Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20079
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Rogerio Conceicao Do Rosario
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Rogerio Conceicao Do Rosario, Brazil
Represented by RA Law
RESPONDENT:
Ikas Eyupspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20079
I. Facts of the case
1.
Based on information from the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), on 25 January
2024, the Brazilian player Rogerio Conceicao Do Rosario (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player) and the Turkish club Eyupspor (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its date of signature until
30 June 2024.
2.
On 22 January 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement to settle
their financial obligations under the Contract (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement).
3.
The Settlement Agreement read as follows:
“[…] I) WHEREAS EYUPSPOR partially failed to proceed timely with the payments established
under the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL (HEREINAFTER THE
"CONTRACTS") executed by the Parties;
II) WHEREAS Parties hereby reached terms of a composition, hereby establishing all obligations
due to each other, consolidating them in a single document. In this sense, it is immediately due
and payable the net amount of EUR 120.000,00 (one hundred twenty thousand) - the "total
settlement amount".
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and other good and valuable
consideration contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the Parties, freely and with bona fide, agree as follows:
1. DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED AND RECOGNISED BY THE PARTIES
1.1. As per the RECITALS, above, EYUPSP0R recognises it is indebted to THURAM in the amount
of EUR 120.000,00 (one hundred twenty thousand) net.
1.2. Bearing in mind the terms of subclause 1.1, above, EYUPSPOR undertakes to pay THURAM
the amount in the following terms:
a) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 31 January 2025;
b) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 February 2025;
c) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 March 2025;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20079
d) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 April 2025;
e) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 May 2025;
f) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 June 2025;
g) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 July 2025;
h) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 August 2025; and
i) EUR 13.333,33 (thirteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three Euros and thirty-three cents)
on 20 September 2025.
Paragraph one: The payments shall be made by means of bank deposit to the account of
THURAM. EYUPSPOR already hereby declares and warrants that, in the event of an express
written request by THURAM, EYUPSP0R may proceed with the payment of such instalments,
either in partial, or in total, to third parties duly informed by THURAM.
1.3. In the event of default, late payment (even of 1 day) or partial payment of any of the
instalments, it shall be added a penalty in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of the defaulted
amount, plus interest at one percent (1%) per month over the outstanding amount until effective
payment. In the event of delay of more than 10 (ten) days of any of the instalments, the amount
of the other instalments to be due will be early anticipated, and become immediately due.
1.4. In the event of any delay, THURAM will be entitled to immediately inform the FIFA and its
Football Tribunal of the default made by the Turkish Club, and, therefore, submit a claim against
the Club with all the aforementioned penalties.
1.5. EYUPSPOR acknowledges and considers the payments and other provisions referred to in
this clause 1, and in clause 3, as proportional, reasonable, fair and just, including any penalties
and interest rates, so they cannot be mitigated and/or reduced in any way, since the Parties,
when agreeing to their terms, have took in consideration the possible scenarios of failure or
delay of payment, in order that EYUPSPOR be able to be consistent with the payments agreed
herein. EYUPSPOR expressly waives its right to and agrees not to challenge the abovementioned
(sub)clauses, including the agreed contractual penalties and interest rates, before the competent
deciding bodies and/or any other judicial authorities, as those (sub)clauses have been essential
for the conclusion of this agreement. The Parties assert that they have expressly negotiated such
(sub)clauses and counted with the corresponding legal advice when writing their terms.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20079
1.6. EYUPSPOR explicitly and irrevocably agrees to pay the net amounts arising from THE
SETTLEMENT as herein stipulated and refrains from whatever attempt and whatever foreseen or
unforeseen reason, to postpone, alter, annul or change it by any means.
1.7. The Parties agree that payments stipulated above are of a cumulative nature, under the
Swiss law (Art. 160.2 Swiss Code of Obligations). […]”
4.
On 15 May 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of EUR 120,853.30 as outstanding amount under the Settlement Agreement,
corresponding to its second and subsequent instalments, plus the applicable contractual
penalty and interest.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 24 July 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
6.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that he is entitled to all instalments under the Settlement
Agreement, with the exception of the first one already paid by the Respondent, plus a
contractual penalty of 10%, as well as interest of 1% per month until the date of effective
payment.
7.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“a. That this honorable [sic] FIFA Football Tribunal acknowledges the default of the Agreement
of Eyupspor and determines the payment on behalf of the Player in the amount of EUR
123.200,00 (one hundred twenty-three thousand, two hundred euros), that is equal US$
145.080,32 (one hundred forty-five thousand eighty american [sic] dollars and thiry [sic] two
cents).
b. That this honorable [sic] FIFA Football Tribunal acknowledges the default of the Agreement of
Eyupspor and determines the payment on behalf of lawyers hired by the Player, to repair the
damage caused, in the amount of EUR 18.480,00 (eighteen Thousand four hundred eighty
euros), that is equal US$ 21.762,05 (twenty-one thousand seven hundred sixty two american
[sic] dollars and five cents), equivalent to the fine of 15% (fifteen percent) mentioned in the
Notice of Default sent.“
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20079
8.
For the sake of completeness of his requests for relief, the Claimant submitted the
following table:
“
Value
Installment
[sic]
(€)
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
€13,333.33
Previous
Due Date
Payable Due
Date
Penalty (%)
20/02/2025
20/03/2025
20/04/2025
20/05/2025
20/06/2025
20/07/2025
20/08/2025
20/09/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
20/02/2025
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Interest
Until the
Present
Date (%)
05%
05%
05%
05%
05%
05%
05%
05%
TOTAL DUE:
Total Due (€)
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€15,400.00
€123,200.00
[…]“
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that the amount requested by the Claimant is unfair
and that it has fulfilled its financial obligations towards him in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 24 July 2025 and submitted for decision on
16 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
11. 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player and a Turkish
club.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20079
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent
as per the Settlement Agreement, namely EUR 123,200.
16. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations.
17. The Chamber first noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Settlement Agreement
concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the Respondent
failed to provide any evidence to prove the payment of the amount claimed as outstanding
by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that no reasonable justification
was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20079
18. In continuation, the Chamber recalled the following wording of article 1.3 of the Settlement
Agreement:
“[…] 1.3. In the event of default, late payment (even of 1 day) or partial payment of any of the
instalments, it shall be added a penalty in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of the defaulted
amount, plus interest at one percent (1%) per month over the outstanding amount until effective
payment. In the event of delay of more than 10 (ten) days of any of the instalments, the amount
of the other instalments to be due will be early anticipated, and become immediately due. […]”
19. In this framework, the Chamber determined that the validity of the acceleration clause and
the contractual penalty included in the Settlement Agreement had to be assessed.
20. After a thorough analysis of article 1.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the Chamber first
wished to emphasize that – in principle and in accordance with the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal – the acceleration of subsequent payments upon the non-payment of an
amount previously due as principal is a practice traditionally recognized and considered
proportionate, insofar as it constitutes a security in benefit of the creditor, since it
encourages the debtor party to respect its financial obligations towards the creditor party.
21. Furthermore, the Chamber underscored that acceleration of subsequent payments that
were contractually due (even if originally foreseen as payable at a later stage) can be
considered as an early maturity of the principal amount due, which – in casu – is
proportionate, in view of the lack of payment of the first instalment of the Settlement
Agreement and in light of what was specifically agreed between the parties under article
1.3 of the Settlement Agreement within their autonomy of the will (pacta sunt servanda).
22. Considering the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the acceleration clause included
in the Settlement Agreement is valid, binding on the parties and was triggered on 3 March
2025.
23. Regarding the contractual penalty included in the Settlement Agreement, the Chamber
held that penalty clauses may be freely entered into by the contractual parties and may be
considered acceptable if the pertinent written clause meets certain criteria such as
proportionality and reasonableness based on the circumstances of the case.
24. In this respect, the quantum of the contractual penalty was also analysed by the Chamber,
and was deemed reasonable and proportionate in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal (i.e. 10% of the outstanding amount in the matter at
hand).
25. In addition, the Chamber considered that the contractually agreed interest rate in the
Settlement Agreement, i.e. 1% per month, is aligned with the maximum permitted by the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal (18% p.a.).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20079
26. Lastly, the Chamber established that no interest was applicable over the contractual
penalty in light of the principle of ne bis in idem.
27. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from
the Settlement Agreement.
28. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s requests for relief, the principle ne ultra petita, as
well as the constant practice of the Football Tribunal regarding interest, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the following outstanding
amounts under the Settlement Agreement:
•
EUR 106,666.64 as outstanding amount, plus 1% interest per month as from 3
March 2025 until 24 July 2025, i.e. the date on which the Claimant filed the claim at
hand before FIFA; and
•
EUR 10,666.66 as contractual penalty.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
29. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
30. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
31. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
32. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the third offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Chamber decided to impose a fine of USD 15,000 on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
33. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20079
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20079
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Rogerio Conceicao Do Rosario, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ikas Eyupspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 106,666.64 as outstanding amount plus 1% interest per month as from 3 March
2025 until 24 July 2025; and
- EUR 10,666.66 as contractual penalty.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A fine in the amount of 15,000 USD is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-20079:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20079
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20079
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