Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19532
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Jetmir
Topalli
BY:
Angela COLLINS, Australia
CLAIMANT:
Jetmir Topalli, Kosovo
Represented by Anıl Dinçer
RESPONDENT:
PENDİKSPOR FUTBOL A.Ş., Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19532
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 August 2024, the Kosovar player Jetmir Topalli (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Turkish club Pendikspor Futbol A.Ş. (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with Article 3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia, a total net salary of EUR 50,000 i.e., EUR 5,000 net per month for 10
months between September 2024 and June 2025.
3.
Also on 29 August 2024, the parties concluded a document entitled “Protocol” (hereinafter:
the Protocol), which provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Obligation of the Club
FOR 2024/2025 FOOTBALL SEASON
• 50.000.-EURO NET will be paid as down payment on 10.09.2024.
• 11.900.-EURO NET will be paid as down payment on 02.09.2024.
• 80.000-EURO NET total will be paid in ten equal instalments between September 2024
- June 2025 as 8.000.-EUR for each month. (In addition to the 50.000- Euros salary written
in the TFF Professional Player Temporary Contract, 80.000-Euros will be paid to the Player
by the Club. To put it more clearly, the Player will be paid total net salary of 130.000Euros as a result of 50.000-Euros specified in the TFF Professional Player Temporary
Contract and 80.000-Euros specified in this protocol. Thus, the Player will receive a
monthly salary of 13.000-Euros for 10 months between September 2024 and June 2025.)
• If the player takes part in the 11 squad-team and plays in 25 official league competitions
(excluding play-offs, cups and other competitions), in 2024/2025 football season, a net
bonus of 10.000-EURO will be paid to the Player.
• In case the Player contributes 15 goal goals (goal and/or assist) in the 2024/2025
football season a bonus of 10.000-EURO will be paid.
• The club will provide to the Player a car during season.”
4.
On 4 March 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of EUR 118,000
net setting a time limit of 15 days in order to remedy the default.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19532
5.
On 14 May 2025, the Claimant sent another default notice to the Respondent requesting
payment of EUR 114,000 net and setting a time limit of 15 days in order to remedy the
default.
6.
On 30 May 2025, the Claimant sent a letter to the Club unilaterally terminating the Contract
and the Protocol under art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) due to the Club’s continued failure to make payments to him
under the Contract and Protocol.
7.
On 5 July 2025, the Claimant entered into an employment contract with the Turkish club
Bandirmaspor Kulübü, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2028.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 7 June 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
9.
The Claimant argued that the Player terminated the Contract and the Protocol with just
cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations, as the Club had consistently and for a prolonged
period of time failed to make payments amounting to EUR 114,000 net (significantly more
than two (2) monthly salaries), despite being sent two default notices and being provided
a fifteen (15) day deadline under each notice to remedy the breach.
10. The Player argued that he consistently fulfilled all his contractual obligations under the
Contract and Protocol, despite the Respondent’s failure to comply with its financial
obligations. The Player further argued that despite not receiving any payments or a
response to the default notice sent to the Club on 4 March 2025, he, in good faith, did not
terminate the Contract during the football season of 2024/2025.
11. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
“1. To accept the claims of the Player Jetmir Topalli.
2. To decide the Claimant’s unilateral termination as with just cause.
3. To condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant the total unpaid and
overdue receivables of 114.000.-EUR along with the interest rate of 5% p.a. starting from
the date of present application.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19532
4. To condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant the remaining receivables
of 26.000.-EUR (due after the termination date) along with the interest rate of 5% p.a.
starting from the date of present application.
5. To decide penalty amount and/or sporting sanction for the Respondent regarding his
current transfer ban and case numbers before FIFA and more importantly, his repetitive
breaches in this case and towards other football Players.
6. To establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent.”
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the Club allegedly made all payments due to the
Player under the Contract and the Protocol and therefore, requested that the Player’s
claims be rejected.
13. The Respondent stated that the payments made to the Player were evidenced by receipts
provided in ‘Annex 1’. However, no such document was attached to the reply submitted by
the Respondent.
14. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
“7.1 The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal
about the present case.
7.2 Consider the amounts paid and good faith of the Respondent while evaluating the
Claimant requests according to the reasons explained above and according to the bank
receipts which was provided by the Respondent and setoff the mentioned amount from
the Claimant’s requests.
7.3 Finally, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that the
judicial costs and the attorneyship fees that the Respondent is faced with shall be paid
by the Claimant. If not, to award a minimum amount of procedural cost in connection
with the temporary amendment to the Procedural Rules declared with the Circular 1720.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19532
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 she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 7 June 2025 and submitted for
decision on 30 September 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 (July 2025 edition), the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Kosovar 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, she 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 she 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19532
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract by
the Player against the Club.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause, and whether outstanding remuneration
and compensation must be awarded.
22. The Single Judge noted that it is undisputed that the parties entered into a valid and binding
employment relationship as per the terms of the Contract read with the Protocol.
23. The Single Judge noted that the Player has argued that he terminated the Contract and the
Protocol with just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations as, (i) the Club had consistently
and for a prolonged period of time failed to make payments amounting to EUR 114,000 net
(significantly more than two (2) monthly salaries), and (ii) the Club failed to remedy its
breach despite being sent two default notices on 4 March 2025 and 14 May 2025 and being
granted a fifteen (15) day deadline under each notice.
24. In this context, the Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least 2 monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
25. In the present matter, the Single Judge noted that as per Article 3 of the Contract read with
the Protocol, the Player was entitled to receive EUR 13,000 net for ten (10) months between
September 2024 and June 2025, in addition to two “down payments” of EUR 11,900 net and
EUR 50,000 net, which were to be paid on 2 and 10 September 2024 respectively.
26. The Single Judge observed that as per the default notice dated 14 May 2025 sent by the
Player to the Club, the Player argued that the Club had failed to make monthly salary
payments totalling EUR 114,000 net. Though the Player has failed to clarify which payments
the outstanding amounts correspond to, the Single Judge noted that, at the time of the
notice, he should have received the two down payments (EUR 61,900 net) and eight
monthly salaries (from September 2024 to April 2025, totalling EUR 104,000 net),
interpreting that the instalments were to be paid by the end of each month in the absence
of any specified due dates for salary payments in the Contract.
27. Therefore, in the absence of any further evidence on file and consistent with the Player’s
requests for relief, the Single Judge concluded that the Player was claiming eight monthly
salaries totalling EUR 104,000 and EUR 10,000 as the outstanding balance of the second
down payment, as these were the most recent debts.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19532
28. In this regard, the Single Judge emphasised that EUR 104,000 is significantly higher than
two (2) monthly salaries under the Contract read with the Protocol, as it corresponds to
eight monthly salaries.
29. The Single Judge noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract read with the Protocol concluded
between the parties. However, the Single Judge noted that the Club has failed to provide
any evidence of payments of salary to the Player. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded
that the Club was in arrears of more than 2 monthly payments.
30. Further, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having
put the Respondent in default on 14 May 2025, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract read with the Protocol on 30 May 2025.
31. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded that the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations have been met in the present matter, the Player terminated the Contract with
just cause and the Club is liable for the ensuing consequences.
ii. Consequences
32. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
33. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 9 monthly
salaries corresponding to September 2024 until May 2025 plus a part of the down payment
under the Contract read with the Protocol, in total amounting to EUR 127,000 net.
34. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge clarified that while the Player has not
submitted which component the unpaid amounts correspond to, he has requested
compensation for breach of contract amounting to EUR 26,000 corresponding to the
monthly salaries of May and June 2025. As per the standard practice of the Football
Tribunal, since the Player terminated the Contract on 30 May 2025, the instalment due for
that month shall be considered outstanding remuneration. Therefore, the Single Judge
pointed out that 9 monthly salaries totaling EUR 117,000 (between September 2024 and
May 2025) and EUR 10,000 as the outstanding balance of the second down payment shall
be awarded as outstanding remuneration.
35. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract read with the Protocol at the moment of the
termination (30 May 2025), i.e. EUR 127,000 (i.e. 9 times EUR 13,000 plus EUR 10,000 as
part of the signing fee). The Single Judge stressed that, as the Player did not request to be
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19532
awarded net amounts, she is not in a position to award them as net in accordance with the
principle of ne ultra petita.
36. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the Single Judge decided to
award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 7
June 2025 until the date of effective payment.
37. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
38. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she first of all had to
clarify as to whether the 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 Single Judge established that no such
compensation clause was included in the Contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
39. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the 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)).
40. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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 Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 13,000 (i.e. the monthly salary of June
2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract, considering that the instalment for May has already been awarded as
outstanding remuneration.
41. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Football Tribunal 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
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19532
42. Indeed, the player found employment with the Turkish club Bandirmaspor Kulübü.
However, the Single Judge noted that there is no mitigation of damages in the present case
as the Player entered into the new contract with the Turkish club Bandirmaspor Kulübü
only from 5 July 2025, i.e., after the overlapping period.
43. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 13,000 to the Claimant (i.e. residual value of the Contract), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
44. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the Single Judge decided to award
the Claimant interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 7 June 2025 until
the date of effective payment. The Single Judge again clarified that the Player did not
request to be awarded net amounts.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19532
d. Costs
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19532
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jetmir Topalli, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PENDİKSPOR FUTBOL A.Ş., must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 127,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 June 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 13,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 June
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. 12
REF. FPSD-19532
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. 13