Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18979
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Check
Oumar Diakite
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Check Oumar Diakite, France
Represented by Rhadamès Killy
RESPONDENT:
Adanaspor A.S., Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18979
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2023, the French player Check Oumar Diakite (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Adanaspor A.S. (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract) valid until 30
June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
inter alia as follows:
“3 – PAYMENTS and SPECIAL CONDITIONS
[…]
2024/2025 Season:
The Player shall be paid the total amount of 70.000-Euro for the 2024/2025 season, in
accordance with the following schedule:
Date
01.10.2024
31.10.2024
30.11.2024
01.01.2025
31.01.2025
28.02.2025
01.04.2025
30.04.2025
31.05.2025
01.07.2025
Amount
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
The total remuneration foreseen for the 2024/2025 season shall be increased:
a. to the total amount of 75.000-Euro and each instalment given above shall be paid
as 7.500-Euro, in case the Player plays in at least 25 official league (excluding
friendly, cup, play-off, and reserve league matches) matches of the A team category
of the Club to be played in the 2023/2024 season or
b. to the total amount of 77.500-Euro, and each instalment given above shall be paid
as 7.750-Euro, in case the Player plays in at least 30 official league (excluding
friendly, cup, play-off, and reserve league matches) matches of the A team category
of the Club to be played in the 2023/2024 season.
The total remuneration foreseen for the 2024/2025 season shall be increased to a total
amount of 150,000 Euro, and each instalment given above shall be paid as 15.000-Euro, in
case the Club is competing in the Turkish Süper Lig (top tier league) in the 2024/2025 season.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18979
The paragraph above regarding increase of Player's remuneration by 5.000-Euro or 7.500Euro, as the case may be, will not apply if the present provision is triggered.
2025/2026 Season:
The Player shall be paid the total amount of 70.000-Euro for the 2025/2026 season, in
accordance with the following schedule:
Date
01.10.2025
31.10.2025
30.11.2025
01.01.2026
31.01.2026
28.02.2026
01.04.2026
30.04.2026
31.05.2026
01.07.2026
Amount
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
7.000 Euro
The total remuneration foreseen for the 2025/2026 season shall be increased:
a. to the total amount of 75.000-Euro and each instalment given above shall be paid as
7.500-Euro, in case the Player plays in at least 25 official league (excluding friendly,
cup, play-off, and reserve league matches) matches of the A team category of the Club
to be played in the 2025/2026 season or
b. to the total amount of 77.500-Euro, and each instalment given above shall be paid as
7.750-Euro, in case the Player plays in at least 30 official league (excluding friendly,
cup, play-off, and reserve league matches) matches of the A team category of the Club
to be played in the 2025/2026 season.
The total remuneration foreseen for the 2025/2026 season shall be increased to a total
amount of 150,000 Euro, and each instalment given above shall be paid as 15.000-Euro, in
case the Club is competing in the Turkish Süper Lig (top tier league) in the 2025/2026 season.
The paragraph above regarding increase of Player's remuneration by 5.000-Euro or 7.500Euro, as the case may be, will not apply if the present provision is triggered.”
3.
On 26 December 2024, the Player issued a notice (hereinafter: the First Notice) to the Club,
whereby he granted the Club a 15-day deadline to pay EUR 15,000 corresponding to the
outstanding salaries originally payable by 31 October 2024 and 30 November 2024.
4.
On 21 March 2025, the Player issued another notice (hereinafter: the Second Notice),
whereby he granted the Club a 15-day deadline to pay EUR 22,500 corresponding to the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18979
outstanding salaries originally payable by 1 January 2025, 31 January 2025 and 28 February
2025.
5.
On 15 April 2025, the Player issued a termination notice (hereinafter: the Termination Notice)
to the Club, whereby he terminated the Employment Contract due to the Club’s failure to
pay outstanding salaries within the deadline prescribed in the Second Notice.
6.
On 9 September 2025, the Player and the Slovenian club FC Koper (hereinafter: the
Subsequent Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Subsequent
Employment Contract) valid as from 9 September 2025 until 31 May 2028. As per the
information available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Subsequent Club
undertook to pay the Player a monthly gross salary of EUR 4,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 22 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
8.
The Player asserted that the Club had failed to comply with its financial obligations under
the Employment Contract. Consequently, the Player issued the Second Notice, placing the
Club in default and granting a 15-day deadline for the payment of outstanding salaries
originally due on 1 January 2025, 31 January 2025, and 28 February 2025.
9.
In light of the Club’s failure to remedy the breach within the granted deadline, the Player
argued that he terminated the Employment Contract with just cause on 15 April 2025 by
means of the Termination Notice, pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
10. In light of the above, the Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“IV. CLAIMS
The Player hereby requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
-
to declare and rule that the Club has breached its payment obligations pursuant to the
Employment Contract;
-
to order the Club to pay to the Claimant the sum of EUR 30,000 (Thirty Thousand Euros)
as outstanding salaries due on the date of termination of the Employment Contract;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18979
-
to order the Club to pay to the Player compensation of EUR 92,500 (Ninety-Two
Thousand and Five Hundred Euros), being the residual value of the Employment
Contract.
For the calculation of the compensation, the Player requests the application of the just
principle set forth in Article 17 of the RSTP, as the Club has, by its repeated disloyal behavior,
given the Player no other choice but to terminate the Employment Contract with just cause.”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. In its reply dated 4 June 2025, the Club acknowledged the Employment Contract and the
subsequent notices sent by the Player regarding unpaid salaries. However, the Club argued
that its failure to pay was not due to negligence or bad faith but rather to extraordinary
circumstances beyond its control.
12. Specifically, the Club argued that it faced severe financial difficulties caused by delays in
collecting receivables from third-party clubs and, more importantly, by the catastrophic
earthquake that struck southern Türkiye, including Adana, on 6 February 2023.
13. The Club further invoked the doctrines of force majeure and hardship, arguing that the
earthquake and its economic aftermath constitute unforeseeable and extraordinary events
that fundamentally altered the contractual equilibrium. The Club also highlighted that FIFA
has previously recognized force majeure in exceptional cases, such as the COVID-19
pandemic, and asserted that the earthquake meets the same threshold. Additionally, the
Club points to the drastic depreciation of the Turkish Lira, which nearly doubled the cost
of Euro-denominated obligations, further aggravating its financial burden.
14. In light of the above, the Club requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“Adanaspor respectfully requests FIFA Football Tribunal to:
i.
ii.
iii.
To accept the present reply brief from Adanaspor,
To reject all of the claims of the Player,
To order the Player to bear the procedural costs regarding this case.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 22 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18979
23 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
16. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an French player and a Turkish club.
17. 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
18. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
19. 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
20. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
is a claim from a player against a club for breach of contract.
21. The Chamber noted that, on one hand, the Player contended that he terminated the
Employment Contract with just cause and is therefore entitled to compensation together
with the overdue payables. On the other hand, while not disputing the overdue payables,
the Club argued that its non-performance resulted from force majeure and hardship
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18979
circumstances arising from by delays in collecting receivables from third-party clubs and,
specially, the February 2023 Türkiye earthquake and subsequent economic instability, for
which the Player’s claim should be dismissed.
22. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish the circumstances
of the termination and the consequences thereof.
23. Firstly, the Chamber observed that it was undisputed that, for the 2024/2025 season, the
Player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 7,500, in accordance with clause 3 of the
Employment Contract.
24. Additionally, the Chamber remarked that it was undisputed that the Club failed to pay the
Player’s remuneration as stipulated in the Employment Contract. Equally, the Chamber
noted that the Player placed the Club in default by means of the Second Notice, which was
received by the Club and remained unanswered. Ultimately, the Chamber took note that
the requested outstanding remuneration corresponded to an amount equivalent to three
monthly salaries.
25. As to the Club’s allegations, the Chamber clarified that, in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Club’s
difficulty in collecting funds from third parties cannot serve as a valid justification to evade
its financial obligations towards the Player under the Employment Contract. Furthermore,
the Club failed to provide any evidence of this allegation, as required under art. 13 para. 5
of the Procedural Rules.
26. In parallel, while the DRC acknowledged the Respondent’s reference to the February 2023
earthquake, the Chamber emphasized that: (i) the Employment Contract was voluntarily
executed by the Club on 21 August 2023 – several months after the alleged force majeure
event – at a time when the Club was reasonably capable of assessing its financial position
and allocation of contractual obligations; and (ii) although the Respondent attributed its
non-performance to economic consequences of the earthquake, it failed to submit any
documentary evidence that such circumstances rendered its obligations impossible to
perform. Hence, considering the strict evidentiary threshold required to establish force
majeure, and the fact that no evidence was provided in this respect, the Chamber rejected
the Respondent’s position.
27. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the Player rightfully terminated the
Employment Contract with just cause on 15 April 2025, on the basis of art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
ii. Consequences
28. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18979
a)
Outstanding Remuneration
29. The Chamber established that, as the time of the termination on 15 April 2025, the Player
was entitled to receive a total of USD 30,000 in outstanding remuneration, detailed as
follows:
Original due date
Amount
Note
01.01.2025
EUR 7,500
Unpaid
31.01.2025
EUR 7,500
Unpaid
28.02.2025
EUR 7,500
Unpaid
01.04.2025
EUR 7,500
Unpaid
TOTAL EUR 30,000
30. Additionally, the Chamber outlined that as the Player terminated the Employment Contract
on 15 April 2025, after half of the month had elapsed, the April 2025 salary should also be
awarded as outstanding remuneration. Therefore, in addition to the above, the Chamber
concluded the Player was entitled to an additional payment of EUR 7,500 (corresponding
to the instalment originally payable by 30 April 2025).
31. In the absence of a request from the Player, the Chamber decided not to award any interest
over the outstanding amounts, in adherence to the ne ultra petita principle. Equally, also
due to the lack of request by the Player, the Chamber decided not to award the outstanding
remuneration as ‘net’.
b)
Compensation for breach of contract
32. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly 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.
33. 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.
34. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18979
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the
Employment Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 85,000 serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, as detailed
below:
Original due date
31.05.2025
01.07.2025
01.10.2025
31.10.2025
30.11.2025
01.01.2026
31.01.2026
28.02.2026
01.04.2026
30.04.2026
31.05.2026
01.07.2026
TOTAL
Amount
EUR 7,500
EUR 7,500
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 7,000
EUR 85,000
36. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
37. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Subsequent Club. In accordance with the
Subsequent Employment Contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 4,000 per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 34,933.33, as detailed below:
Original due date
20.10.2025
20.11.2025
20.12.2025
Amount
EUR 2,933.33 (prorated)
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18979
20.01.2026
20.02.2026
20.03.2026
20.04.2026
20.05.2026
20.06.2026
20.07.2026
TOTAL
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
EUR 4,000
EUR 34,933.33
38. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
39. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
22,500, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player at the time of the
termination (i.e., EUR 7,500).
40. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 72,566.67 to the Claimant (i.e., EUR 85,000 minus EUR 34,933.33 plus EUR 22,500),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
41. Lastly, in the absence of a request from the Player, the Chamber decided not to award any
interest over the payable compensation, in adherence to the ne ultra petita principle.
Equally, also due to the lack of request by the Player, the Chamber decided not to award
the payable compensation as ‘net’.
iii. Sporting sanctions
42. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
43. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item no. 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18979
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
44. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 5 December 2002 and
the Employment Contract with the Club was concluded on 21 August 2023. Furthermore,
the Chamber noted that the Player terminated the Employment Contract with just cause
on 15 April 2025. The DRC then confirmed that the breach of contract by the Club occurred
within the protected period.
45. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had already been held liable of breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, for example in cases
FPSD-19157, FPSD-19603 and FPSD-19320. In the Chamber’s view, the Club’s status as a
repeat offender warranted the imposition of additional consequences in order to uphold
the principle of contractual stability enshrined in the Regulations.
46. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC 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 arts. 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
50. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18979
51. In view of the above, the DRC 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 Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
52. 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.
d. Costs
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18979
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Check Oumar Diakite, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Adanaspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 37,500 as outstanding remuneration; and
- EUR 72,566.67 as compensation for breach of contract.
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.
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, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18979
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. 15