Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18572
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Marko
Futacs
BY:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Marko Futacs, Hungary
Represented by Kristof Wenczel
RESPONDENT:
Yeni Mersin IdmanyurduFutbol A.Ş.
(formerly known as Mersin Idman Yurdu Spor Kulübü), Türkiye
Represented by Umur Varat
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18572
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 13 June 2014, the Hungarian player Marko Futacs (hereinafter: the Player) and the
Turkish club, Mersin Idman Yurdu Spor Kulübü (hereinafter: the Original Debtor) entered
an employment agreement to be valid from the said date until 31 May 2016.
2.
By means of decision 16-00445 passed by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter also referred to as: the FIFA DRC) on 17 August 2017 (hereinafter: the FIFA
Decision), the Original Debtor was ordered to pay:
“EUR 200,004 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the decision plus interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. as of expiry of the date of the Decision for outstanding remuneration;
EUR 133,336 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the Decision plus interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. as of expiry of the date of the Decision as compensation for breach of the
Contract”.
3.
On 23 August 2018, due to the non-compliance by the Original Debtor with the Decision,
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed disciplinary sanctions on the Original Debtor.
4.
On 18 September 2018, the Original Debtor and the Player entered into a settlement
agreement (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement) by means of which they agreed that the
outstanding amount of EUR 330,000 would be paid in several instalments, agreeing in
particular on the following terms:
“1.) The Player requests from FIFA DRC to suspend their process for an indefinite period
2.) The [Original Debtor] undertakes to pay the total debt according to a longer payment
schedule as follows:
€ 5,000 (in words five thousand euro until 31st Jan 2019
€ 5,000 (in words five thousand euro until 31st June 2019
€ 5,000 (in words five thousand euro until 31st November 2019
€ 2,500 (in words two thousand-five hundred euro until the last calendar day of each month
commencing within December 2019)
3.) If any instalment is delaying [sic!] the Player is entitled to request FIFA to continue the
disciplinary process and sanctions without any prior notice
4.) In case if the Club promote to a higher division for each season (in case of rise to
professional leagues) the monthly instalments will be doubled.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18572
5.
By means of letter dated 8 October 2018 (Ref. 180356), FIFA Disciplinary informed the
Player that the relevant proceeding against the Original Debtor would have been closed
following the Settlement Agreement and that, according to the FIFA Circular no. 1628 of 9
May 2018, “any future potential claim resulting from the breach of the aforementioned
agreement signed by the parties should have been lodged before the Players’ Status Committee
or Dispute Resolution Chamber, as applicable, or before the competent bodies at national or
international level as mutually agreed by the parties”.
6.
On 30 June 2019, the Original Debtor was dissolved.
7.
On 16 September 2019 the Player contacted FIFA Disciplinary in order to request a reopening of the relevant procedure against the Original Debtor, arguing that the latter had
not complied with the Settlement Agreement.
8.
In reply to the above, on 27 September 2019, FIFA Disciplinary confirmed the content of its
previous communication dated 8 October 2018.
9.
On 23 January 2023, the Secretariat of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee drafted a report
regarding the Original Debtor and the Turkish club Yeni Mersin Idmanyurdu Futbol A.S.
(hereinafter: the Respondent) within the scope of a separate and independent disciplinary
case (FDD-4323) investigating whether the Respondent was indeed the sporting successor
of the Original Debtor (hereinafter: the Investigatory Report).
10. In the Investigatory Report, the Secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee concluded that
the Respondent should be considered as the sporting successor of the Original Debtor
based on the following elements:
“- Name, "Mersin ldman Yurdu". Moreover, it seems that the translation from Turkish to English
of the word "Yeni" means "new'. In other words, it would appear that the New Club introduces
itself as the "new' Old Club.
- Both clubs share the similar team colours, red and navy
- Both clubs share a very similar logo.
- Both clubs share the same stadium, " Mersin Stadium".
- The following board members (or former board members) of the Old Club appears to be
current board members of the New Club: Mr Sabri Tekli, Besir Acar, and Mehmet Hanifi lsic.
Moreover, the current president of the Old Club (since 2019) was a board member of the New
Club in 2020/2021.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18572
- According to the TFF, a total of 23 players, who were registered for the Old Club, were registered
as amateurs in the season 2019/2020 for the New Club.
- Finally, it would appear that the public perceives the New Club as the Old Club since the New
Club presents itself as the Old Club and its supporters identify the New Club as the Old Club”.
11. In this respect, according to the Secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee, it appeared “that
the elements, which reveal sporting succession, would prevail over the non-existence elements,
and as a consequence, it would appear that the [Respondent] should be considered the sporting
successor of the [Original Debtor]”.
12. In this context, the Secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee also declared that “This
conclusion has been exclusively established by the Secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee on
the basis of the information provided to this date by the Claimant(s) and the New Club without
the intervention of any member(s) of the Disciplinary Committee. In light of the above, this
Memo is not a decision on the sporting succession of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee”.
13. By means of decision passed on 16 March 2023 (FDD-14109) the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee “was comfortably satisfied in its conclusion that the New Club – Yeni Mersin
Idmanyurdu Futbol AS – was to be considered as the sporting successor of the Original Club –
Mersin Idman Yurdu.”
14. On 6 June 2023, the Player sent a payment notice to the Respondent, requesting a total of
EUR 120,000 to be paid by 20 June 2023 plus an additional amount of EUR 210,000 to be
paid in 42 instalments of EUR 5,000 each, commencing from 30 June 2023 alongside the
relevant default interest:
“Please wire the sum of € 120.000, - (in words hundred twenty thousand euro) and additional
monthly € 5.000,- (in words five thousand euro) until the last day of each month commencing
with 30 June 2023 for 42 months) plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. commencing from the
effective date of each instalment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement […].
15. On 20 June 2023, the Respondent replied to the Player, arguing that it was not the sporting
successor of the Original Debtor, and contextually referring to another Turkish club named
Mersim Talim Yurdu as the actual sporting successor of the Original Debtor.
16. On 14 August 2023, the Player lodged a claim against the Respondent before the FIFA DRC
(FPSD-11343), submitting the following requests for relief:
“Please declare the [Respondent] as the (legal and/or sporting) successor of the [Original
Debtor] in accordance with article 25-1 RSTP.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18572
Please oblige the [Respondent] of payment of the net amount € 330.000, - (in words three
hundred thirty thousand euro) plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. commencing from the effective
date of the Settlement Agreement.
For the avoidance of doubts, the entire amount set out in the Settlement Agreement has become
due, due to the non-compliance with the payment notice by the Successor Club, sent on 6 June
2023.
Alternatively, please oblige the [Respondent] of payment of the net amount € 135.000, -1 (in
words hundred thirty-five thousand Euro and additional monthly € 5.000, - (in words five
thousand euro) for 39 additional months plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. commencing from
the effective date of each instalment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.” (emphasis
in original)
17. The Respondent, inter alia, denied that it was the sporting successor of the Original Debtor
and requested that the Player’s claim be declared inadmissible because it was time-barred.
18. On 18 October 2023, the FIFA DRC issued the operative part of the decision related to FPSD11343 (hereinafter: the First Decision), which provides as follows:
“1. The claim of the [Player] is inadmissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs”.
19. On 20 November 2023, the grounds of the First Decision were communicated to the
Parties, providing, inter alia, as follows:
“[…] [T]he Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the [FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players – the “FIFA RSTP”], which establishes that the decision-making bodies of
FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to
the dispute arose. The application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each
individual case.
In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 14
August 2023. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 [FIFA RSTP], any amounts fallen due before 14
August 2021 are affected by the statute of limitations.
The Chamber noted that, in the present case, the Player requested the payment of EUR 330,000
as outstanding amount under the Settlement Agreement stipulated with the [Original Debtor]
on 18 September 2018.
In this context, the DRC however noted that, while the Player in his claim referred to 30 June
2019 as the date in which the [Original Debtor] merged with another Turkish club thereby
generating the sporting succession of the [Original Debtor] with the constitution of the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18572
[Respondent], nonetheless the Player waited until 6 June 2023 before sending any formal notice
to put the [Respondent] in default.
In this respect, the DRC also wished to emphasize that already on 8 October 2018 and on 27
November 2019 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee had clearly informed the Player about the
relevant proceedings being closed and that any potential claim resulting from the breach of the
Settlement Agreement should have been lodged before the (then existing) Players’ Status
Committee or the Dispute Resolution Chamber ex novo.
To this extent, the Chamber considered in particular that (i) it was evident in the Player’s
understanding that the [Original Debtor] had apparently failed to comply with the Settlement
Agreement as of the relevant first instalment, due on 31 January 2019, as well as that (ii) the
[Original Debtor] was dissolved on 30 June 2019 and that (iii) to the Player’s knowledge, the
sporting successor of the [Original Debtor] – allegedly the [Respondent] – was founded on the
very same date.
With the above in mind, the Chamber determined that aforementioned date shall be considered
as the starting moment from which the Player should (or could) have filed his claim in front of
FIFA, namely because the perception of the [Respondent] as sporting successor of the [Original
Debtor] had already been formed in said point in time. By not doing so, the members of the
Chamber were unanimous in concluding that the Player has willingly postponed his decision to
act in order to collect the alleged outstanding sums, thus losing his rights to file the relevant
claim at hand due to the statute of limitations. Put differently, the DRC found that event which
trigger [sic] the dispute in the matter at hand, insofar as the sporting successorship is raised by
the [Player], is the date of constitution of the alleged successor, i.e., the [Respondent], which
unequivocally took place more than 2 years before the Player’s claim was lodged with FIFA
regarding the supposed breach fo [sic] the Settlement Agreement.
Consequently, the DRC established that the Player’s entire claim shall be considered
inadmissible.”
20. On 8 December 2023, the Player filed a Statement of Appeal before the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) against the First Decision (ref. CAS 2023/A/10204).
21. Meanwhile, in the context of another proceeding before the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
on 26 February 2024, the latter tackled once again the question concerning the sporting
succession between the Original Debtor and the Respondent, finding “no element in relation
to the matter at hand (including within the Respondent’s submission) that would enable it to
reach a different conclusion than that of the Previous Disciplinary Decisions” (FDD-15961).
22. Furthermore, by means of decisions passed on 21 and 22 November 2024, (respectively
CAS 2024/A/10431 and CAS 2023/A/9807), CAS confirmed “based on comfortable
satisfaction, that the [Respondent] is the sporting successor of the Original Debtor…”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18572
23. On 24 February 2025, CAS partially upheld the Player’s appeal in CAS 2023/A/10204(?) and
set aside the First Decision, specifying that:
“1. The appeal filed on 8 December 2023 by Mr Márkó Futács against the decision issued on 18
October 2023 by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal of the Fédération
Internationale de Football Association is partially upheld.
2. The decision issued on 18 October 2023 by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football
Tribunal of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association is set aside.
3. The case is remitted back to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal of the
Fédération Internationale de Football Association for further adjudication and a decision,
whereby it is bound by the Sole Arbitrator’s decision with respect to the admissibility of Mr Márkó
Futács’ claims:
[the Player] claims for instalments that fell due before 14 August 2021 are inadmissible but
claims for instalments that fell due as from 14 August 2021 are not time barred and are
therefore admissible.
(…)”
24. On 14 March 2025, FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that, in light of the
decision in CAS 2023/A/10204 (hereinafter referred to as: the CAS decision), the case FPSD11343 would be resumed under a different reference number (FPSD-18572). Both parties
were invited to file their updated submissions accordingly.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. A summary of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
26. In his (revised) claim, the Player referred to previous CAS awards dated respectively 21 and
22 November 2024 (i.e., CAS 2024/A/10431 and CAS 2023/A/9807) whereby the same
Respondent was deemed to be the actual sporting successor of the Original Debtor (see
par. 22 supra).
27. In this context, the Player reproposed the arguments adopted in his original claim (FPSD11343), thus claiming that the Respondent shall be deemed as the sporting successor of
the Original Debtor and that “For the avoidance of doubts, the entire amount set out in the
Settlement Agreement has become due, due to the non-compliance with the payment notice by
the [Respondent], sent on 6 June 2023”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18572
28. The Player thus claimed that the Respondent shall be condemned to the payment of “the
instalments due from 14 August 2021 (two years backwards from filing the Second FIFA Claim)
to receive the net amount € 265,000 [€ 70.000, - until today and €195.000, - instalments in the
future] plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. commencing from 14 August 2021”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
29. In its reply, the Respondent reproduced the statement of defence submitted in FPSD11343, thus objecting to its lack of standing in the relevant proceeding before the FIFA
Football Tribunal and arguing that the current procedure should be dismissed. In
particular, the Respondent held that there is no final and binding nor enforceable decision
or confirmation letter issued by the FIFA Football Tribunal based on the Settlement
Agreement, so the Player should have first lodged a new claim against the Original Debtor
in order to recognize the validity of the said document.
30. In continuation, the Respondent insisted on the application of the statute of limitations to
the entire amount claimed by the Player, arguing that the latter should have formally
requested the Respondent to comply with its financial obligations by no later than 27
November 2021, namely because he had been instructed by FIFA on 27 November 2019
(i.e., two years before) to file a claim against the Original Debtor based on the Settlement
Agreement.
31. Finally, the Respondent objected to the event of the sporting succession, upholding that
the Respondent is not the sporting successor of Original Debtor.
32. Due to the voluminous nature of the Respondent’s reply, only the key aspects of its position
in this respect are reproduced below:
-
The different legal entities:
In this context the Respondent emphasized that while the Original Debtor was
an association, the Respondent is instead established as a joint stock company
(“A.Ş”.); hence no asset transfer or legal continuity occurred.
-
Different ownership and management:
According to the Respondent, the current owners and board members of the
Respondent would have no role in the Original Debtor’s business and activities.
In this respect, the Respondent clarified that any temporary involvement of
certain individuals during the 2019 sporting season was indeed unrelated to the
relevant club’s continuity.
-
Different founding years:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18572
The Respondent highlighted the fact that the Original Debtor was founded in
1925; whereas the Respondent was born only in 1964 (originally known as
“İçelspor”), thus there would be no historical continuity between the two clubs.
-
Different sporting achievements:
Similarly, the Respondent denied any progression or continuity within the
relevant domestic leagues due to the fact that only the Original Debtor played
in the Turkish Super League, whereas the Respondent never did so.
-
Different team colors and logos:
In this context, the Respondent argued that the adoption of similar colors (i.e.,
“red/navy”) was common among the various clubs of Mersin due to the fact that
said colors were representative of the same city, hence they would not
constitute a prerogative nor trademark of the Original Debtor.
-
No transfer of players/staff:
The Respondent further pointed out that only 23 out of 141 players originally
registered with the Original Debtor eventually played for Respondent (as
amateurs), while no one among the Original Debtor’s technical staff has ever
joined the Respondent.
-
No use of the Original Debtor’s facilities:
In this respect, the Respondent stated having a different address and contact
info than the Original Debtor, whereas the use of the same city stadium would
be ascribable to the fact that the said infrastructure is a public facility used by
multiple clubs.
33. The Respondent therefore upheld its original requests for relief, namely:
-
“The Claim brought by the Player should be dismissed because lack of standing
and/or expiration of statute limitation;
-
to issue an award determining that the Respondent is not the sporting successor of
the Original Club and, therefore, not liable for the debts incurred by the Original Club
towards the Player;
-
to determine any other relief the FIFA may deem appropriate”.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18572
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. 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 initially presented to FIFA on 14 August 2023 and submitted for the
First Decision on 18 October 2023. Subsequently, the Chamber remarked that the CAS
Decision dated 24 February 2025 set aside the First Decision and remitted the case back to
the DRC for further adjudication and decision. The Chamber accordingly emphasized that
the relevant case has been resumed on 13 May 2025 and submitted for a new decision on
24 July 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.
35. 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 – in principle - competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Hungarian player and a Turkish club.
36. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, which establishes
that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years
have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application of this time limit
shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
37. With the above in mind, the Chamber wished to remark that by virtue of the CAS Decision,
the DRC is “bound by the Sole Arbitrator’s decision with respect to the admissibility of [the
Player’s] claims (…)”.
38. The Chamber therefore acknowledged that the “instalments that fell due before 14 August
2021 are inadmissible but claims for instalments that fell due as from 14 August 2021 are not
time barred and are therefore admissible.
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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18572
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
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
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 foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the diverging positions of the parties regarding the alleged
sporting succession between the Respondent and the Original Debtor as alleged by the
Player and the subsequent issue of the standing to be sued of the Respondent. In
particular, the Chamber observed that the Respondent primarily argues not to be
identifiable as the same entity of the Original Debtor and yet it objected that, if any sporting
succession was to be acknowledged, then the Player should have first lodged a new claim
against the Original Debtor in order to recognize the validity of the said document.
43. In this context, the Chamber understood that in the Respondent’s opinion, the latter shall
be deemed as having no standing to be sued in case of effective assessment of the sporting
succession as alleged by the Player.
44. In respect of the above, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to underline that, as a general
rule, a party has standing to be sued if it is potentially liable, by virtue of a previously
concluded valid and binding contract, to bear the legal consequences of a breach thereof
and to legally respond to a claim for tangible and protectable rights deriving from said
contract. Furthermore, the Chamber remarked that the issue of standing pertains to the
merits of a dispute.
45. In this respect, the Chamber focused on the objections raised by the Respondent regarding
its standing to be sued and noted that, in order to solve said issue, it appears of paramount
relevance to establish whether the sporting succession alleged by the Player exists or not.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18572
46. Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Single Judge wished to remark that, in line with FIFA’s
decision-making bodies’ jurisprudence related to the topic of sporting succession between
clubs as well as to the CAS Award 2016/A/4550, which mutatis mutandis can be applied to
the present matter, a club is a sporting entity identifiable by itself that, as a general rule,
transcends the legal entities which operate it. More in particular, said CAS Award – to which
the Single Judge adhered - referred to the following:
“[…] the obligations acquired by any of the entities in charge of its administration in relation
with its activity must be respected; and on the other side, that the identity of a club is constituted
by elements such as its name, colours, fans, history, sporting achievements, shield, trophies,
stadium, roster of players, historic figures, etc. that allow it to distinguish from all the other
clubs. Hence, the prevalence of the continuity and permanence in time of the sporting institution
in front of the entity that manages it has been recognised, even when dealing with the change
of management companies completely different from themselves”.
(original text in Spanish).
47. The Chamber equally recalled that, when assessing disputes presented before it, it can
consider evidence not presented by the parties, in line with art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural
Rules (January 2025 edition).
48. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, on several occasions prior to the
present decision, different deciding bodies (including the FIFA Disciplinary Committee and
CAS) have directly addressed the same question concerning the alleged sporting
succession between the Original Debtor and the Respondent.
49. In particular, the Chamber recalled FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision dated 16 March
2023 (FDD-14109) and CAS decisions dated 21 and 22 November 2024, (respectively CAS
2024/A/10431 and CAS 2023/A/9807). In this context, the Chamber noted that all the
mentioned decisions assessed the existence of several elements, such as the name, the
team’s colors, the logo, the stadium, etc., which similarity would confirm the sporting
succession between the Original Debtor and the Respondent.
50. In this respect, after further analysis of the evidence and documentation in its possession,
the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence that
would lead to a different conclusion, hence it decided to align with the abovementioned
decisions, thus confirming that the Respondent shall be deemed as the sporting successor
of the Original Debtor.
51. With the above in mind, the Chamber concluded that Respondent indeed has standing to
be sued, hence, the Respondent shall be deemed as liable for the financial obligations
undertaken by the Original Debtor under the Settlement Agreement dated 18 September
2018.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18572
52. In this context, the Chamber emphasized that the Respondent bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the relevant contract concluded between
the parties. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent left the amount in
dispute uncontested.
53. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Player claimed a total of EUR 265,000, which
corresponds to 106 monthly instalments in the value of EUR 2,500 as agreed under the
Settlement Agreement, namely from 14 August 2021 until 31 May 2030.
54. Having said that, the Chamber wished to remark that the the Settlement Agreement does
not include any provision which would entitle the Player to claim the entire amount thereto
stipulated in case of non-compliance by the Respondent with the terms of the said contract
(i.e., the so-called “acceleration clause”).
55. The Chamber therefore emphasized that in casu the Player was precluded from claiming
any amount contractually due after the date of the present decision, as it had not yet
accrued.
56. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general
legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Player shall be entitled to receive 47 instalments
as overdue payables under the Settlement Agreement, for a total of EUR 117,500 net (i.e.,
EUR 2,500 per month as of 31 August 2021 until 30 June 2025).
57. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said overdue
payables at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the relevant due date of each instalment (i.e., the last
day of each month) until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
58. 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.
59. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18572
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18572
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Marko Futacs, is accepted insofar it is admissible.
2.
Yeni Mersin IdmanyurduFutbol A.Ş.is the sporting successor of Mersin Idman Yurdu Spor
Kulübü.
3.
The Respondent, Yeni Mersin IdmanyurduFutbol A.Ş., must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18572
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18572
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18572
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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 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 Claimant 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. 19
REF. FPSD-18572
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. 20