Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15453
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Juha Pirinen
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
LEVADIAKOS FC, Greece
Represented by Panayiotis Georgiou
RESPONDENT 1:
Juha Pirinen, Finland
RESPONDENT 2:
Kalamata FC, Greece
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15453
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to the present case are :
-
The Greek club, Levadiakos FC (hereinafter: the Club,Levadiakos or the Claimant);
-
The Finnish player, Juha Pirinen (hereinafter: the Player or the First Respondent);
-
The Greek club, Kalamata (hereinafter: Kalamata or the Second Respondent).
On an unspecified date, the Club sent the following offer to the Player (hereinafter: the
Offer):
“Season 2023-2024 Contract 80.000€ NET
20.000 advance for the player with TMS
• If the player participates to 70% of the total minutes of the Team’s matches in the Super
League2 Championship, and if the Team succeeds through its games, its promotion to Super
League1, the football player will receive as a bonus the amount of 20.000€.
• If the player participates to 70% of the total minutes of the Team’s matches in the Super
League2 Championship, and if the Team succeeds through its games, its promotion to Super
League1, the football player will have contract for the season 2024-2025 120.000€ NET.
EXTRA BENEFITS
Apartment
Car
1 round trip flights for player and his wife
2 10.000 commission each year
• In order for the above proposal to be valid, the player must pass the medical and fitness
tests.
• The present proposal is not a contract and is not binding for our team in the case that we
do not come into an official agreement and sign a professional contract between us.”
3.
On 9 August 2023, the Player accepted the Offer.
4.
On 4 September 2023, the Player and the Club concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the First Contract) valid as from 4 September 2023 to 30 June 2024.
5.
Under the First Contract the Club undertook to pay the Player a total amount of EUR 50,000.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15453
6.
The Annex of the First Contract read inter alia as follows:
“The player will receive as a signing bonus the amount of 20.000 euro, as soon as the procedure
with the TMS System is completed and the player's card is issued.
Par. 4.2. Extra Benefits:
Season 2023-2024:
• If the player participates to 70% of the total minutes of the Team's matches in the Super League
2 Championship, and if the Team succeeds through its games, its promotion to Super League 1,
the football player will receive as a bonus the amount of 20.000€.
Also the parties agree that, if the player participates to 70% of the total minutes of the Team's
matches in the Super League2 Championship, and if the Team succeeds through its games, its
promotion to Super League 1, then the contract will be automatically extended for one more
season 2024-2025 with €120,000 NET.
If the player participates to 70% of the total minutes of the Team's matches in the Super League
1 Championship during the season 2024-2025, and the team finishes over 10th position of the
Championship, then he will receive as a bonus the amount of 10.000€.”
7.
On 11 June 2024, the Club sent the Player a document called “pre-contract” (hereinafter:
the Pre-Contract) and requested the Player to sign it.
8.
The Pre-Contract read inter alia as follows:
“Season 2024-2025 Contract 90.000€ NET
• If the player participates to 50% of the total minutes of the Team's matches in the Super
League 1 Championship, and the team finishes over 8ch position of the Championship,
then he will receive as a bonus the amount of 10.000€.
Season 2025-2026 Contract 100.000€ NET
• If the player participates to 50% of the total minutes of the Team's matches in the Super
League1 Championship, and the team finishes over 8ch position of the Championship,
then he will receive as a bonus the amount of 10.000€.
EXTRA BENEFITS FOR EVERY SEASON
Apartment
Car
1 round trip flight ticket Finland - Greece for player and his wife (on summer)
Commission 9.000€for the 1st season and 10.000 for the 2nd season.
For the 1st season the above mentioned amount will be paid to the agent after the sign of the
official contract between the club and the player.
• In order for the above proposal to be valid, the player must pass the medical and fitness
tests.”
9.
The Pre-Contract contained the signatures of the Player and the Club.
10. On the same day (11 June 2024), the Player replied to the Club indicating: “[h]ere signed,
please sign&stamp and send send back”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15453
11. On 12 June 2024, the Club replied to the Player “[w]e are sending you the document with
signature & stamp.”
12. On the same day (12 June 2024) the Sport Director of Levadiakos (i.e., Mr. Michalis
Nikolopoulos) (hereinafter: Sport Director) contacted the Player by WhatsApp mentioning
(quoted verbatim): “2 words for the site of levadiakos please you sign new contract with
Levadiakos, how you feel?”. To which the Player replied to the following (quoted verbatim) :
“I am delighted to extend my contract with Levadiakos and to be part of the club. We had the
successful last season together and we want to keep doing well in the superleague one, where
the club belongs.
We are ready to work hard and accomplish our goals for the next season and hopefully the
season will be great for us.
Btw Michalis! Thans for the trust and lets make a great season. Can u keep the apartment for
me where we lived”.
13. On 14 June 2024, the Club published the following statement (quoted verbatim):
“PAE Levadeiakos is pleased to announce the extension of its partnership with football player
Juha Pirinen for two more years.
The Finnish defender joined our team last year, making a total of 20 appearances in all
competitions and was one of the main pillars in winning the league.
In his statement to levadiakosfc.gr, Pirinen states:
Good morning!
I am delighted to extend his contract with Levadeiakos and continue to be a member of the club.
We had a successful season last year and we want to continue to do well in the Super League,
where the club belongs.
We are ready to work hard to achieve the goals of the new season and we hope it will be a great
year for us.”
14. Between 16 and 19 June 2024 the Player and the Club discussed about a flight ticket. The
Claimant purchased the flight ticket in order for the Player to travel from Finland to Greece
on 27 June 2024.
15. On 28 June 2024, the Player, the Player’s agent Necdet Ali Ates (hereinafter: the Agent) and
the Club held a meeting in person. The parties had different positions as to the discussions
during this meeting.
16. On 28 June 2024, the Player and the Sport Director had the following communications by
WhatsApp:
“Sport Director: [A call of 1 minute is recorded]
Sport Director: Hi Piri
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15453
Player: Hey
Sport Director: [A call of 20 minutes is recorded]”.
17. According to the Player, on 29 June 2024, the Club requested him to leave the apartment
where he was staying and, on 1 July 2024, he left the apartment.
18. Between 29 June 2024 and 1 July 2024, the Player and Mr. Tasos Pastos, the Team Manager
of the Club (hereinafter: Team Manager), held the following communications by WhatsApp
(quoted verbatim):
“29 June 2024
Team Manager: [tried to call the Player]
Player: Taso u called me?
Team Manager: Good morning my friend What are you going to do?
Player: At the moment it seems that I will be leaving by Monday
Team Manager: Ok
Team Manager: [tried to call the player]
Player: [tried to call the Team Manager]
Team Manager: [A call of 2 minutes is recorded].
30 June 2024
Team Manager: Good morning Do you have any news about the tickets?
Player : Kalimera file mou […] Pos eisai? I will be leaving today, I will leave the keys under the
carpet
Team Manager: to come from home to get them good morning
Player: How ever u want
Team Manager: [A call of 1 minute is recorded].
Player I left a hour ago, keys are under the carpet”.
19. On 1 July 2024, the Player sent the following communication to the Club’s President by
WhatsApp (quoted: verbatim):
“How are you?
I wanted to get in touch with you and send you a message. I left Livadia today and it's a shame
how everything went. I wanted to extend my contract and play for your team and help the team
succeed. I was happy there last season and that's why I wanted to sign for another two years.
We discussed the terms and signed the pre-contract and both sides agreed. I traveled to Livadia
with the feeling that I was starting the preseason. When we were getting ready to sign in your
office, Michael offered us an official contract that didn't match the pre-contract (agent's fee) and
so we didn't sign. I felt it was my responsibility to contact you and express my feelings about this
situation.
Thank you for the opportunity you gave me last season and I hope we can continue on the same
terms we signed before (pre-contract) as I'm sure you understand that as a player I don't want
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15453
to leave my agent because he is the one handling my business off the pitch. I just want to focus
on football and my agent will take care of my business off the pitch.”
20. A media article dated 1 July 2024 indicated the following:
“Rodrigo Eramuspe said goodbye to PAS Ioannina and is heading to Levadeiakos, to confirm
Sportime.
After Rosero. Pantelaki, Karachalio, Kiako and finally from PAS Giannina and Rodrigo
Eramouspe. The Argentinian central defender terminated his contract with Epirotes, giving away
a large part of his dues.
Eramouspe will continue to play football in Greece, since as Sportime first revealed on June 6,
Levadeiakos had him high on his list.
The report states that the Boeotians have made him a proposal for a two-year contract, close to
the annual earnings he had at PAS Ioannina. It is possible that Eramouspe will also be at the
first training session that the Greens have planned for Monday afternoon, under the instructions
of their new coach. Nikos Papadopoulos."
21. On 5 July 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of EUR 16,979.08
within 10 days, corresponding to the outstanding remuneration of the First Contract.
22. On 6 July 2024, Kalamata announced the transfer of the Player to its club.
23. On 24 July 2024, the Club sent a correspondence to the Player and Kalamata (jointly called
the Respondents) referring to the Player’s alleged breach of the Pre-Contract and
requesting EUR 240,000 within 3 days.
24. On 29 July 2024, the Club sent another correspondence to the Respondents granting them
a final deadline of 3 days.
25. On the same day (29 July 2024), the Player replied to the Club contesting the alleged breach
of his contractual obligations. The Player also referred to his correspondences dated 5 July
2024 and requested the Club the payment of EUR 16,979.08 corresponding to the
outstanding amount as per the First Contract, within 2 days.
26. On 31 July 2024, the Claimant paid the Payer EUR 15,380.16.
27. On 31 July 2024, the Player and Kalamata concluded an employment contract valid as from
the date of signature to 30 June 2026. Pursuant to this contract, the Player is entitled to a
total salary of EUR 59,800 net and a monthly housing allowance of EUR 500.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15453
II. Proceedings before FIFA
28. On 3 August 2024 the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
29. The Club lodged a claim with FIFA for breach of contract, requesting compensation.
30. The Club first explained that, pursuant to the applicable domestic regulations governing Greek
Superleague 1 & 2, the registration of a professional player requires the submission of an
original signed copy of the standard-format Professional Player’s Contract, which must bear
handwritten signatures. As such, this procedural requirement necessitates an in-person
meeting between the parties. Nonetheless, the Club emphasized that this formality does not
affect the substantive conclusion of the employment relationship between the parties.
31. The Club then stated that, during the meeting held on 28 June 2024, it presented the Player
with a copy of the new employment contract, which was essentially a reproduction of the
previously signed Pre-Contract. However, the Player began to raise objections, which, according
to the Club, were influenced or amplified by the Agent, who expressed concerns regarding his
commission. Following these objections, both the Player and the Agent left the meeting.
32. The Club argued that the Pre-Contract contained all essential elements of a valid agreement
(essentialia negotii), including the identification of the parties, the duration of the contract, the
agreed remuneration, and the signatures of both parties. The Club acknowledged that the only
missing element was the date of signature but asserted that the exact date could be reliably
inferred. Furthermore, the Club maintained that the parties shared a mutual intent for the PreContract to constitute the second employment contract, thereby establishing the employment
relationship was effectively established upon its signing. This intention was, according to the
Club, corroborated by communications between the Player and the Sport Director.
33. Moreover, in the Player’s correspondence dated 11 June 2024, he invited the Club to “sign,
stamp, and send back” the document, which, according to the Club, clearly indicated that the
Player considered the Pre-Contract to be the second employment contract. The Club further
emphasized that, unlike the previous Offer, the Pre-Contract did not include any conditions.
34. The Club then mentioned that it “waived its right” to submit the Player in medical examinations
before the signing of the Pre-Contract, and that the Player had after the meeting in person on
28 June 2025 a routine fitness test on 1 July 2025.
35. The Club referred again to the requirement of the Greek authorities which required a
handwritten signature, which was expected to be provided during the meeting on 28 June 2024.
However, the Club emphasized that this formality does not invalidate the existence of an
employment relationship between the parties. In particular, the Club referred to Articles 320.1
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15453
and 320.2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, asserting that a valid employment contract, namely,
the Pre-Contract, had been concluded between the Player and the Club.
36. Having concluded the above, the Club argued that the Player unlawfully terminated de facto the
Pre-Contract on 6 July 2024, date on which he was announced with Kalamata. The Club
mentioned that it is entitled to compensation.
37. Therefore, the Club requested the following:
“(A) EUR 240.000 (two hundred forty thousand euros). Such amount corresponds to the market
value of the Player as per the renowned website Transfermarkt, which plays a major role thorough
the football industry. Following the unlawful termination of the Second Employment Contract by
the Player, Levadiakos was deprived from an asset, the market value of which corresponds to the
supra amount. As such, it is entitled to compensation equal to EUR 240.000.
Subsidiarily, (B) EUR 190.000 (one hundred ninety thousand euros). Such amount corresponds to
the residual value of the Second Employment Contract. When the Parties mutually and
reciprocally agreed that the Player is going to render his services to Levadiakos for the following
two sporting seasons, they freely calculated the value of such services in the total net amount of
EUR 240.000. Given that the Claimant is deprived from such services, it shall be considered
entitled to be compensated with the amount of EUR 190.000.
Subsidiarily to (A) and (B), (C) EUR 60.000 (sixty thousand euros). Such amount corresponds to the
difference between the remuneration corresponding to the sporting season 2024/25 payable to
Mr. Erramuspe (i.e., EUR 150.000), minus the remuneration corresponding to the sporting season
2024/25 as per the Second Employment Contract (i.e., EUR 90.000). As mentioned above, such
difference delineates the damages suffered by Levadiakos due to the unlawful termination of the
Second Employment Contract by the Player. In other words, the replacement of Mr. Pirinen cost
to the Claimant the additional amount of EUR 60.000, and such sum shall constitute the
compensation with regards to the sporting season 2024/25.”
38. The Club added that Kalamata is the new club of the Player, and it shall be considered jointly
and severally liable for the payment of the afore-described compensation.
39. Finally, the Club also mentioned that the conditions of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Player (hereinafter: the Regulations) were fulfilled and the Player and
Kalamata shall be sanctioned.
40. Subsidiarily, in case the DRC does not constitute that the Pre-Contract is the second
employment contract, the same consequences shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Pre-Contract
and the Club would be entitled to the same amounts and Kalamata should be jointly liable.
41. The Club requested the following relief:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15453
“i) Enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute at stake;
(ii) Adjudge that Mr. Juha Pirinen terminated unilaterally the Second Employment Contract (i.e., PreContract dated 12 June 2024) without just cause, under FIFA Regulations;
(iii) Order Mr. Juha Pirinen to compensate A.P.O. Levadiakos FC with the total net amount of EUR
240.000, or EUR 190.000 or EUR 60.000 or any other amount deemed reasonable by DRC, due to the
unilateral and unlawful termination of the Second Employment Contract;
(iv) Implement the applicable sporting sanctions against Mr. Juha Pirinen, as he terminated the
Second Employment Contract without just cause, during the protected period;
(v) Implement the applicable sporting sanctions against Kalamata FC, as they induced Mr. Pirinen to
breach the Second Employment Contract without just cause, during the protected period;
(vi) Subsidiarily, adjudge the Mr. Juha Pirinen severely breached his contractual obligations under
the Pre-Contract dated 12 June 2024 and terminated such (pre)contract without just cause;
(vii) In such case of IV.vi, order Mr. Juha Pirinen to compensate A.P.O. Levadiakos FC with the total
net amount of EUR 240.000, or EUR 190.000 or EUR 60.000 or any other amount deemed reasonable
by DRC, due to the severe breach and termination of the (pre)contract without just cause;
(viii) In any case, consider Kalamata FC as jointly and severally liable regarding the payment of the
compensation of Mr. Juja Pirinen to A.P.O. Levadiakos FC;
(ix) Determine that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall apply over the payable compensation, in
accordance with the supra submission III.f;
(x) Order Mr. Pirinen and Kalamata FC to bear any and all costs incurred as to the present dispute.”
b. Reply of the Player
42. The Player requested FIFA to reject the claim.
43. With respect to the facts, and in particular the meeting held on 28 July 2024, the Player
mentioned that “there were some disagreements between the parties regarding the outstanding
and already due salaries of the Respondent, which the Claimant did not want to pay, the
Respondent’s salaries for the subsequent sporting seasons and also regarding the agreed
commission fee of the Respondent’s Agent. In fact, the Claimant through its sporting director, Mr.
Michalis Nikolakopoulos was trying to avoid the finalization of the Respondent’s employment
contract and its signing and finally told them that they would not proceed with the signing of the
contract if the Respondent did not accept the Claimant’s terms”.
44. Following the meeting, the Player anticipated that the Club would contact him the next day to
return to the Claimant’s offices in order to resolve their outstanding issues, undergo the
required medical and ergometric examinations, and ultimately sign the official contract.
However, according to the Player, the Club instead requested that he vacate the apartment,
stating that it was needed for another player. In response, the Player contacted the President
of the Club and stated that “his willingness to sign the new contract and continue being registered
with the Claimant’s team” and also sent a default notice requesting his outstanding amount.
However, as no response was provided, the Player stressed that had “reasonable belief that the
Claimant does not want any more to renew his employment contract, as Mr. Nikolopoulos had told
him after all, he started negotiations with another club in Greece”.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15453
45. With respect to the merits, the Player argued that a valid contract was not concluded and
therefore, no breach of contract had occurred. The Player argued that under Greek law, and in
particular under the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) Regulations, a valid and binding
professional football contract must be signed using a standardized form issued by the relevant
professional league (Superleague 1 or 2) and must bear the original handwritten signatures of
both parties. The Pre-Contract presented by the Claimant does not constitute a valid and
binding contract as it is undated, is not drafted in the prescribed format, and lacks the
necessary signatures. Therefore, the Player asserted that the Pre-Contract cannot serve as a
basis for claims of breach of contract or compensation.
46. Furthermore, the Player maintained that it was the Claimant who failed to fulfil the conditions
of the Pre-Contract. Specifically, the Claimant did not arrange the required medical and
ergometric tests. The Player attended the meeting on 28 June 2024 with the intention of signing
the official contract and undergoing the necessary tests, but disagreements arose and the
contract was not signed. Subsequent the Claimants’ conduct, - including asking the Player to
leave his apartment and failing to respond to his messages - demonstrated that the Claimant
did not wish to continue with the arrangements of the employment relationship.
47. The Player highlighted that it had become publicly known through the media that the Claimant
had already reached an agreement with another player, Mr. Erramuspe, for the same position
of the Player, confirming that the Claimant “was the one who was not going to respect the precontract and refuse to sign the standard form of employment contract”.
48. In view of that situation, and having no other choice, the Player accepted an offer from another
club in a lower division for less money and a shorter term than originally agreed.
49. In the light of the above, the Player concluded that Claimant’s allegations are untrue and totally
unfounded and as such the present claim must be dismissed.
50. Subsidiarily, the Player argued that the Claimant’s request for compensation due to breach of
contract should be dismissed as groundless, unfounded, and, in any event, abusive. Specifically,
the Player contended that, pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulations, the Claimant bears the
burden of proving that it suffered damage in accordance with the principle of positive interest.
In the present case, the Claimant incurred no damage whatsoever, as evidenced by its decision
on 1 July 2024 not to proceed with the finalization of the contract with the Player. Instead, the
Claimant opted to register the footballer Erramouspe with its team in place of the Player.
Conversely, the Player was compelled to sign a contract with a club competing in a lower
division than the Claimant’s team, for a single sporting season rather than two, and for a lower
salary than initially agreed.
51. In case the DRC decides that the Pre-Contract was a valid contract, the Player maintained that
“the conduct of both parties, after having signed the said pre-contract, even to be considered a valid
contract, can only lead to the conclusion that the pre- contract was terminated as it was the result
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15453
of a unique, objective situation to which both parties equally contributed. In other words, both the
Claimant and the Respondent clearly demonstrated lack of will to continue their contractual
relationship. So no compensation is due.” Therefore, no compensation shall be awarded.
52. The Respondent requested that no sanction should be imposed on him on the basis of the
principle of leniency and fairness.
53. The Player requested the following relief:
“On the basis of all the aforementioned and of the submitted evidence, we hereby respectfully
request from FIFA Football Tribunal:
i.to rule that no breach of contract occurred by the Respondent;
ii.to reject the claim as groundless;
iii. to rule that the Claimant shall bear any and all costs of the proceedings.
Subsidiarily and only in the event that the above is rejected,
i.to rule that no compensation is due;
ii. to reject the claim as groundless and abusive ;
iii. to rule that the Claimant shall bear any and all costs of the proceedings.
Subsidiarily and only in the event that the above is rejected,
i.to rule that the claimed compensation is excessive and to reduce it and bring it down to the
appropriate level;
ii.to rule than no sanctions must imposed on the Respondent;
iii.to rule that the Claimant shall bear any and all costs of the proceedings”
c. Reply of Kalamata
54. Kalamata requested to reject the claim on the following arguments:
“1. Neither does the opposing football team of LEVADIAKOS prove that we had prior knowledge of its
pre-contract with the player PIRINEN.
2. Under no circumstances and by the use of any means, the football team of ΚALAMATΑ could not
have known and had knowledge of the existence of the existence of a live agreement-pre-agreement
between the player PIRINEN and the football team of LEVADIAKOS.
3. After investigation, we ascertained that no legal professional contract was in force.
4. Player PIRINEN hadn’t informed us that he had any contractual obligation with another football
club and was therefore a free agent.”
d. Replica of the Claimant
55. With regards to the applicable law: the Claimant mentioned that FIFA Statutes and Regulations
apply, whilst Swiss law shall apply subsidiarily, in case of lacuna and the procedural formalities
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15453
of Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) and/or the Greek Superleague 1 & 2 have no relation with
the merits of the employment-related dispute at hand.
56. With regard to the Claimant’s allegations concerning the meeting held on 28 June 2024: the
Claimant asserted that the overdue amounts from the previous contract were scheduled for
payment in July 2024, and that this payment was duly made, as acknowledged by the Player.
57. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Player’s allegations regarding his salaries for the
subsequent two seasons were entirely unfounded. As evidenced by the Pre-Contract (as called
by the Club Second Employment Contract), the Parties had explicitly agreed upon the
remuneration due to the Player for the upcoming sporting seasons. Accordingly, these
allegations should be dismissed.
58. Regarding the Agent’s fee: the Claimant stressed that the Agent had induced the Player to
disregard and breach his contractual obligations towards the Club during the referenced
meeting. The Claimant reiterated that there was no contractual link between the Claimant and
the Agent, and it was for the Player to pay the Agent. Even if a contractual obligation to pay the
commission existed, it would be entirely separate from the employment relationship between
the Player and Club. The Respondent also emphasized that the Agent’s witness statement,
submitted by the First Respondent, held minimal legal value due to his exclusive representation
of the Player, rendering his testimony biased. The Claimant further asserted that the Agent had
encouraged the Player to unlawfully terminate the Second Employment Contract (i.e., the PreContract) to sign with Kalamata, and “thus he intends also to cover his illicit actions and avoid
possible disciplinary sanctions in the future”.
59. With regards to the Player’s allegation that the Claimant requested him to leave the apartment:
the Claimant mentioned that from the evidence submitted it cannot be identified when the
Claimant requested him to leave the apartment. Moreover, as to the evidence submitted, it is
observed that some calls were made from the Sport Director and the Team Manager, this
according to the Claimant, showed its effort to “persuade” the Player to fulfil his contractual
obligations.
60. With regards to the Player’s allegation that the Sport Director informed him that his
employment contract would not be renewed: the Claimant firmly rejected these arguments,
stating that Sport Director never made such remarks. On the contrary, it was the Player who
“thanked” for the conclusion of the Second Employment Contract on 12 June 2024 “alongside
the relevant statements of the First Respondent for the website of Levadiakos, do constitute an
irrefutable assumption as to the Parties’ common intention as to the conclusion of the Second
Employment Contract, valid for the following two sporting seasons”.
61. The Claimant also requested the Player to honour his contractual obligations and refrain from
conduct contrary to good faith, both during and after the 28 June 2024 meeting. Nevertheless,
the Player’s announcement by Kalamata FC on 7 July 2024 constituted de facto an unlawful
termination of the Second Employment Contract (i.e., the Pre-Contract). Contrary to the Player’s
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15453
assertion, the letter dated 24 July 2024 did not invite the Player to comply with his contract, but
rather demanded compensation for the damages caused by his behaviour.
62. With regard to the Player’s allegation as to the formalities needed in accordance with the HFF
regulations: the Claimant stated that the Pre-Contract had the essentialia negotii and the
formalities requested by the HFF did not influence the validity of the employment relationship.
Moreover, the Claimant mentioned that the Player only focussed on such formalities but failed
to make any comment for the binding nature of such document, and the subsequent complete
disregard of his contractual obligations.
63. With regard to the Player’s allegation that it was the Claimant who breached the Pre-Contract
and that it did not invite the Player to undergo the medical examination: the Claimant argued
that is argument is unfounded mentioning that if it had indeed breached the Second
Employment Contract (i.e., the Pre-Contract), the Player would have served notice or filed a
counterclaim, which he failed to do. The Claimant also mentioned that “the Claimant had already
decided to “waive” such right and sign with the Player the employment contract for the following two
(2) seasons. This was mainly decided due to the fact that Mr. Pirinen was already part of the Club’s
squad during the previous season”.
64. With regards to the Player’s allegation that it reached an agreement with another player (Mr.
Erramuspe): the Claimant mentioned that it only contacted Mr. Erramuspe once it was publicly
known that the Player would play with Kalamanta (on 5 July 2025), and this was “an “emergency
solution””. Moreover, it mentioned that “Mr. Erramuspe requested a higher salary than Mr. Pirinen
(causing financial damage to the Claimant) while he has not been adopted yet, as he has participated
only thirty-six (36) minutes so far in the season (cause also sporting damage to the Claimant)”.
65. With regards to the Player’s allegation that he did sign a contract for one season with Kalamata
and for less money: the Claimant argued that the employment contract provided by the Player
was for two sporting seasons and not one as he mentioned. This according to the Claimant
created doubts regarding the actual salary and mentioned that “it is widespread practice for
several clubs in Greece to conclude two (2) separate contracts with the respective players; the
“official” one registered to the HFF, which includes part of the agreed salary, and the “unofficial” one
which is not registered to any governing body, which includes the remaining salary”.
66. With regards to the compensation: the Claimant referred to its claim and confirmed the
amounts requested. However, it added the following “DRC shall also take into consideration that
the transfer of Mr. Erramuspe has not been proved the epitome of success so far, given that the new
player has not managed to fit to his new club’s necessities, and thus he has played only thirty six (36)
minutes out of eight (8) official matches of the season, until this point. Therefore, on top of the
financial damage, the Claimant has also suffered severe sporting damages in the light of the unlawful
termination of the Second Employment Contract by Mr. Pirinen.”
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15453
67. With regard, to the position provided by Kalamata: it requested to reject its submissions as it
was for them to provide that it did not induce the Player to breach the Contract. Moreover, it
mentioned that it officially published the hiring of the Player.
68. The Claimant’s request for relief remained unchanged.
e. Additional comments regarding the Interim Regulatory Framework
69. The FIFA general secretariat invited the Claimant to amend its claim, if it so wished, exclusively
in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the new interim regulatory
framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council on 23 December 2024 (hereinafter: the
Interim Regulatory Framework). The FIFA general secretariat also highlighted that any
submission that went beyond the scope of the mentioned request would be disregarded.
70. The Claimant indicated the following : “At the outset, reference is made to the FIFA correspondence
dated 16 May 2025, by virtue of which the Claimant was invited to amend its position, should it
deemed so wish, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application on the interim
regulatory framework to this matter, by no later than 23 May 2025.
On that note, we hereby wish to confirm that we do not intend to introduce any amendment to the
current Statement of Claim. In particular, we firmly maintain that it has been clearly established –
beyond reasonable doubt – that the Player unlawfully terminated the employment contract with the
Claimant. Consequently, the Claimant’s request is well-founded and fully aligned with the interim
regulatory framework currently in force under FIFA regulations.
The same considerations apply to the Claimant’s entitlements against Kalamata, as it has been
clearly established that the latter actively induced the Player to unlawfully terminate his
employment contract with Levadiakos. To avoid undue repetition, reference is reiterated to the
fact that the Player was officially announced by the Claimant on 14 June 2024, and only a few
days later, he was presented as a signing by the Second Respondent. Given that both clubs are
based in Greece, it is inconceivable that Kalamata was unaware of the existence of the contractual
relationship between the Player and Levadiakos. Therefore, applying the standard of comfortable
satisfaction, it can be concluded that Kalamata did indeed induce the Player’s premature
termination of contract. Accordingly, it shall be held jointly and severally liable with Mr. Pirinen
for the compensation awarded by your Hon’ble Chamber.
f. Duplica of the Player and comments regarding the Interim Regulatory Framework
71. The Player’s position remained unchanged. He mentioned that the Claimant had both explicitly
and practically expressed that it did not want the Player in its team and had no intention of
continuing the employment relationship with the Respondent.
72. The Player stressed that the Claimant did not invite him for medical exams, and
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15453
“It was apparent by the Claimant’s behavior from 28.6.2024 and onwards that the Claimant
expressed its lack of will to continue the contractual relationship with the Respondent, as already
explained.
Following the above, the Claimant cannot claim that the Respondent breached his contractual
obligations and that he unlawfully terminated his contract, when the Claimant was in manifest
breach of its obligations and led the Respondent to terminate his contract with just cause in
accordance with Art. 14 par. 1 of FIFA RSTP.
In addition to the above, before the Respondent proceeded with the termination of the employment
contract, it had already became known in the media that the Claimant had already reached an
agreement with another player for the position where the Respondent was playing, thus confirming
that indeed the Respondent could no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue
the contractual relationship with the Claimant.”
73. Moreover, the Player stated that the Claimant did not suffer any damage and did not prove it
accordingly. To the contrary, the Claimant on 1 July 2024 had decided not to proceed with the
conclusion of the final contract with the Player and had in fact decided to register another
player. Therefore, and since the Claimant failed to prove any damage suffered, the Respondent
concluded under the principle of positive interest and following the FIFA interim regulatory
framework, the Claimant’s claim for compensation must be dismissed.
g. Duplica of Kalamata and comments regarding the Interim Regulatory Framework
74. Kalamata failed to provide its final comments.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15453
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
75. 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 August 2024 and submitted for decision on
4 September 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.
76. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Greek club and a Finnish player,
with the involvement of a Greek club.
77. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
78. 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
79. 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. 17
REF. FPSD-15453
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
80. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of a valid and binding employment contract, its
alleged unilateral termination and the legal consequences arising therefrom.
81. According to the Claimant, the parties had a valid and binding employment contract (i.e.,
the Pre-Contract), and the Player terminated it by signing with Kalamata. The Player, on the
other hand, argued that the parties did not have a valid contract, and that failure to
conclude the contract was the Club’s fault.
82. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it was its task to first determine whether
the parties had entered into a new valid employment contract. In this case, it will be further
analysed whether said alleged employment contract was unilaterally terminated by the
Player, as argued by the Club.
83. In order to address the above, the Chamber started by recalling the main facts occurred
since the sending of the Pre-Contract until 31 July 2025:
Date
11/12
June
2024
12 June 2024
Facts
The Pre-Contract was signed by the Player and the Club.
14 June 2024
The Club publicly announced the renewal of the Player’s contract
27 June 2024
28 June 2024
The Player arrived in Greece
A meeting in person was held between the Player, the Club and
the Agent
The Player exchanged messages and calls with the Club’s
representatives
- The Player sent a message to the President of the Club
29 June 2024
and 1 July 2024,
1 July 2024
The Player sent a message to the Club’s representatives
acknowledging the renewal of the contract
5 July 2024
There were media articles mentioning that the Club would
hire Mr. Erramuspe
The Player sent a default notice to the Club
6 July 2024
Kalamata announced the transfer of the Player
8 July 2024
The Club and Mr. Erramuspe concluded an employment contract
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15453
24 July 2024
29 July 2024
The Club sent a letter to the Player and Kalamata requesting
compensation
The Club and the Player exchanged different communications
31 July 2024
-
The Player signed an employment contract with Kalamata
-
the Club paid the Payer EUR 15,380.16
84. First, the Chamber recalled the Football Tribunal jurisprudence according to which, in order
for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature
of both parties or any other proof of consent, and regardless of the name given to the
document, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the
parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration.
85. In view of the above, the Chamber proceeded to assess the Pre-Contract and observed that
it included the elements of an employment contract: identification of the parties, salary
terms, duration, and mutual acceptance. The document was signed by the Player and the
Club on 11 and 12 June 2024, respectively. Nonetheless, the Pre-Contract contained a
condition stating: “In order for the above proposal to be valid, the player must pass the medical
and fitness tests.”
86. The Chamber then observed that, following the signature of the Pre-Contract, it appears
that both parties considered the employment relationship to be extended. On 12 June
2024, the Player communicated to the Sport Director that his contract had been extended.
Similarly, on 14 June 2024, the Club publicly announced the extension of the Player’s
contract. Subsequently, both parties continued with the process of formalizing the
employment contract, including the provision of a flight ticket for the Player to arrive on 27
June 2024. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that until that day, i.e. 27 June 2024, both
the Player and the Club appeared to be proceeding with the execution of the Pre-Contract.
87. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that during a meeting scheduled for 28 June 2024,
both parties acknowledged that the employment contract was yet to be signed. This
according to the Chamber created an additional layer in the contractual process,
suggesting that while the parties had agreed in principle to an employment relationship, it
had been equally agreed that certain steps remained outstanding.
88. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the events of the 28 June 2024 meeting remained
unclear, as the parties have different views. The Player contended that the employment
contract presented did not reflect the terms of the Pre-Contract, particularly regarding the
agent’s fee. Conversely, the Club maintained that the contract mirrored the Pre-Contract’s
provisions.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15453
89. While the Chamber acknowledged the inherent difficulty in substantiating verbal
exchanges during meetings, it noted that the Club failed to provide a copy of the
employment contract allegedly aligned with the Pre-Contract and purportedly presented
to the Player on 28 June 2024. In light of the Player’s assertion that the contract presented
differed materially from the Pre-Contract, thereby altering the fundamental terms
previously agreed upon, the Chamber emphasized that submission of the actual document
was essential to substantiate the Club’s position.
90. Moreover, the Chamber noted that, following the meeting, the Player engaged in
communications with the Sports Director, Team Manager, and the President of the Club.
Although some of these exchanges were via telephone, the Player did send a message to
the President on 1 July 2024, stating inter alia:
“When we were getting ready to sign in your office, Michael offered us an official contract
that didn't match the pre-contract (agent's fee) and so we didn't sign. I felt it was my
responsibility to contact you and express my feelings about this situation.
Thank you for the opportunity you gave me last season and I hope we can continue on the
same terms we signed before (pre-contract) as I'm sure you understand that as a player I
don't want to leave my agent because he is the one handling my business off the pitch.”
(emphasis added)
91. The Chamber further noted that the Club did not respond to the Player’s message, which,
in the Chamber’s view, raised concerns regarding the terms that were intended to be
finalized. Moreover, the Chamber was of the opinion that, had the Club considered the
employment relationship to be ongoing, there is no evidence that it made any attempt to
contact the Player to execute a contract containing the same provisions as those set out in
the Pre-Contract.
92. On the contrary, media reports dated 1 July 2024 indicated that Mr. Erramuspe was to be
hired by the Club - an arrangement which, as noted by the Chamber, the Club
acknowledged was intended as a replacement for the Player. Subsequently, on 5–6 July
2024, the Player was officially presented by Kalamata. The Chamber wished to clarify that,
although the media reports published the mentioned hirings, the employment contracts
were signed at a later stage: between Mr. Erramuspe and the Club on 8 July 2024, and
between the Player and Kalamata on 31 July 2024.
93. Based on all the above findings, the Chamber concluded that, although both parties
operated under the belief that a valid agreement existed pursuant to the Pre-Contract, they
did not complete the steps mutually acknowledged as necessary to finalize the
employment contract. In particular, the absence of the contract presented during the
meeting of 28 June 2024 prevented the Chamber from confirming that its terms were
identical to those of the Pre-Contract.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15453
94. The Chamber further concluded that the parties’ conduct leading up to and during the 28
June 2024 meeting demonstrated clear mutual consent regarding essential contractual
elements, namely, duration, salary, and preparatory actions such as travel, medical
examination, and the signing of a formal agreement. These actions reflected a shared
understanding that the Pre-Contract was not the final contract. This was reinforced by the
Club’s own acknowledgment that it still needed to present the Player with the requisite
contract in person. In light of this, the Chamber found the Club’s assertion, that this final
step was merely administrative, to be unconvincing and inconsistent with its prior conduct.
95. The Chamber then concluded that it was incumbent upon the Club to demonstrate that
the contract presented to the Player reflected the terms of the Pre-Contract. No such
evidence was provided. While it remained unclear which party failed to finalize the
agreement during the meeting, subsequent developments indicated that neither party
took further steps to conclude the employment relationship. Following the Player’s
message to the Club President, no follow-up was made by the Club to secure the Player’s
signature. Instead, upon learning of the Player’s presentation by Kalamata, the Club
proceeded to sign a contract with Mr. Eramuspe without any request or clarification
addressed to the Player. Notably, although the Player was presented by Kalamata on 5/6
July, he only signed the contract on 31 July 2024. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber
concluded that both parties had effectively moved on from finalizing the employment
agreement.
96. Finally, the Chamber highlighted that the Club cannot instrumentalize the DRC’s
jurisprudence on pre-contracts. This is particularly relevant given that the specific
circumstances of the present matter diverge materially from the factual and legal criteria
typically assessed in the pre-contracts’ DRC precedents.
97. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant.
d. Costs
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15453
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, LEVADIAKOS FC, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15453
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. 23