Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14458
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 September 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Okwuchukwu Francis Ezeh
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Okwuchukwu Francis Ezeh, Nigeria
Represented by Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
Eyüpspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14458
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 August 2022, the Nigerian player Okwuchukwu Francis Ezeh (hereinafter: the Claimant
or the player) and the Turkish club Eyüpspor (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 8 August 2022
until 31 May 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a net
monthly salary expressed in the contract only as “MINIMUM WAGE.”
3.
The parties also signed an additional document (hereinafter: the Additional Protocol) – dated
prior to the contract, i.e., 4 July 2022 – whereby the Respondent agreed that, if it competed
in the Turkish Football Federation 1st League during the 2023/2024 season, the Claimant
would be entitled to inter alia the following amounts:
•
EUR 80,000 net, payable on 31 July 2023
•
EUR 250,000 net, payable in ten equal instalments between August 2023 and
May 2024 (i.e., EUR 25,000 per month)
4.
The Additional Protocol also stated that, if the Respondent competed in the TFF 1st League
during the 2023/2024 season, “The Club will provide an appropriate flat and a car to the Player
during the Contract. The rent of the house and car will be paid by the club” and “The Club Will
provide two round trip economy class fly tickets from Turkey to Nigeria.”
5.
By correspondence dated 7 August 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
(hereinafter: the First Default Notice) for salaries for August and September 2023, rent and
rental car payments. According to the information on in the file, the Respondent paid out
the claimed amounts within the stipulated period.
6.
On 2 October 2023, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default for outstanding
receivables (hereinafter: the Second Default Notice). According to the information on in the
file, the Respondent paid out the claimed amounts within the stipulated period.
7.
On 1 December 2023, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default (hereinafter:
the Third Default Notice) for salaries for October and November 2023, rent and rental car
payments. According to the information on in the file, the Respondent again paid out the
claimed amounts within the stipulated period.
8.
On 1 February, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default (hereinafter: the
Fourth Default Notice) for salaries for December 2023 and January 2024, rent and rental car
payments, granting a15-day period to the Respondent to comply.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14458
9.
On 17 February 2024, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract, citing just cause
(hereinafter: the Termination Letter).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 24 April 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay receivables equal to his December
2023 and January 2024 salaries, as well as the rental payments for his housing and car for
the month of February 2024.
12. In support of his claim for the aforementioned payments, the Claimant provided his rent
contract from 15 January through 15 May 2024 and payment receipt for rent, as well as his
rental car contracts and payment receipts for January and February.
13. Regarding the compensation for breach of contract, the Claimant claimed the residual
value of the contract of EUR 100,000, in addition to a promotion bonus of TRY 2,000,000
pursuant to the Additional Protocol and reimbursement for the flight ticket he purchased
after termination, which was guaranteed to him under the contract, in the amount of TRY
25,238.
14. The requests for relief of the Claimant were inter alia the following:
“i. Order that the Respondent has to pay the overdue and unpaid amount of 58,800.00
Euros + 62.250 TRY with its interest %5 per year from the due date of each payment
which is given below:
Amount
25,000 Euros
25,000 Euros
8,800 Euros
62,250 TRY
Due Date
31st December 2023
31st January 2024
1st February 2024
1st February 2024
(December Salary)
(January Salary)
(Rent Fee for the Flat)
(Rent fees for the rental cars)
ii. Order that the respondent has to pay compensation amount of 100,000 Euros +
2,025,238 TRY
iii. If and so far, the amounts as mentioned over will not be paid to the Player within the
stated time limit, Article 24 of RSTP and disciplinary sanctions will be imposed to the
club.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14458
b. Position of the Respondent
15. According to the Respondent, it had fulfilled its obligations towards the Claimant,
referencing payment receipts that apparently set off the EUR 58,000 plus TRY 62.250 the
Claimant requested in his claim as unpaid receivables.
16. The Respondent averred having paid the Claimant all payments until the date of its reply.
17. In addition, the Claimant highlighted the economic and political crisis in Turkey, as well as
the pandemic and the earthquake, all of which had caused a substantial devaluation of the
Turkish Lira and led to the delay in payments.
18. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“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 the 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 the temporary amendment to the Procedural Rules declared with
the Circular 1720.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14458
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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 24 April 2024 and submitted for decision on
19 September 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.
20. 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 a Nigerian player
and a Turkish club.
21. 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 24 April 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
22. 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
23. 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. 6
REF. FPSD-14458
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim for breach of contract, whereby the Claimant claims outstanding
remuneration, compensation for breach of contract, and certain reimbursements.
25. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to detail whether there was
a breach of contract and to determine the consequences thereof.
26. The Chamber duly noted that, according to the Claimant, he terminated the contract with
just cause due to outstanding remuneration. On the other hand, the Chamber
acknowledged the Respondent’s arguments whereby it denied owing any outstanding
remuneration.
27. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Respondent did not substantiate
its allegations with the proof it referenced in its reply when it was incumbent upon the
Respondent to either provide proof of such compliance or otherwise advance a wellfounded explanation for non-payment. Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, the Claimant’s
allegations that he was due his salaries for December 2023 and January 2024, as well as
car and housing rental payments for February 2024 remained otherwise uncontested.
28. Furthermore, the Chamber took comfort in the fact that the Claimant’s allegations are
supported by evidence of an apparent pattern of nonpayment, with no evidence on file
demonstrating there was any debate as to the amounts the Claimant requested in each of
his default notices.
29. As such, and in the absence of any evidence to disprove the Claimant’s allegations, the
Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was owed at least two monthly salaries and
provided a 15-day deadline for the Respondent to comply. Consequently, the Chamber
decided that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the contract in accordance with art.
14bis of the Regulations, and that the Respondent shall be liable for the consequences that
follow.
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
31. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to two salaries
under the contract in conjunction with the Additional Protocol, amounting to EUR 50,000.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14458
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract and Additional Protocol at the moment of the
termination, i.e., EUR 50,000 (i.e., EUR 25,000 times 2, corresponding to December 2023
and January 2024).
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’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% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 1 January 2024 and 1 February 2024,
respectively, until the date of effective payment.
34. Concerning the reimbursement for the rent and the rental car requested by the Claimant,
the Chamber first considered the fact that the Additional Protocol essentially established
the right to appropriate housing and a car, without stipulating a monthly allowance.
35. Nonetheless, in view of the Claimant’s undisputed allegations that he received the rent and
rental car reimbursements requested in the First, Second, and Third Default Notices, the
Chamber reasoned that there indeed appeared to be a tacit acknowledgement and
acceptance of these amounts by the Respondent. This acceptance of terms, in the
Chamber’s opinion, became much clearer when considering that in its reply, the
Respondent did not argue that the amounts claimed for rent and rental car expenses were
not due at all, but merely that they were not due because they had supposedly been paid.
Additionally, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant provided evidence of having made
wire transfers for the rental car and rent payments. Therefore, the Chamber decided to
award EUR 8,800 and TRY 62,250 with respect to the rent and rental car reimbursement,
respectively.
36. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the DRC decided to award the Claimant interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the foregoing amounts as from 17 February 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
37. Similarly, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant the requested reimbursement for
the flight ticket he purchased after termination, which was guaranteed to him under the
contract, in the amount of TRY 25,238. However, the Chamber noted that no interest was
requested on this amount and therefore no interest shall be granted (ne ultra petita).
38. Having stated 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14458
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.
39. 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.
40. As a consequence, the members of 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.
41. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player 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 100,000 (i.e., EUR 25,000 x 4) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
42. 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. In this regard, the Claimant was not able to mitigate damages
because he remained unemployed during the relevant period.
43. The Chamber then referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the player did not sign a new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
44. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the Claimant compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 100,000.
45. Moreover, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had offered sufficient evidence to
establish his entitlement to the claimed performance bonus and, therefore, decided to also
award the Claimant TRY 2,000,000.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14458
46. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the
amount of EUR 100,000 plus TRY 2,000,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
47. Lastly, the DRC noted that no interest was requested on the compensation for breach of
contract and therefore no interest shall be granted (ne ultra petita).
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
d. Costs
53. 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,
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14458
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14458
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Okwuchukwu Francis Ezeh, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Eyüpspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 25,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 25,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 8,800 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 February 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- TRY 62,250 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 February 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- TRY 25,238 as reimbursement for flight tickets;
- EUR 100,000 plus TRY 2,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just
cause.
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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14458
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14458
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. 14