Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2923
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Matthieu
Dossevi
BY:
Mr. Jon Newman (USA), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Matthieu Dossevi, France
Represented by Pinar Yuzer
RESPONDENT:
Denizlispor Kulubu, Turkey
Page 2
REF FPSD-2923
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 5 October 2020, the French player, Matthieu Dossevi (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
Turkish club, Denizlispor Kulubu Dernegi (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2021.
2.
In accordance with clause 3 of the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay
to the Claimant inter alia EUR 400,000 payable as follows:
-
3.
On 14 January 2021, the parties signed an agreement, based on which the payments due to
the Claimant were rescheduled as follows:
-
4.
EUR 85,000 due on 5 October 2020;
EUR 45,000 due on 30 October 2020;
EUR 45,000 due on 30 November 2020;
EUR 45,000 due on 31 December 2020;
EUR 45,000 due on 31 January 2021;
EUR 45,000 due on 28 February 2021;
EUR 45,000 due on 31 March 2021;
EUR 45,000 due on 15 May 2021
EUR 70,000 on 14 January 2021;
EUR 90,000 on 1 March 2021;
EUR 90,000 on 4 April 2021;
EUR 45,000 on 15 May 2021.
By correspondence dated 18 May 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of EUR 185,000, setting a 10-day time limit in order to remedy the default, however
to no avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 28 June 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, further to the parties signing an agreement to reschedule the
payments due to him, the Respondent paid the first instalment in the amount of EUR 70,000.
Moreover, the second payment was partially paid by the Respondent, i.e. EUR 40,000, instead
of EUR 90,000.
7.
The Claimant adds that the third and fourth instalments were never made by the Respondent.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2923
8.
Consequently, according to the Claimant, the Respondent was in default for the amount of
EUR 185,000 and that the default notice remained unanswered.
9.
In conclusion, the Claimant is requesting payment of his outstanding remuneration in the
amount of EUR 185,000.
b. Position of the Respondent
10. According to the Respondent, it made all the necessary payments to the Claimant and
attached various receipts in support of its submission.
11. In view of the above, the Respondent requested that the claims of the Claimant be dismissed.
c. Additional comments of the Claimant
12. The Claimant was requested by the FIFA Administration to confirm if he received the alleged
payments as submitted by the Respondent.
13. In this regard, the Claimant confirmed having received from the Respondent the total amount
of EUR 215,000. What is more, the Claimant contested the alleged payment of Turkish Lira
(TRY) 19,370 as indicated by the Respondent, stating that even though he received this
amount, it was in fact a match bonus payment and not a salary payment.
14. The Claimant also added that the Respondent had submitted receipts for amounts paid to
him that were not contested in his claim.
15. The Claimant therefore reiterated his initial claim and requested payment of EUR 185,000 as
outstanding remuneration.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. First of all, the Single Judge Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 28 June 2021 and submitted for
decision on 27 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2021 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.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2923
17. Subsequently, 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 lit. a) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition) and art. 24 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules, the Single Judge of 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 French player and a Turkish club.
18. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 June 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
19. 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 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
20. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that on 14 January 2021, the parties had signed an
agreement based on which the payments due to the Claimant were rescheduled.
22. In continuation, the Single Judge noted the Claimant’s submission that further to the signing
of the above agreement, the Respondent paid the first instalment of EUR 70,000, a partial
payment of EUR 40,000 for the second instalment and that the third and fourth instalments,
amounting to EUR 185,000 respectively, were never paid by the Respondent.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2923
23. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent in its response submitted
that it made all the relevant payments to the Claimant and requested that his claim be
rejected.
24. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the amounts
as submitted by the Respondent but stated that these amounts were not contested in his
claim.
25. However, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant contested the payment of TRY 19,370 as
submitted by the Respondent, stating that this was a payment for a match bonus.
26. On analysis of the document submitted by the Respondent in this regard, the Single Judge
noted that the receipt indeed stated that the payment of TRY 19,370 was for the “Goztepe
win premium”. As a result, the Single Judge deemed that said payment cannot be considered
as a salary payment to the Claimant and should therefore be disregarded.
27. With the above in mind, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent failed to meet its
burden of proof in regards to its submission that it paid all outstanding amounts to the
Claimant, as it submitted receipts for amounts that were either not contested or claimed by
the Claimant or were paid to the Claimant as a match bonus.
ii. Consequences
28. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned his attention to the
question of the consequences of such non-compliance with financial obligations committed
by the Respondent.
29. 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 agreement, i.e. EUR 185,000 (50,000 as partial payment
of the second instalment, EUR 90,000 as the third instalment and EUR 45,000 as the fourth
instalment).
30. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 185,000 as from 20 May 2021until the date
of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
31. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24bis
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his decision, the pertinent FIFA
Page 6
REF FPSD-2923
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.
32. 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.
33. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 the Regulations.
34. 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.
35. 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. 24bis par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2923
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Matthieu Dossevi, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Denizlispor, has to pay to the Claimant, EUR 185,000 as outstanding
remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 May 2021 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. 24bis 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 the ban shall
be of 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. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
6. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-2923
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).
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
Page 9