Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19157
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Isaac
Donkor
BY:
Michele COLUCCI, Italy
CLAIMANT:
Isaac Donkor, Italy
Represented by Elite Law SA
RESPONDENT:
Adanaspor A.S., Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19157
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 September 2024, the Italian player, Isaac Donkor (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Turkish club, Adanaspor A.S. (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signing until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia an annual fixed remuneration of EUR 65,000 net, divided into 10 monthly instalments
of EUR 6,500 each, for the 2024/2025 season. To be paid starting on 30 September 2024
until 30 June 2025.
3.
On 15 April 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of EUR 32,500
net, setting a time limit expiring on 30 April 2025 in order to remedy the default.
4.
On 5 May 2025, the Claimant issued a second default notice and added that in the absence
of any response from the Respondent, it was also to be considered as a notification of
termination of the Contract under just cause.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 7 May 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, the Player had only received 2 monthly salaries to date,
respectively paid on 15 November 2024 and 3 January 2025 for a total of EUR 13,000.
7.
Therefore, according to the Claimant, the outstanding salaries amounted to EUR 39,000
net.
8.
The Claimant subsequently terminated the Contract, alleging just cause, following the
Club’s presumed failure to meet its financial obligations to the Player, leaving six monthly
salaries unpaid.
9.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“In view of the foregoing, Mr Isaac Donkor respectfully requests FIFA to rule as follows:
I.
The claim filed by Mr Isaac Donkor before the FIFA DRC against Adanaspor Spor
Etkinlikleri Ve İşletmeciliği TIC. A.Ş. is upheld.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19157
II.
Mr Isaac Donkor terminated his Contract with just cause.
III.
Consequently, Adanaspor Spor Etkinlikleri Ve İşletmeciliği TIC. A.Ş. is condemned
to pay Mr Isaac Donkor the following:
A. Outstanding Remuneration:
EUR 39,000 net divided as follows
a. EUR 6,500 net plus 5% interests p.a. as of 1 December 2024 until its full
and effective payment;
b. EUR 6,500 net plus 5% interests p.a. as of 1 January 2025 until its full and
effective payment;
c. EUR 6,500 net plus 5% interests p.a. as of 1 February 2025 until its full
and effective payment; and
d. EUR 6,500 net plus 5% interests p.a. as of 1 March 2025 until its full and
effective payment;
e. EUR 6,500 net plus 5% p.a. interests as of 1 April 2025 until its full and
effective payment;
f. EUR 6,500 net plus 5% p.a. interests as of 1 May 2025 until its full and
effective payment.
B. Compensation for breach of Contract:
EUR 13,000 net plus 5% interests p.a. since 5 May 2025 until the date of full and
effective payment.
IV.
Adanaspor Spor Etkinlikleri Ve İşletmeciliği TIC. A.Ş. shall bear any and all the
possible costs of this procedure.”
b. Position of the Respondent
10. According to the Respondent, the Club had difficulties in collecting its receivable arising
from contracts concluded with third clubs, and such situation should be considered as a
hardship that prevents the Club from fulfilling its contractual obligations.
11. The Respondent also argued that the delay in payments is due to a force majeure event (i.e.
7.8 magnitude earthquake that occurred on 6 February 2023) which impacted the Club’s
financial and operational capacity.
12. In this context, according to the Respondent, the Club continued to be severely affected by
the earthquake’s aftermath as the Club’s financial income streams had been presumably
reduced as a result of the earthquake.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19157
13. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Club had faced economic hardship due to the
volatility of the Turkish economy and the depreciation of the Turkish Lira (TRY).
14. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“Adanaspor respectfully requests FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) To accept the present reply brief from Adanaspor,
(ii) To reject all of the claims of the Player,
(iii) To order the Player to bear the procedural costs regarding this case.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 7 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 23 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
16. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
an Italian player and a Turkish club.
17. 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. 26 of
the Regulations (July 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19157
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
19. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
that, according to the Claimant, there was a breach of contract by the Respondent, which
in turn led the Claimant to terminate the contract with just cause.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether
there was a termination with just cause by the Claimant and the consequences thereof.
22. The Single Judge noted that to properly address this matter, it is necessary to analyse art.
14bis of the Regulations, which establishes two requirements to justify the termination of
a contract due to overdue payments: (i) the club must owe at least two months of overdue
salary; and (ii) the player must have formally notified the club in writing and granted a 15day period to fulfil its financial obligations.
23. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant terminated the
Contract on 5 May 2025 due to overdue payments of 6 salaries. Therefore, the first
requirement was met, as the Club owed at least two months of overdue salary.
24. Additionally, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant did send a notification on 15 April
2025, in which he placed the Club in default and granted a 15-day period to fulfil its financial
obligations. Thus, the second requirement was also satisfied.
25. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent argued that the
delay in payments was due to: (i) the financial situation of the Club; (ii) a force majeure event
(i.e. 7.8 magnitude earthquake that occurred on 6 February 2023); and (iii) the depreciation
of the national currency.
26. That being said, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had not provided any evidence
regarding the alleged financial difficulties, therefore failing to discharge his burden of proof
in accordance with art. 13 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19157
27. In the same vein, and following established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the
Single Judge noted that the Contract had been concluded quite some time after the events
causing such purported state of force majeure had taken place, which in turn suggests that
the Respondent could have anticipated its (in)ability to comply with the financial obligations
agreed therein.
28. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to dismiss the reasoning of the Respondent and
conclude that there is no valid justification to contravene the well-established principle of
pacta sunt servanda in the case at hand.
29. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant terminated the Contract
with just cause in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
31. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
39,000 net, detailed as follows:
⎯ EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration of November 2024 plus 5% p.a. as from
1 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
⎯ EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration of December 2024 plus 5% p.a. as from
1 January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
⎯ EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration of January 2025 plus 5% p.a. as from 1
February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
⎯ EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration of February 2025 plus 5% p.a. as from 1
March 2025 until the date of effective payment.
⎯ EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration of March 2025 plus 5% p.a. as from 1
April 2025 until the date of effective payment.
⎯ EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration of April 2025 plus 5% p.a. as from 1 May
2025 until the date of effective payment.
32. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19157
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
33. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first had to clarify
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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the Contract.
34. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art.
17, par. 1 of the Regulations.
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 13,000 net (i.e. the full residual value of
the Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
36. In continuation, the Single Judge verified whether the Claimant 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
Football Tribunal 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.
37. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player had not signed a new employment
contract with another club.
38. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 13,000 net to the Claimant (i.e. the full residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
39. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 5 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19157
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
43. 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.
44. 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
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19157
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Isaac Donkor, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Adanaspor A.S., must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
−
EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
−
EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
−
EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
February 2025 until the date of effective payment;
−
EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March
2025 until the date of effective payment;
−
EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April
2025 until the date of effective payment;
−
EUR 6,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May
2025 until the date of effective payment;
−
EUR 13,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 5 May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4. 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.
5.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-19157
6. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19157
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. 12