Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19485
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kwasi
Okyere Wreidt
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kwasi Okyere Wreidt, Ghana
Represented by Sami Dinc
RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Korhan Armağan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19485
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 January 2025, the German player Kwasi Okyere Wreidt (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 the
end of the 2025/2026 season.
2.
According to the information available on the FIFA Transfer Matching System (hereinafter:
“TMS”), the aforementioned season is scheduled to end on 1 June 2026.
3.
In accordance with the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia the following net remuneration:
For the first season:
-
EUR 60,000 net between February 2025 and May 2025, payable in monthly
instalments of USD 12,000 at the end of each month;
EUR 500 net per match bonus fee, payable in “official league competitions”,
proportionate to the amount of time played during each respective match;
EUR 1,000 net per month “living costs” allowance;
EUR 7,000 net sign-on fee
For the second season:
-
EUR 30,000 net advance payment, due on 1 September 2025;
EUR 120,000 net as a total remuneration, payable over 10 equal instalments
between September 2025 and June 2026;
EUR 500 net per match bonus fee, payable in “official league competitions,”
proportionate to the amount of time played during each respective match;
EUR 1,000 net per month “living costs”allowance;
EUR 15,000 net “additional guarantee fee” payable on 15 September 2025.
4.
On 2 May 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of EUR
35,500 consisting of salaries, “living costs” allowance and per match fees for the months of
February, March and April 2025, granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy the alleged
default.
5.
On 26 May 2025, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract.
6.
On 1 July 2025, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the German club
Alemannia Aachen, valid as from the signature until 30 June 2027, and with a gross monthly
salary of EUR 10,000.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19485
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 4 June 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
8.
The Claimant requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
9.
In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to pay more than two monthly
salaries, prior to being put in default, and that, despite being afforded a grace period to
remedy its breaches, the club failed to do so within the time limit of 15 days.
10. In particular, the Claimant asserted that the following amounts remained unpaid at the time
of termination, for a total of EUR 47,775 net:
-
EUR 3,000: partial salary and accommodation allowance for February 2025;
EUR 13,000: full salary and accommodation allowance for March 2025;
EUR 13,000: full salary and accommodation allowance for April 2025;
EUR 11,400: partial salary and accommodation allowance for May 2025 (pro-rated
up to the date of termination);
EUR 7,375: per match bonus payment.
11. As a result, the Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate the contract unilaterally,
pursuant to art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and
thereby claimed compensation in the amount of EUR 166,600 net.
12. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“10.1. The Claimant firstly would like to request you to make a decision that the Respondent has
to pay the overdue and unpaid amount of 47.775,00-Euro (Forty-Seven Thousand Seven
Hundred Seventy-Five Euros) net with its 5% p.a. interest starting from the due dates stated
above in 4.2. until the date of effective payment.
10.2. The Claimant secondly would like to request you to make a decision that the unilateral
termination made by the Claimant is with just cause and in line with the jurisprudence of FIFA
and the CAS, in particularly with the Article 14bis of FIFA RSTP.
10.3. The Claimant thirdly would like to request a compensation of 166.600,00-Euro (One
Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred Euros) net with its 5% p.a. interest starting from the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19485
termination date of 26 May 2025 until the date of effective payment, corresponding the
remaining part of the contractual relation.
10.4. The Claimant asks FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay an additional compensation of
66.000,00-Euro (Sixty Six Thousand Euros), in accordance with art. 17/1(ii) FIFA RSTP with its 5%
p.a. interest starting from the termination date of 26 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
10.5. The Claimant herein also requests the Esteem Chamber to impose the necessary sanctions
in the Article 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”)
considering that the Respondent was put in default in writing and had been granted (15 days) a
deadline to comply with its financial obligations within the notice dated 02.05.2025.
10.6. In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file the case herein,
we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that the judicial costs and
the attorneyship fees that the Claimant is faced with shall be paid by the Respondent.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Respondent argued that it had made partial payments which were allegedly
not acknowledged by the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent pointed out that it had
remitted an amount of EUR 20,000 plus TRY 420,000, or approx. EUR 30,000.
14. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had the option of staying in the club’s
facilities, which he declined, and therefore, made any accommodation costs incurred at his
sole discretion and expense.
15. Lastly, the Respondent argued that the compensation for breach of contract requested by
the Claimant was excessive, given that he had likely concluded a new employment contract,
and further, as the additional compensation requested may not be awarded on top of the
residual value of the contract.
16. Thus, the Respondent’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“- To dismiss all claims of the Player in their entirety;
- In the event that the Tribunal reaches a contrary conclusion, that to dismiss the Compensatiton
claims due to lack of legal interest
- In every situation to dismiss requested compensation would result in unjustful enrichment
- As well as, to deduct the amounts would be earned by the Player from requested
compensatiton.”
c. Additional Comments of the Claimant
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19485
17. Upon request for additional comments from the FIFA general secretariat, the Claimant
effectively insisted upon his position as set out in the claim.
18. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the amounts allegedly paid by the Respondent
were already acknowledged in the initial statement of claim, and only served to corroborate
the argument raised by the Claimant that the termination of the contract was with just
cause.
19. As for the compensation for breach of contract, the Claimant argued that, indeed, he had
signed a new employment contract, but that such amount was set off against the additional
compensation.
20. Therefore, in light of the inclusion of the new contract on file, the Claimant updated his
request for relief, to the extent that the compensation requested now amounted to EUR
107,660 net, plus EUR 105,000 net as additional compensation.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19485
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 4 June 2025 and submitted for decision on 6
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.
22. 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
a German player and a Turkish club.
23. 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
24. 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
25. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19485
26. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the existence of just cause at the time of the Claimant’s termination
of the contract and the Claimant’s entitlement to compensation.
27. According to the Claimant, he terminated the contract with just cause due to outstanding
remuneration. Conversely, the Respondent argued that the Claimant lacked just cause,
arguing that it had paid an amount of approx. EUR 30,000 since the beginning of the
contract, and that, as a result, the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations were not
met.
28. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Claimant terminated the contract with just cause and what consequences derived from
such conclusion.
29. Specifically, the Chamber noted the Claimant’s submissions that he had not received EUR
47,775 in terms of outstanding remuneration, consisting of partial salaries and
accommodation fees for February and May 2025, as well as full salaries and accommodation
fees for March and April 2025 and a per match bonus payment. Furthermore, the Chamber
recalled that the Claimant provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in
default on 2 May 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on
26 May 2025.
30. The Chamber further noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. However, the Chamber considered that the evidence provided by the
Respondent did not prove – to the requisite degree of certainty – that it indeed paid the
amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber highlighted
that, as correctly pointed out by the Claimant, the amounts paid by the Respondent were
already acknowledged as having been remitted before the termination. Thus, the Chamber
was satisfied that the Respondent’s argumentation rather served to corroborate the fact
that the formal requirements of art. 14bis were met.
31. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
32. 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.
33. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, is equivalent to EUR 49,375 net
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19485
and composed of guaranteed salaries and accommodation fees, and conditional bonuses
whose achievement was adequately corroborated based on the evidence in the file. More
specifically, the Chamber determined that the outstanding remuneration consisted of the
following:
-
EUR 3,000 net: partial salary and accommodation allowance for February 2025;
EUR 13,000 net: salary and accommodation allowance for March 2025;
EUR 13,000 net: salary and accommodation allowance for April 2025;
EUR 13,000 net: salary and accommodation allowance for May 2025;
EUR 7,375 net: per match bonus payment.
34. 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
49,375 net.
35. 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 the following dates until the date
of effective payment:
-
On the amount of EUR 3,000 net, as from 1 March 2025;
On the amount of EUR 13,000 net, as from 1 April 2025;
On the amount of EUR 13,000 net, as from 1 May 2025;
On the amount of EUR 20,375 net, as from 27 May 2025.
36. 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.
37. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
38. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19485
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
39. 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 175,000 net serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
-
EUR 30,000 net advance payment
EUR 120,000 net total remuneration for the 2025/2026 season
EUR 10,000 net accommodation allowance for the 2025/2026 season
EUR 15,000 net additional guaranteed payment.
40. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
41. Indeed, the Claimant found employment with the German club Alemannia Aachen. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to EUR
10,000 gross per month, which the Claimant further confirmed with evidence amounted to
EUR 5,745 net. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages
in the total amount of EUR 74,685 net, that is, EUR 5,745 net times 13 months.
42. 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.
43. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
39,000 net.
44. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 139,315 net to the Claimant (i.e., EUR 175,000 net minus EUR 74,685 net plus EUR
39,000 net), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19485
45. 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.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
51. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19485
52. 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.
53. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19485
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kwasi Okyere Wreidt, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 49,375 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,000 net of as from 1 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 13,000 net of as from 1 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 13,000 net of as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 20,375 net of as from 27 May 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- EUR 139,135 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
27 May 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19485
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19485
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15