Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19239
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Petteri
Forsell
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Petteri Forsell, Finland
Represented by Mahmud Gundogdu
RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Korhan Armağan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19239
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Finnish player, Petteri Forsell (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Turkish club, Sanliurfaspor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 15 July 2024
until 30 June 2025.
2.
On an unspecified date, the parties entered into an agreement titled “Termination and
Settlement Agreement” (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
3.
The Termination Agreement stipulated as follows (quoted verbatim):
“1.1 The parties hereby immediately terminate by mutual agreement all relationships and
disputes which may exist between them up to the date hereof for whatever concept and
expressly declare not to have any claims whatsoever against the other because of the early
termination of the Professional Football Player Contract with the starting date of
15.07.2024 and ending date of 30.06.2025, and its annexes.
1.2 The parties have agreed that the Club has to pay 14.000, -EUR net to the Player with
the 3 installments regarding the receivables arising/due from the Professional Football
Player Contract with the starting date of 15.07.2024 and ending date of 30.06.2025, and
its annexes. For this reason, the Parties accept, declare and undertake that they have no
rights and receivables from each other. Therefore, the Parties have no rights and
receivables from each other. The parties have agreed that the net amount of 14,000,00EUR. as specified in this Mutual Termination and Settlement Agreement, will be paid by
the Club as follows:
•
•
•
5.000, -EUR will pay on 25.01.2025
4.000, -EUR will pay on 25.02.2025.
5.000, -EUR will pay on 25.03.2025.
1.3 In this context; the Player accepts and undertakes to release the Club irrevocably for
all the obligations set in the Contract and also the other agreements, arrangements and
understandings made by and between the parties regarding the same period and for any
other claims / compensation related to employment contract(s) and their annexes. The
Club also hereby explicitly and irrevocably releases the Player from any and all obligations
arising from the employment contract between the Parties, and its annexes.
1.4 […]
1.5 The Club agrees to pay a penalty of 1,000, -EUR (one thousand euros) to the Player for
each 30 (thirty) days of delayed installment payments.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19239
4.
On 14 May 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
5.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to fulfil its payment obligations under
the Termination Agreement.
6.
The Claimant contended that multiple attempts were made to settle the matter amicably,
but his efforts proved unsuccessful.
7.
As such, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent is in default of a total of EUR 17,000
detailed as follows:
•
•
•
•
8.
EUR 14,000 in principal settlement amount
EUR 1,000 penalty for delay in the first instalment (25 January 2025 – more
than 90 days overdue)
EUR 1,000 penalty for delay in the second instalment (25 February 2025 –
more than 75 days overdue)
EUR 1,000 penalty for delay in the third instalment (25 March 2025 – more
than 45 days overdue)
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“The Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
• Order the Respondent, Şanliurfaspor Kulübü, to pay the Claimant the outstanding
amount of EUR 17,000;
• Order the Respondent to pay additional EUR 1,000 per 30-day delay for each
unpaid instalment that continues to remain overdue until the date of full payment;
• Order interest at a rate deemed appropriate by the Chamber;
• Order the Respondent to bear all procedural and legal costs associated with this
proceeding.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
9.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that the Club had fully and duly complied with all its
contractual obligations towards the Player.
10. The Respondent claimed that, due to a recent change in Club management, certain
documents from the previous administrative period were currently inaccessible.
Nevertheless, it stated that the payment receipts related to the subject matter of this
dispute would be submitted to the Tribunal as soon as they were received.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19239
11. The Respondent contended that the Termination Agreement is clear in stating that the
amount to be paid to the Player is EUR 14,000. Therefore, the additional EUR 3,000
requested by the Claimant should be dismissed, as a request for EUR 1,000 per month
results in amounts overlapping and, if granted concurrently, this would result in unjust
enrichment.
12. The Respondent argued that the request for late-payment penalty results in the imposition
of compound interest, which is strictly prohibited under Article 314 of the Swiss Code of
Obligations.
13. Conversely, the Respondent argued that the interest rate effectively claimed under the
name of penalty by the Claimant corresponds to approximately 7.15% per month,
amounting to an annualized rate of nearly 85%. Such a rate is patently excessive and
violates the legal principles of both Swiss and domestic law. In that regard the clause which
stipulates penalty is null and void.
14. In this respect, the Respondent cited a previous decision from the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to support its argument.
15. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request:
• That all claims of the Claimant be dismissed in their entirety;
• In the event that the Tribunal reaches a contrary conclusion, that the duplicate
claim amounting to EUR 3,000.00 be dismissed;
• The rejection of the interest claims on the grounds of unlawfulness and
disproportionality, and
• That any amounts claimed or awarded be subject to lawful limits as defined by
applicable regulations and statutes.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 14 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 10 November 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19239
17. 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 Finnish player and a Turkish club.
18. 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
19. 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
20. 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
21. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the claim for outstanding remuneration.
22. On the one hand, the Claimant contended that the Respondent had failed comply with its
payment obligations and, as a result, was also liable for the contractual penalty stipulated
in the Termination Agreement. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the
contractual penalty would lead to the imposition of compound interest.
23. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine the amount
that remains outstanding, if any.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19239
24. To that end, the Single Judge first referred to the Termination Agreement, which reads as
follows:
“The parties have agreed that the net amount of 14,000,00-EUR. as specified in this Mutual
Termination and Settlement Agreement, will be paid by the Club as follows:
•
•
•
5.000, -EUR will pay on 25.01.2025
4.000, -EUR will pay on 25.02.2025.
5.000, -EUR will pay on 25.03.2025.”
25. The Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with the general principle of burden of proof,
it is the Respondent’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the
Termination Agreement. However, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent failed to
provide any evidence confirming that the agreed payments were made. Therefore, the
Single Judge found that the Player is entitled to EUR 14,000 as outstanding remuneration.
26. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Termination Agreement also contains the
following clause: “The Club agrees to pay a penalty of 1,000, -EUR (one thousand euros) to the
Player for each 30 (thirty) days of delayed instalment payments.”
27. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Single Judge highlighted that
whenever the payment of a contractual penalty is triggered in connection with a default of
payment that persists in time (i.e., it is not only paid once but increases over time with the
non-payment), these obligations tend to be considered as hidden interest rates rather than
penalties and are to be limited to a rate of 18% per annum.
28. While applying the above to the present matter, the Single Judge observed that the socalled penalty corresponds to an annualised rate of 240% for the first and third instalments,
and 300% for the second instalment. These rates significantly exceed the maximum
permissible interest of 18% per annum as established by the Football Tribunal and are
therefore deemed excessive and unenforceable.
29. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the so-called penalty should be reduced to the
maximum interest rate permitted by the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, i.e. 18%
p.a. as from the day following the respective due dates of each instalment until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant USD 14,000 as outstanding
remuneration.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19239
31. Furthermore, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 18%
p.a. as follows:
⎯ 18% p.a. on the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 26 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
⎯ 18% p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,000 as from 26 February 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
⎯ 18% p.a. on the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 26 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
32. 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
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19239
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19239
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Petteri Forsell, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 18% interest p.a. as follows:
- 18% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 26 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 18% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,000 as from 26 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 18% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 26 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19239
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. 11