Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18768
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Jovan Manev
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Jovan Manev, North Macedonia
Represented by Sanel Masic
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Umur Varat
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
HNK Rijeka, Croatia
Represented by Danijel Beljan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18768
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 July 2022, the player from North Macedonia Jovan Manev (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent 1 or the Player) and the Turkish club Adana Demirspor A.S. (hereinafter:
the Respondent / Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded a first employment contract
(hereinafter: the First Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 31 May 2023.
2.
On 1 July 2023, the Player and the Club concluded a second employment contract
(hereinafter: the Second Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2027.
3.
In accordance with the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as follows,
quoted verbatim:
“I. 2023/2024 SEASON;
MONTHLY SALARY;
The yearly salary of the Player for season 2023/2024 shall be EUR 100,000 (one hundred
thousand Euro) totally. The amount (10,000 Euro) shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal salaries so
Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 10,000 (ten thousand Euro) each month (September 2023
- June 2024),
II. 2024/2025 SEASON;
MONTHLY SALARY;
The yearly salary of the Player for season 2024/2025 shall be EUR 120,000 (one hundred and
twenty thousand Euro) totally. The amount (12,000 Euro) shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal
salaries so Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand Euro) each month
(September 2024 - June 2025).
III. 2025/2026 SEASON;
MONTHLY SALARY;
The yearly salary of the Player for season 2025/2026 shall be EUR 140,000 (one hundred and
fourty thousand Euro) totally. The amount (14,000 Euro) shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal
salaries so Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 14,000 (fourtneen thousand Euro) each month
(September 2025 - June 2026).
IV. 2026/2027 SEASON;
MONTHLY SALARY;
The yearly salary or the Player for season 2024/2025 shall be EUR 160,000 (one hundred and
sixty thousand Euro) totally. The amount (16,000 Euro) shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal
salaries so Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 16,000 (Sixteen thousand Euro) each month
(September 2026 - June 2027).
The Club has the right to extend the contract for 1 season unilaterally at the end of the season
202612021 by sending an official notice to the address of the player and to the TFF Presidency
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18768
as formal information until the date of 30.05.2027. In case the season is extended, this extension
right shall be used within 2 weeks following the end of the season. If the club shall use its right
to extend the contract, the expiration date of the contract shall be extended to 31.05.2028. In
case the right shall not exercised, the contract will expired on 31.5.2027.
ln case the contract shall be extended to 31.05.2028, the payments for season 2027/2028 shall
be:
2027/2028 SEASON;
MONTHLY SALARY;
The yearly salary or the Player for season 2027/2028 shall be EUR 200,000 (two hundred
thousand Euro) totally. The amount (20,000 Euro) shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal salaries so
Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand Euro) each month (September
2027 - June 2028).
[…]
2- All amounts written above are NET payments.
[…]
4- Each monthly salary shall be paid to the Player until the last day of the month following the
month, for which the payment is made.”
4.
On 4 September 2023, the Club concluded an agreement with the Player and the Croatian
club NK Osijek (hereinafter: NK Osijek) for the loan of the Player from the Club to NK Osijek
(hereinafter: the Loan Agreement), valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2024.
5.
On an unspecified day in December 2023, the Loan Agreement was terminated and the
Player returned to the Club.
6.
On 17 May 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment within 15 days
of EUR 80,000 net under the First Contract and the Second Contract.
7.
On 28 May 2024, remitted EUR 20,000 net to the Player and answered his latest default
notice as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Sirs,
We have received your formal notice about Jovan Manev (Herein after ‘The Player’) dated 17 May
2024.
You have stated in your formal notice that, the Player has 40.000 Euro outstanding amount from
2022-2023 football season (the first contract) and 40.000 Euro outstanding amount from 2023-
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18768
2024 football season (the second contract) which the outstanding total amount due to the Player
until the date of the notice is 80.000 Euro.
However, your calculation for total outstanding amount is incorrect. Therefore, we needed to
send this reply for the correction. According to the Club’s records; Player has no outstanding
amounts regarding to the Professional Football Player Contract for the season of 2022-2023.
The total value of the Player’s contract for the season of 2022-2023 is 50.000 Euro. Club has paid
50.000 Euro to the Player as contractual receivables. You may find receipts as follows;
• 1.000 Euro on 18.08.2022
• 4.000 Euro on 11.10.2022
• 5.000 Euro on 05.12.2022
• 5.000 Euro on 03.01.2023
• 10.000 Euro on 01.03.2023
• 5.000 Euro on 20.03.2023
• 5.000 Euro on 03.05.2023
• 15.000 Euro on 22.06.2023
The receipt of these payments are attached to this letter. (Annex-1) Therefore, the Player has no
outstanding amount regarding to the contract for the 2022/2023 football season.
We understand from your notice that you have requested 40.000 Euros, which is the equivalent
of 4 months' salary (January 2024- February 2024- March 2024- April 2024) for the 2023-2024
football season.
As you know, according to the Professional Football Player’s Contract which is between
01.07.2023 and 31.05.2027, there is a clause that specifies the due date of the monthly salaries.
The clause states that each monthly salary shall be paid to the Player until the last day of the
month following the month, for which the payment is made. Therefore, April 2024 salary is not
overdue.
Club has paid 10.000 Euro on 04.03.2024 for the season of 2023-2024 (Annex-2). Therefore, you
may only request 20.000 Euro which the equivalent of 2 months’ salary (February 2024 and
March 2024)
As of today, Club has paid 20.000 Euro as for the Player’s 2 months’ salary (February 2024 and
March 2024) You may find the payment receipt in Annex-3.
As a result, The Player has no remaining receivables from the Club, therefore The Player may
not request any payment according to contract.
If you have any question/objection about the calculation or the payments that has been made
by the Club, please do not hesitate to contact with us.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18768
As its known, according to FIFA regulation article 14/bis clearly states that in order to terminate
the contract with just cause, ‘club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates‘. Since there is no salaries are outstanding, we kindly inform you that in case
of any termination, it shall be accepted as termination without just cause. […]”
8.
On 7 October 2024, the Player put again the Club in default and requested payment within
15 days of EUR 32,000 net, i.e., the monthly salaries from May, June and September 2024.
9.
On 21 October 2024, the Club remitted EUR 32,000 net to the Player and answered his
latest default notice as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Sirs,
We have received your notice about Jovan Manev (Herein after ‘The Player’) dated 7 October
2024. You have requested from Club to pay the monthly salaries for May 2024 and June 2024 of
the Player from 2023-2024 football season which is equivalent to 20.000 Euro and September
2024 of the Player from 2024-2025 football season which is equivalent to 12.000 Euro within 15
days.
As you know, according to the Professional Football Player’s Contract which is between
01.07.2023 and 30.06.2027, there is a clause that specifies the due date of the monthly salaries.
The clause states that each monthly salary shall be paid to the Player until the last day of the
month following the month, for which the payment is made.
As of today, Club has paid totally 32.000 Euro as your request which are equals to 3 months
salary; 10.000 Euro for May 2024 and 10.000 Euro for June 2024 monthly salaries and 12.000
Euro for September 2024 monthly salary. You may find the payment receipt in Annex. We would
like to point out that the salary for September 2024 in the amount of 12.000 Euro is not yet due
at the date of the notification. However, as the monthly salary for September 2024 shall be due
in shortly, the Club has paid EUR 12,000 before due date, as a gesture of goodwill.
As a result, The Player has no remaining receivables from the Club, therefore The Player may
not request any payment according to contract.
As its known, according to FIFA regulation article 14/bis clearly states that in order to terminate
the contract with just cause, “club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates”. Since there is no salaries are outstanding, we kindly inform you that in case
of any termination, it shall be accepted as termination without just cause. […]”
10. On 6 December 2024, the Player put again the Club in default and requested payment
within 10 days of EUR 12,000 net, i.e., the monthly salary for October 2024.
11. On 12 December 2024, the Club remitted EUR 12,000 net to the Player.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18768
12. On 3 February 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Second Contract with the Club,
noting that the latter persistently failed to meet its financial obligations and that it is no
longer reasonable to continue the employment relationship.
13. On 6 February 2025, the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter: the TFF) confirmed to the
Player that the Second Contract and his employment relationship with the Club have been
unilaterally terminated.
14. On the same day, i.e., 6 February 2025, the Player signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the New Contract) with the Croatian club HNK Rijeka (hereinafter: the CounterRespondent 2 or HNK Rijeka) valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2027.
15. In accordance with the New Contract, the Player is entitled to a monthly salary of EUR
14,189.16, as well as a signing fee of EUR 64,434, payable in two instalments of EUR 32,217
each, on 15 February 2025 and 15 March 2025. In addition, the Player is entitled to two
loyalty bonuses of EUR 20,000 each, namely on 15 September 2026 and 15 September
2027.
16. On 10 February 2025, the Club sent the following correspondence to the TFF, quoted
verbatim:
“With the above-mentioned letter of interest, it has been reported that the International Transfer
Certificate (ITC) has been requested by the Croatia Football Federation for the Macedonian
football player JOVAN MANEV (born in 25.01.2001).
The Player unilaterally terminated the current Professional Player Employment Contract with
our Club on 03.02.2025 without just cause. In other words, The Player has breached both of his
contract with our club and FIFA Regulations and terminated his contract without just cause. For
this reason, there is a contractual dispute between the Player and our club.
For all above mentioned reasons, our club refuses to send the International Transfer Certificate
(ITC) requested by the Crotia Football Federation regarding Professional Football Player Jovan
MANEV.
Our club rejects to send the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) requested by the Croaita
Football Federation regarding Professional Football Player Jovan MANEV to the relevant
federation. […]”
17. On 4 March 2025, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player and HNK Rijeka,
quoted verbatim:
“[…] This letter is a notice. We herewith would like to draw your attention to the following.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18768
In the abovementioned matter, we act on behalf of the Turkish professional football club Adana
Demirspor Kulübü (hereinafter: ’Club’) For your information, we have enclosed a copy of the
Power of Attorney to act on its behalf (Exhibit-1).
Professional football player Jovan Manev(hereinafter: the ’Player’) born on 25 January 2001, the
citizen of Republic of North Macedonia, signed Professional Football Player’s Transfer Contract
(hereinafter: ‘Contract‘) with our Club.
The Player sent a notice to the Club on 5 December 2024 and requested to be paid 12.000 Euro
as October 2024 salary. Club has paid 12.000 Euro on 12.12.2024. Although the amounts
demanded by the Player in the notice were paid in full by the Club within the time period given
by the Player, the Player terminated the Contract without just cause on 3 February 2025. After
that the Player signed a new employment contract with HNK Rijeka (hereinafter: ’HNK’). Due to
termination without just cause, the Player and the HNK are jointly and severally liable to pay
termination compensation to the Club in accordance with Article 17 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
Adana Demirspor Kulübü – hereby urgently summons the Player and the HNK to pay net
1.000.000 EUR (in words: one million euro) as termination compensation.
Please note that if the termination compensation will not have been received ultimately until 14
March2025, Adana Demirspor Kulübü will be left with no other choice but to forward this matter
immediately to competent body of FIFA without any further notice. All additional in this respect,
such as the costs of a potential procedure as well as other procedural costs.
We would like to kindly inform you that, HNK shall be imposed by sporting sanction with the
Player, due to their knowledge of the Player’s termination without just cause before their signing
of the new employment contract with the Player. The Club reserve its right to file a claim
requesting sporting sanctions against both the Player and the HNK in case of non-payment of
the compensation.
In this regard, Adana Demirspor Kulübü hereby puts your club in default in writing and grants
your club a deadline of at least ten (10) days to comply with the termination compensation.
Otherwise, legal action will be taken against you and relevant sanctions will be requested in
accordance with the relevant Article 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
[…]”
18. On 11 March 2025, HNK Rijeka answered the latest correspondence from the Club as
follows, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Sir,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18768
HNK Rijeka has received your letter dated 04.03.2025 in which you, on behalf of the football club
Adana Demirspor, request from HNK Rijeka the payment of one million euro as termination
compensation for the player Jovan Manev.
Namely, in your letter you state that the player Jovan Manev and HNK Rijeka are jointly and
severally liable to pay termination compensation to FC Adana Demirspor because the player
terminated the employment contract with FC Adana Demirspor without just cause.
HNK Rijeka denies and removes its responsibility and obligation to pay such compensation to
FC Adana Demirspor.
HNK Rijeka entered into the Employment contract with the player Jovan Manev after the player
terminated his Employment contract with FC Adana Demirspor because of FC Adana
Demirspor's failure to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the player. HNK Rijeka had no
connection with the termination of the contract.
Before the player Jovan Manev terminated the Employment contract with his former club, FC
Adan a Demirspor, HNK Rijeka had no contact with the player. HNK Rijeka did not encourage
the player to terminate his employment contract with FC Adana Demirspor.
The player presented to HNK Rijeka the statement from the Turkish Football Federation dated 6
February 2025 stating that the contractual relationship between the player Jovan Manev and
Adana Demirspor has been terminated.
Finally, HNK Rijeka is not and cannot be liable for the payment of any compensation to FC Adana
Demirspor. HNK Rijeka had no influence on the player's termination of the Employment contract
with FC Adan a Demirspor, nor did HNK Rijeka act contrary to the provisions of the FIFA RSTP.
[…]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 27 March 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
20. In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Second Contract with just cause due
to outstanding remuneration.
21. In particular, the Player argued that the Club’s malicious tactic to consistently delaying the
payment of his salary, forcing him to send a default notice and proceeding to the payment
of his outstanding remuneration on the very last day of the granted deadline is
unacceptable and consists of a breach of its contractual obligations. In this regard, the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18768
Player stated that between 1 January 2024 and the termination of the Second Contract on
4 February 2025, he received his salary on time twice. In other words, the Player stated that
the Club had delayed the payment of his salary for a total of 415 cumulative days.
22. Lastly, the Player pointed out that he informed the Club in his default notices dated 7
October 2024 and 5 December 2024 that “further repeated late payment of salary, and any
other payments will no longer be tolerated”.
23. Having stated the above, the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“(1) the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant EUR 12,000.00 (twelve thousand euros) as overdue
payables, with an interest of 5% p.a.as from 31 January 2025, until the date of effective payment;
(2) the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant EUR 100,887.18 (one hundred thousand eight
hundred and eighty-seven euros and eighteen cents) as compensation, with an interest of 5%
p.a.as from 03 February 2025, until the date of effective payment;
(3) sanctions shall be applied upon the Respondent;
(4) the Respondent shall bear the entire costs of these proceedings, if any.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
24. In its reply, the Club argued that the Player terminated the Second Contract without just
cause on 3 February 2025 as only his monthly salary for December 2024 was outstanding
at that date. In addition, the Club pointed out that it was not put in default by the Player
for the payment of the monthly salary for December 2024 prior to the termination of the
Second Contract.
25. In continuation, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player and HNK Rijeka. In
particular, the Club argued that HNK Rijeka induced the Player to terminate the Second
Contract taking into account that the New Contract was concluded only 3 days after. In
other words, it is the position of the Club that HNK Rijeka acted as an instigator for the
termination of the Second Contract and that it is jointly liable to the payment of
compensation of EUR 1,000,000, taking into account the Player’s age, international career,
his potential market value and the duration of the Contract.
26. In this context, the Club’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1-To REJECT all the claims of Claimant.
2-To determine that the Claimant terminate the Contract without just cause.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18768
3-If the Tribunal accept the Player’s termination as a termination with just cause the Respondent
kindly requests that the requested termination compensation amount shall be dismissed.
4-If the Tribunal accept the Player’s termination as a termination with just cause, the requested
additional compensation amount shall be dismissed
5-If the Tribunal accept the Player’s additional compensation request, that amount shall be
reduced to 3 months.
6-The Respondent also requests that no sanctions be imposed to the Respondent due to the
Article 12 has never performed and economic decline resulting from the extraordinary
depreciation of the TL against the EURO.
Requests from Counterclaim:
1-To determine the Claimant’s termination is termination without just cause.
2-To condemn the Claimant to pay 1.000.000,00 EUR (one million Euro) as a compensation for
breach without just cause of the Contract to the Respondent/Counterclaimant.
3-To condemn HNK Rijeka jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation
according to termination without just cause.
4-To apply sporting sanctions against the Jovan Manevand HNK Rijeka according to Article 17 of
FIFA RSTP.
5-To apply sanctions against HNK Rijekaas an instigator Club, according to Article 7 of FIFA Code
of Ethics due to unilateral termination without just cause made on the protected period.
6-Pursuant to Article 104 para. 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations: “A debtor in default on
payment of a pecuniary debt must pay default interest of 5% per annum even where a lower
rate of interest was stipulated by contract.” The Respondent/Counterclaimant shall also be
entitled to interest of 5% per annum compensation 1.000.000,00 EUR.
7-To order to pay Claimant to pay legal expenses, judicial cost and attorney fee (if any).
8-The Respondent/Counterclaimant reserves its rights to amend and/or expand and/or submit
new statements, allegations, claims and explanation related to the present proceedings and
additionally, shall reserves any kind of rights under any name against the Claimant and HNK
Rijeka regarding to the new employment contract.”
27. For the sake of completeness of its counterclaim, the Club stated that if the Second
Contract had not been terminated by the Player without just cause, he would have been
entitled to remuneration of EUR 572,000, as it had the option to unilaterally extend the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18768
employment relationship for the season 2027/2028. In addition, the Club argued that the
market value of the Player amounts to EUR 475,000, thus it has suffered damages of
approximately EUR 1,000,000 and that the Player and HNK Rijeka are jointly and severally
liable for its payment.
c. Player’s reply to the Club’s counterclaim
28. In his reply to the counterclaim lodged by the Club, the Player argued that he only began
seeking new employment opportunities after the termination of the Second Contract.
29. In addition, the Player reiterated that he terminated the Second Contract with just cause
due to the Club’s repetitive delayed payments of his salary.
30. Considering the foregoing, the Player’s requests for relief were as follows:
“The Claimant/Counter-Respondent requests that the FIFA Football Tribunal accepts the Claim,
rejects the Counterclaim in its entirety, and rule that:
(1) the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent EUR
12,000.00 (twelve thousand euros) as overdue payables, with an interest of 5% p.a.as from 31
January 2025, until the date of effective payment;
(2) the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the Contract with just cause on 03 February
2025;
(3) the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent EUR
100,887.18 (one hundred thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven euros and eighteen cents)
as compensation, with an interest of 5% p.a.as from 03 February 2025, until the date of effective
payment;
(4) sanctions shall be applied upon the Respondent/Counter-Claimant;
(5) the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall bear the entire costs of these proceedings, if any.”
d. HNK Rijeka’s reply to the Club’s counterclaim
31. In its reply to the counterclaim lodged by the Club, HNK Rijeka argued that it started the
negotiations with the Player for the conclusion of the New Contract after 3 February 2025.
In other words, HNK Rijeka stated that it did not induce in any way the Player to terminate
the Second Contract with the Club.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18768
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 27 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
11 December 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 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.
33. 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player from North Macedonia
and a club from Türkiye with the involvement of club from Croatia.
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18768
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Second Contract by the
Player on 3 February 2025, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial
obligations by the Club as per the Second Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
38. In particular, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, he terminated the Second
Contract with just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
39. In addition, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club lodged a counterclaim against the
Player and HNK Rijeka, arguing that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Second Contract and that HNK Rijeka induced him to do so.
40. The Chamber further noted the position of HNK Rijeka, according to which it did not induce
in any way the Player to terminate the Second Contract with the Club, and that it started
the negotiations with the Player for the conclusion of the New Contract after 3 February
2025 (i.e., the date of termination).
41. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts by the Player under the
Second Contract had in fact remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal
pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
42. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
43. In the present matter, the Chamber pointed out that the last default notice sent by the
Player to the Club before he unilaterally terminated the Second Contract was on 6
December 2024. In particular, the Chamber observed that, on that date, the Player put the
Club in default and requested payment within 10 days of EUR 12,000 net, i.e., the monthly
salary for October 2024.
44. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Club remitted EUR 12,000 net to the Player
on 12 December 2024, thus fully complied with its financial obligations within the deadline
granted by the Player in his default notice dated 6 December 2024.
45. Considering the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the requirements of art. 14bis of
the Regulations are not met in the present matter.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18768
46. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that according to the Regulations, in
general, just cause to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in
which a party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a
contractual relationship (cf. art. 14 of the Regulations). In other words, the Chamber
underlined that a premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima
ratio.
47. In continuation, the Chamber deemed important to recall that contractual stability is the
backbone of the entire football season, and employers and employees in the football world
are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship without
a valid reason. In this regard, the early termination of an employment contract without just
cause has consequences – both financial and sporting. The rules allow for the parties to
modulate the effects of such a premature termination, but the jurisprudence also sets
certain boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty and the
legitimate expectation of the contractual stability.
48. With the above principles in mind, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber
established the following facts:
•
The Second Contract stipulated that “each monthly salary shall be paid to the Player
until the last day of the month following the month, for which the payment is made”.
•
On 17 May 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment within
15 days of EUR 80,000 net under the First Contract and the Second Contract.
•
On 28 May 2024, the Club remitted EUR 20,000 net to the Player and answered his
latest default notice by informing him that he is not entitled to any additional
amount, which the Player did not dispute.
•
On 7 October 2024, the Player put again the Club in default and requested payment
within 15 days of EUR 32,000 net, i.e., the monthly salaries from May, June and
September 2024 (even though the monthly salary for September 2024 was not yet
outstanding).
•
On 21 October 2024, the Club remitted EUR 32,000 net to the Player (even though
the monthly salary for September 2024 was not yet outstanding).
•
On 6 December 2024, the Player put again the Club in default and requested
payment within 10 days of EUR 12,000 net, i.e., the monthly salary for October 2024.
•
On 12 December 2024, the Club remitted EUR 12,000 net to the Player.
•
The Player’s monthly salary for December 2024 was due on 31 January 2025 but was
in fact never paid by the Club.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18768
•
On 3 February 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Second Contract with the
Club, noting that the latter persistently failed to meet its financial obligations and
that it is no longer reasonable to continue the employment relationship.
•
On 6 February 2025, the Player signed the New Contract with HNK Rijeka.
49. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber held that it cannot be concluded that
the fundamental terms and conditions which formed the basis of the Second Contract were
no longer respected by the Club.
50. In other words, the Chamber considered that the Club’s past breaches of its obligations
towards the Player under the Second Contract were not of such a severity on 3 February
2025, i.e., the day the Player terminated his employment relationship with the Club. In
particular, based on the evidence on file, it appeared to the Chamber that the Club’s
breaches of its contractual obligations towards the Player had in fact been remedied by the
date of termination of the Second Contract, insofar as they concerned the Player’s previous
default notices for outstanding remuneration, which were paid by the Club within the
deadline granted by the Player.
51. Moreover, in the Chamber’s view, the Player’s inaction as of 17 December 2024, i.e., the
expiration of the deadline granted to the Club in his last default notice dated 6 December
2024, until 4 February 2025 to terminate the Second Contract, tacitly created a reasonable
expectation that the employment relationship would continue. In this regard, the Chamber
deemed that the inaction of the Player for a prolonged period of time to make a decision
on the termination of the Second Contract is not aligned with the Football Tribunal’s
jurisprudence regarding just cause to terminate an employment relationship.
52. In this context, the Chamber recalled that (i) only a sufficiently serious breach of contractual
obligations by one party qualifies as just cause for the other party to terminate the
employment contract, and (ii) such a breach is considered sufficiently when objective
circumstances render it unreasonable to expect the employment relationship between the
parties to continue, for example in cases of as a serious breach of trust.
53. Conversely, had the breach been sufficiently serious, the Chamber considered that the
Player would have been under a duty to act promptly and unequivocally to terminate the
Second Contract. In other words, the Chamber held that the Player’s failure to do so
undermines his assertion that the breach of the Second Contract was of a gravity justifying
its termination with just cause months later.
54. Lastly, the Chamber pointed out that, based on the wording of the Second Contract, when
the Player terminated his employment relationship with the Club on 4 February 2025, his
outstanding remuneration only amounted to the monthly salary for December 2024. In this
regard, the Chamber emphasized that the Club was not put in default for the payment of
the monthly salary for December 2024.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18768
55. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not discharge his
burden of proof in demonstrating that the Club’s breach was sufficiently significant to
justify an ultima ratio measure, permitting him to terminate the Second Contract with just
cause.
56. Thus, the Chamber decided that the Player terminated the Second Contract without just
cause on 3 February 2025.
ii. Consequences
57. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Player.
58. Firstly, the Chamber held that, notwithstanding the Player’s termination of the Second
Contract without just cause, he is entitled to his remuneration until the termination of his
employment relationship with the Club on 3 February 2025, as work already performed
must be remunerated.
59. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Player’s outstanding remuneration under
the Contract at the time of its termination corresponds to the monthly salaries for
December 2024 and January 2025, as well as 3 working days in February 2025.
60. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player EUR 25,285.71 net. In
addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on his outstanding remuneration as follows:
•
5% interest p.a. on EUR 12,000 net, i.e., the monthly salary for December 2024, as
from 1 February 2025 until the date of effective payment;
•
5% interest p.a. on EUR 12,000 net, i.e., the monthly salary for January 2025, as from
3 February 2025 until the date of effective payment; and
•
5% interest p.a. on EUR 1,285.71 net, i.e., the pro-rata monthly salary for February
2025, as from 3 February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
61. In continuation, the Chamber turned to the analysis of the counterclaim lodged by the Club
against the Player for the termination of the Second Contract without just cause.
62. As a preliminary point, the Chamber recalled that this matter is governed by the Interim
Regulatory Framework as reflected in the January 2025 edition of the Regulations,
applicable in casu.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18768
63. By way of context, the Chamber underlined that said framework impacted the following
rules:
• the calculation of compensation payable in the event of a breach of contract by a
player or coach;
•
the burden of proof in relation to joint and several liability for compensation
payable for a breach of contract;
•
the burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract (and the
related sporting sanction against the new club of a player); and
•
the procedure regarding the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
64. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, for the present purposes, the relevant
rules are those related to (i) the calculation payable by a player in case of a breach of
contract; (ii) the question of the joint and several liability of the new club; and (iii) the
burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract.
65. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber recapitulated that, in accordance with art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular
and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into
account the damage suffered, according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard
for the individual facts and circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the
law of the country concerned.
66. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
67. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 of the Regulations.
68. Bearing in mind the above principles, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the onus is on the Club to quantify, substantiate and prove
the damage that it allegedly suffered as a result of the breach of the Second Contract.
69. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Club requested EUR 1,000,000 as
compensation for the breach of the Second Contract, taking into account the Player’s age,
international career, his potential market value and the duration of the Second Contract.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18768
70. Notwithstanding the above, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Respondent
did not satisfactorily demonstrate the existence or extent of the damages allegedly
incurred. In this respect, the same majority of the Chamber emphasised that a mere
reference to an alleged market value – of a speculative nature – could not be considered
sufficient to substantiate the amount of compensation claimed.
71. In particular, the Chamber held that art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations does not establish the
residual value of an employment contract as the primary or automatic basis for calculating
the compensation for its breach. Rather, the Chamber underlined that the residual value
of an employment contract may serve as a reference point, but only insofar as it is
expressly referenced by the claiming party and supported by evidence of actual harm.
72. In this respect, the Chamber stated that the amount payable to a football player for
rendering his services under an employment contract could be – and in certain specific
cases, has been considered – appropriate to establish the damage suffered by the club.
The Chamber emphasized that it could be considered reasonable to depart from the fact
that, under a fixed-term employment contract, a player and a club have a similar and
mutual interest and expectation that the term will be respected, subject to the termination
of their employment relationship by mutual consent or the existence of just cause.
73. In the present case, after a thorough analysis of the Club’s counterclaim, the majority of
the Chamber established that the Club did not explicitly request the residual value of the
Second Contract as part of its counterclaim. In fact, the majority of the Chamber noted that
the Club’s submissions in terms of the damages suffered and the logical nexus between
the Player’s breach of the Second Contract and said damages were quite limited. In other
words, the majority of the Chamber was not comfortably satisfied that the Club has
quantified, substantiated, and proven its damages in the amount of EUR 1,000,000.
74. Consequently, and notwithstanding the finding that the Player terminated the Second
Contract without just cause, the majority of the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s
counterclaim for compensation for breach of contract due to the lack of substantiation.
iii. Joint liability
75. The Chamber then referred to art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that a
player’s new club shall be held jointly liable to pay compensation if, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club
induced the player to breach their contract.
76. Similarly, the Chamber took note that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations states that a sporting
sanction shall be imposed on a player’s new club if, having regard to the individual facts
and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club induced the Player
to breach the contract during the protected period.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-18768
77. In this context, the Chamber turned to the consideration of the matter of inducement, as
it is key for determining any consequences that may apply to HNK Rijeka. In doing so, the
Chamber highlighted that the Club had the burden of proof to demonstrate that HNK Rijeka
induced the Player to breach the Second Contract.
78. With the above in mind and considering the individual facts and circumstances of this case
as well as the evidence on file, the Chamber decided that the Club could not discharge its
burden of proof. In particular, the Chamber considered that the signing of the New
Contract three days after the termination of the Second Contract, in itself, did not prove
inducement by HNK Rijeka for the Player to terminate his employment relationship with
the Club.
79. Similarly, the Chamber stressed that the Club failed to provide any further evidence or
compelling argument of inducement from HNK Rijeka. Rather, the Chamber concluded that
the Club merely established a temporal connection between the date of termination of the
Second Contract and the date of signature of the New Contract, which, absent further
evidence, was insufficient to meet the required standard of proof.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
83. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 23 September 2024 and notified on 4 November 2024, a transfer ban has been
imposed on the Club pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in case FPSD14997. Similarly, the Club appears to be subject to multiple transfer bans arising from its
failure to comply with prior decisions.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-18768
84. Accordingly, the Chamber established that, in casu, art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Club fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one(s) already
being served by the Club would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in
particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
85. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is
not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Player, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
86. 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.
d. Costs
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-18768
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Jovan Manev, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Adana Demirspor A.S., is partially
accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 the
following amount:
- EUR 25,285.71 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 12,000 net as from 1 February 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,285.71 net as from 3 February 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent 1, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-18768
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. 23