Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15564
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Thomas
Meunier
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Trabzonspor Futbol, Türkiye
Represented by Duygu Yaşar
RESPONDENT 1:
Thomas Meunier, Belgium
Represented by Willem-alexander Devlies
RESPONDENT 2:
LOSC Lille, France
Represented by Moyersoen avocats
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15564
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this case are the following:
-
The Turkish club, Trabzonspor (hereinafter: the Club or Trabzonspor or the
Claimant);
-
The Belgian player, Thomas Meunier (hereinafter: the Player or the First
Respondent);
-
The French club, Losc Lille (hereinafter: Lille or the Second Respondent).
2.
On 7 February 2024, the Club and the Player entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 6 February 2024 until 30 June 2025.
3.
Clause IV of the Contract read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“a. The PARTIES herein agree on the PLAYER who acknowledges and agrees acting as a free
agent to execute the activity of a professional football player in favor of the CLUB, for the
period determined and herein set starting from 6 February 2024 until 30 June 2025 as per
the schedules announced by TFF, keeping strict compliance with the conditions established
herein. Following the conclusion of 2023 /2024 season (foreseen on 30 June 2024 ),
however, if the PLAYER wishes to transfer (permanently or temporarily) to any club outside
of Türkiye, the CLUB shall allow the PLAYER to transfer to a club outside of Türkiye without
requiring any transfer compensation or any compensation for termination of contract
from the PLAYER and/or the PLAYER's new club until 15 July 2024 at the latest.
b. The term of the football season expresses the season, the commencement and expiry
dates of which are already determined / to be determined by TFF.
c. If the official match es of the CLUB overlap the 30 June 2025 then the PLAYER shall play
for the CLUB until the end of 2025 /2026 season. lf the CONTRACT is terminated according
to Article IV.a above and in case the official matches of the CLUB overlap the 30 June in
2023/2024 season, then the PLAYER shall play for the CLUB until the end of the relevant
season.”
4.
Clause 5 of the Contract read inter alia as follows (quoted verbatim):
“The CLUB is obliged to pay the amounts as written below to the PLAYER in return of his
services subject to this CONTRACT. Ali amounts mentioned in this CONTRACT (salary,
bonus and under any name whatsoever) shall be paid from the CLUB to the PLAYER are
net of Turkish taxes, including but not limited to stamp tax and withholding tax. The CLUB
also irrevocably agrees and accepts to pay the income tax accrued in Türkiye of the PLAYER
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15564
as a result of the remuneration in this CONTRACT on behalf of the PLAYER to the relevant
tax authorities in Türkiye in addition to the amounts stipulated in this CONTRACT.
Regarding the reimbursement to the PLAYER by the CLUB of the income tax, the amount
to be reimbursed will be in accordance with the Turkish Lira / Euro exchange rate on the
date of payment of the considered income tax.
A. For 2023/2024 Football Season:
(i) The guaranteed net amount of 850,000.00.-€ (Eight hundred and fifty thousand euros)
will be paid to the PLAYER by the CLUB on the below mentioned dates:
01/03/2024 : 170,000.00 €
01/04/2024 : 170,000.00 €
30/04/2024 : 170,000.00 €
31/05/2024 : 170,000.00 €
30/06/2024: 170,000.00 €
[…]
B. For 2024/2025 Football Season:
(i) The guaranteed net amount of 1,500,000.-€ (one million and five hundred thousand
euros) will be paid to the PLAYER by the CLUB on the below mentioned dates:
31/08/2024 : 150,000.00.-€
01/10/2024 : 150,000.00.-€
31/10/2024 : 150,000.00.-€
30/11/2024: 150,000.00.-€
02/01/2025: 150,000.00.-€
31/01/2025: 150,000.00.-€
01/03/2025: 150,000.00.-€
01/04/2025: 150,000.00.-€
30/04/2025: 150,000.00.-€
31/05/2025: 150,000.00.-€
[…]
(iii) Signing Bonus: In addition to the sums payable under subparagraph (i) and (ii) above,
the amount of 500.000.-€ (Five hundred thousand euros) will be paid to the PLAYER as
signing bonus by the CLUB in 10 equal instalments as per the payment schedule set out in
subparagraph (i) above.”
5.
Clause VI of the Contract read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“a) In case of non-payment of two monthly salaries or more, the PLAYER will be deemed
to have a just cause to terminate the CONTRACT, provided that he has put the CLUB in
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15564
default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the CLUB to comply
with its financial obligations.
b)Following the conclusion of 2023 /2024 season, if the PLAYER wishes to transfer
(permanently or temporarily) to any club outside of Türkiye, the CLUB shall allow the
PLAYER to transfer to a club outside of Türkiye without requiring any transfer
compensation or compensation for termination of contract from the PLAYER and/or the
PLAYER's new club until 15 July 2024 at the latest.”
6.
Pursuant to clause VII of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a car and a furnished
house to be approved by the Player or monthly rent assistance of EUR 1,500; and a single
business class round-trip flight ticket to the Player's native country for the Player, his
spouse, three children, and an adult.
7.
On 15 July 2024, the president of Lille and a Club´s representative, Mr. İbrahim Sahinkaya
(hereinafter: Mr. Ibrahim) held the following discussions by WhatsApp (quoted verbatim):
“[President of Lille at 22h26 French time / 22h26 Turkish time] Dear Ibrahim, I am
Olivier Letang, president of lille. [sic] Please let me know if I can call you. I remain on call.
Best regards
[Mr. Ibrahim at 22h36 French time / 23h36 Turkish time] Dear Mr President.
Pleasure to meet you. I just spoke to Thomas about all details. Would it be possible to talk
tomorrow please if you dont [sic] mind? We have received the email from Thomas.
[President of Lille at unspecified time] Dear Ibrahim, Thank you for your swift feedback
and the confirmation you have received the termination letter of the contract of Thomas.”
8.
On 15 July 2024 at 22:24 French time or 23:24 Turkish time, the Player sent a
correspondence to the Club indicating the following (quoted verbatim):
“Please find attached my official letter for terminating my employment contract? May I
ask you to respond promptly please”. The letter contained the following :
“I hereby inform you about my decision to terminate from this day my contract pursuant
to clause VI of my employment contract signed with Trabzonspor Kulübü.
I wish to join a French Professional football club from 16th July and sign an employment
contract with this club as a free agent.
I kindly ask you to send me a termination employment agreement and confirm that I am
free to sign with this French club from 16th July 2024 as a free agent (without requiring
any compensation to this club or to me”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15564
9.
On 16 July 2024, the Club replied to the Player with the following (quoted verbatim):
“We would like to inform you that we received your letter, and we were astonished.
According to the clause you refer to in your letter, our Club had undertaken to allow you
to transfer to a club outside of Türkiye without requiring any transfer compensation or
compensation for termination of contract from you and/or your new club until 15 July
2024 at the latest.
Given that the relevant contractual clause stipulates that the new club to which you would
be transferred must be located outside of Türkiye, it is evident that this transfer could be
executed through a contract to which the new club, you, and our Club would all be parties,
even if there would be no transfer compensation.
However, until this date, no club has even informed us in writing which had been intending
to conclude a contract with you in compliance with Article 18(3) of FIF A RSTP. Any breach
of this provision shall be subject to appropriate sanctions before FIFA.
The date in the contractual clause is limited to July 15th in order for our Club to plan the
season. However, we regret to inform you that we are of the opinion that the deadline we
jointly set in the clause is attempted being circumvented in bad faith.
In light of the above, we kindly remind you to adhere to the terms of our contract.
Additionally, any club intending to conclude a contract with you should contact our club
in accordance with the FIF A RSTP.”
10. On the same day, the Player replied to the Club recalling all facts that occurred and
contested the Club’s position, indicating the following (quoted verbatim):
“First, Articles IV, a and VI, b of the Contract clearly do not provide for the formal
requirement of a tripartite agreement as a condition for the Player's free transfer. lf this
is what the Club aimed, it should have explicitly mentioned this in the Contract, quod non,
especially since the Club was the drafter of the Contract.
Moreover, in the event of a free transfer following a player being a free agent, it's not
common and not required at all to sign such transfer agreement between the old club and
the new club if no compensation of any kind is to be paid by the new club.
Second. it's clear from Exhibit 5 that LOSC did inform your Club about its intention to sign
the Player, before the contractual time limit provided in the Contract had passed, and this
just merely out of curtesy and to support the Player's release. The Club's statement in this
regard is thus utterly false.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15564
Moreover, Art. 18 (3) FIFA RSTP is not relevant in the present case, because the release
clause provided in Art. IV, a and VI, b in the Contract takes away its relevance. After all, the
release clause entitles the Player to terminate his Contract prematurely far free in order
to transfer to a non-Turkish club before 15 July 2024. As soon as the Player lifts the release
clause, he is a free agent, fallowing which his new club is not bound by the rules of Art. 18
(3) RSTP.
Third. the Player accepted the deadline of 15 July {instead of 31 July as requested during
the negotiations), in order for the Club to know whether the Player would still be in the
team far the 2024/2025 season. Nevertheless, the Player also respected said deadline, as
he activated the release clause on 15 July 2024. This means that the Club now knows that
it will need to find a replacement for the Player, for which it has still time until 13
September 2024 (i.e. almost two months!).
Moreover, the reason for the Player's notice being so late just before the provided
deadline, is merely because the Player had only a very short 15-day window to decide
whether he wanted to leave and if so, to find another interested club outside of Türkiye.
As soon as he agreed on personal terms with LOSC, he informed the Club accordingly. In
fact, legally it does not matter at all if the release letter was notified on 5 or 15 July 2024,
as it was still within the contractual time limit provided.
Any allegation of the Player supposedly acting in bad faith in this regard is therefore
completely false, unfounded and unacceptable, especially since nothing is being
circumvented at all. On the contrary, it’s your Club that is acting in bad faith, by refusing
the Player's release without any valid reason.
Based on the foregoing, the PIayer considers himself a free agent as of 15 July 2024 and
thus free to sign a new contract with LOSC, without any compensation being due by the
Player or LOSC to your Club, and hereby gives notice to your Club to take the necessary
steps in this direction at the first request of LOSC concerning the Player's ITC in TMS.
Failing this, the Player reserves all rights to take action against your Club, including a claim
for damages.
This letter is sent to you with reservation of all rights and without any prejudicial
acknowledgement.”
11. On the same day, Lille sent a correspondence to the Club asserting that the Player lawfully
activated a release clause allowing him to join a club outside Türkiye after the 2023/2024
season, provided that this occurred by 15 July 2024. Lille explained that the Player notified
the Club on 15 July 2024 and requested a termination agreement, and Lille’s president also
confirmed his intent to sign the Player. Lille further asserted that the clause does not
require a transfer agreement or compensation, and that FIFA rules recognize international
transfers without such agreements. Lille accused the Club of seeking unlawful financial
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15564
compensation and demanded confirmation that the Player was free to join Lille.
12. On 19 July 2024, the Player and Lille concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Lille Contract). Pursuant to the Lille Contract the Player was entitled to monthly gross salary
of EUR 150,000 and to a “prime exceptionnelle” of EUR 250,000 gross.
13. On 22 July 2024, Lille sent a correspondence to the Club sharing with them the legal opinion
of an attorney specialized in sports law, regarding the situation surrounding the
termination of the Contract.
14. On 25 July 2024, the Club informed the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) to reject the
release of the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
Information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS):
15. On 19 July 2024, Lille initiated the transfer of the Player in TMS.
16. On 22 July 2024, the French Football Federation (FFF) requested the Player’s ITC.
17. On 26 July 2024, the TFF rejected the ITC.
18. On 29 July 2024, the FFF contested the rejection.
19. On 2 August 2024 upon the decision of the Players’ Status Chamber, the ITC transfer was
completed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 12 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
21. The Claimant argued that the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract without just
cause, referring to clauses IV and VI of the Contract (hereinafter: the release clauses) to
terminate it.
22. The Claimant first emphasized that the release clauses were drafted by the Player.
Therefore, applying the principle in dubio contra stipulatorem, any ambiguity must be
interpreted against the party who drafted the clause, in this case, the Player. The Claimant
further argued that the clauses are not reciprocal and that, had such a provision been
drafted in favor of the Claimant, it would likely be deemed invalid. Consequently, the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15564
clauses must be interpreted narrowly and in favor of the weaker party, namely the
Claimant.
23. The Claimant then stressed that three conditions were necessary to activate the release
clauses allowing the Player’s transfer without compensation: (i) the Player’s expressed wish
to transfer, (ii) the transferee club being outside Türkiye, and (iii) the Claimant’s
authorization for such transfer by 15 July 2024. According to the Claimant, these conditions
were not satisfied because the Player never communicated his intention to leave or any
ongoing negotiations prior to sending his unilateral termination letter on 15 July 2024. It
later emerged that the Player had already reached a personal agreement with Lille before
that date, which the Claimant considered a breach of both the Contract and the principle
of good faith.
24. The Claimant further maintained that the release clauses referred specifically to a
“transfer,” meaning the formal movement of the Player’s registration from one association
to another, rather than unilateral termination of the Contract. The Player’s interpretation
that the clause permitted him to terminate the Contract freely until 15 July was contested
by the Claimant. The Claimant emphasized that the Contract required its consent and the
completion of transfer formalities within the specified timeframe. Simply sending a
termination letter did not fulfill these requirements, as no transfer agreement or ITC
request had been made by 15 July 2024.
25. Additionally, the Claimant highlighted that the contractual relationship between a
professional player and their club deserves protection. Clubs relied on the certainty that
players would remain under contract unless a mutual agreement for early termination was
reached. By failing to notify the Claimant of his intentions, the Player deprived the Club of
the opportunity to negotiate, plan for replacements, or make offers to retain him.
26. In conclusion, the Claimant asserted that the Player’s unilateral termination of the Contract
did not fall within the scope of clause VI(b) and therefore lacked just cause. Since the
required steps for activating the clause were not completed, the Claimant concluded that
the Player is liable for the consequences of his premature termination, including any
damages arising from this breach.
27. As to the consequences, the Claimant requested the application of art. 17 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and
requested:
-
EUR 3,000,000, corresponding to the residual value of EUR 2,000,000 net, plus 25%
withholding tax. The Club calculated the applicable withholding tax to amount to EUR
1,000,000, which would be borne by the Claimant. The Claimant also noted that it is
not aware of the Player’s new salary and, therefore, reserved its right to adjust and
increase the amount claimed accordingly.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15564
-
EUR 2,000,000 as replacing costs. The Claimant stated that: “Due to the fact that the
Player left the Claimant shortly before the latter’s first UEFA Europa League match on 25
July 2024, the Claimant 14 immediately had to transfer Portuguese player Mr Pedro Jorge
Gonçalves Malheiro from Boavista Futebol Clube, Futebol, SAD for the same position (righback) for a fixed transfer fee of EUR 2,000,000.The player Mr Pedro Jorge Gonçalves
Malheiro, who was transferred to replace the Player, signed a 4-year contract (plus 1 year
optional). Consequently, the Claimant also incurred EUR 2,000,000 in order to replace the
leaving player.”
28. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“• Declare itself competent to deal with the case,
• Order the First Respondent to pay EUR 5,000,000 (Five million Euro) as compensation for
breach of contract and 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from the date of claim.
The compensation amount is calculated as follows:
- EUR 3,000,000, corresponding to the value of the remaining period of the Contract,
without prejudice to the Claimant's right to increase the compensation amount in view of
the remuneration to be received by the Player under his contract with LOSC,
- EUR 2,000,000, corresponding to the replacement costs incurred by the Claimant as a
result of the Player premature termination.
• Hold the Second Respondent, LOSC, jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned compensation.
• Impose on the First and Second Respondent sanction in accordance with Art. 17(3) RSTP.”
b. Reply of the First Respondent
29. In its reply, the Player requested to reject the claim.
30. The Player mentioned that the release clauses were inserted following negotiations
between the parties for 2 reasons:
“i. The Player was hoping to play a lot and to perform at a high level with Trabzonspor so
he would get positive sporting visibility with the goal of a potential return to the Belgian
national team in view of the Euro 2024 championship and to return to a club in a Big 5
European competition. If the Player would have a successful season with Trabzonspor, he
thus wanted to have the opportunity to return to a European club for free;
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15564
ii. The Player wanted a signing bonus when he signed the Trabzonspor Contract as a free
agent, since Trabzonspor did not have to pay a transfer fee, but Trabzonspor claimed that
it could only grant such signing bonus as of the start of the 2024/2025 season. Therefore,
Trabzonspor agreed to include the Release Clauses as a compromise for not paying a
signing bonus.”
31. The Player concluded that such clauses were included after extensive negotiations and as
a fair compromise.
32. The Player stressed that the release clauses were clear and unequivocally set out and leave
no room for any interpretation other than that deduced from their natural and ordinary
meaning. These clauses have been applied as follows in this case:
-
““Following the conclusion of 2023/2024 season (foreseen on 30 June 2024)”: therefore,
it is clear that the end date of the 2023/2024 season is set for 30 June 2024. The Player
notified Trabzonspor of his intention to activate the Release Clauses on 15 July 2024,
which is after this deadline;
-
“if the PLAYER wishes to transfer”: the Player clearly expressed his wish to be
transferred and informed Trabzonspor accordingly;
-
"the CLUB shall allow the PLAYER to transfer to a club outside of Türkiye” : Trabzonspor
has no discretion in the event of clause activation; it is obligated to allow the Player to
be transferred if it concerns a club outside of Türkiye, which clearly was the case with
Lille;
-
"without requiring any transfer compensation or compensation for termination of
contract from the PLAYER and/or the PLAYER’s new club”: in addition to being required
to allow the transfer, Trabzonspor clearly agreed not to claim any compensation in
connection with the activation of the clause, whether from the Player or from Lille;
-
"until 15 July 2024 at the latest”: the Player had until 15 July 2024, inclusive, to activate
the clause. As stated, the clause was activated on 15 July 2024, by sending an email to
Trabzonspor (Exhibit 3), which was the last day on which it could be activated, and
Trabzonspor confirmed its receipt on the same day. […]
These elements and the chronology of events demonstrate that the Player has fully
complied with the Release Clauses and their conditions of exercise.
The terms used are free from any ambiguity, and the parties clearly intended for the
activation of this clause to depend solely on the Player, while Trabzonspor was only
required to acknowledge it, provided the conditions were met. Thus, the clauses refer
to the Player's “wish” while using terms that impose obligations on the club (“shall
allow”). This confirms that the intention of both parties in the contract was to allow
the Player to exercise a contractual right over which Trabzonspor had no say but was
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15564
merely required to acknowledge.”
33. The Player further mentioned that, contrary to the Club’s assertion, there was no need to
seek an authorisation. What is more, the Player referred to the communication between
the presidents of Lille and the Club, according to which the President of Trabzonspor (Mr.
Ibrahim) made no reservations or objections regarding the clauses and, on the contrary,
informed Lille that all the details had been discussed, which confirmed the intention of the
parties regarding the releases clauses. The President of Trabzonspor acknowledged having
discussed “all the details” with the Player and raised no objections, which supports that the
clauses depended solely on the Player’s wish, not Trabzonspor’s authorization. Interpreting
the deadline as applying only to the Player’s notification avoids making the clauses subject
to Trabzonspor’s goodwill, which would contradict their wording.
34. Additionally, Trabzonspor’s conduct (delaying discussions until after the deadline)
demonstrated bad faith, as recognized under art. 156 of the Swiss Code of Obligations
(SCO). By preventing the fulfillment of the condition through bad faith, the activation of the
release clauses should be deemed valid. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has
applied this principle in similar cases, and according to the Player, there is no need to
invoke art 18 SCO since the parties’ intentions are clear from the contract terms.
35. As to the Club’s assertions, the Player argued the following:
-
First, its reliance on contractual stability and the alleged need for prior notification
of negotiations was irrelevant because the parties had freely agreed to the release
clauses, which allowed the Player to terminate the contract within a strictly defined
15-day window. The Club knew this possibility existed and had nearly two months
after the activation period to plan for a replacement, given the Turkish transfer
window remained open until mid-September. Therefore, the claim that the 15 July
deadline was intended for season planning was unfounded.
-
Second, the Club’s assertion that activation of the release clauses required a
tripartite agreement or additional authorisation was contrary to the clear wording of
the clauses and CAS jurisprudence. The clauses imposed an obligation on the Club
to “allow” the transfer without requiring any compensation, and their activation
depended solely on the Player’s wish. If the parties intended to condition activation
on a formal transfer agreement, they would have expressly included such a
requirement. CAS has confirmed that transfers can occur without the old club’s
consent when a contract is terminated, which was precisely the case here. Thus, the
Club’s interpretation added conditions that were not stipulated in the contract.
-
Finally, the Club’s reliance on principles such as in dubio contra stipulatorem and
claims of non-reciprocity were misplaced. These principles apply only where
ambiguity exists, which was not the case, as the release clauses were clear and
unequivocal. Moreover, the clauses were negotiated as part of a broader contractual
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15564
compromise, not unilaterally imposed by the Player. The Contract was signed on
every page by Trabzonspor’s representatives, confirming their informed consent. In
light of these facts, Trabzonspor’s attempt to reinterpret its own contractual
obligations was baseless and aimed solely at avoiding the agreed consequences of
the release clauses. The Club’s claim that additional authorisation or an ITC request
by 15 July was required is baseless, as the Player validly exercised the release clauses
and signed with Lille.
36. As to the consequences under art. 17 of the Regulations, the Player first made a reserve on
the legality of art. 17 as the matter was under a preliminary ruling submitted to the
European Court of Justice in case C-650/22. Then, it mentioned that no consequences
should apply under art. 17 considering that the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract.
37. Subsidiarily, in case art. 17 applies, the Player mentioned the following:
-
First, the parties had foreseen in the releases clauses that the amount of
compensation for such early termination of the Contract would be zero.
-
Second:
•
In accordance with the principle of positive interest, the value of the Player’s
services is to be assessed based on the amounts in the Lille Contract (i.e. EUR
2,050,000), and the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract (i.e.
EUR 3,000,000) is to deducted from the compensation due as expenses
saved. This means that, based on the first criteria, the Player’s services are to
be valued at EUR 2,050,000 – EUR 3,000,000 = - EUR 950,000. Consequently,
based on the first criteria Trabzonspor did not incur any damages but rather
saved expenses.
•
As to the amount of EUR 2,000,000 as reimbursement, the Player pointed out
that the Club already made a formal offer to the player Pedro Malheiro in
February 2024 for an amount of EUR 3,500,000. Therefore, even if Pedro
Malheiro was now transferred to Trabzonspor as a replacement for the
Player, Trabzonspor saved EUR 1,500,000 as a transfer fee.
•
“Moreover, when calculating potential damages based on replacement costs, and
as established in FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, the Player’s remuneration for the
remainder of the old contract, should still be deducted from the replacements
costs as saved expenses. Therefore, and in any case, when calculating the
potential damages incurred by Trabzonspor, the Player’s remuneration under the
Trabzonspor Contract for the remainder of the contract in the amount of EUR
3,000,000, as established above, should be deducted as a saved expense from
Trabzonspor’s alleged replacement costs of EUR 2,000,000, which equals to – EUR
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15564
1,000,000, which shows that Trabzonspor, based on the principle of positive
interest, did not incur any damages based on the replacement costs, but rather
saved expenses.”
•
Consequently, and subsidiarily, taking into account the two objective
criteria described above and based on the principle of positive interest, it
can be concluded that Trabzonspor did not incur any damages, but rather
saved costs following the early termination of the Contract, following
which the amount of compensation due by the Player to Trabzonspor still
amounts to EUR 0.
38. As to the Joint liability, the Player stressed that neither the Player nor the Club can be held
liable to pay any compensation.
39. The Player further added that no sporting sanctions can be imposed on the Player under
art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations in view of the exceptional circumstances (i.e. the release
clauses) and no sporting sanctions can be imposed on Lille under art. 17 par. 4 of the
Regulations, as Lille discharged its burden of proof by evidencing that it never induced to
Player to commit any breach of contract.
40. The Player requested the following relief:
“For all the above reasons and for all other reasons to be further developed in the present
proceedings, the Player as the First Respondent requests the DRC to issue a decision
establishing that:
-
primarily, all of the claims filed by Trabzonspor as the Claimant are unfounded and
rejected in full, as the Player did not terminate his contract with Trabzonspor without
just cause;
-
subsidiarily, in the event that the Player is considered liable towards Trabzonspor for
termination of contract without just cause, and after having granted the Player the
reservation of its rights as regards the illegality of Art. 17 RSTP, hold that:
•
the amount of compensation due by the Player to Trabzonspor under Art. 17
(1) RSTP should be reduced to zero, as Trabzonspor in fact did not incur any
damages but instead saved expenses;
•
Lille is indeed the Player’s new club under Art. 17 (2) RSTP and therefore
considered jointly and severally liable to pay any of the compensation
awarded;
•
No sporting sanctions can be imposed on the Player under Art. 17 (3) RSTP in
view of the exceptional circumstances of the case;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15564
•
-
No sporting sanctions can be imposed on Lille under Art. 17 (4) RSTP as it met
its burden of proof not having induced the Player to any breach of contract, in
view of the exceptional circumstances of the case;
In any case, Trabzonspor is liable to pay for the procedural costs, if any;”.
c. Reply of the Second Respondent
41. The Second Respondent requested to reject the claim.
42. The Second Respondent maintained that the clause in question was a termination clause,
allowing the Player to end the Contract simply by notifying the Club of his decision. It
argued that the termination depended solely on the Player’s wish, as the wording “if the
PLAYER wishes to transfer” made clear, and that the Claimant had no power to prevent
termination once the conditions were met. By signing the Contract, Trabzonspor had given
its pre-emptive consent to such termination, meaning the Player’s email on 15 July 2024
validly triggered the clause within the agreed timeframe, resulting in termination by mutual
agreement under art. 13 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Contract was not terminated
without just cause.
43. Subsidiarily, even when interpreting the release clauses it would lead to the same result.
The Second Respondent agreed that Swiss law applied, and if an interpretation is
necessary, art. 18 (1) SCO applies. The principle of contra stipulatorem only applied as a last
resort when no other method could establish the parties’ intention. Applying these
methods, it was evident that no additional agreement between the Claimant, the Player,
and the new club had been intended, as such an agreement would have served no purpose.
The wording “the CLUB shall allow the PLAYER to transfer” could not have been interpreted
as an extra prerequisite for termination, as this would have contradicted the release
clause’s purpose of granting the Player the right to terminate. Requiring further consent or
action from the Claimant would have allowed delays and undermined the release clauses´
meaning. The parties had foreseen the season ending on 30 June 2024, leaving the Player
only 15 days to activate the release clauses, while the Claimant had nearly two months to
replace the Player. Any interpretation requiring additional authorization would have made
the timeframe impractical, which could not have reflected the true and common intention
of the parties.
44. The Second Respondent further mentioned that the conditions foreseen in clause IV of the
Contract were met, as the Player informed within the deadline that he will move to outside
Türkiye.
45. The Second Respondent recalled that the Claimant had argued that the Player’s
termination violated the principle of contractual stability. However, this principle could not
have extended beyond the limits of the Contract, and CAS jurisprudence confirmed that
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15564
contractual stability was not absolute. The Claimant agreed to the release clauses allowing
the Player to terminate the Contract, making his argument contradictory and irrelevant.
The Claimant also asserted that an ITC request was required by 15 July 2024, but the clause
only referred to the Player’s wish to transfer, not a formal ITC request. Additionally, the
Claimant alleged a breach of good faith for late notification, yet the Player had informed
him within the agreed deadline. Therefore, the termination option was validly exercised
within the deadline, and the Contract was terminated by mutual agreement on 15 July
2024. The termination was not without just cause, leaving the Claimant with no legal basis
for his claim.
46. Subsidiarily: Lille stressed that if the release clauses had required the Claimant’s
authorization, the deadline applied only to the Player’s notification, not to the
authorization. The wording showed that the Player’s wish was the condition, and the Club’s
allowance was the consequence. Since the Player met the conditions, the Claimant was
obliged to allow the transfer but failed, acting in bad faith.
47. Subsidiarily: Even if the FIFA DRC required the Claimant’s action before 15 July 2024, the
Claimant acted in bad faith to avoid a valid termination. The Claimant was obliged to
authorize once conditions were met, as shown by “shall allow.” Instead, its president
delayed communication and later denied the Player’s request, contradicting prior
statements. This conduct violated the principle of good faith and constituted venire contra
factum proprium. Under Art. 156 SCO, the condition must be deemed fulfilled since the
Claimant prevented it in bad faith.
48. Subsidiarily: The release clauses refer to compensation in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations. It determines the compensation to EUR 0, if Player signs with a club that
is based outside of Türkiye, consequently, the Claimant has no right to compensation.
49. Subsidiarily: There is no liability of the Second Respondent; the Second Respondent
referred to the dispute before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and mentioned that,
should the ECJ follow the General Advocate, art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not be
applied as such an application would violate EU law as the Player is Belgian and the Second
Respondent is a French company.
50. Subsidiarily: Applying the principle of positive interest, the Claimant saved EUR 950,000
with the Contract termination, as it did not have to pay salaries that exceeded the Player’s
services’ objective value, the Player’s salary with the Club was USD 3,000,000 and with Lille
was USD 2,050,000. As to the replacement costs, the Second Respondent stressed that in
February 2024, media reports confirmed that Trabzonspor made an official €3,500,000
offer to Boavista for Pedro Jorge Gonçalves Malheiro, coinciding with the departure of Jens
Stryger Larsen to Malmö FF, suggesting Malheiro was intended as Larsen’s replacement
rather than the Player’s. Although Boavista rejected the bid, Trabzonspor ultimately signed
Malheiro in the summer after the Player’s termination, saving EUR 1,500,000 compared to
its initial offer.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15564
51. Subsidiarily: The Second Respondent maintained that the Contract included a valid
termination clause, acted in good faith, and never anticipated a breach, therefore, the
Second Respondent cannot be deemed to have acted with intent or negligence; therefore,
no sporting sanctions should apply.
52. Lille requested the following relief:
“Reject the claim made by Trabzonspor in its entirety;
In case the claim is not rejected, adjust the compensation to an amount of € 0,00 (zero);
In any case, reject the claim made by Trabzonspor with regard to the sporting sanctions.”
d. Interim Regulatory Framework and replica of the Claimant
53. On 10 October 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Claimant to provide its replica
by no later than 20 October 2024.
54. On 16 October 2024, the Claimant requested an extension to provide its replica.
55. On 18 May 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Claimant to (i) 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); and (ii) granted an
extension to provide its comments regarding the response of the Respondents.
56. As to the merits, the Claimant mentioned that the 2023/2024 Season ended on 26 May
2024 and therefore, the Player had 50 days to activate the pertinent clauses. In any case,
regardless of the length of the period outlined in the Contract, the Player failed to realize
his transfer within this period which was until 15 July 2024, and unilaterally terminated the
contract without just cause.
57. The Claimant further mentioned that Mr. Ibrahim was not the president of the Club but a
board member and that the president of the Club is Mr. Ertuğrul Doğan since 26 March 2023.
Moreover, it mentioned that “the alleged WhatsApp conversation with İbrahim Şahinkaya
occurred at 22:36 on July 15, 2024, which is equivalent to 23:36 in Turkish time. Not only is it
inaccurate, but it is also absurd to interpret a response to a WhatsApp correspondence from an
individual with whom he had never previously interacted as an attempt to postpone the transfer
by indicating that they could talk the following day.”
58. The Claimant further mentioned that as confirmed by the Respondents, the Contract
between the Player and Lille was signed on 19 July 2025, and therefore, the transfer did not
occur until 15 July 2025. The Claimant stressed that there are three steps necessary to
satisfy the release clause:
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15564
- The Player's wish to transfer permanently or temporarily,
- The transferee club is based outside Türkiye,
- The transfer of the Player occurs until 15 July 2024 at the latest without any transfer
fee payable to Trabzonspor.
59. Regarding the latter, the Claimant argued that the transfer of the Player did not occur by
the contractual deadline i.e.,15 July 2024, which was essential for activating the relevant
clause requiring an international transfer (movement of registration between
associations). According to the claimant, no request for the Player’s registration was made
by any foreign club by that date. Therefore, the termination was without just cause, and
the Player should bear the consequences of this breach.
60. As to the Interim Regulatory Framework, the Claimant maintained that the positive interest
principle should not be used to eliminate the consequences of a violation of the legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda.
61. Regarding the compensation, the Claimant considered that it should reflect not only unpaid
remuneration but also the market cost of acquiring a player of “analogous value”. In this
case, the Player value was EUR 3,000,000. By contrast, the Player accepted a significantly
lower gross amount of EUR 2,050,000 from Lille, as the Player admitted, he sacrificed a
considerable amount of remuneration to return to a club in a Big 5 European competitions,
indicating that his new remuneration does not represent his true market value.
Consequently, the Claimant argued that the Player’s new salary cannot serve as a
benchmark for compensation under Article 17 Regulations, as it failed to reflect the actual
cost of retaining equivalent services.
62. Moreover, the Claimant argued that CAS jurisprudence permits considering replacement
costs when assessing damages for breach of contract, provided the club proves that the
new player was signed as a replacement and that a causal link exists between the
termination and the subsequent transfer. In this case, the Claimant acquired Pedro
Malheiro from Boavista for EUR 2,000,000 shortly after the Player’s departure, in the same
transfer window and for the same position (right-back). However, Malheiro’s guaranteed
salary (EUR 1,037,500 gross) and significantly lower performance levels compared to the
Player (EUR 3,000,000 gross and exceptional sporting contributions) show he is not of
comparable value. Thus, although the Claimant incurred real replacement costs, these do
not fully compensate the harm suffered by the Claimant.
63. As to the specificity of sport the Claimant stated that:
-
The Player waited until 23h25 on the final day of the deadline to send his termination
letter, despite the season ended in May and the Club’s upcoming UEFA Europa
League match on 25 July 2024. He also failed to inform the Claimant of his intent to
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15564
leave or ongoing negotiations. Furthermore, Lille was copied on the termination
email, which expressed the Player’s desire to join a French club, indicating prior
negotiations. Lille never notified the Claimant as required under art. 18 par. 3 of the
Regulations, reinforcing the bad faith conduct.
-
The Player breached the Contract during the protected period.
-
In light of the aggravating circumstances outlined above, the Claimant requested an
additional compensation of EUR 850,000, which is equivalent to six months of salary
paid by Trabzonspor to the Player.
64. The Claimant further added that Lille induced that Player indicating that its involvement
was clear: the termination email copied Lille’s contacts, the Player expressed intent to join
a French club, Lille’s President contacted a board member within a minute of the email sent
by the Player, and the Player signed with Lille on 19 July 2024. Lille never denied negotiating
before 15 July 2024, showing inducement and supporting joint liability.
65. The Club requested the following relief:
“• Declare itself competent to deal with the case,
• Order the First Respondent to pay EUR 5,000,000 (Five million Euro) as compensation for
breach of contract and 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from the date of claim.
• Hold the Second Respondent, LOSC, jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned compensation.
• Impose on the First and Second Respondent sanction in accordance with Art. 17(3) and
(4) RSTP.”
e. Duplica of the First Respondent
66. The Player considered that the arguments of the Club were irrelevant or do not introduce
any new elements regarding the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Player reiterated and
relied on the arguments set out in his initial submission, which, in his view, sufficiently
demonstrate that the Claimant’s claim must be dismissed.
67. The Player further submitted that the Claimant’s latest submission is inadmissible. In fact,
a portion of the arguments advanced by Trabzonspor fell outside the scope of the Interim
Regulatory Framework and effectively sought to introduce new or expand upon existing
arguments unrelated to it.
68. As to the Interim Regulatory Framework, the Player wished to point out that the Interim
Regulatory Framework also appeared not to have passed the Diarra test.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15564
69. Regarding the release clauses, the Player maintained that he had complied with the
Contract by notifying Trabzonspor of his intention to transfer to a European club outside
Türkiye by 15 July 2024. He rejected Trabzonspor’s assertion that the season had ended on
26 May 2024, noting that the parties had expressly agreed in the Contract that the season
would end on 30 June 2024, in alignment with the official TFF and FIFA calendars. Even if
the earlier date were applied, the Player still had until 15 July to activate the clause, and
Trabzonspor had sufficient time to secure a replacement before the closure of the transfer
window.
70. The Player also dismissed Trabzonspor’s argument concerning Mr. Ibrahim’s role, stating
that whether Ibrahim had held the title of President was irrelevant, as he had acted as
Trabzonspor’s representative and had confirmed receipt of the Player’s release notice.
Ibrahim’s involvement gave rise to legitimate expectations regarding his authority, and
Trabzonspor had never challenged his competence to communicate on its behalf.
71. Finally, the Player argued that his unilateral termination fell within the scope of the release
clauses, which had expressly permitted him to leave without compensation upon joining a
European club outside Türkiye. He further contended that Trabzonspor had suffered no
damages, as it had saved expenses in accordance with the positive interest principle, and
that its claims relating to replacement costs and the specificity of sport were unfounded.
Consequently, the Player requested that all of Trabzonspor’s claims be rejected and, in the
alternative, that any compensation be reduced to zero, with no sporting sanctions
imposed.
f. Duplica of the Second Respondent
72. Lille argued that the Player complied with the release clauses. Such clauses allowed him to
leave for a club outside Türkiye without paying compensation, provided he notified
Trabzonspor by 15 July 2024. The Player did so on that exact date, clearly expressing his
wish to join Lille. He argued that Trabzonspor’s claims about the season ending earlier and
giving him more time were irrelevant because the only contractual deadline was 15 July,
which he respected. Furthermore, the Player emphasized that the clause was triggered
solely by his expressed wish to transfer, not by completing the transfer or obtaining
Trabzonspor’s consent.
73. Lille also rejected Trabzonspor’s argument regarding Mr. Ibrahim’s role, stating that Mr.
Ibrahim acted as Trabzonspor’s representative and acknowledged receipt of the Player’s
email. This confirmed that Trabzonspor was duly informed. Lille maintained that any
confusion about Mr. Ibrahim’s title was immaterial since the Club never disputed his
authority to handle such matters.
74. Regarding the allegations of inducement by Lille, the latter argued that he exercised a
contractual right independently and that Lille did not sign the Player until after obtaining
an external legal opinion confirming the validity of the termination clause. The Player
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15564
highlighted that Trabzonspor had publicly announced his departure before any agreement
with Lille, showing the club had no real interest in retaining him.
75. Finally, Lille contended that Trabzonspor’s claim for EUR 5,000,000 in damages was
baseless. Under the Interim Regulatory Framework and CAS jurisprudence, compensation
must reflect actual damages, which Trabzonspor failed to prove. In fact, the Club saved
money by replacing him with a younger, less expensive player and even stood to benefit
from future transfer opportunities. Lille insisted that no sporting sanctions or additional
compensation could apply since he acted within his contractual rights and not in bad faith.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
76. 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 12 August 2024 and submitted for decision
on 5 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
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.
77. 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 (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 a Belgian player and a Turkish club with the involvement of a French
club.
78. 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.
79. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber observed that both parties referred that Swiss law is
to be applied subsidiarily. In this respect, The Chamber outlined that the Regulations take
precedence over national legislation in matters involving international employment-related
disputes between players and clubs. According to the Chamber, this principle ensures the
uniform application of rules across the global football community, thereby safeguarding
legal certainty and contractual stability. While national laws and collective agreements may
govern domestic matters, they cannot override the regulatory framework established by
FIFA when the dispute involves parties of different nationalities. As such, even where a
contract refers to national law, the DRC considered that it remains bound to apply the
Regulations and general principles of law, as mandated by art. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15564
b. Admissibility
80. The Chamber observed that the admissibility of the Club’s reply dated 29 May 2025 was
contested by the Player, who argued that the Club’s submission was not limited to issues
relating to the Interim Regulatory Framework.
81. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Club (1)
to submit its replica to the Respondents’ position, and (2) to amend its claim, should it so
wish, exclusively in relation to the potential consequences of the application of the new
Interim Regulatory Framework. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Club’s reply fell
within the scope of the requested information. Consequently, the Chamber considered
that there are no grounds to challenge the admissibility of the Claimant’s replica.
c. Burden of proof
82. 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 TMS.
d. Merits of the dispute
83. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
84. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that this is a claim
for breach of contract, according to which, the Claimant contended that the Player
terminated the Contract without just cause considering that the conditions foreseen in
clause iv and vi of the Contract were not fulfilled. On the other hand, the Player and Lille
considered that the conditions were fulfilled and therefore, no breach of contract occurred.
85. In this context, the Chamber needs to determine whether clauses iv and/or vi were
triggered and what are the consequences.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15564
86. The Chamber then recalled the precise wording of the relevant clauses, which state as
follows:
Clause iv of the Contract
“a. The PARTIES herein agree on the PLAYER who acknowledges and agrees acting as a free
agent to execute the activity of a professional football player in favor of the CLUB, for the
period determined and herein set starting from 6 February 2024 until 30 June 2025 as per
the schedules announced by TFF, keeping strict compliance with the conditions established
herein. Following the conclusion of 2023 /2024 season (foreseen on 30 June 2024 ),
however, if the PLAYER wishes to transfer (permanently or temporarily) to any club
outside of Türkiye, the CLUB shall allow the PLAYER to transfer to a club outside of
Türkiye without requiring any transfer compensation or any compensation for
termination of contract from the PLAYER and/or the PLAYER's new club until 15 July 2024
at the latest.
b. The term of the football season expresses the season, the commencement and expiry
dates of which are already determined / to be determined by TFF. […]”
Clause vi b of the Contract:
“b)Following the conclusion of 2023 /2024 season, if the PLAYER wishes to transfer
(permanently or temporarily) to any club outside of Türkiye, the CLUB shall allow the
PLAYER to transfer to a club outside of Türkiye without requiring any transfer
compensation or compensation for termination of contract from the PLAYER and/or the
PLAYER's new club until 15 July 2024 at the latest.” (emphasis added by the Chamber)
87. In this respect, the Chamber observed that both clauses contain a similar wording,
however, clause iv has a specific date i.e., as to the conclusion date of the second 2023 /
2024, and an explanation as that the Player was a free agent when singing the Contract.
88. Considering that the wording of clause vi is reproduced verbatim in clause iv, with the sole
exception of the reference to the date “(foreseen on 30 June 2024)”, the Chamber
proceeded to analyse the termination of the Contract in accordance with clause iv of the
Contract.
89. From the wording of clause iv, the Chamber considered that the following conditions had
to be triggered:
-
The Player must express his wish to transfer, either permanently or temporarily, to
a club outside of Türkiye.
-
This wish must be communicated by 15 July 2024 at the latest.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-15564
-
The Club shall allow the transfer.
-
The transfer must be to a club outside Türkiye.
90. In this context, the Chamber considered that such clause was a conditional termination
clause, which gave the Player the right to unilaterally terminate the Contract provided that
certain conditions are fulfilled.
91. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber noted that neither party contested the validity of
the contractual provisions at stake; rather, the dispute concerned their interpretation and
application. In any event, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber considered that
the release clause (clause iv of the Contract) could not be deemed potestative in light of the
particular circumstances of the case, including the Player’s status as a high-profile
professional with apparently significant bargaining power during the contractual
negotiations so as to negotiate such specific clauses in his contract. The exit mechanism
agreed by the parties, according to the Chamber, was not arbitrary, as it was subject to
clear, objective, and narrowly defined conditions governing the Player’s right to depart,
namely, a specific activation date and a limitation to transfers to a European club outside
Türkiye. In view of these elements, the Chamber deemed that the parties had validly
consented to the clause and that its structure was sufficiently balanced to distinguish it
from club’s unilateral termination options typically included in contracts.
92. Having established the above, the Chamber proceeded to assess whether the relevant
conditions had been fulfilled. With respect to the first and second conditions, the Chamber
found them to be satisfied. In particular, on 15 July 2024, the Player communicated his
intention to transfer to a French club. Although this notification was sent at 22h26 French
/ 23h26 Turkish time, the exact hour was irrelevant, as the applicable deadline was
understood to run until 23:59 on 15 July 2024. Moreover, by clearly indicating his intention
to join a club in France, the Player unequivocally confirmed that the prospective transfer
concerned a club “outside Türkiye”, as required by the clause.
93. With regard to the third and fourth conditions, the Chamber observed that the Club
effectively had no discretionary margin to oppose the transfer. The clause in question
conferred upon the Player a unilateral right which, once exercised, the Club was obliged to
honour. Nonetheless, the parties’ precise intention as to what constituted the Club
“allowing the transfer,” as well as the meaning to be attributed to the term “transfer” within
the context of the Contract, remained unclear.
94. Interpreting the clause in accordance with its ordinary meaning and the generally accepted
principle of good faith, amongst contracting parties the Chamber considered that the
obligation imposed on the Club must be understood as one to facilitate the Player’s move
and not to unreasonably hinder, withhold, or delay it. It cannot, conversely, be construed
as granting the Club a right to refuse the transfer altogether.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-15564
95. Moreover, the Contract does not provide that the Club’s obligation is contingent upon the
fulfilment of any specific administrative or regulatory step, (e.g., an ITC request in TMS) by
a given date. Had the parties intended to make the issuance or submission of the ITC (or
any other formality) a condition, such a requirement would have needed to be expressly
stipulated in the clause.
96. It is further relevant that, upon being duly informed, the Club had no margin to reject the
transfer, provided the destination was outside Türkiye. In the present case, the Club was
informed and, by its own confirmation, contact was made with a Club board member on
the same day, which is sufficient to treat the Club as having notice and to trigger its duty to
cooperate with the Player’s move. In the absence of any explicit contractual provision to
that effect, the Chamber could only conclude that the Club was obliged to allow, or accept,
the Player’s move to a non-Turkish club, provided that the transfer to such a club ultimately
took place.
97. In the present case, the Chamber also noted that (i) the Player had expressed his intention
to join a French club; (ii) Lille had contacted a representative of the Club on the same day,
15 July 2024, who, although not the President, was confirmed by the Club to be a board
member, in order to initiate communication; and (iii) the transfer was materialised within
three days through the Player’s signature of the employment contract and the submission
of the ITC request.
98. In conclusion, the Chamber stressed that the conditions of clause iv of the Contract were
met and therefore, the clause was validly exercised and the Club was bound to cooperate
with, rather than obstruct, the transfer.
99. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant.
e. Costs
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-15564
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Trabzonspor Futbol, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-15564
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. 27