Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18431
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mboula Urie
Michel
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Mboula Urie Michel, Gabon
Represented by Ted Dimvula
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18431
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this disputed are:
•
The Turkish club Sanliurfaspor (hereinafter: Sanliurfaspor, the Club or the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent), affiliated with the Turkish Football Federation (TFF); and
•
The Gabonese player Mboula Urie Michel (hereinafter: the Player or the
Respondent / Counterclaimant).
2.
On 10 August 2023, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Employment Contract) valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2025.
3.
The Employment Contract included a clause entitling the Player to a “minimum wage.”
4.
On 19 July 2024, the Player and the Club signed an “Additional Protocol” (hereinafter: the
Additional Protocol) to establish further financial conditions governing their employment
relationship for the 2024/2025 football season, as well as the conditions to extend the
agreement for the 2025/2026 season.
5.
Under the terms of the Additional Protocol, the Club undertook to pay the Player a net
amount of EUR 25,000 for the 2024/2025 football season. This amount was to be paid in 10
monthly instalments of EUR 2,500 each, from August 2024 to May 2025.
6.
In addition to the fixed salary, the Player was entitled to bonuses and other benefits.
Notably, the Additional Protocol provided that:
“If the Player plays at least 15 matches for the Club’s first team in the 2024/2025 football
season, a bonus payment of EUR 7,500 net will be made to the Player.”
7.
On 22 January 2025, the Player’s representative, Ted Dimvula, exchanged WhatsApp
messages with a contact saved as “Selçuk Somuncu”, who is undisputedly a representative
of the Club. The exchange concerned the potential loan of the Player to the French club, FC
Metz (hereinafter: FC Metz). A disagreement arose regarding the payment of the loan fee:
while the Club insisted on receiving the payment by 31 January 2025, FC Metz and the
Player proposed to delay the payment deadline to 5 February 2025.
8.
In parallel, on 23 January 2025, the Player and the Club signed a document titled “Protocoll”
(hereinafter: the Loan Protocol), which set out the following terms and conditions, quoted
verbatim:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18431
“2. SUBJECT OF THE AGREEMENT
The player confirms and assures his current employer Sanliurfaspor SK that upon his
transfer to FC METZ, if the club FC METZ pays the fees late to his current club
Sanliurfaspor, he will pay the fees incurred in the amount of 15% in the event of late
payment by FC METZ will pay yourself.
The Player Urie-Michel MBOULA undertakes to make the following payments to
SANLIURFASPOR SK:
1.
If the club FC METZ pays the loan fee of €175,000.00 to its current employer
Sanliurfaspor SK later than February 5th, 2025, the player irrevocably
undertakes to pay the late fee of 15% (€26,250,00,-). to pay his current
employer Sanliurfaspor.
2.
If the club FC METZ pays the First Part of the Transfer Fee of €75,000.00 to its
current employer Sanliurfaspor SK later than August 1th, 2025, the player
irrevocably undertakes to pay the late fee of 15% (€11,250,00,-). to his current
employer Sanliurfaspor.
3.
If the club FC METZ pays the second Part of the Transfer Fee of €75,000.00 to
its current employer Sanliurfaspor SK later than Oktober 1th, 2025, the player
irrevocably undertakes to pay the late fee of 15% (€11,250,00,-) to his current
employer Sanliurfaspor.
3. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This Agreement is effective when signed by both parties. In the event of any dispute
between the parties, the FIFA (CAS) court shall have the authority to resolve any dispute.”
9.
FC Metz was not a party to the Loan Protocol, which was concluded exclusively between
the Player and the Club.
10. On 24 January 2025, the Player, the Club, and FC Metz entered into a loan agreement
(hereinafter: the Loan Agreement), pursuant to which the Player’s federative rights were
temporarily transferred from the Club to FC Metz for the period between the date of
signature and 30 June 2025.
11. Clause 3 of the Loan Agreement provided as follows:
“CLAUSE 3. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS DURING THE LOAN PERIOD
In consideration of the temporary transfer of the Player's registration for the Loan Period,
FC METZ agrees to pay to SANLIURFASPOR the sum of EUR 175.000,00 (One hundred and
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18431
seventy five thousand euros) (solidarity included), which shall be paid by FC METZ to
SANLIURFASPOR as on 05/02/2025, subject to receipt by FC METZ of a valid invoice sent
by SANLIURFASPOR.”
12. Clauses 5 of the Contract provided as follows, quoted verbatim:
“CLAUSE 5. FC METZ OPTION
5.1 CONDITIONS OF THE OPTION
FC METZ will have the obligation to acquire the Player's registration on a permanent basis
from SANLIURFASPOR, and will have to pay the amount detailed in clause 5.2
(hereinafter, the “Transfer Fee”), in the event the following condition precedent is fulfilled:
•
If the Player is fielded with FC METZ in at least 1 (one) match of the French Ligue
2 Championship, during the football season 2024/2025, irrespective of the
minutes played by the Player in such match.
For the purposes of this clause, it is agreed that 'fielded' means the Player enters the field
of player, either as a Substitute or Starting Player, in a match of FC METZ in French Ligue
2 Championship.
If the condition deluded above is fulfilled, then Parties shall put in the FIFA TMS the
instruction “from loan to permanent” within 15 (fifteen) calendar days after the fulfilment
of the condition precedent and the Player registration shall be permanently transferred
to FC METZ with effect from 01/07/2025.
In the event of the permanent transfer to FC METZ, SANLIURFASPOR and the Player
undertake to conclude an amendment to terminate the fixed term employment contract
binding them.
5.2. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE OPTION
In consideration of the permanent transfer of the Player’s registration following the
fulfillment of the Option, detailed in clause 5.1 FC METZ agrees to pay SANLIURFASPOR,
subject to and in accordance with the terms hereof, a Transfer Fee in the amount of EUR
150,000.00 (one hundred and fifty thousand) (solidarity included) subject to receipt by FC
METZ of a valid invoice sent by SANLIURFASPOR, which shall be paid by FC METZ to
SANLIURFASPOR as follows:
•
•
EUR 75,000.00 (Seventy five thousand) solidarity included on 01/08/2025
EUR 75,000.00 (Seventy five thousand) solidarity included on 01/09/2025
For the avoidance of doubt, the Option set out in the agreement is a mandatory purchase
option. In case of fulfilment of the condition set out above, in article 5.1, FC METZ will be
obliged to pay to SANLIURFASPOR the amounts set out above.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18431
13. On 4 February 2025 at 10:33, the Club sent an email to FC Metz inquiring whether an invoice
was required for the payment of the loan fee and requesting the relevant banking details.
14. Later that same day, at 14:17, FC Metz replied confirming the need for an invoice. FC Metz
provided its banking information along with specific instructions for the issuance of the
invoice.
15. On 5 February 2025 at 09:30, the Club responded by stating: “We are pleased that all
formalities regarding the player transfer Urie - Michel - Mboula have been successfully
completed. As agreed, you will receive our invoice. In attachment. With the request for timely
completion”.
16. At 14:00 on the same day, “Selçuk Somuncu” informed the Player’s representative that the
Club had sent the invoice to FC Metz and reiterated that the Club would enforce the Loan
Protocol should FC Metz fail to comply with the payment obligation in a timely manner. The
Player’s representative confirmed that FC Metz would proceed with the payment and
undertook to forward the receipt to the Club.
17. On 6 February 2025, “Selçuk Somuncu” sent a reminder via WhatsApp to the Player’s legal
representative stating that the payment should have already been completed and warning
that failure to do so would trigger the contractual penalty set out in the Loan Protocol. In
response, the Player’s legal representative shared a document titled “VIR 06022025
SANLIURFA”, which was presented as proof of payment of the loan fee.
18. FC Metz subsequently uploaded the same proof of payment to the relevant transfer
instruction to the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS).
19. On 7 February 2025, the Club emailed FC Metz, stating as follows:
“RE: Invoicing Urie Michel Mboula
Dear ladies and gentleman,
thank you in advance for sending us the transfer receipt. However, here in Turkey we
need a swift report from your bank to approve the transfer. Otherwise the money will be
withheld by the authorities until it has been completely verified, this takes a lot of time
and is unnecessary. So it would be very important to get this swift report.”
20. Later than day, “Selçuk Somuncu” forwarded a screenshot of the aforementioned email to
the Player’s representative via WhatsApp.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18431
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 7 March 2025, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Club
22. In its claim, the Club sought enforcement of the contractual penalty stipulated in the Loan
Protocol.
23. The Club argued that the Player had voluntarily entered into the Loan Protocol, in which he
undertook to personally pay a penalty fee of 15% - amounting to EUR 26,250 – if FC Metz
failed to pay the agreed loan fee of EUR 175,000 by 5 February 2025. According to the Club,
this clause was not imposed unilaterally but was the result of mutual negotiations and
formed a key condition for the Club’s consent to the Player’s transfer. The Club emphasized
that the Player had expressed a strong desire to leave and had accepted the penalty clause
knowingly and willingly. The Player’s commitment was documented in writing and signed
with full awareness.
24. The Club further contended that the Loan Agreement explicitly stated that the loan fee was
due on 5 February 2025, subject to the issuance of a valid invoice. Despite this, FC Metz
failed to make the payment on time.
25. As a result, the Club maintained that the delay triggered the penalty clause. Since the Player
had assumed responsibility for such a scenario, he was legally obligated to pay the penalty
amount. In support of its position, the Club cited jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) (CAS 2019/A/6334), which held that the risk of delay in bank payments lies
with the debtor. In this case, the Player had assumed the role of guarantor for the payment,
thereby becoming the debtor for the penalty.
26. Based on these legal grounds, the Club requested the following relief:
“The [Club] requests that you order the Respondent Player to pay EUR 26.250,00 with
interest at 5% per annum from the due date set out in the Protocol (05.02.2025) until the
date of actual payment.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Player
27. On 11 April 2025, the Player submitted a reply to the claim and lodged a counterclaim
against the Club.
28. The Player argued that the penalty clause invoked by the Club was legally unenforceable
and contrary to both FIFA regulations and Swiss law. He maintained that the Loan Protocol,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18431
which purported to make him personally liable for late payment penalties arising from FC
Metz’s obligations, was executed under coercive and irregular circumstances. The Player
claimed he never received a countersigned copy from the Club and that the document was
presented as a non-negotiable condition for his transfer, despite the club’s financial
instability and pressure tactics.
29. The Player contended that FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations), particularly articles 12bis, 13, 20, and 21, clearly assign
financial obligations in transfer agreements to clubs, not players. He emphasized that
players are not parties to financial transactions between clubs unless explicitly agreed
otherwise, and that imposing financial liability on a player for a club’s delay violates FIFA’s
principles of contractual stability and player protection. He further argued that art. 12bis
allows clubs to claim interest from other clubs – not from players – making the Club’s claim
fundamentally flawed.
30. The Player invoked art. 27 and 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO). He argued that
the Loan Protocol imposed a disproportionate and unfair obligation on him, infringing his
economic freedom and violating the principle that liability must be based on intentional or
culpable conduct. Since the delay was attributable to FC Metz and not to him, he asserted
that holding him liable was legally unsound.
31. The Player also highlighted procedural irregularities and bad faith on the part of the Club.
He pointed out that the Club delayed issuing the invoice required for payment until the
very day of the deadline, despite having known the contractual requirements since 24
January 2025. He argued that FC Metz acted diligently and transferred the funds within
hours of receiving the invoice, and that any delay was caused by the Club’s own negligence.
Therefore, the attempt to enforce the penalty clause against him was not only legally
baseless but also dishonest.
32. In addition to disputing the claim, the Player submitted counterclaims for unpaid salary
and bonuses under the Employment Contract and the Additional Protocol. He alleged that
the Club failed to pay his January 2025 salary and a performance bonus of EUR 7,500,
despite having met the required conditions. He also sought EUR 50,000 in moral and
reputational damages and EUR 5,000 in legal costs, citing the abusive nature of the
proceedings initiated by the Club.
33. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 12bis, 13, 20 and 21 and their appendices of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
Pursuant to Articles 27 and 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations,
Pursuant to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Football Tribunal,
Pursuant to FIFA case law,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18431
Pursuant to the foregoing pleas in law and to the documents submitted to the hearing,
The Football Tribunal is asked to:
Principally:
1. RECEIVE all of the [Player]'s pleas and arguments.
2. DISMISS the [Club]'s pleas and claims in their entirety.
3. DECLARE the document named ‘Protocoll’ concluded between Şanlıurfaspor and
Mr. Mboula on 23 January 2025 null and void in all its provisions.
4. ORDER the [Club] to pay the [Player] the total sum of €2,500 in respect of the
payment of the salary for January 2025 and the total sum of €7,500 in respect of
the bonus for matches played for the Claimant during the 2024/2025 sports
season.
5. ORDER the [Club] to pay the [Player] the sum of €50,000 for the moral,
economic/financial, and image damages suffered by the [Player] as a result of the
present abusive proceedings brought against him by the Claimant.
6. ORDER the [Club] to pay the [Player] the sum of €5,000 in respect of the costs
incurred by the Defendant in ensuring his defense.
In the alternative:
CONDEMN the [Club] to any financial and/or sporting sanction that the Football Tribunal
deems necessary in this context.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Club
34. On 5 May 2025, the Club filed its reply to the Player’s counterclaim.
35. The Club recalled the facts of the case and insisted that the amount claimed by the Player
was “unfair and much more that it should be”.
36. The Club updated its requests for relief as follows, quoted verbatim:
“6.1 For the reasons explained above, we respectfully request that this lawsuit
(Şanlıurfaspor Club as the Claimant) be accepted.
6.2 We request that the receivables claimed by the Respondent Player be rejected
because the receivables claimed by the Respondent Player are untrue and the Player
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18431
released the Şanlıurfaspor Club while transferring to another club with a testimonial fee
from the Club.
6.3 In addition, the non-pecuniary damages claimed by the Respondent Player should
be rejected as they are unfair and unfounded. Since the Player’s counsel has not incurred
any costs in responding to this lawsuit and there is no justification for this, we request
that the request for costs be dismissed.
6.4 Finally, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that
the judicial costs and the attorneyship fees that the Respondent is faced with shall be
paid by the Claimant. If not, to award a minimum amount of procedural cost in
connection with the temporary amendment to the Procedural Rules declared with the
Circular 1720.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
37. 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 7 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
18 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
38. 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 Gabonese player and a Turkish club.
39. 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
40. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18431
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
41. 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
42. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it involves a claim
brought by the Club against the Player for payment of a contractual penalty, and a
counterclaim brought by the Player against the Club for outstanding remuneration, moral
damages, and a contribution towards legal costs.
43. On the one hand, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that the Loan Protocol was a
condition sine qua non for the signature of the Loan Agreement. It maintained that the
Player had expressed a clear desire to transfer to FC Metz and, in doing so, agreed to
assume liability for any delay in the payment of the contractually agreed loan fee. The Club
defended the validity of the Loan Protocol, asserting that it was the result of mutual
negotiations and not imposed unilaterally. According to the Club, the Player accepted the
penalty clause knowingly and voluntarily, and the Club therefore requested its
enforcement.
44. The Player, on the other hand, contended that he could not be held responsible for a oneday delay caused by a third party, namely FC Metz. He argued that the Loan Protocol had
been signed under duress and was contrary to the spirit of the applicable regulations. In
his counterclaim, the Player sought payment of outstanding salary and bonus under the
Additional Protocol.
45. In this context, the DRC recognized that its task was to assess the merits of both the claim
and counterclaim, which it proceeded to analyse in turn.
A. CLAIM FOR CONTRACTUAL PENALTY
46. As a starting point, the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties
that they executed the Loan Protocol as a condition for the Player’s temporary transfer to
FC Metz. As a result, the DRC decided to split its analysis in two: first, the Loan Protocol’s
validity and, second, its enforceability.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18431
The validity of the Loan Protocol
47. The Chamber began by recalling that, although the Player claimed that he signed the Loan
Protocol under duress, he failed to substantiate this allegation. In particular, the Player
submitted a copy of the WhatsApp conversation between his representative and Selçuk
Somuncu; however, in the Chamber’s view, this exchange does not reveal any undue
influence. Rather, the Chamber considered that the conversation reflected a consistent
request from the Club for timely payment.
48. The Chamber outlined that the Player (through his representative) expressly confirmed
that he was the main interested party in joining FC Metz, citing the Club’s financial
constraints as a motivating factor. Similarly, while the Chamber acknowledged the Player’s
interest in joining FC Metz’s sporting project, it found evident that he voluntarily undertook
to guarantee that the arrangement between the two clubs would be respected. Notably, as
FC Metz rejected the inclusion of a penalty clause for late payment, the Player assumed
responsibility for any failure to pay – effectively acting as a “guarantor”.
49. The Chamber noted that, although such arrangements are relatively uncommon in the
football market – where the new club typically assumes financial obligations – this did not,
in itself, render the Loan Protocol invalid or unlawful
50. On the contrary, the Chamber found it decisive that the Player was represented at the time
of signing and it found no evidence that he was misled or coerced into accepting the terms
proposed by the Club.
51. Accordingly, the DRC concluded that the Player’s argument that the Loan Protocol should
be declared null and void could not succeed. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the
Loan Protocol was valid and binding on the parties.
Enforceability of the Loan Protocol considering the payment delay
52. Having stated the above, the Chamber nevertheless emphasized that the validity of the
Loan Protocol does not imply its enforceability under all circumstances. On the contrary,
the DRC underscored that the Football Tribunal retains the authority to review whether a
contractual arrangement between parties is reasonable and proportionate. In other words,
the parties’ contractual freedom must remain within the limits of reasonableness and
proportionality as established by the applicable regulations and jurisprudence.
53. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the following timeline was not disputed between
the parties:
•
On 4 February 2025, the Club contacted FC Metz to confirm whether an invoice
was required.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18431
•
On the same day, FC Metz confirmed the need for an invoice and requested
banking details.
•
On 5 February 2025, the Club provided the requested information and issued the
invoice.
•
On the same day, the Player confirmed that FC Metz would make the payment
on time.
•
On 6 February 2025, i.e., one day after the deadline, FC Metz completed the
payment.
54. The Player argued that the delay was (i) caused by the Club’s failure to issue the invoice, (ii)
insignificant given that the payment was made the following day, and (iii) attributed solely
to FC Metz.
55. In this context, while the Chamber considered that the Player had a direct interest in the
transfer and validly assumed part of the financial obligation, the Chamber held that the
circumstances surrounding the delay do not justify enforcement of the penalty clause
against him.
56. First, the Chamber accepted the Player’s argument and considered that the delay was
partially attributable to the Club, as it only issued the invoice on the date of payment.
57. The Chamber found it decisive that clause 3 of the Loan Agreement expressly and clearly
placed the obligation to issue the invoice on the Club. In this regard, the Chamber stressed
that the parties had stipulated that the payment was subject “to receipt by FC METZ of a valid
invoice sent by SANLIURFASPOR”. However, the Chamber noted that the Club failed to issue
the invoice in advance and, on 4 February 2025 - only one day before the due date - instead
of sending the invoice, contacted FC Metz to confirm whether an invoice was required,
despite this obligation being clearly outlined in the Loan Agreement. Moreover, the
Chamber observed that FC Metz replied in less than four hours, and the Club still only
provided the invoice the following day, which coincided with the due date. In the Chamber’s
view, the Club’s conduct contributed to the delay, particularly considering that the Loan
Agreement had been signed on 24 January 2025 and the Club took 12 days to issue the
invoice.
58. Second, the Chamber observed that FC Metz not only promptly replied to the Club’s
request on 4 February 2025 but also completed the payment less than 24 hours after
receiving the invoice, which also seemed like proactive behaviour.
59. Third, the Chamber was unconvinced of the existence of any material harm to the Club,
which could justify the imposition of the contractual penalty, particularly over the Player,
who was not in full control of the payment obligation. In conclusion, while the Chamber did
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18431
not condone the Player’s conduct, it considered that the circumstances surrounding the
delay – particularly the Club’s role in issuing the invoice on the due date – mitigated the
breach. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the application of the penalty clause
would be disproportionate to the nature and impact of the breach.
60. Accordingly, the Chamber decided to set aside the penalty clause and reject the Club’s claim
for its enforcement.
B. COUNTERCLAIM FOR OUTSTANDING REMUNERATION, MORAL DAMAGES
AND LEGAL COSTS
61. The Chamber then turned to the Player’s counterclaim for outstanding remuneration,
moral damages and contribution towards legal costs.
Outstanding salary and bonus
62. First and foremost, the Chamber recalled that the Player claimed entitlement to the salary
for January 2025 in the amount of EUR 2,500, as well as the performance bonus of EUR
7,500, as established in the Additional Protocol.
63. The Chamber found that the Player’s claim was based on contractual provisions and
supported by documentary evidence. Accordingly, it determined that the burden shifted to
the Club to demonstrate either that it fulfilled its financial obligations or that it had a valid
justification for non-payment.
64. However, the Chamber noted that the Club merely asserted that the Player’s claim was
baseless and failed to provide any supporting documentation or explanation to discharge
its burden.
65. In light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Player was entitled to a prorated salary
for January 2025, amounting to EUR 1,935.48 (i.e., EUR 2,500 times 24/31), as well as the
full performance bonus of EUR 7,500; thereby totalling EUR 9,435.48.
66. The DRC stressed that no interest was to be awarded, as it was not claimed by the Player
(ne ultra petita). No reference was made to “net” amounts, for the same reason.
Moral damages and legal costs
67. The Chamber then considered that the Player had not provided evidence, nor had he
quantified the alleged moral damage resulting from the Club’s conduct or the present
proceedings. Consequently, the DRC rejected this part of the claim.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber established that in accordance with art. 25, par. 8 of the
Procedural Rules, no legal costs are awarded in proceedings before the Football Tribunal.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18431
The Chamber then decided that each party shall bear its own costs in connection with the
procedure.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
72. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
73. 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
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18431
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Mboula Urie Michel, is
partially accepted.
3.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent / Counterclaimant EUR
9,435.48 as outstanding remuneration.
4.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counterclaimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Respondent /
Counterclaimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18431
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