Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18106
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Leandro
Deyrinio Kappel
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Leandro Deyrinio Kappel, Netherlands
Represented by Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
PENDİKSPOR FUTBOL A.Ş., Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18106
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 August 2022, the Dutch player, Leandro Deyrinio Kappel (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Turkish club, PENDİKSPOR FUTBOL A.Ş. (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract 1) initially valid
as from the date of signing until 31 May 2023.
2.
The Contract 1 included an option for the parties to extend its duration for an additional
season, with the original expiry date set for 31 May 2024—an option that the parties
exercised.
3.
In accordance with the Contract 1, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia a net monthly salary of minimum wage (the amount was not determined in the
Contract 1).
4.
The parties also allegedly signed a protocol (hereinafter: the Protocol 1) to determine the
additional conditions that would be signed between the parties for the 2023/2024 season.
It should be noted that the copy of the Protocol 1 filed by the Player did not contain any
signature.
5.
In accordance with Protocol 1, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia
EUR 102,000 net as down payment to be paid on or before 6 August 2023, and EUR 36,000
net as equal monthly instalments to be paid between August 2023 and May 2024.
6.
On 27 June 2024, the parties entered into a second protocol (hereinafter: the Protocol 2) to
determine the additional conditions that would be signed between the parties for the
2024/2025 season. The employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract 2) was
subsequently signed by the parties on 1 July 2024 with its effective duration from the date
of signing until 30 June 2025.
7.
In accordance with the Contract 2, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia EUR 5,000 net as equal monthly instalments to be paid between August 2024 and May
2025.
8.
Notwithstanding the above, the Protocol 2 establishes that the Respondent undertook to
pay to the Claimant inter alia EUR 100,000 net as down payment and EUR 15,000 net as
equal monthly instalments to be paid between August 2024 and May 2025, in addition to
the amounts indicated in the Contract 2.
9.
On 30 December 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of EUR
139,000 corresponding to 4 monthly salaries of EUR 20,000 each (August, September,
October, and November 2024), an advance payment of EUR 50,000 and a EUR 9,000
balance from the previous season; granting the Respondent 15 days to remedy the default.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18106
10. On 1 January 2025, the Claimant issued a notice to the Respondent requesting the Player’s
inclusion in the A-Team training programme and questioning the Club’s behaviour.
11. On 6 January 2025, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default of the payment
of the outstanding amounts mentioned in his previous notice, granting the Respondent 15
days to remedy the default. The Player also requested the inclusion of the Player in the ATeam training programme within 24 hours.
12. On 23 January 2024, the Claimant issued a termination notice to the Respondent, alleging
termination with just cause, and detailed the outstanding amounts.
13. On 30 January 2025, the Player concluded a new employment contract, with the Turkish
club Şanliurfaspor Kulübü valid until 30 June 2025. The Player was entitled to EUR 74,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 5 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
15. According to the Claimant, when considering Contract 2 and Protocol 2 together, the Club
is obliged to pay EUR 100,000 in concept of advance payment and EUR 20,000 monthly
salaries for 10 months.
16. The Claimant therefore argued that the Respondent has failed to make the
abovementioned payments.
17. According to the Claimant, on 1 January 2025, the Club excluded him from the A-team
training program without a valid reason.
18. According to the Claimant, after placing the Club in default and receiving no response, the
Player argued that he had just cause to terminate the employment relationship.
19. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
“The Claimant declares that he reserves his rights for surplus.
Given all the foregoing, the Claimant requests the DRC to:
i. Order that the Respondent has to pay the overdue and unpaid amount of 139,400 Euros
with its interest %5 per year from the due date of each payment which is given below:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18106
Amount
9,400 Euros
30,000 Euros
20,000 Euros
20,000 Euros
20,000 Euros
20,000 Euros
20,000 Euros
Payment Type
May 2024 Salary
Advance Payment
August Salary
September Salary
October Salary
November Salary
December Salary
Due Date
1st June 2024
27th June 2024
1st September 2024
1st October 2024
1st November 2024
1st December 2024
1st January 2025
ii. Order that the respondent has to pay compensation amount of 100,000 Euros with its
interest %5 per year starting from the termination date (23rd January 2025).
iii. Order that the respondent has to pay an additional compensation amount of 120,000
Euros with its interest %5 per year starting from the termination date (23rd January 2025).
iv. If and so far, the amounts as mentioned over will not be paid to the Player within the stated
time limit, Article 24 of RSTP and disciplinary sanctions will be imposed to the club.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
20. In its reply, the Respondent argued that it has complied with its financial obligations.
21. According to the Respondent, it made a salary payment of EUR 20,000 corresponding to
the first month (i.e. July 2024), for which it issued a receipt signed by the Player on 20
December 2024.
22. The Respondent also stated that it rejects the Protocol 1 presented by the Claimant, as it
has not been signed by the parties.
23. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
“1. The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal
about the present case.
2. For the reasons explained above, while evaluating the Claimant's claims, the amounts
paid, the salary receipt submitted to the file and the goodwill of the Respondent should
be taken into consideration, the amount in question should be deducted from the
Claimant's claims, and the Claimant's excess and unjustified wage claims should be
rejected.
3. In addition, pursuant to Article 17 of the RSTP, since the Claimant has agreed with a
new club, the contract between the Claimant and the new Şanliurfaspor Kulübü, must be
submitted to the case file and the guarantee fees in the new contract must be deducted
from the compensation claim. We request that the Claimant’s new contract with his new
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18106
Club be requested by FIFA and added to the case file. In the event that the Claimant does
not attach the new contract to the case file, the claim for compensation should be rejected
as the claim for compensation is completely unjustified.
4. The Player’s claims for additional compensation under Article 17 of the RSTP must be
rejected in their entirety. As it can be seen, the Claimant Player has signed with another club
after terminating the contract and is not entitled to claim compensation.”
c. Additional comments of the Claimant
24. In his additional comments, the Claimant indicated that the amount signalled in the receipt
submitted by the Respondent has already been deducted from the Player’s receivables,
specifically the advance payment.
25. The Claimant added that even if it were to be deducted from the August 2024 salary instead
of the advance payment, the Player still has outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR
130,000. Therefore, the abovementioned receipt may only change the starting date of the
interest.
26. Regarding the amounts owed for the 2023/2024 season, the Claimant asserted that the
Club made a payment to the Player of EUR 72,000 on 9 January 2024 in concept of salaries
of October and November 2023.
27. According to the Claimant, the Contract 1 established a remuneration of minimum wage,
which was equal to 17.002 TRY (approximately EUR 500 at the time). Therefore, the
payment of EUR 72,000 showed that the parties had signed a protocol for the 2023/2024
season.
28. Additionally, the Claimant submitted a WhatsApp conversation allegedly between the
Club’s lawyer and the Player’s lawyer in which a document identified as the 2023/2024
Protocol (i.e. the Protocol 1) was shared.
d. Information provided by the Turkish Football Federation
29. At the request of the FIFA General Secretariat, the Turkish Football Federation (TFF)
provided the following documents:
−
The Player’s historic of transfers within the TFF, which indicates the Player’s
registration with the Respondent from November 2022 to January 2025.
−
A copy of Contract 1.
−
A declaration confirming the contractual extension of Contract 1 until 31 May 2024.
−
A copy of Contract 2.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18106
−
A letter acknowledging that the Player terminated Contract 2 on 23 January 2025.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. 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 05 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 04 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
31. 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), 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 Dutch player and a Turkish club.
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18106
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the circumstances of the employment relationship and its
subsequent termination, and the amounts that remain outstanding.
36. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the contractual
basis of the employment relationship, whether there was a termination with just cause by
the Claimant and the consequences thereof.
37. With the above in mind, the Chamber recalled that Contract 1 indicated that its duration
was from 10 August 2022 until 31 May 2023, with a net monthly salary of “minimum wage”
and with the possibility of the contract to be extended to 31 May 2024 (see §2).
38. The Chamber then noted that the Claimant submits that the Contract 1 was ultimately
extended and, as per Protocol 1, and the salary for the 2023/2024 season was EUR 360,000
net, to be paid in equal instalments from August 2023 to May 2024 (i.e. 36,000 per month).
39. Nevertheless, the Chamber also noted that Protocol 1 (as submitted by the Claimant) has
not been signed by either party.
40. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, in order for an
employment contract to be considered valid and binding, it should contain all 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 payable by the
employer to the employee.
41. Taking this into account, the Chamber noted that Protocol 1 does identify both parties and
includes the salary to be paid for the 2023/2024 season. However, the lack of date and
details of the Player’s identity and, more importantly, the lack of signatures, still raise
questions as to the validity and effectiveness of this agreement.
42. As established in jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the existence of signatures on the
document in question are an important but not indispensable element to establish its valid
and binding nature.
43. The Chamber noted that on one hand, the Claimant has argued that he was never provided
the fully signed version of Protocol 1. On the other hand, the Respondent has rejected the
validity of Protocol 1 and argued that, in any case, the salary for the 2023/2024 season was
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18106
agreed to be minimum wage. However, the Chamber determined that the Respondent has
not made any argument to explain or justify his request of dismissal of Protocol 1.
44. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant submitted a payment receipt for EUR 72,000
paid by the Respondent on 9 January 2024 which is not only considerably higher than the
minimum wage but also exactly double the monthly salary indicated in Protocol 1.
45. Considering the prolonged relationship between the parties, their behaviour, and the
likelihood of Protocol 1 being executed, the Chamber determined that the realistic
inference is that Protocol 1 was concluded by the parties and supplements the terms of
Contract 1. A conclusion that is further reinforced by the Respondent’s failure to provide
any justification for the aforementioned EUR 72,000 payment to the Player.
46. Therefore, the Chamber decided that Protocol 1 is to be considered a valid and binding
contract between the parties.
47. With Respect to the Contract 2, the Chamber recalled that said contract indicates that its
duration is from 1 July 2024 until 30 June 2025 with a salary of EUR 50,000 net to be paid in
equal instalments from August 2024 to May 2025.
48. Additionally, the Chamber noted that it is not disputed that the parties executed Protocol
2, pursuant to which the Player was entitled to an advance payment of EUR 100,000 net
and a monthly salary of EUR 15,000 net for the 2024/2025 season, in addition to the
remuneration provided under Contract 2. Accordingly, the Player’s salary was to be paid in
equal instalments from August 2024 through May 2025 (i.e. 20,000 net per month).
49. Being that Contract 1 and Contract 2 pertain to distinct periods and neither expressly
supersedes the other, the Chamber decided that they must be interpreted in conjunction
to properly assess the alleged breach and its resulting implications.
50. With the above in mind, and to properly address the matter of the termination, the
Chamber considered that it was necessary to analyse Article 14bis Regulations, which
establishes two requirements to justify the termination of a contract due to overdue
payments: (i) the club must owe at least two months of overdue salary; and (ii) the player
must have formally notified the club in writing and granted a 15-day period to fulfil its
financial obligations.
51. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Chamber noted that the Claimant terminated the
Contract 2 on 23 January 2025 due to outstanding remuneration corresponding to EUR
100,000 (i.e., 5 salaries). Therefore, the first requirement was met, as the Club owed at least
two months of overdue salary.
52. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant did in fact send a notification on 30
December 2024, in which he placed the Club in default and granted a 15-day period to fulfil
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18106
its financial obligations. To be followed by a second notification on 6 January 2025 before
terminating the Contract 2 on 23 January 2025. Thus, the second requirement was also
satisfied.
53. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract 2 concluded
between the parties. Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the Club does not
demonstrate that it fulfilled its financial obligations under said contract.
54. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract 2, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
56. Firstly, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide evidence of full payment
under the terms of Protocol 1, therefore, an amount of EUR 9,400 remains outstanding,
corresponding to the Player’s salary for May 2024, as claimed by the Claimant.
57. Secondly, regarding the Contract 2 and Protocol 2, the Chamber noted that the Claimant
contends that both the advance payment and the monthly salaries from August to
December 2024 remain outstanding.
58. Nevertheless, the Respondent submitted a payment receipt in the amount of EUR 20,000,
dated 12 December 2024.
59. That being said, the Chamber noted that the Claimant is not seeking payment of the full
advance amount but has taken into account the sum reflected in the abovementioned
payment receipt, deducting it from the claimed outstanding balance.
60. Furthermore, the Respondent does not contest the lack of payment of the remaining
amounts claimed by the Player.
61. In view of the above, the Chamber determined that the salaries for the months of August,
September, October, November and December 2024 remain unpaid, together with a
partial amount of the advance payment. All amounting to EUR 130,000, i.e. 100,000 (20,000
times 5) + 30,000.
62. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 139,400.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18106
63. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
⎯ On the amount of EUR 9,400 as of 1 June 2024 until the date of effective payment;
⎯ On the amount of EUR 30,000 as down payment plus 5% p.a. as of 28 June 2024
until the date of effective payment;
⎯ On the amount of EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of August 2024 plus 5%
p.a. as of 1 September 2024;
⎯ On the amount of EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of September 2024
plus 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2024;
⎯ On the amount of EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of October 2024 plus
5% p.a. as of 1 November 2024;
⎯ On the amount of EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of November 2024 plus
5% p.a. as of 1 December 2024;
⎯ On the amount of EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of December 2024 plus
5% p.a. as of 1 January 2025.
64. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that although Protocol 2 does not specify
a payment date for the amount referred to as the 'down payment', it is presumed to
constitute remuneration for the contract's execution. Accordingly, interest shall accrue
from the day following the date of signature of Protocol 2.
65. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
66. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18106
67. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
68. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
2 from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 100,000 (i.e. the 20,000 * 5 months) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
69. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
70. Indeed, the player found employment with Turkish club Şanliurfaspor Kulübü. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to
approximately EUR 13,500 per month plus an advance payment of EUR 20,000. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of
EUR 74,000, that is, EUR 13,500 times 4 plus EUR 20,000.
71. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
72. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
EUR 60,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
73. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 86,000 to the Claimant (i.e. EUR 100,000 minus EUR 74,000 plus EUR 60,000), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18106
74. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
76. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
77. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
78. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
79. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
80. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18106
81. 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.
82. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18106
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Leandro Deyrinio Kappel, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PENDİKSPOR FUTBOL A.Ş., must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 9,400 as outstanding remuneration of May 2024 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
June 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 30,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 June 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of August 2024 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of September 2024 plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of October 2024 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of November 2024 plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration of December 2024 plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 86,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23
January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18106
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18106
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. 17