermore, the Player provided
evidence that he had given the Club a reasonable period of time to remedy the breach (i.e.,
15 days), but to no avail.
25. In this context, the DRC determined that the Club bore the burden of proving that it had in
fact complied with the financial terms of the Employment Contract.
26. Notwithstanding the argument that it had paid the Player in full, the Chamber observed
that the Club had limited itself to providing an alleged financial balance of the payments,
which appeared to be an internal (and unofficial) spreadsheet that had not even been
translated into any of the official FIFA languages. As such, the DRC found that this evidence
was of no probative value in accordance with art. 13 par. 1 and 3 of the Procedural Rules
and should therefore be disregarded.
27. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Club had failed to meet its burden of
proof. In other words, it concluded that such a persistent and substantial breach of its
contractual obligations justified the unilateral termination of the Contract in this case and
that, in accordance with the consistent jurisprudence of the DRC, the Club should be held
liable for breach of contract.
28. On the basis of the factual and contractual situation at hand, the DRC decided that the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations and that the Club should be liable for the consequences thereof.
ii. Consequences
29. The Chamber then turned to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach
of contract committed by the Club.
Outstanding remuneration
30. In doing so, the Chamber first determined that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Club is liable to pay to the Player the salaries
outstanding at the time of the termination, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
• EUR 55,000 net as the salary for February 2024, plus interest from 1 March 2024;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15136
• EUR 55,000 net as the salary for March 2024, plus interest from 1 April 2024;
• EUR 55,000 net as the salary for April 2024, plus interest from 1 May 2024;
• EUR 55,000 net as the salary for May 2024, plus interest from 1 June 2024.
31. The Chamber outlined that as the Player terminated the Employment Contract on 4 June
2024, the entire salary of June 2024 should be factored as part of the compensation for
breach of contract (see below).
32. In addition, the Chamber also noted that the Player claimed to be entitled to
reimbursement of the amounts paid for rent. Nevertheless, the Chamber was not
persuaded by the Player’s position in this respect. In particular, the DRC found it decisive
that (i) the Contract only referred to the Player’s entitlement to a house, as opposed to a
rent allowance; (ii) the Player did not explain why he had entered into a different rental
agreement on his own; and (iii) the Player did not submit any evidence to confirm that he
had reached an agreement with the Club concerning the reimbursement of his expenses.
33. Therefore, the DRC decided that this part of the Player’s claim should be dismissed.
Compensation for breach of contract
34. Having established the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
35. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
36. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15136
37. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable under the terms of the Employment Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 55,000 net (i.e., the instalment due in June 2024) serves
as the basis for determining the amount of compensation due for breach of contract.
38. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another Club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
39. In this case, the Chamber found that the Player remained unemployed after the
termination of the Contract and, therefore, no mitigation applied.
40. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables and should there be mitigation. Since there was no mitigation and
the compensation can never exceed the residual value of the original contract, the DRC
decided that the Player is not entitled to receive additional compensation.
41. Consequently, based on all the above considerations and the specificities of the present
case, the Chamber decided that the Club should pay the Player the amount of USD 55,000
net, which was considered as a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present case.
42. Taking into account the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in
this regard, the latter decided to award him interest on said compensation at the rate of
5% p.a. as from the date of the termination of the Contract (i.e., 4 June 2024) until the date
of effective payment.
iii. Sporting Sanctions
43. The Chamber noted that, in the recent past, the Respondent had also been found liable by
the Football Tribunal on numerous occasions for the early termination of employment
contracts without just cause 1.
1
See, for example, FPSD-9921, FPSD-14780, FPSD-14820, FPSD-14777.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15136
44. Pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, in addition to the obligation to pay
compensation (if any), sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any club that is found to
have committed or induced a breach of contract during the protected period.
45. The protected period is defined in the Regulations as “a period of three entire seasons or
three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
46. In the present case, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player was below the age of 28
years old when he signed the Employment Contract. As three years or three full seasons
had not elapsed at the time the Employment Contract was terminated, the Chamber
confirmed that the termination took place within the protected period.
47. At the same time, the Chamber recalled that (i) the Player terminated the employment
relationship with the Club for just cause due to numerous overdue payments; and (ii) the
Club was a repeat offender in this respect. As such, and by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Club shall be prohibited from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next two complete and consecutive
registration periods following the notification of this decision.
48. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to art. 24 par. 3 lit. a) of
the Regulations, the consequences of failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time may
be excluded if the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction on the basis of art. 17
in the same case. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the consequences of failure
to pay the relevant sums in due time provided for in art. 24 of the Regulations in the present
case and that, should the Club fail to comply with this decision in due time, it would be for
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to take the necessary measures in accordance with the
FIFA Disciplinary Code.
d. Costs
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15136
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Renat Dadashov, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 55,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 55,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 55,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 55,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 55,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 4 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
6.
If full payment is not made within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present
matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15136
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13