Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18628
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player BangalyFode Koita
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Bangaly-Fode Koita, France
Represented by Sami Dinc
RESPONDENT:
Trabzonspor Futbol, Türkiye
Represented by Duygu Yaşar
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18628
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 June 2021, the French player Bangaly-Fode Koita (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Trabzonspor Futbol (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the Employment Contract) valid as from
28 June 2021 until 31 May 2024.
2.
Pursuant to clause V of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as
follows (quoted verbatim):
“V - REMUNERATION, BONUSES AND PAYMENT METHOD
The CLUB is obliged to pay the amounts as written below to the PLAYER in return of his services
subject to this CONTRACT. All amounts mentioned in this CONTRACT (salary, bonus, sign-onfee and under any name whatsoever) shall be paid from the CLUB to the PLAYER, net of any
taxes. The obligation of taxes, charges, stamp duty in the territory in Turkey shall be borne by
the CLUB in addition to the amounts stipulated in this Contract. For the avoidance of doubt,
the CLUB shall be responsible from all taxes (Income tax, withholding tax, stamp duty, etc.),
levies, contributions accrued and/or to be accrued in accordance with the Turkish Tax
legislation in addition to the amounts stipulated in this Contract.
a) For 2021/2022 Football Season: net 1.100.000.00-€ (one million and one hundred thousand
euros) will be paid to the PLAYER by the CLUB on below mentioned dates:
31/08/2021
01/10/2021
30/10/2021
30/11/2021
02/01/2021
31/01/2022
28/02/2022
01/04/2022
30/04/2022
31/05/2022
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
110,000.00-EURO
b) For 2022/2023 Football Season: net 1,150,000,00-€ (one million one hundred and fifty
thousand euro) will be paid to the PLAYER by the CLUB on the below mentioned dates:
31/08/2022
01/10/2022
31/10/2022
30/11/2022
02/01/2023
31/01/2023
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18628
28/02/2023
01/04/2023
30/04/2023
31/05/2023
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
115,000.00-EURO
c) For 2023/2024 Football Season: net 1,200,000,00-€ (one million two hundred thousand
euro) will be paid to the PLAYER by the CLUB on the below mentioned dates:
31/08/2023
01/10/2023
31/10/2023
30/11/2023
02/01/2023
31/01/2024
28/02/2024
01/04/2024
30/04/2024
31/05/2024
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
120,000.00-EURO
d) Sign-on-fee: In addition to the abovementioned amounts, the CLUB shall pay the PLAYER a
total amount of 1,000,000.-€ (one million euro) as signing fee in 3 (three) installments on the
below mentioned dates:
31/08/2021
31/08/2022
31/08/2023
333,000.00-EURO
333,000.00-EURO
334,000.00-EURO
e) Conditional Bonuses:
During the term of the contract and applicable for each season separately
e.1) In the event that the PLAYER scores and/or assist for total 20 goals in the official Turkish
Super League matches in a season the CLUB shall pay to the PLAYER the net amount of
100,000.00-€ (one hundred thousand euros) within the 30 days after the end of each sporting
season.
e.2) In the event that the PLAYER is fielded in total 75% of Super League matches within
starting 11 then the CLUB shall pay to the PLAYER net amount of 50,000.00-€ (fifty thousand
euro).
e.3) In event that CLUB participates to the group stages of UEFA Champions League Matches
then CLUB shall pay to PLAYER net amount of 100,000.00-€ (one hundred thousand euros).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18628
e.4) In event that CLUB participates to the group stages of UEFA Europa League Matches then
the CLUB shall pay to the PLAYER the net amount of 50,000.00-€ (fifty thousand euros).
For avoidance doubt, the conditional bonus determined paragraph e.3) and e.4) above shall
be paid only once for the respective season provided Player fielded in 50% of Super League
matches of the Club in such season. The abovementioned bonuses shall be paid to the Player
by the Club in 30 (thirty) days following the occurring date of the relevant success.
f) Sell-on-fee bonus: It is agreed that in the event the PLAYER is transferred to a third club from
the CLUB, the PLAYER shall be entitled to 15% (fifteen percent) of the Net income received by
the CLUB. Net income shall be defined as the net compensations, incomes under any name
whatsoever (i.e., exclusive of VAT and after deduction of solidarity contribution according to
Art. 21 and Annex 5 FIFA RSTP) received by the CLUB in respect of the next transfer of the
PLAYER less any payments made or still to be made by the CLUB to the PLAYER under this
Agreement. The Club will pay the relevant amount to the Player within 30 (thirty) days of
receiving the transfer fee from future transfer of the Player. If the transfer fee stated above
will be received in installments, than the Club will pay the Player’s share in installments in line
with the installments of the transfer fee.”
3.
On 8 September 2022, the Player, the Club and the Turkish club KASIMPASA A.S.
(hereinafter: Kasimpasa) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement) for
the temporary transfer of the Player to Kasimpasa from 8 September 2022 until 31 May
2023.
4.
On 15 September 2023, the Player and the Club concluded a document titled ‘Mutual
Termination Agreement’ (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement), pursuant to which the
parties established the following:
“1. The Parties hereby agree to mutually terminate the Employment Contract valid as from
28"’ June 2021 to 31st May 2024. (‘Contract’).
2. The parties are released from all their contractual obligations to one other, with the
exception of the Club’s obligation to pay the Player a net sum of 1,100,000.00. € (one million
one hundred thousand euros) according to the payment schedule outlined below.
[…]
7. Following the signature of this Agreement, any rights and obligations arising out of or in
connection with the Contract or any other agreement signed between the Parties shall
immediately cease.
8. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties and there are no oral
or written inducements, promises, or agreements except as contained herein. Any or all prior
agreements or contracts or notifications are void upon the execution of this Agreement.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18628
5.
On 15 February 2024, the parties amended the Termination Agreement (hereinafter: the
First Amendment) to reschedule certain payment dates originally stipulated in the
Termination Agreement.
6.
On 30 June 2024, the parties concluded a document titled ‘Debt Settlement’ (hereinafter:
the Second Amendment), to once again reschedule certain payment dates for the payment
of remaining amounts arising from the Termination Agreement.
7.
On 29 January 2025, the Player received a document titled “Payment Order” by the Turkish
Tax Office directorate, requiring him to settle an outstanding amount of TRY 7,194,827.86
listed as 'debt in collection'.
8.
On 3 March 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club (hereinafter: the Notice),
granting a 10-day deadline for the payment of TRY 5,832,127.46, plus 24% annual interest
accruing from 29 January 2025, corresponding to the proportional income tax due for the
2023 Turkish fiscal year.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 17 March 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
10. The Player lodged a claim before FIFA regarding tax liabilities.
11. Firstly, the Player argued that clause V of the Employment Contract explicitly stipulated that
all his remuneration would be paid net of taxes, with the Club bearing full responsibility for
all tax obligations under Turkish law.
12. He further submitted that the Club failed to fulfil its contractual obligation to pay the
Player’s proportional personal income tax for the 2023 calendar year, and as a direct
consequence of this breach, Turkish authorities initiated proceedings against him.
13. The Player asserted that, as per the income tax declaration determined upon conclusion
of the investigation and the corresponding accrual slip, he was ordered to pay TRY
5,513,387.25 as unpaid income tax. He further argued that the relevant tax authorities
imposed a late payment penalty of TRY 1,102,584,01 on him.
14. According to the Player, ultimately, the total amount due to the Turkish Tax Office amounted
to TRY 7,194,827.86, in accordance with the payment order dated 29 January 2025 issued
by the Turkish Tax Office.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18628
15. The Player emphasized that, according to his income tax declaration, he had received
earnings from three different football clubs during the 2023 calendar year, detailed as
follows:
Club
Trabzonspor Sportif Yatırım
ve Futbol İşletmeciliği Ticaret
A.Ş.
Kasımpaşa Sportif Faaliyetler
A.Ş.
Sivasspor Kulübü
Total
Earnings (TRY)
Percentage distribution
22.940.513,77-TL
81,06%
5.102.638,44-TL
18,03%
254.414,75-TL
28.297.566,96-TL
0,91%
16. Accordingly, citing the wording of clause V of the Employment Contract, the Player argued
that the Club shall be held liable to pay TRY 5,832,127.46, corresponding to 81,06% of the
total amount owed to the Turkish Tax Office.
17. Lastly, the Player pointed out that it has put the Club in default through the Notice, which
remained unanswered, thereby triggering the application of art. 12bis of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
18. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the following relief:
“7. Request for Relief
7.1. The Claimant would like to request you to make a decision that the Respondent has to
pay the overdue and unpaid amount of 5.832.127,46-TL (Five-million eight hundred thirtytwo thousand one hundred-twenty seven Turkish Liras Forty-six Cents) net with its default
interest of 24% p.a. interest starting from the 29.01.2025 until the date of effective payment.
7.2. The Claimant herein requests the Esteem Chamber to impose the necessary sanctions
determined in the Article 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(“RSTP”) considering that the Respondent was put in default in writing and had been granted
a deadline to comply with its financial obligations within the notice dated 03.03.2025.
7.3. In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file this case
herein, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that judicial
costs and attorneyship fees that the Claimant is faced with shall be paid by Respondent.
7.4. Furthermore, the amount claimed in this case concerns income tax, its interest, and its
penalty accrued until date of Payment Order (i.e., 29.01.2025). Therefore should any
additional penalty, interest and/or any additional obligation under any name whatsoever in
relation with year 2023 due late payment income tax. Moreover if the Player has to pay
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18628
income tax, its interest and its penalty and/or any other obligation under any name
whatsoever for other calendar years as well, we also expressly reserve our right claim those
amounts.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
19. In its reply dated 18 April 2025, the Club acknowledged that clause V of the Employment
Contract placed responsibility for tax liabilities on the Club. Nonetheless, the Club
highlighted that such obligation was superseded by the Termination Agreement.
20. According to the Club, the Termination Agreement—unlike the Employment Contract—
contained no reference to Turkish tax legislation or any obligation to cover the Player’s
income tax. Instead, it reflected a comprehensive settlement of all financial obligations
through a lump sum payment, with both parties expressly releasing each other from any
further claims, except for the agreed settlement amount.
21. The Club further asserted that the Player, having played in Türkiye since 2016 and being
familiar with the local tax system, was fully aware of his personal obligation to file and pay
income taxes. In this sense, the absence of any tax-related provisions in the Termination
Agreement or its subsequent amendments served to reinforce the Club’s position that it
was not responsible for the Player’s 2023 tax liabilities.
22. The Club also argued that the mere use of the term “net” in the Termination Agreement
has not implied an obligation to cover personal income tax, especially given the detailed
tax clauses in prior agreements.
23. Additionally, the Club asserted that the Player has not provided sufficient evidence proving
that the income tax and penalties for the 2023 calendar year were actually paid. Since
personal income tax falls within the Player’s individual responsibility, and no payment has
been confirmed, it stated that the claimed amount cannot be considered an overdue debt.
It concluded that, even if the Club were considered contractually liable, such liability would
only arise upon the Player’s actual payment of the relevant tax amount.
24. The Club further argued it should not be held liable for penalties or interest imposed on
the Player by Turkish authorities, as these resulted from the Player’s own failure to file his
income tax return on time. Given the Player’s familiarity with the Turkish tax system, any
such consequences fall within his personal responsibility and cannot be transferred to the
Club.
25. Lastly, the Club argued that the Player’s request for 24% annual interest based on Turkish
law should be rejected, as the applicable legal framework is FIFA regulations and,
subsidiarily, Swiss law—an interpretation the Player himself agreed with.
26. In light of the above, the Club requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18628
“VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
46. In light of the above-mentioned facts, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber to rule as follows:
- The Respondent does not owe any money to the Claimant, as a result the present claim is
rejected and closed accordingly.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
27. On its replica dated 7 May 2025, the Payer first asserted that, at the time the Termination
Agreement was signed (15 September 2023), no income tax liability for 2023 had yet arisen.
Therefore, any interpretation suggesting the Club waived future tax obligations is legally
unfounded, as such obligations did not exist at the time.
28. Citing art. 341(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), the Player emphasized that
employees cannot waive claims arising from mandatory legal provisions during or shortly
after the employment relationship. Since the tax obligation had not yet materialized or
been quantified, interpreting the Termination Agreement as a waiver would be equivalent
to unlawfully waiving unpaid salary. Therefore, the Player held that the Club remained
liable for covering the unpaid tax.
29. The Player argued that the use of the term “net” in the Termination Agreement reaffirmed
the Club’s obligation to ensure full payment without deductions. He contended that this
did not constitute a waiver of the Club’s responsibility to cover income tax, as such waivers
must be interpreted narrowly and cannot be presumed.
30. He then asserted that the Club’s obligation to cover income tax was integral to ensure the
payment of the agreed net salary. Hence, a waiver of this responsibility would effectively
reduce the Player’s salary, conflicting with the Employment Contract and placing an unjust
financial burden on him.
31. Also, citing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Player asserted that the term “net”
was deemed sufficient to establish the Club’s responsibility for income tax. Similarly, the
Player argued that the Club remained liable for taxes under the Employment Contract and
Loan Agreement, and no explicit waiver in the Termination Agreement altered this
obligation.
32. The Player contended that, under the Employment Contract, the Club was contractually
obligated to pay all taxes—including income tax—in addition to the agreed net salary,
regardless of whether the Player had already fulfilled the tax payment himself. Accordingly,
he argued that the Club’s obligation was not contingent upon prior payment of the taxes
by the Player. Furthermore, he maintained that he could not fulfil the tax obligation without
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18628
first receiving the corresponding payment from the Club, and that this failure directly
caused the delay and the resulting penalties, for which the Club must bear full
responsibility.
33. Lastly, regarding the applicable interest, the Player held that while Swiss law governs the
merits, the claimed amounts are in Turkish Liras (TRY) and the financial harm occurred in
Türkiye. Therefore, to fully compensate for his loss, interest should be calculated under
Turkish law at a rate of 24% per annum.
34. Considering the above, he requested that the Club’s arguments be dismissed.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
35. In its duplica dated 22 May 2025, the Club reiterated that the Termination Agreement
expressly released both parties from all prior contractual obligations, including those
under the Employment Contract. Therefore, any reference to clause V of the Employment
Contract was irrelevant to the case at hand.
36. Additionally, it invoked the principle of venire contra factum proprium, as the Player’s claim
contradicted the mutual release agreed upon under the Termination Agreement.
According to the Club, the Player was aware of the potential tax issue but still signed a
release of all obligations beyond the settlement sum.
37. The Club further stressed that the Player’s personal income tax is a legal obligation and not
a wage-related claim protected under art. 341(1) of the SCO. It argued that the tax liability,
although not accrued at the time of the Termination Agreement, was foreseeable and
calculable, which is confirmed by the Player’s late filing penalty. Moreover, it reiterated that
the substantial settlement amount paid under the Termination Agreement reflected a
release from all past and future claims, as explicitly stated in clause 7 of said document.
38. The Club pointed out that the case law invoked by the Player is not applicable to the case
at hand, as said cases involved explicit statements acknowledging the club’s obligation to
pay taxes. In contrast, the Termination Agreement at hand contained no reference to taxes
and only used the term “net” without defining it. The Club asserted that the parties’
intention in the Termination Agreement differed from prior agreements, which included
detailed tax provisions, and that all previous contracts were voided upon the execution of
the Termination Agreement.
39. Finally, the Club referred to the case FPSD-14995 decision, where the DRC found that
omitting tax-related clauses from a termination agreement—despite their presence in the
employment contract—worked against the player. Similarly, in this case, the Termination
Agreement lacked any tax-related provisions, and the Player failed to provide evidence of
any contrary intent.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18628
40. Considering the above, the Club maintained that it has no remaining outstanding
obligations and requested the claim be dismissed in full.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
41. 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 17 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
26 August 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.
42. 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 an French player and a Turkish club.
43. 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 (July 2025 edition), the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance
b. Burden of proof
44. 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
45. 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. 11
REF. FPSD-18628
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
46. The DRC then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of that the dispute
pertained to alleged overdue payables arising from purportedly unpaid personal income
taxes.
47. On the one hand, the DRC noted that the Player claims to be entitled to TRY 5,832,127.46,
corresponding to the proportional unpaid income tax for the portion of the 2023 calendar
year during which he was employed by the Club, together with a proportional share of the
related penalty imposed by Turkish authorities. On the other hand, the DRC observed that
the Club disputes the Player’s entitlement to any amount vis-à-vis (i) the fact that the
Employment Contract was superseded; and (ii) the unspecified wording of the Termination
Agreement in addition to the financial release contained therein.
48. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the Player is
in fact entitled to the claimed amount.
49. As a starting point, the DRC observed that clause V of the Employment Contract is indeed
clear and unambiguous in establishing that the Club is liable for the payment of any tax
liabilities arising in connection therewith, including the Player’s personal income tax.
50. The DRC further noticed that, at the same time, the Termination Agreement does not
contain the same provision, and it is also silent on the meaning of the term “net” mentioned
therein.
51. Accordingly, the DRC concluded that the fundamental question to be answered is whether
the Termination Agreement replaced the Employment Contract and, if so, whether the Club
has any residual liability of the taxes for the duration of the employment relationship.
52. In this context, the DRC turned its attention to the wording of the Termination Agreement,
which provides, inter alia, the following:
o
[Clause 1]: “The Parties hereby agree to mutually terminate the Employment Contract
[…]”
o
[Clause 2]: “The parties are released from all their contractual obligations to one other,
with the exception of the Club’s obligation to pay the Player a net sum of […]”
o
[Clause 7]: “Following the signature of this Agreement, any rights and obligations arising
out of or in connection with the Contract or any other agreement signed between the
Parties shall immediately cease.”
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18628
o
[Clause 8]: “This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties and there
are no oral or written inducements, promises, or agreements except as contained herein.
Any or all prior agreements or contracts or notifications are void upon the execution of
this Agreement.”
53. In view of the foregoing, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the parties expressed
not only once, but several times, their intention to novate their obligations and to release
each other from any residual obligation arising out of the Employment Contract. As noted
by the majority of the Chamber, the parties not only included a financial release from any
further obligations in addition to the settlement amount, but they also expressly stipulated
that the Termination Agreement should replace any further agreements and constitute
their “entire agreement” for all future obligations.
54. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber accepted the Club’s position that the content
of clause V of the Employment Contract is immaterial to the assessment of the present
case and that any analysis must be based solely on the wording of the Termination
Agreement.
55. In this context, the majority of the Chamber highlighted that, based on the evidence
contained in the case file, the Player had been employed by Turkish clubs since at least 28
June 2021, under engagements with different employers. Accordingly, the majority of the
Chamber concluded that, by the time the Termination Agreement was executed on 15
September 2023, the Player was already familiar with the applicable income tax framework
in Türkiye, as well as the allocation of contractual obligations among the relevant parties.
It follows that, at the time of signing the Termination Agreement, the Player was fully aware
of the tax-related implications and, nevertheless, granted the Club a comprehensive
financial release covering all claims beyond the agreed settlement amount.
56. Notably, the majority of the Chamber pointed out that the case file contained no indication
that the (future or past) tax-related implications were ever raised, negotiated, or disputed
during the conclusion of the Termination Agreement. In fact, the majority of the DRC
weighted that the Termination Agreement was subsequently amended twice—first by the
First Amendment, and later by the Second Amendment—and on both occasions, no effort
was made by the Player to address or revise the treatment of tax-related matters.
57. The DRC also considered it relevant to examine whether the Parties had in any way allowed
for a different interpretation of the Termination Agreement that could possibly support the
Player’s claim.
58. In this regard, the DRC first recalled that the Termination Agreement makes no reference
to the Club’s obligation to pay the Player’s personal income tax for the duration of the
Employment Contract. Similarly, the Termination Agreement is silent as to the income tax
arising from the settlement sum.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18628
59. In this context, the majority of the Chamber considered that, although the Termination
Agreement refers to the settlement amount as “net,” this reference alone is insufficient to
conclude that the Club would assume all tax liabilities — particularly those extending into
the Player’s personal domain, such as personal income tax.
60. Accordingly, the majority of the Chamber have found that the conclusions reached by the
Football Tribunal in another case involving the same club, but a different player (FPSD14995) also apply to the present case. Most notably, the majority of the Chamber, as also
stated in the previous matter, considered that the conclusions from the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) in CAS 2023/A/9438 are relevant to this case.
61. Particularly, the aforementioned dispute involved a Congolese player and another Turkish
club and a contract that simply referred to “net”, without further specification. In
considering this scenario, the CAS panel determined, in essence, that an experienced
professional player “could not in good faith have expected that the term “net” would
automatically mean that he was to be reimbursed by the Club for any private payable income
tax originating from his contractual remuneration from the Club” (§96).
62. The majority of the DRC concluded that the same rationale can be applied to the present
case to the extent that the Player, when signing the Termination Agreement with the
general reference to “net”, could not legitimately expect that he would still be entitled to
payments corresponding any kind of taxes resulting from the time in which he was
employed by the Club.
63. Similarly, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the previous definition contained in
the Employment Contract and omitted from the Termination Agreement works against the
Player. In summary, the majority of the Chamber highlighted that, by including such a
detailed reference to the previous contract, the Player was indeed aware of the tax
implications over his remuneration, which were then properly addressed. Nevertheless,
and for non-foreseeable reasons, the same level of diligence was not applied to the
Termination Agreement, creating a contractual lacuna that cannot be overcome by the DRC
by referring to a previous agreement that has already been superseded.
64. For the sake of completeness, the DRC noted that the Player argued that, under Swiss Law,
employees cannot waive mandatory legal claims during or shortly after employment, and
that interpreting the agreement as a waiver would equate to waiving unpaid salary, which
would be prohibited.
65. However, the majority of the Chamber found that, in this particular case, the nature of the
Termination Agreement was not that of a waiver of rights but rather a novation mutually
agreed upon by both parties. This novation entailed a reallocation of responsibilities and a
restructuring of claims, the fairness and proportionality of which were never contested by
the Player, even during subsequent amendments to the Termination Agreement.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18628
66. Furthermore, the majority of the Chamber clarified that the claimed amounts do not qualify
as salary in the strict legal sense but rather stem from personal tax-related obligations.
Consequently, the Termination Agreement, does not amount to an impermissible waiver.
67. Based on all of the above, the majority of the Chamber concluded that:
o
The Termination Agreement effectively superseded the Employment Contract, and it
provided for a final net amount to be paid by the Club to the Player;
o
The Termination Agreement also contained a financial release expressly stating that the
Parties had no further obligations other than the payment of the settlement amount.
This release makes no exception in respect of past or future tax liabilities. Further, the
Termination Agreement appears to involve mutual concessions between the Parties,
the reciprocity of which was not disputed by the Player in either of his submissions;
o
Even assuming – ad argumentandum tantum – that the tax obligation was not
encompassed in the settlement amount, the Termination Agreement makes no
reference to the Club’s obligation to pay the Player’s income tax;
o
The mere reference to the term “net” in the Termination Agreement is not sufficient
evidence to legally conclude that the intention of the Parties was in fact to make the
Club liable for all potential tax consequences in relation to the terminated employment
relationship; and
o
On the contrary, if the Parties had intended to apply such a broad interpretation to the
term “net”, they should have done so in writing, exactly as provided for in the
Employment Contract.
68. Similarly, the majority of the Chamber did not consider that the Player had substantiated
any claim of bad faith on the part of the Club that would warrant the Chamber’s
intervention beyond the scope of the contractual terms. In the absence of credible
evidence demonstrating intentional misconduct or deceptive behavior by the Club, the
majority of the Chamber found no legal basis to override or reinterpret the contractual
framework in present case.
d. Costs
69. 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. 15
REF. FPSD-18628
70. 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.
71. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18628
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bangaly-Fode Koita, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18628
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. 18