Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19008
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Didier
Lamkel Ze
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT:
Hatayspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ismet Bumin
RESPONDENT:
Didier Lamkel Ze, Cameroon
Represented by Guy San Bartolome Sarrey
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19008
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified day, the Turkish club, Hatayspor (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Cameroonian player, Didier Lamkel Ze (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 7 August
2023 until 30 June 2025.
2.
According to clause 3 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a total net salary of EUR
300,000 as well as a sign on fee of EUR 50,000 for the season 2023/2024 and a total net
salary of EUR 350,000 for the season 2024/2025.
3.
On 4 July 2024, the parties signed a mutual termination agreement (hereinafter: the
Termination Agreement). In its clause 3 and 4, the Termination Agreement stated as follows
(quoted verbatim):
“This contract was drawn up as a result of the player’s wish to leave the club; In return for the
termination of the player’s contract, the parties mutually acquit each other. The parties hereby
acknowledges that regarding to this contract as the date of this contract Player has no overdue
receivables.
On the grounds of and the request of the player wants to leave the club of his own free will;
accepts, declares and undertakes to pay 115,000 EUR (one hundred and fifteen thousand) to
Hatayspor Club for determination of the employment contract if the player signs a transfer
contract with a different club.”
4.
On 28 September 2024, the parties signed a protocol (hereinafter: the Additional Agreement)
and agreed on the following:
Subject: “The subject of this protocol is related to the modification of the early termination
compensation fee paid by the Player to Hatayspor in accordance with the Mutual Termination
Protocol dated 04.07.2024 signed upon the request of the Player.”
Clause 1: “The Parties have agreed that, pursuant to Article 4 of the Mutual Termination Protocol
dated 04.07.2024, the Player shall pay Hatayspor a net amount of 115,000 EUR. With the Player’s
transfer to Faith Karagümrük Sportif A.S. on 02.09.2024, the amount of 115,000 EUR became
due.”
Clause 2: “The parties agree that the conditions specified in the Mutual termination Protocol
dated 04.07.2024 remain valid in this Protocol, the only change is that the early termination
compensation is accepted as 50,000 EUR and will be paid in 2 equal instalments on 29.11.2024
and 28.02.2025 by the Player’s Club Faith Karagumrukk A.S. to Hatayspor’s bank account
specified below […].”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19008
Clause 3: “However, if the amount specified in this protocol is not paid by the Player’s Club Fait
Karagümrük A.S. to Hatayspor in full and in full until the due date, this protocol will be invalid
and the fees specified in the protocol dated 04.07.2024 will be paid. […]”
5.
On 5 March 2025, the Club sent to the Player a default notice stating the following (quoted
verbatim):
“We refer to the Termination Agreement concluded between yourselves and Hatay Spor Kulübü
(appearing as Hatayspor Kulübü Derneği under the referred instrument) on 04.07.2024,
according to which you undertook to pay 115.000.-Euro to Hatay Spor Kulübü as a
compensation for the premature termination of the employment contract, once you sign with
another club.
It is noted that, following the termination of your employment contract with Hatay Spor Kulübü,
you signed with Sakaryaspor A.Ş. on 16.08.2024 and yet, you did not pay the agreed
compensation to Hatay Spor Kulübü.
Within the scope of the above, with reservation of all rights on the surplus, you are hereby
granted 10 (ten) days following the receipt of the present notification via email to deliver the
payment of the outstanding receivables of Hatay Spor Kulübü in the total principal amount of
115.000.-Euro net, alongside with its interest in the rate of 5% p.a. to be applied from 17.08.2024
and until the date of effective payment, to the bank account of Hatay Spor Kulübü, details of
which are given under the attached bank account registration form.”
6.
On the same day, the Player replied the following:
« J’ai un papier signe par le club Faith et mon avocat aussi a reçu le document. Vous avez fait un
accord avec Faith fc cela ne me regarde plus.
Vous avez trouve un accord de 50,000 EUR avec mon ancien club. C’est plus mon histoire nous
pouvons aller à la FIFA si vous voulez et mon avocat va s’occuper du dossier. »
“I have a document signed by Faith FC, and my solicitor has also received the document. You
have reached an agreement with Faith FC, so it is no longer my concern.’
You have reached an agreement for EUR 50,000 with my former club. It is no longer my concern.
We can go to FIFA if you want, and my solicitor will take care of the case.” (Freely translated
into English)
7.
On 6 March 2025, the Club replied to the Player as follows (quoted verbatim):
“It is noted that, with your emails dated 05.03.2025, you asserted that one of your previous clubs
(i.e. Fatih Karagümrük) assumed your debt and transmitted a signed copy of the Protocol dated
28.09.2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19008
Please kindly note the following:
a. Contrary to your allegation (i.e. “J’ai un papier signe par la club Fatih”), Fatih Karagümrük is
not a party to the Protocol,
b. In any case, Fatih Karagümrük neither assumed nor satisfied the referred debt and
c. Consequently, you still owe 115.000.-Euro to Hatay Spor Kulübü, in accordance with Art. 180
of Swiss Code of Obligations and Art. 3.3. of the Protocol.
Within the scope of the above, we reiterate our position conveyed in our notification of
05.03.2025 and once again request the payment of 115.000.-Euro net, alongside with its interest
in the rate of 5% p.a. to be applied from 17.08.2024 and until the date of effective payment, by
no later than 17.03.2025; and notify that, in the absence of payment, we will proceed with the
lodging of a claim against yourself before the FIFA Football Tribunal and to request the payment
of the outstanding amount with its accessories.
Finally, for the sake of good order, please note that this notification is being sent without
prejudice and with reservation of all rights.”
8.
On the same day, the Player replied the following (quoted verbatim):
« Bonsoir monsieur ! Comme je vous l’ai dit vous avez trouvé un accord avec Fatih qui a été signé
par vous et par moi malheureusement vous devez régler ça avec le club Fatih… sinon vous
pouvez aller à la FIFA mon avocat répondra présent merci à vous. »
“Good evening, sir! As I told you, you reached an agreement with Fatih that was signed by you
and me. Unfortunately, you will have to settle this with Fatih's club... otherwise, you can go to
FIFA. My solicitor will be there. Thank you.”
9.
On 24 April 2025, the Turkish club Faith Karagümrük Spor Kulubu (hereinafter:
Karagümrük), sent a letter that stated the following (quoted verbatim):
“This letter is being provided, upon request of Hatay Spor Kulubu, for the clarification of the
following.
Faith Karagümrük A.S. never assumed any debt of Mr. Didier Lamkel Ze towards Hatay Spor
Kulubu, never agreed to pay any amount on behalf of Mr. Didier Lamkel Ze to Hatay Spor Kulubu
and never did so.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19008
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 23 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
11. On 23 April 2025, the Club lodged a claim with FIFA for overdue payables against the Player.
12. The Club contended that the parties had duly signed the Termination Agreement, under
which the Player undertook to pay EUR 115,000 should he enter into a new contract.
Furthermore, the Club rejected the Player’s assertions in his emails dated 5 and 6 March
2025, in which he claimed to have no obligations towards the Club on the basis that
Karagümrük was not a party to the Additional Agreement.
13. According to the Club, when the parties signed the Additional Agreement, the Player
allegedly had informed the Club that “he would contact Karagümrük and have Karagümrük
pay the amounts specified under the Protocol to the Club. However, the Player failed to do so,
and no agreement was reached between the Claimant and Karagümrük, and no such payment
was made by the latter to the former”.
14. Consequently, the Club argued that the Player is under the obligation to pay EUR 115,000
to the Club “since the debt assumption contract failed.”
15. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the explanations given above, supported by the documentary evidence provided
annexed herewith, by reserving all rights on the surplus, the Claimant hereby requests from the
Honourable Chamber:
a. to admit the present claim and
b. to order the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of 115.000.-Euro,
alongside with its interest in the rate of 5% per annum to be applied from 02.09.2024 and
until the date of effective payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Player denied any liability for the payment of EUR 115,000 and asserted that
Karagümrük, rather than himself, is responsible for paying this amount to the Club.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19008
17. In support of his position, the Player submitted a copy of the offer he received from
Karagümrük on 5 August 2024, which stated, among other terms, that he would be entitled
to a total salary of EUR 400,000 for the 2024/2025 season. Additionally, the Player provided
a copy of the employment contract he ultimately signed with Karagümrük, which stipulated
a salary of EUR 285,000 for the same season.
18. The Player argued that the EUR 115,000 difference between the salary proposed in the
initial offer and the amount agreed upon in the final contract was due to Karagümrük’s
verbal commitment to pay this sum directly to the Club.
19. Furthermore, the Player provided different screenshots of a conversation allegedly held
with Karagümrük’s sporting director.
20. In addition, the Player argued that Karagümrük had allegedly told him via WhatsApp that
“if they don’t send you the document today, you come to office tomorrow and we sign settlement
between Hatayspor, Karagümrük and you because he already spoke with Hatayspor president
and also spoke about payment planning regarding your transfer fee. No worries.” In addition,
Karagümrük also reportedly stated that “I spoke with the president again. He told me that he
has always respected you so far. He gave your word that this is between Hatayspor and
Karagumruk. Besides tomorrow we prepare the 3 parties settlement and sign or even sign a
document which states that Karagümrük is responsible for transfer fee of yours. After all is you
say that you don’t come and etc… this is your decision but there will be consequences because
you don’t respect the club.” (quoted verbatim)
21. In addition, the Player claimed that due to the above, he signed the Additional Agreement
as he thought that Karagümrük had formally undertaken to pay the debt in his place (“[the
Player] pouvant legitimement croire- en confiance et en toute bonne foi- que Karagümrük s'était
formellement engagé à payer sa dette à sa place envers Hatay.”)
22. The Player also argued that his position is corroborated by emails he sent to the Club, in
which he stated that Karagümrük, and not himself, is liable for the debt.
23. Furthermore, the Player submitted a letter from Karagümrük issued in the context of
disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, which contained the following statement:
“We would also like to point out that you had an outstanding debt to Hatayspor arising from
your contract with Hatayspor. Our Club’s President negotiated with the President of Hatayspor
to reduce this debt amount and resolved the matter as per your request. Although this situation
was communicated to you, you insisted on receiving written confirmation that the issue with
Hatayspor had been resolved, stating that you would not return from Paris otherwise.
Our Club acted entirely in your favor and in good faith, despite having no obligation to do so.
Even though it was repeatedly communicated to you that an agreement had been reached and
that the written confirmation would be sent to you as soon as possible, your continued
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19008
threatening behavior led to a serious trust issue. In fact, the relevant written agreement was sent
to you, as promised, on 28.09.2024.”
24. The Player therefore concluded that Karagümrük had explicitly assumed the debt towards
the Club and the Player was no longer liable to pay it.
25. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
« S’ENTENDRE DIRE la plainte recevable et NON fondée.
REJETER la demande d’HATAY à l’encontre de Monsieur D. LAMKEL ZE ET CONDAMNER
KARAGÜMRÜK au paiement de 115.000 € (à augmenter d’un intérêt à 5% l’an depuis le 28
septembre 2024 jusqu’à la date du paiement effectif).
S’ENTENDRE REJETER toute prétention plus ample d’HATAY et de KARAGÜMRÜK. »
“To declare the complaint admissible but unfounded.
To reject HATAY’s claim against Mr. D. LAMKEL ZE and to order KARAGÜMRÜK to pay the amount
of €115,000 (to be increased by interest at 5% per year from 28 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment).
To declare rejected any further claims of HATAY and KARAGÜMRÜK.” (Freely translated into
English)
26. In addition, the Player requested Karagümrük to be added as a second respondent.
27. In this respect, on 14 November 2025 the Player was informed by the FIFA general
secretariat that his request could not be entertained as filed, as it lacked regulatory basis.
c. Replica of the Claimant
28. The Club argued that the evidence submitted does not demonstrate that Karagümrük
assumed the debt and maintained that, pursuant to the Termination Agreement, the Player
remains solely liable to satisfy the debt owed to the Club.
29. In this regard, the Club reiterated its request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
30. The Player reiterated that Karagümrük shall be added as a second respondent as it
assumed the debt towards the Club. In this regard, he reiterated the alleged WhatsApp
conversations with the Club and the reduction of the salary to conclude that Karagümrük
is liable to pay the amount agreed upon in the Termination Agreement.
31. The Player further argued that, should Karagümrük not be joined to the present
proceedings and the DRC order him to pay the requested amount, he would effectively be
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19008
required to pay twice: once through the salary reduction and once pursuant to the FIFA
decision.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19008
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 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 23 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
22 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026
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), 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 Cameroonian player and a Turkish club.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-19008
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Chamber then proceeded to examine the substance of the dispute and observed that
the parties strongly disagree on whether the Player is liable for the amount arising from
the Termination Agreement, as well as on the validity of said agreement.
38. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that its central task is to determine (i) who bears
the responsibility for the debt stemming from the Termination Agreement, and (ii) whether
clause 4 of the Termination Agreement is legally valid and enforceable.
39. The Chamber noted that on the one hand, the Club requested from the Player the payment
of EUR 115,000 that was agreed in the Termination Agreement. On the other hand, the
Player alleged that his new club, Karagümrük, assumed the debt and, therefore, he is no
longer liable to satisfy towards the Club.
40. However, the Chamber observed that the Player did not provide any document proving
that Karagümrük assumed the debt on his behalf. Only the Player and the Club signed both
the Termination Agreement and the Additional Agreement. Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that Karagümrük issued a document to the Club expressly stating that it never
assumed any debt of the Player towards the Club.
41. The Chamber considered that even if, there is circumstantial evidence suggesting that
negotiations might have taken place between the Club and Karagümrük regarding the
Player’s debt, there is no document proving that Karagümrük assumed the debt. In
addition, the Player confirmed that the agreement was verbal and he failed to provide any
evidence in this regard.
42. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the
contrary, the Player remains liable for the debt, not Karagümrük.
43. Having established the above, the Chamber moved to the validity of clause 4 of the
Termination Agreement.
44. The Chamber recalled that clause 4 of the Termination Agreement stated as follows:
“On the grounds of and the request of the player wants to leave the club of his own free will;
accepts, declares and undertakes to pay 115,000 EUR (one hundred and fifteen thousand) to
Hatayspor Club for determination of the employment contract if the player signs a transfer
contract with a different club.”
45. In this regard, the Chamber considered that the clause is ambiguous, as it suggests that
the payment of EUR 115,000 would be triggered only if the Player signed a “transfer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19008
contract” with a new club. In the present case, the Player signed an employment contract,
not a transfer contract. Therefore, it could be argued that the clause was not triggered.
46. Notwithstanding the above, the Player confirmed that he was liable to pay the amount to
the Club until Karagümrük reportedly assumed its payment. In particular, the Player
acknowledged his liability in various instances:
« Autrement dit, Karagümrük invite [the Player] à signer le [Additional Agreement] (lequel a
été rédigé par [the Club]) et ce, afin que Karagümrük paie lui-même le transfer fee (en lieu et
place de [the Player] à Hatay. »
« C’est ainsi que [the Player] a signé le [Additional Agreement], [the Player] pouvant
legitimement croire- en confiance et en toute bonne foi- que Karagümrük s’était formellement
engage à payer sa dette a sa place envers [the Club].»
« Ce qui justifie la reclamation (demande sur reconvention) a l’egard de Karagumruk, ce dernier
s’est engage explicitement à payer la dette de [the Player] en lieu et place de celui-ci envers [the
Club].»
“In other words, Karagümrük invited [the Player] to sign the [Additional Agreement] (which
was drafted by [the Club]) so that Karagümrük could pay the transfer fee itself (instead of [the
Player] to Hatay).”
“Thus, [the Player] signed the [Additional Agreement], [the Player] being able to legitimately
believe—in confidence and in good faith—that Karagümrük had formally committed to paying
his debt to [the Club] on his behalf.”
"This justifies the claim (counterclaim) against Karagümrük, as the latter explicitly undertook to
pay [the Player]'s debt in his place to [the Club].” (Freely translated in English)
47. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that the Player acknowledged his debt
towards the Club but claimed that Karagümrük assumed its payment.
48. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Player acknowledged the debt of EUR 115,000
arising from the Termination Agreement and, indirectly, that clause 4 of the Termination
Agreement was valid and triggered despite its ambiguity.
49. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the financial
consequences and determined that the Club is entitled to receive by the Player the amount
of EUR 115,000 arising from the Termination Agreement.
50. 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 the Claimant interest
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19008
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 2 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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
56. 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.
57. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19008
58. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19008
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Hatayspor, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Didier Lamkel Ze, must pay the Claimant the following amount:
- EUR 115,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 September 2024
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 restricted on any football-related activity up until the due
amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months.
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 six months.
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. 15
REF. FPSD-19008
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. 16