Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19165
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Leandro
Deyrinio Kappel
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Leandro Deyrinio Kappel, Netherlands
Represented by Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Korhan Armağan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19165
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 January 2025, the Dutch player Leandro Deyrinio Kappel (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Turkish club Sanliurfaspor (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2025.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant EUR 12,500 net
as a monthly salary, between February 2025 and May 2025, giving rise to a total value of
the contract of EUR 50,000 net, as well as a monthly “accommodation and car” allowance
of EUR 1,000.
3.
Furthermore, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a signature bonus of EUR
20,000 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 8 May 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
5.
In his claim, the player argued that the club failed to comply with its financial obligations
under the contract, more specifically, the following amounts:
-
EUR 5,500 – remainder of February 2025 salary, due 1 March 2025
EUR 12,500 – March 2025 salary, due 1 April 2025
EUR 12,500 – April 2025 salary, due 1 May 2025
EUR 1,000 – February 2025 accommodation, due 1 March 2025
EUR 1,000 – March 2025 accommodation, due 1 April 2025
EUR 1,000 – April 2025 accommodation, due 1 May 2025
6.
The Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
7.
Thus, the Claimant requested EUR 33,500 as a total outstanding amount plus interest of
5% p.a. as from the respective due dates.
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
In its brief reply, the Respondent argued that it had made payments of EUR 27,530 to the
Claimant which were unaccounted for in the statement of claim. Thus, any amount
awarded to the Claimant should, in the Respondent’s view, be reduced by said amount.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19165
9.
Moreover, the Respondent argued that the accommodation fee was not due to the
Claimant, as the latter was entitled to stay in the club’s facilities. As no invoices of any rental
payments were sent to the club, such amount shall not be awarded to the Claimant,
according to the Respondent.
10. Therefore, the Respondent’s request for relief was the following (quoted verbatim):
”- That all claims of the Claimant be dismissed in their entirety;
- In the event that the Tribunal reaches a contrary conclusion, deduct the Payments made by the
Club from the Player’s earnings,
- In any case we respectfully also request that the claim be dismissed at least in respect of the
interest commencement dates and rulet hat the interest shall be start from the date of filing of
the claim.”
c. Additional Comments of the Claimant
11. Upon request for additional comments from the FIFA general secretariat, the Claimant
acknowledged the payment of EUR 27,500, described as a payment of TRY 306,000 on 30
January 2025 “made for advance payment equal to 8,200 Euros,” EUR 11,800 on 30 January
2025 “made for advance payment,” and EUR 7,500 on 26 March 2025.
12. However, he argued that this amount should be deducted from the total amount due
under the contract, namely EUR 74,000 (which included salaries for February through May,
an advance payment, and accommodation and car allowances for February through May).
The player further submitted that since the salary and accommodation allowances for May
were not yet due at the time the claim was submitted, he had not requested them at that
time but they had since fallen due and remained unpaid.
13. Additionally, as for the accommodation and car allowance, the Claimant specified that
these amounts are guaranteed contractually, regardless of whether he decided to live on
the club’s premises.
14. Thus, the Claimant amended his request for relief to specifically request EUR 46,500 as
outstanding remuneration, and provided the following breakdown of amounts and due
dates:
-
EUR 6,500 – due 1 March 2025
EUR 13,500 – due 1 April 2025
EUR 13,500 – due 1 May 2025
EUR 13,500 – due 1 June 2025
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19165
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 8 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 3 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 Single Judge 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
a Dutch player and a Turkish club.
17. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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 Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19165
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration where the parties
strongly dispute the calculation of the amounts outstanding.
21. According to the player, the club failed to remit EUR 33,500. Following various proofs of
payment submitted by the Respondent, the Claimant amended his request for relief to EUR
46,500.
22. The Respondent argued that the payments which were initially not accounted for should
be taken into consideration, and that the accommodation allowance should be
disregarded. Other than this, the Respondent did not dispute the non-payment of the
claimed amounts.
23. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence and allegations on file, what were in fact the amounts outstanding towards
the player.
24. As a preliminary remark, the Single Judge deemed that the accommodation and car
allowances were indeed due and payable to the Claimant. Not only did the parties not
specify any obligation of sending proof of rental expenses in the contract, but further, the
allowance itself was described as being for both accommodation and a car, thus further
cementing the point that no link to any actual living expenses was required for the payment
to be made.
25. With this in mind, the Single Judge recalled that the total value of the contract was indeed
EUR 74,000, and that the Player – implicitly from his claim and then expressly in his
additional comments – confirmed he received (i) the EUR 20,000 signing bonus on 30
January 2025 and (ii) a partial payment for his February 2025 salary, though his claim
indicated the payment had been of EUR 7,000 and his additional comments stated the
payment had been of EUR 7,500.
26. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent corroborated having paid an
amount of EUR 27,530 (which the Claimant later confirmed up to the amount of EUR
27,500). Moreover, as the Claimant himself acknowledged in his claim, at the time of filing,
the May 2025 salary and accommodation and car fees had not yet fallen due (totalling EUR
13,500).
27. Therefore, considering all of the above, the Single Judge concluded that, at the date of filing
the claim, an amount of EUR 33,500 was outstanding on the contract.
28. The Single Judge wished to mention that the date when the claim is lodged is dispositive
with respect to the amounts that may be awarded by this Chamber. Hence, in line with the
DRC’s jurisprudence, the Single Judge considered that, if the amounts were not due at the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19165
time of filing, they could not be awarded. For this reason, the Single Judge determined that,
in the present case, the outstanding amounts were limited to the salaries and
accommodation and car fees for February, March, and April 2025, while the salary and
accommodation and car fee for May 2025 shall be deemed premature.
29. Nevertheless, the Single Judge stressed that such determination was without prejudice to
any future claim the player may file concerning payments not yet due at the time of filing
the claim.
30. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant’s additional comments and attempt to
amend his claim would in any case have been disregarded, as the Claimant failed to specify
with sufficient clarity which amounts were in fact still outstanding in the amended claim,
and seemingly reversed his previous stance on whether certain sums had been paid in
order to apparently seek a higher amount (venire contra factum propium).
31. Therefore, the Single Judge was satisfied to follow the Claimant’s initial line of events,
whereby he argued that the amount of EUR 33,500 was still unpaid at the time of filing the
claim.
32. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the general principle of the
burden of proof, it is the Respondent’s responsibility to demonstrate full compliance with
the terms of the contract. However, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent failed to
do so.
33. In light of all the above, and considering the evidence and allegations in the file, the Single
Judge decided to award EUR 33,500 net to the Claimant as overdue payables, in accordance
with his initial request for relief and with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda.
34. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount EUR 6,500, as from 1 March 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount EUR 13,500, as from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount EUR 13,500, as from 1 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
35. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19165
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
36. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
38. 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.
39. The Single Judge 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
40. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
41. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
42. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19165
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Leandro Deyrinio Kappel, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 33,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 6,500 as from 1 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,500 as from 1 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected, without prejudice to any amounts deemed
premature at the date of filing of the claim.
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. 9
REF. FPSD-19165
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. 10