Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18859
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yusuf Cekic
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Yusuf Cekic, Netherlands
RESPONDENT:
PFFAAF, Philippines
Represented by Mehmet Aygun
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18859
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in the present case are:
a.
b.
2.
The Dutch player Yusuf Cekic (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
the Philippine club PFFAAF (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
On 29 July 2024, the Club sent the Player a “formal job offer” (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from 1 August 2024 until 15 May 2025 or end of the 2024/2025 season of the league in
Philippines, containing the following terms and conditions, quoted verbatim:
COMPENSATION
Basic monthly pay
Allowance
Medical Insurance
(Non-Sports Injuries)
Hospital
Insurance
(Sports Injuries)
Housing Assistance
Travel Assistance
3.
:
:
:
:
:
:
PHP 45,000.00
PHP 15,000.00
PHP 80,000.00
Health Care)
PHP 50,000.00
Coverage
(InLife
Fully
furnished
studio
unit
accommodation with free Wifi with
additional charge of PHP 7,000 per
month. Electricity bill amounting to
PHP 2,000.00 per month.
Exceeding amount will be charged
accordingly.
Roundtrip airfare c/o CFC
The Contract was countersigned by the Player on 1 August 2024, and the parties do not
dispute having entered into an employment relationship.
Correspondence with the Club
4.
On 28 December 2024, the Player sent an email to the Club requesting “payment of
outstanding salaries for the date of 15 December 2024” amounting to PHP 26,500 and gave
the Club a deadline until 1 January 2025 to comply with its financial obligations.
5.
On 7 January 2025, the Player sent another email to the Club requesting “payment of
outstanding salaries for the dates of 15 December 2024 and 1 January 2025” and gave the
Club a deadline until 10 January 2025 to comply with its financial obligations.
6.
On 2 February 2025, the Player sent a WhatsApp message to a contact saved as “Noella”
who according to the Player is a Club representative, stating that the Player was in San
Remo and asked the representative about his next course of action. To this message, the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18859
alleged Club representative replied, stating that he was under disciplinary action by the
Club and not permitted to enter the Club’s premises until the meeting with Mr. Tasci on 5
February 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in the Club’s office and the Player responded stating “okay”.
7.
On 10 February 2025, the Club and the Player exchanged email correspondence,
summarised by the FIFA General Secretariat as follows:
S.No.
Summary of Correspondence on 10 February 2025
1.
The Club requested the Player to attend a meeting at 5 p.m. at the Club’s
office to discuss the Player’s status.
The Player responded, stating that he has received a response from the Club
after 6 days, to contact his agent/ lawyer if the meeting is regarding
termination of the Contract and reiterating his requests for the payment of
outstanding salaries and reimbursement of flight ticket costs.
The Club responded to the Player’s email stating that since the Player
declined the invitation for the meeting, the Club is extending another
opportunity for a meeting on 11 February 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
The Player responded to the Club’s email stating that the Player did not
decline the invitation to the meeting and is fully prepared to discuss the
status in order to resume training. Further, the Player reiterated his request
for the Club to grant him access to the training facility in order to maintain
his professional fitness.
The Club responded to the said email and requested the Player to be
present at the meeting on 11 February 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
The Player responded confirming his presence at the proposed meeting and
reiterated his requests for the Club to grant him access to training, his
accommodation, meals and associated facilities and further confirmed his
commitment to fulfil his obligations under the Contract.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
On 11 February 2025, the Player sent an email to the Club alleging that during the meeting
with the Club held earlier that day, the Club informed the Player of its intent to terminate
the Contract. The Player stated that he had the right to unilaterally terminate the Contract
in the event of a payment delay exceeding 30 days and attached a draft of a “Final
Settlement and Termination Agreement” to be executed by the Club. Such draft
termination agreement has not been signed by either party.
9.
On 19 February 2025, the Club sent a notice to the Player to provide his explanation with
respect to the following:
a.
Failure to return to the Club for training after leaving to the Netherlands on 14
December 2024 and missing the training sessions until 31 January 2025.
b.
Failure to return to training even after reaching Cebu on 1 February 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18859
c.
Defamatory social media posts targeted at the Club.
10. The Club stated that failure to respond to this notice could lead to disciplinary measures
being taken and stated that since the Player has not attended training sessions for 2
months, he would be required to attend special training with a private coach, every day,
excluding Sundays. The Club further stated that the Player’s rejoining the first team would
depend on the technical evaluation of the Player by the technical team.
11. The Player has submitted a letter dated 20 February 2025, wherein he has responded to
the notice sent by the Club, stating that:
a.
The Club falsely accused the Player of taking unauthorized leave, as he was
provided with a return ticket by the Club for sanctioned leave over Christmas break
to Netherlands, as the Philippine Football Federation (hereinafter: the PFF) had not
yet announced the schedule for the second half of the season. The flight tickets
attached shows a return ticket to Amsterdam dated 16 and 17 December 2024.
b.
He was not voluntarily absent from training from 31 January 2025 but instead made
multiple attempts to reach representatives of the Club with no response, leading
him to arrange his own funds, despite not receiving salary payments, to purchase
a flight ticket to the Club, where he was denied entry to the premises.
c.
The Player alleged that the president of the Club made threatening remarks against
him.
d.
The Player requested proof that he made any false statements against the Club on
social media.
12. On 24 February 2025, the Club sent a second notice to the Player stating that although the
Player responded to the notice to explain dated 19 February 2025, he did not provide any
reasons regarding the failure to attend training, the social media posts and failure to fulfil
obligations under the Contract. The Club denied all the allegations of the Player made in
his response dated 20 February 2025 and provided a final opportunity for the Player to join
training and undergo the schedule created for him within the next 3 days from the date of
the notice, failing which the Club would be forced to terminate the Contract.
13. On 14 March 2025, the Club sent a notice of termination to the Player stating that the Club
has unilaterally terminated the Contract for just cause in accordance with the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) due to the following
reasons:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18859
a.
As stated in the previous correspondence from the Club, the Player did not return
to Philippines for training without giving any prior notice, after going to the
Netherlands on 14 December 2024, for the second half of the 2024/2025 season.
b.
Despite a meeting with the Club on 5 February 2025, the Player failed to fulfill his
obligations and made false allegations against the Club on social media.
c.
Despite two notices sent by the Club on 19 and 24 February 2025, the Player failed
to join the training schedule made for his return to fitness, without any prior notice
to the Club.
d.
As there was limited time remaining in the 2024-2025 season and the Player failed
to perform his obligations under the Contract, the Club took the measure of
unilaterally terminating the Contract.
14. The Player has submitted an undated letter wherein he has responded to the notice of
unilateral termination of the Contract sent by the Club, stating the following:
a.
The Club falsely accused the Player of taking unauthorized leave, as he was
provided with a return ticket by the Club for sanctioned leave over Christmas break
to Netherlands, as the PFF had not yet announced the schedule for the second half
of the season. The flight tickets attached shows a return ticket to Amsterdam dated
16 and 17 December 2024.
b.
He was not voluntarily absent from training but instead made multiple attempts to
reach representatives of the Club between 20 December 2024 and 31 January 2025
for the payment of outstanding salaries, with no response. This led to him
arranging his own funds, despite not receiving salary payments, to purchase a flight
ticket to the Club on 1 February 2025, providing prior notice to the Club. When he
arrived at the Club, he was denied entry into the Club premises and
accommodation.
c.
The Player stated that, according to him, he conveyed his intention to resume
training and join the first team in all 3 meetings with the Club on 5, 7 and 11
February 2025, but the Club did not agree, stating its intention to unilaterally
terminate the Contract.
d.
The Player requested proof that he made any false statements against the Club on
social media.
e.
The Player stated that the Club terminated the Contract unlawfully while the Club
was in breach of the Contract by failing to pay the outstanding salaries, refusing to
facilitate the Player’s return to training despite multiple requests and physically
denying the Player access to the Club’s facilities. The Player made a final request
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18859
for the Club to pay the outstanding salaries and engage in negotiations with respect
to the Contract.
15. On 21 March 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club requesting the Club to
comply with its obligations under the Contract and pay a total amount of PHP 1,154,772
consisting of outstanding salaries, reimbursement of costs, and various types of
compensation, giving the Club a deadline of 10 days to rectify the default.
16. The Player has submitted a letter dated 25 May 2025, wherein he has stated that the Club’s
president Mr. Tasci was threatening the Player, that the Player has no money remaining in
his personal savings and requesting the Club to comply with its financial obligations while
the Player waits for the decision of the disciplinary proceedings at the PFF.
Correspondence with the PFF
17. On 7 February 2025, the Player lodged a complaint with the PFF, an extract of which is
provided below (quoted verbatim):
“I am writing to formally file a complaint against Cebu FC for serious violations of my contractual
rights.
On 01 aug 2024 , I signed a contract with Cebu FC, which clearly outlined the terms of my
participation in the club and the associated payments. However, despite my compliance with
the contractual obligations, Cebu FC has failed to:
Grant access to the club: I have been unjustly denied access to the club without any valid
reason or prior notice.
Fulfill payment obligations: The club has failed to pay my salary and/or other contractually
agreed-upon compensations, causing me significant financial harm.
Uphold my rights: By failing to honor the contract, I have not only suffered financially but also
faced professional setbacks.
This situation is unacceptable and violates the professional and ethical standards upheld by the
Philippine Football Federation. I urgently request the PFF to intervene and take the following
actions:
-Compel Cebu FC to immediately settle the outstanding payments.
-Require the club to provide a formal explanation for denying me access to its facilities.
-If necessary, impose disciplinary or legal actions against the club to prevent such
practices in the future.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18859
I kindly request a response to this complaint within 5 days and to be informed about the steps
that will be taken. If no satisfactory resolution is provided, I will be forced to consider further
legal action at the FIFA Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) through my lawyer Mr. Frans
De Weger (former C.A.S. Prosecutor) from the Netherlands.
Enclosed are copies of my contract and other relevant documents supporting my complaint. For
further correspondence, please contact me at the details provided above.
I trust that the PFF will take this matter seriously and look forward to a prompt resolution.”
18. On 12 February 2025, the PFF acknowledged receipt of the Player’s complaint and issued a
charge notice against the Club, giving the Club 5 days to submit a formal response.
19. On 13 and 15 February 2025, the PFF sent an email to the Player attaching a letter regarding
the complaint by the Player against the Club. The letter attached to the email has not been
provided by the Player.
20. On 25 February 2025, the Player sent an email to the PFF requesting updates on the
disciplinary complaint post the letter dated 12 February 2025 sent to the Club and
requested a copy of the PFF Disciplinary and Ethics Code. The PFF replied to the Player on
28 February 2025 and shared a copy of the requested Code.
21. On 2 March and 6 March 2025, the Player sent an email to the PFF to seek an update
regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the Club.
22. On 13 March 2025, the Player sent an email to the PFF stating his dissatisfaction with the
step taken by the PFF in addressing his concerns with the Club and informed the PFF that
his representatives would be filing a complaint with the disciplinary committee of the Asian
Football Confederation (AFC) and/or Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
23. On 5 June 2025, the Player has confirmed that he remains unemployed after the
termination of the Contract with the Club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 6 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
25. In his claim, the Player requested outstanding remuneration, reimbursement of travel and
related expenses, compensation for decrease in market value, missed transfer
opportunities and emotional distress and reimbursement of legal expenses.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18859
26. The Player argued that, on 1 February 2025, the Club, without prior notification or valid
reasoning, denied him access to training facilities and excluded him from all team activities.
27. The Player further argued that, since 1 February 2025, the Club has failed to comply with
its financial obligations in violation of art. 12bis of the Regulations. According to the Player,
he received threatening and intimidating phone calls from the president of the Club, Mr.
Tasci.
28. Therefore, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause while
the Club was in breach of the Contract by failing to pay the outstanding salaries, refusing
to facilitate the Player’s return to training despite multiple requests and physically denying
the Player access to the Club’s facilities.
29. The Player submitted that he filed an official complaint with the PFF on 7 February 2025,
pursuant to which no action or response has been received from PFF.
30. The Claimant’s requests for relief, as amended, were the following (quoted verbatim):
“1. To order FC Cebu to pay the total amount of PHP 1,154,772.00.
2. To impose interest of 5% per annum from the due date on all amounts.
3. To impose sporting sanctions on FC Cebu for breach of contractual obligations.
4. To order reimbursement of all legal costs.
5. To direct the club to issue a public correction confirming no wrongdoing on my part.”
“In accordance with FIFA's request dated 16 April 2025, the following is a detailed and itemized
breakdown of the claim submitted against FC Cebu:
Outstanding Contractual Salary
- Amount: PHP 347,450.00
- Currency: Philippine Peso (PHP)
- Legal basis: Employment contract dated 01 August 2024
- Period: 1 February 2025 – 15 May 2025 (3.5 months unpaid)
Reimbursement of Travel and Related Expenses
- Amount: PHP 306,412.02
- Currency: Philippine Peso (PHP)
- Legal basis: Actual and necessary expenses incurred for club-related relocation and
professional preparation
- Period: January 2025 – February 2025
Compensation for Decrease in Market Value
- Amount: PHP 474,604.00
- Currency: Philippine Peso (PHP)
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18859
- Legal basis: Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP – impact of club misconduct on player’s transferability
- Period: 1 February 2025 – 15 May 2025
Compensation for Missed Transfer Opportunities
- Amount: PHP 474,604.00
- Currency: Philippine Peso (PHP)
- Legal basis: Loss of opportunity directly due to unlawful exclusion and non-payment
- Period: February 2025 – 15 May 2025
Emotional Distress Compensation
- Amount: PHP 474,604.00
- Currency: Philippine Peso (PHP)
- Legal basis: Article 15 FIFA Disciplinary Code; breach of professional dignity and emotional wellbeing due to unjust treatment and threats
- Period: 1 February 2025 – 15 May 2025
Legal Fees Reimbursement
- Amount: PHP 369,050.00
- Currency: Philippine Peso (PHP)
- Legal basis: Costs for professional legal representation (based on submitted invoice)
- Period: March 2025 – ongoing
Breakdown of Travel and Related Expenses:
• Private goalkeeper coach (Jan): PHP 154,275.00
• Flight: PHP 57,822.00
• Transport: PHP 3,369.00 + PHP 1,122.00
• House rent: PHP 80,486.02 (corrected)
• Meals: PHP 10,098.00
Total Claim Amount: PHP 2,795,174.02”
b. Position of the Respondent
31. In its reply, the Respondent denied all the claims submitted by the Player. The Respondent
argued that the Player acted in violation of his contractual obligations and attempted to
benefit from his own misconduct.
32. The Respondent argued that the Player failed to return for training for the second half of
the 2024-2025 season after going to Netherlands on 14 December 2024, despite the Club
allegedly having notified all players that they are to return to the Club by 7 January 2025.
The Respondent also submitted that the Player failed to answer phone calls made to him.
33. The Club argued that the Player failed to attend training on 31 January 2025, which was
documented through a notary. The Club further argued that the Player returned to Cebu,
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18859
the city in which the Club is located, on 2 February 2025 and claimed he was not allowed
to train, which the Club described as a bad-faith assertion. According to the Club, it
requested a meeting and a formal defence from the Player before allowing him to rejoin
training. Meetings were held on 6 and 11 February 2025 with club officials, and a
customized training program was developed and communicated to the Player during the
meeting and documented via the notice dated 19 February 2025.
34. The Respondent argued that, despite the above meetings, the Player continued to fail to
attend any of the scheduled training sessions and falsely claimed he was being prevented
from participating. The Club submitted that it made repeated verbal requests for him to
resume training, which he ignored. The Respondent further submitted that the Player’s
continued absence made it impossible for him to participate in matches for the remainder
of the season. The Club issued a formal warning on 19 February 2025, requesting the Player
to fulfil his obligations and submit a written defence. The Player responded with
allegations, which according to the Club, were baseless and still failed to attend training.
35. The Respondent argued that despite its efforts to reintegrate the Player into the team,
including calls and a second warning notice dated 24 February 2025, the Player continued
to be absent from training. In this respect, the Club has submitted an attendance sheet and
photographs as evidence of the Player failing to attend training from 20 February 2025 until
6 March 2025.
36. The Club argued that, as the season was nearing its end, the Player’s return to match fitness
was no longer feasible. The Club further argued that the Player continued to demand wages
for the period during which he did not fulfil his obligations.
37. The Respondent finally argued that it terminated the Contract on 14 March 2025 with just
cause due to the Player’s persistent non-compliant conduct despite its efforts to conduct
meetings, verbal requests and two warning notices sent to the Player.
38. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following, (quoted verbatim):
“Without prejudice to all our rights regarding the aftermath and the surplus, and all our rights
to claim damages suffered by the client club due to the plaintiff football player's failure to fulfill
his obligations;
➢ We respectfully request that none of the plaintiff football player's demands be accepted and
the case be dismissed,
➢ We respectfully request that all litigation expenses be charged to the other party.”
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18859
c. Unsolicited correspondence from the Claimant
39. On 21 May 2025, the Claimant submitted an unsolicited correspondence. In this regard,
the FIFA general secretariat referred to art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the
Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) and, since the submissions and
evidence filed were outside the relevant time limit, the aforementioned unsolicited
correspondence was disregarded.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18859
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 6 April 2025 and submitted for decision on 30
October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
41. 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Dutch player and a Philippine club.
42. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that, prior to lodging his claim before
the Football Tribunal, the Player apparently submitted a complaint to the PFF. However,
according to the information on file, the Chamber was of the opinion that the complaint to
the PFF was not in the form of a formal labour claim/proceeding and the Player ultimately
chose not to pursue the matter before the national courts. In this context, considering that
there was no evidence of bad faith conduct employed by the Player, the Chamber
concluded that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the claim before the Football
Tribunal.
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, 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).
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18859
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
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
46. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the circumstances and justice of the early termination of the
Contract by the Club.
47. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the parties presented conflicting accounts
regarding the circumstances governing the termination of their employment relationship.
48. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the Club terminated the Contract with just
cause, and if so, to decide the consequences thereof.
A.
Termination of the Contract
49. On one hand, the Chamber recalled the Player’s position that, on 1 February 2025, the Club,
without prior notification or valid reasoning, denied the Player access to training facilities
and excluded him from all team activities and unilaterally terminated the Contract on 14
March 2025 without just cause, despite multiple efforts from the Player to resume training.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that, based on the evidence on file, the Player submitted
the following arguments:
a.
On 2 February 2025, pursuant to a WhatsApp correspondence between the Player
and an alleged Club representative via WhatsApp, the Player was informed that he
was under disciplinary action and that he was prohibited from entering the Club’s
premises until a meeting scheduled for 5 February 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in the Club’s
office.
b.
Subsequently, on 11 February 2025, according to the Player, during a meeting held
earlier that day, the Club expressed its intent to terminate the Contract.
c.
Further, in response to a warning notice dated 19 February 2025 sent by the Club,
the Player denied allegations of unauthorized leave, citing sanctioned leave with
Club-provided return tickets to the Netherlands during the Christmas break, and
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18859
claimed that he was not voluntarily absent from training but faced communication
failures and salary non-payment, forcing him to self-fund travel to the Club where
he was denied entry and accommodation. The Player further alleged that the
president of the Club made threatening remarks against him.
50. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that the Player has provided 60+ exhibits
without clearly referencing them and their relevance in his claim. With respect to certain
exhibits wherein the evidence could not be aligned with the correspondence, the Chamber
was of the opinion that they have limited (or none) probatory weight, as it has not been
properly referred to or clarified by the Claimant.
51. On the other hand, the Chamber recalled the Respondent’s position that it terminated the
Contract on 14 March 2025 with just cause due to the Player’s persistent failure to attend
training from 31 January 2025 despite its efforts to conduct meetings, verbal requests and
sending two warning notices to the Player.
52. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, based on the evidence on file, the Club submitted
the following arguments:
a.
The Respondent argued that the Player failed to return for training for the second
half on the 2024-2025 season after going to Netherlands on 14 December 2024,
despite the Club having notified all players that they are return to the Club by 7
January 2025 and failed to answer phone calls made to him.
b.
The Respondent argued that the Player failed to attend training on 31 January 2025,
which was documented through a notary.
c.
The Respondent argued that despite its efforts to reintegrate the Player into the
team, including calls and two warning notices dated 19 and 24 February 2025 sent
to the Player, he continued to be absent from training. In this respect, the Club has
submitted an attendance sheet and photographs as evidence of the Player failing
to attend training from 20 February 2025 until 6 March 2025.
53. In light of the above submissions, the Chamber noted that the parties concurred that the
Club terminated the Contract on 14 March 2025, however, they disputed whether the
termination was with just cause.
54. In this context, the Chamber recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, in accordance with which a premature termination of an employment contract
must constitute an ultima ratio measure. Where more lenient courses of action are
available to the parties to remedy their contractual relationship, these should be used
readily, as opposed to immediately terminating the respective contract. Only contractual
breaches of a certain severity or consistency permit a party to lawfully depart from an
employment contract prematurely. Further, a club considering the option of terminating a
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18859
contract with a player due to its failure to return to the club after authorized absence,
should also respect the ultima ratio principle; in that less stringent disciplinary measures
should be considered and applied first. In this regard, the club must first of all request the
player to return to the club and set a reasonable deadline to do so.
55. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it, and went on to
analyse the documentation provided by the parties in support of their allegations. In this
respect, the Chamber observed that the main point of contention between the Player and
the Club is regarding the conduct of the parties from January 2025 until the date of
termination of the Contract, i.e., 14 March 2025.
56. Here, the majority of the Chamber began its assessment by emphasizing that both parties
appeared to be in breach of the Contract at the time of its termination.
57. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber highlighted the following facts with respect to
the Player:
a.
The Player has not submitted any evidence regarding his purchase of flight ticket
to return to the Club on 2 February 2025 or any evidence of informing the Club
regarding his travel plans. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber emphasized
that the Club had complied with its obligations under the Contract to provide a
roundtrip fare to the Player by purchasing the ticket from Netherlands to Cebu on
18 / 19 August 2024 and a return ticket from Cebu to Netherlands on 16 / 17
December 2024, thereby making it the Player’s obligation to return to the Club in
January 2025.
b.
The Club sent two warning notices dated 19 and 24 February providing a
customized training schedule to the Player and providing deadlines for the Player
to attend training. While the Player responded to the notice dated 19 February
2025, the Player failed to respond to the Club’s second notice dated 24 February
2025.
c.
The Player has not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why he failed to attend
trainings from 20 February 2025 until 6 March 2025 despite the meetings
conducted on 5, 7 and 11 February 2025, the two warning notices dated 19 and 24
February 2025 sent by the Club and the customized training schedules set up for
the Player which were attended by the Club.
d.
The Player asserted that the Club only intended to terminate the Contract during
the meetings conducted with the Player, however, he has not provided any
evidence in this regard. On the other hand, the majority of the Chamber noted that
it was the Player who shared a termination and settlement agreement draft to the
Club on 11 February 2025.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18859
e.
The Player has submitted various correspondence regarding the potential transfer
of the Player from the Club in February 2025, in which the Player has actively
participated, showing his intention to potentially leave the Club.
58. In contrast, the majority of the Chamber emphasized the following facts regarding the
conduct of the Club:
a.
The Club failed to respond to the Player’s requests for outstanding salaries sent on
28 December 2024, 7 January 2025, 21 March 2025 and 25 May 2025 or provide
any evidence that the payments corresponding to such outstanding salaries were
made.
b.
The Club failed to provide evidence that it notified its players to return to training
on 7 January 2025, as asserted by them.
c.
The Club has not provided evidence of any correspondence in December 2024 or
January 2025 requesting the Player to return to training.
d.
The Club sent its first requests for meetings in early February 2025, i.e., after the
Player had already made two requests for outstanding salaries.
e.
Though the Club conducted three meetings on 5, 7 and 11 February 2025 and sent
two warning notices to the Player to return to training, the Club failed to implement
more lenient measures prior to terminating the contractual relationship. Although
the Club referred to disciplinary proceedings, it did not demonstrate that the
process was exhaustive enough that would justify termination thereby questioning
whether the termination was truly a measure of ultima ratio from the side of the
Club.
59. Consequently, taking into account the particularities of the case and the evidence on file,
the majority of the Chamber was of the opinion that, at the time of termination of the
Contract, both parties were in breach of their respective obligations under the Contract
and through their conduct neither party could reasonably be expected to continue the
employment relationship. The majority of the Chamber emphasized that both the Player
and the Club bore equal responsibility for the termination of the Contract and that the
contractual stability protected by the Regulations had already been lost by the date of
termination.
60. Therefore, as both parties had lost interest in their contractual relationship, contributed to
its premature termination, and should not benefit from their respective misconduct, the
majority of the Chamber concluded that the Club is only liable for the payment of
outstanding salaries until the date of termination, i.e., 14 March 2025 and the claim for
compensation by the Player should not succeed.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18859
ii. Consequences
61. While assessing the consequences of the early termination, the majority of the Chamber
restated that neither party should be awarded compensation.
62. However, considering that the Club has not provided any evidence of complying with its
financial obligations under the Contract for the payment of outstanding salaries from 1
February 2025 and the Contract was only terminated on 14 March 2025, the Chamber
found that the Player was nonetheless entitled to receive remuneration for that period.
63. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, as follows:
a.
PHP 45,000 as outstanding salary for the month of February 2025; and
b.
PHP 20.322.58 as pro rata salary for the month of March 2025 (i.e., until 14 March
2025).
64. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that the Player requested outstanding
salaries amounting to PHP 347,450 for the period between 1 February 2025 and 15 May
2025. However, as the Contract specified only PHP 45,000 as the monthly salary and since
the Player failed to provide a breakdown of the amount in dispute, the Chamber concluded
that it is unable to award the requested amount.
65. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award him interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
a.
On the amount of PHP 45,000, as from 1 March 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
b.
On the amount of PHP 20.322.58, as from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
66. The Chamber noted that the Player has also requested reimbursement of travel and
related expenses as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Private goalkeeper coach (Jan): PHP 154,275.00
Flight: PHP 57,822.00
Transport: PHP 3,369.00 + PHP 1,122.00
House rent: PHP 80,486.02 (corrected)
Meals: PHP 10,098.00
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18859
67. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber observed that the Player has not provided a
breakdown of the expenses with specific references to related evidence in this regard. The
majority of the Chamber also noted that the Player has not provided any evidence that the
Club failed to provide him accommodation for the period described therein. Further, the
majority of the Chamber acknowledged that Player has not provided any evidence
regarding expenses incurred by him with respect to the private goalkeeper coach, flight
tickets or other transport, as claimed. Therefore, in light of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Player has not discharged his
burden of proof and accordingly rejected the requests for reimbursement of travel and
related expenses.
68. The majority of the Chamber further noted that the Player also requested compensation
for decrease in market value, compensation for missed transfer opportunities and
emotional distress compensation. Based on the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the
conduct of the Player in breach of his obligations under the Contract and the lack of
evidence supporting such claims thereby failing to discharge the burden of proof under
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the majority of the Chamber rejected all the above
claims for compensation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
70. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
71. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the 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.
72. 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.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-18859
73. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
74. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
75. 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.
76. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-18859
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yusuf Cekic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PFFAAF, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- PHP 45,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- PHP 20,322.58 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2025
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-18859
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. 22