Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19230
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kenan Piric
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kenan Piric, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Dupovac Feđa
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Antalyaspor A.S, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19230
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Bosnian player, Kenan Piric (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Turkish club Antalyaspor A.S (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent/Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Player was entitled inter alia to the following amounts:
-
EUR 472,500 net for season 2024/2025, payable as follows:
-
3.
05.08.2024
EUR 35,000 net
30.09.2024
EUR 41,500 net
30.10.2024
EUR 64,000 net
30.11.2024
EUR 41,500 net
30.12.2024
EUR 41,500 net
31.01.2025
EUR 41,500 net
28.02.2025
EUR 41,500 net
31.03.2025
EUR 41,500 net
30.04.2025
31.05.2025
EUR 41,500 net
EUR 41,500 net
30.06.2025
EUR 41,500 net
EUR 472,500 net for season 2025/2026, payable as follows:
30.09.2025
EUR 45,000 net
30.10.2025
EUR 67,500 net
30.11.2025
EUR 45,000 net
30.12.2025
EUR 45,000 net
31.01.2026
EUR 45,000 net
28.02.2026
EUR 45,000 net
31.03.2026
EUR 45,000 net
30.04.2026
EUR 45,000 net
31.05.2026
30.06.2026
EUR 45,000 net
EUR 45,000 net
The clause “special provisions” point 1 of the Contract read as follows:
“The Club is obliged to pay the amounts as written above to the Player in return of his
services subject to this Contract. All amounts mentioned in this Contract (including salary,
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19230
bonuses and under any name whatsoever) shall be paid by the Club to the Player, net of
any taxes. The obligation of taxes, charges, stamp duty in the territory in Turkey shall be
borne by the Club in addition to the amounts stipulated in this Contract. For the sake of
clarity, the amounts mentioned under this Contract shall be paid to the Player net of any
taxes, deductions and banking charges that are born in accordance with the Turkish
legislation and practices. The income tax of the player IN RELATION WITH THE AMOUNTS
ONLY STIPULATED IN THIS CONTRACT to be occured [sic] in Turkey shall also be paid by
the club additionally.”
4.
On 31 January 2025, the Player put the Club in default requesting EUR 64,000 for October
2024 salary, EUR 41,500 for November 2024 salary and EUR 41,500 for December 2024
salary. The Player granted the Club 15 days to remedy the default.
5.
On 1 April 2025, the Player put the Club in default requesting EUR 64,000 for October 2024
salary and the salaries between November 2024 and March 2025 (EUR 41,500 per month).
The Player granted the Club 15 days to remedy the default.
6.
On 18 April 2025, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club. It is to be noted that the
Club contested the reception of this notice.
7.
On 26 April 2025, the Player participated in a match between the Club and the Turkish club
Sivasspor.
8.
Between 19 April 2025 and 17 May 2025, the Player participated in the Club’s trainings.
9.
On 23 May 2025, the Club sent a correspondence to the Player indicating that the Player
was absent from training on 21 and 22 May 2025 and requested him to submit an
explanation of the absence.
10. On 14 July 2025, the Turkish Football Federation informed that on 7 July 2025, the Player’s
legal representative informed the Federation of the Player’s termination of the Contract.
11. On 25 July 2025, the Player and the club Neftchi PFK from Azerbaijan concluded an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2027. The Player was
entitled inter alia to the following amounts:
“3.1. Basic annual remuneration for 2025/2026 season will be 100.000$ NET (a hundred
thousand US dollars) and it will be paid in 10 (ten) installments starting from August 2025
until May 2026. Each monthly installment of 10.000$ NET (ten thousand US dollars) shall
be made by the 15th day of next month.
3.2. Basic annual remuneration for 2026/2027 season will be 550.000$ NET (five
hundred-fifty thousand US dollars) and it will be paid in 10 (ten) installments starting
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19230
from August 2026 until May 2027. Each monthly installment of 55.000$ NET (fifty five
thousand US dollars) shall be made by the 15th day of next month.
3.3. The Club shall also pay the Player an apartment rental allowance in the amount of
8000$ (eight thousand US dollars) for each of the 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 seasons.
This amount shall be paid in accordance with the salary installments specified in this
Contract.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 13 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
13. The Player argued that the Club had severely and repeatedly breached the Contract as it
failed to pay him several monthly salaries starting from October 2024.
14. The Player noted having sent two default notices, on 31 January and 1 April 2025
respectively, granting the Club 15 days each time to remedy the breaches. The Player also
noted that the Club neither responded nor paid the overdue amounts. As a result, the debt
accumulated to EUR 271,500, representing more than two months’ salary, and
demonstrated, in the Player’s view, that the Club had no intention to honor the Contract.
15. Given these circumstances, the Player maintained that he had just cause to terminate the
Contract under art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
16. The Player requested the following amounts:
-
Overdue payables:
➢
➢
➢
➢
➢
➢
-
EUR 64,000 as October 2024 salary;
EUR 41,500 as November 2024 salary;
EUR 41,500 as December 2024 salary;
EUR 41,500 as January 2025 salary;
EUR 41,500 as February 2025 salary;
EUR 41,500 as March 2025 salary.
Compensation:
➢ EUR 597,000.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19230
17. The Player requested the following relief:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to
determine that he terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just
cause on 18th April 2025 - and to order the Club to pay the Player the following
amounts:
▪ Overdue payables, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant payment dates until
the date of effective payment, specified as follows
▪ 271.500,00 EUR (including outstanding salaries for the months of October,
November, December, January, February, March)
▪ 597.000,00 EUR (for remaining remuneration for season 2024/25 and season
2025/26) as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as
from 18th April 2025 until the date of effective payment. Should this amount be
mitigated, an additional 3 months of compensation are being requested.”
b. Reply of the Club and counterclaim
18. On 27 May 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Club to provide its position to the
claim.
19. On 24 June 2025 the Club provided its response and counterclaim.
20. The Club denied that the Player terminated the Contract on 18 April 2025, asserting that it
did not receive such correspondence and that it only became aware of the alleged
termination upon FIFA’s notification on 27 May 2025. The Club stressed that the Player
continued to attend training and even played in an official Turkish Super League match on
26 April 2025, eight days after the date he claimed to have terminated the Contract, a
conduct that the Club characterized as incompatible with a genuine termination. According
to the Club, this behavior constituted a tacit revocation of any alleged termination notice.
21. The Club maintained that it had fulfilled all contractual obligations, including the payment
of bonuses and salaries, such as a bonus on 12 May 2025 and the totality of the outstanding
salaries on 16 May 2025, which the Player accepted without any protest. It argued that the
Player’s allegations of unpaid salaries were unfounded, as the relevant amounts had
already been settled. The Club also highlighted that the Player began to absent himself
from training without valid justification on 21–22 May 2025, behavior it viewed as an
unjustified breach.
22. On that basis, the Club argued that the Player, not the Club, had breached the contract
without just cause and that the effective termination date should be considered 27 May
2025, when it first received FIFA’s letter to provide its position. The Club filed a counterclaim
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19230
for EUR 514,000 in compensation, reflecting the residual value of the contract. Additionally,
the Club requested sporting sanctions.
23. The Club provided the following conclusions and requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, and taking into account (i) the Player's participation in an official
match following the alleged termination date, (ii) his continued presence in training
sessions thereafter, and (ill) the Club's good-faith performance of its contractual
obligations, including the full payment of remuneration, the Club respectfully requests
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA:
•
Reject the Player's claim in its entirety as being devoid of merit and based on an
invalid and ineffective termination;
•
Declare that the Player had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract and that such termination, if any, was made in breach of
the applicable regulations.
•
Acknowledge that the Club became aware of the alleged termination only upon
FIFA's official notification dated 27 May 2025;
•
Recognize that the Player's subsequent conduct — including playing in an official
match and attending training sessions — amounts to a tacit revocation of any
alleged termination notice;
•
Uphold the Club's counterclaim and order the Player to pay termination
compensation in the amount of EUR 514,000.00 for breach of contract without just
cause;
•
Impose sporting sanctions on the Player, including but not limited to a four month
restriction on playing in official matches, pursuant to Article 17(4) of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.”
c. Response to the counterclaim
24. The Player stated that the Club had systematically failed to pay his salary for more than six
consecutive months, despite him performing his services and participating in every league
match. According to him, these persistent breaches were severe and repeated, thereby
constituting just cause for the termination of the Contract.
25. The Player recalled that he had sent two default notices, first in January 2025 and again on
1 April 2025, each giving the Club a15-day deadline to cure its defaults. As the Club failed
to react or pay the overdue amounts, he sent a termination letter on 18 April 2025. He
further argued that, even if this termination letter had not been considered effective (which
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19230
he disputed), the Contract should in any event have been deemed terminated when he
filed his claim before FIFA on 12 May 2025.
26. The Player further explained that the Club’s claim that it never received the termination
letter was false, as he had provided evidence that the termination was communicated by
email on 18 April 2025. The Player stressed that the Club did not dispute receipt of the
notice letters (to one of which it had responded), yet the subsequent termination letter
sent in the same manner and to the same email addresses is apparently not received. This,
according to the Player, was not credible, and the Club did not provide any evidence in that
sense. Thus, he maintained that the Club had in fact been duly informed of the termination.
27. The Player also addressed the Club’s argument that he had allegedly withdrawn the
termination by participating in one match on 26 April 2025 and a few training sessions. He
asserted that this brief participation resulted solely from a misunderstanding with his
agent and could not legally affect the termination that had already occurred. He stated that
he had never rescinded the termination, had left Turkey shortly thereafter, and had filed
his FIFA claim soon after.
28. Furthermore, the Player argued that the Club’s later payment of EUR 271,500, made only
after initiation of FIFA proceedings, confirmed the Club’s longstanding default rather than
disproving it. He noted that he had accepted overdue salaries owed for services already
rendered, and such acceptance did not imply any waiver of his rights or acknowledgment
of the Club’s claims. He emphasized that this late payment, made after termination, could
not undo the just cause that existed at the time the Contract was ended.
29. Finally, the Player maintained that the Club’s counterclaim and request for compensation
or sporting sanctions were entirely unfounded. He argued that the Club, being in persistent
and serious breach, could not benefit from its own wrongdoing.
30. The Player concluded the following :
“83. From the provided evidences it is clear that the claims of the Club are unfounded.
While baselessly accusing the Claimant of bad faith, the Club is demonstrating its
modus operandi and undoubtably confirming the claims of the Player.
84. The Claimant emphasizes that in accordance with the jurisprudence, the question
whether the employment contract had been terminated with or without just cause,
shall be analyzed on a case-by case basis taking into account all of the circumstances
surrounding. Taking in consideration facts of the case, it is irrefutable that the Player
has acted in accordance with the FIFA regulations, that the Club has neglected its
obligation and that the Player has followed prescribed procedure of termination of
the contract with just cause. Other claims of player`s intentions are unfounded and
represent only view of the Club.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19230
85. After the insight into the entire documentation it is clearly visible that the claim of
the Club is unfounded and there are no grounds for acceptance of such claim.
86. We therefore invite the FIFA DRC to reject the Club’s counterclaim in its entirety.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
31. 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 13 May 2025 and submitted for decision on
19 February 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.
32. 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 a Bosnian player and a Turkish club.
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19230
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
36. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute whether there was a breach of contract and its date of termination.
37. While the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause on 18 April 2025
considering that the Club failed to pay his salaries for more than 2 months, the Club
stressed that it did not receive the termination notice, that the Player following such alleged
termination, continue to play and participate in trainings with the Club thereby revoking
his alleged termination and that by 16 May 2025, it paid the outstanding salaries. The Club
further stressed that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause on 26 May
2025, date of the notification of the claim to the Club.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (i) when the
Player terminated the Contract; (ii) whether the Contract was terminated with or without
just cause; and (iii) the consequences of said termination.
i. When the Player terminated the Contract?
39. In order to assess when the Player terminated the Contract, the Chamber first established
the chronological order of the following events:
Date
18 Apr 2025
19 Apr–17 May 2025
26 Apr 2025
2 May 2025
12 May 2025
16 May 2025
Event
The Player sent a termination letter. The
reception of it is contested by the Club.
The Player continued training with the
Club.
The Player participated in an official
match.
The Club played a match, and the Player
did not participate under the reason
“unknown injury”, as per the report
provided by the Player.
The Club played a match, and the Player
did not participate under the reason
“fitness” as per the report provided by the
Player.
The Club paid the Player EUR 271,500.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19230
18 May 2025
20-21 May 2025
13 May 2025
27 May 2025
The Club played a match, and the Player
was not in the squad.
The Player was absent from training.
the Player filed the present claim.
FIFA general secretariat notified the Club
of the claim.
40. In relation to the above mentioned events, the Chamber observed that the Player alleged
having terminated the Contract on 18 April 2025 through a correspondence by email.
However, the Club maintained that it never received such termination notice and only
became aware of the Player’s alleged intention to end the Contract upon receipt of FIFA’s
correspondence inviting it to respond to the claim on 27 May 2025.
41. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Player in his response to the counterclaim
provided as proof the email sent to the Club on 18 April 2025. The Chamber noted that,
according to this email, it was addressed to in**@ant*****.com.tr, which is the same email
that appears in the Contract. Therefore, the Chamber established that the Club did receive
this notice.
42. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber also noted that following the notice, the Player
did participate for a month in the Club’s training even after the start of the proceedings.
What is more he participated in a match one week after the termination letter sent by the
Player, and for the following 2 matches he was not participating due to possible injuries or
“fitness” as per the information provided by the Player.
43. In assessing this issue, the Chamber recalled the principle of venire contra factum proprium,
and observed that in the present case, the Player continued to train with the Club between
19 April and 17 May 2025 and even participated in an official match on 26 April 2025,
conducts that the Chamber found incompatible with the assertion that the Contract had
been definitively terminated on 18 April 2025.
44. The Chamber considered that the Player could not unilaterally invoke a purportedly
effective termination while, through his own subsequent conduct, he was creating the
legitimate appearance that the employment relationship persisted. The Player’s actions
generated a reasonable expectation that the Contract remained in force.
45. Moreover, the Player alleged that his continued participation in training sessions and an
official match resulted from a miscommunication between himself and his agent. However,
the Chamber emphasized that the Club could not be held liable for any alleged
miscommunication or lack of coordination between the Player and his legal representative
regarding the transmission, interpretation, or legal effect of the purported termination
letter. Any exchanges, misunderstandings, or omissions occurring between the Player and
his own representative was exclusively within their sphere of responsibility and could not
have consequences to the detriment of the Club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19230
46. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that Player alternatively requested to use the date of
filing of the claim to consider the date of termination, however in this respect, the Chamber
observed that (i) the Player was still participating in training sessions until 17 May 2025;
and that (ii) the claim had not been communicated to the Club until 27 May 2025. Therefore,
the date of termination would be either the next day the Player left the Club’s premises,
i.e., 18 May 2025 at the earliest, or the date of notification of the claim on 27 May 2025.
47. According to the Chamber, without prior communication between 17 and 27 May 2025
from the Player, it was to be considered that the Player terminated the Contract by the
notification of the claim by the FIFA general secretariat to the Club on 27 May 2025, a date
on which both parties were aware of such termination.
ii. Was the Contract terminated with just cause?
48. In this respect, the Chamber observed that (i) the Club was in default of payment since the
beginning of the Contract; (ii) the Player put in default the Club two times; and that (iii) at
the time of termination the Club remediated the Player’s request in the default notice, by
paying EUR 271,500, however, it failed to pay again the Player’s April salary which fell due
on 30 April 2025.
49. The Chamber recalled that, pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations, a contract may be
terminated by either party without consequences only where there is just cause.
Furthermore, just cause must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that the
termination of an employment contract is an exceptional measure, only admissible where
the breach is of such severity that the injured party cannot reasonably be expected to
continue the employment relationship.
50. In this respect, the Chamber observed that it was undisputed that the Club failed to pay for
a significant period his salaries between October 2024 and March 2025, only paying such
amounts on 16 May 2025.
51. The Chamber further observed that, as of the date of termination, the April 2025 salary
was not paid, thereby failing again to pay one additional salary on time, and been in default,
such salary remained unpaid until the date of the decision.
52. The Chamber also took into account that the obligation to pay salaries in due time
constitutes one of the club’s most fundamental obligations under an employment contract.
Repeated failure to comply with this obligation is, in principle, capable of undermining the
mutual trust necessary for the continuation of the employment relationship.
53. In light of the foregoing, and considering the systematic nature of the late payments, the
Chamber concluded that the Club had persistently failed to comply with its contractual
obligations over a prolonged period of time.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19230
54. Furthermore, during the course of the employment relationship, the Player placed the Club
in default on two separate occasions, requesting payment of outstanding salaries.
Although the Club eventually executed the payments, it did so only five months after the
first request and one month after the second. Despite these delays, the Club continued to
fail to meet its payment obligations, once again defaulting by not paying the Player’s April
salary on time.
55. Consequently, the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract on 27 May 2025 (cf., art.
14 of the Regulations).
ii. Consequences
56. 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.
57. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounted to EUR 83,000
corresponding to the salaries of April and May 2025.
58. 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, i.e., EUR
83,000.
59. 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 1 May 2025 for the EUR 41,500
corresponding to the salary of April 2025, and as from 27 May 2025 for the EUR 41,500
corresponding to the salary of May 2025, in both cases interest accrue until the date of
effective payment.
60. 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.
61. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19230
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
62. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, 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 the player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
63. 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 Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 514,000 (i.e., EUR 41,500 plus EUR 472,500) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
64. 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 Chamber 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 general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
65. Indeed, the Player found employment with Neftchi PFK. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 100,000 for the 2025/2026 season.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 100,000.
66. 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.
67. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
118,125, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
68. 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 a total amount of
EUR 532,125 (i.e., EUR 514,000 minus EUR 100,000 plus EUR 118,125) to the Claimant, caped
to EUR 514,000 since the amount of the compensation cannot exceed the residual value of
the Contract. Thus, from the perspective of the Chamber, the amount of EUR 514,000 was
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19230
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
69. Lastly, 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
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 27 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
70. To conclude, the Chamber highlighted that due to the reasoning exposed above, it rejected
the counterclaim filed by the Club.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
71. 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.
72. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
73. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Club 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 Player, 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.
74. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
75. The Chamber 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19230
d. Costs
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19230
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Kenan Piric, is partially accepted.
2.
The claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Antalyaspor A.S, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent, Antalyaspor A.S, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 41,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 41,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 May 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 514,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19230
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19230
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. 19