Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20114
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kevin
Manuel Rodrigues
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kasimpasa SK, Türkiye
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez
RESPONDENT:
Kevin Manuel Rodrigues, France
Represented by Riza Koklu
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20114
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in the present dispute were the following:
•
The Turkish club, Kasimpasa SK (hereinafter: the Club or the Claimant), affiliated to
the Turkish Football Federation (TFF); and
•
The French player, Kevin Manuel Rodrigues (hereinafter: the Player or the
Respondent)
2.
On 12 August 2024, the parties entered into a federative contract (hereinafter: the
Federative Contract), valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
3.
Clause 3 of the Federative Contract provided, inter alia, the following:
“The Club will have the option to extend the Contract for one more season with an expiry
date of ‘30.06.2026’, by sending a notification to the Player and the Turkish Football
Federation between the dates of 01.06.2025 – 30.06.2025 If the Club does not use its
extension option, the Contract will be expired on 30.06.2025.”
4.
The Federative Contract also established that “special provisions are written in the
supplemental contract”.
5.
On the same date, the parties also signed a “Professional Football Player Private Contract”
(hereinafter: the Private Contract).
6.
Clause 2 of the Private Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“The Contract signed on KASIMPAŞA A.Ş and expires on 30.06.2025 or any later date on
which an official match is played in the respective football season (30.06.2025 or any
later date on which an official match is played in the respective football season if the
Club use the extension option)
The Club will have the option to extend the Contract for one more season with an expiry
date of ‘30.06.2026’, by sending a notification to the Player and the Turkish Football
Federation between the dates of 01.06.2025 – 30.06.2025 If the Club does not use its
extension option, the Contract will be expired on 30.06.2025.”
7.
Pursuant to clause 4 of the Private Contract, the Club undertook, inter alia, to remunerate
the Player as follows, quoted verbatim:
“4.1.1. The Club´s financial obligations towards the Player are set out hereunder:
For The 2024/2025 Season:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20114
Total gross amount of 636.584,15 EUR (six hundred thirty six thousand five hundred
eighty four euro fifteen cents) divided into 10 monthly equal installments and paid from
September 2024 until June 2025, due on the 5th of every following month.
For The 2025/2026 Season: (if the Club use the extension option)
Total gross amount of 699.682,79 EUR (six hundred ninety nine thousand six hundred
eighty two euro seventy nine cents) divided into 10 monthly equal installments and paid
from September 2025 until June 2026, due on the 5th of every following month.
(a) Any such payments shall be credited to the Player's bank account paid in EUR
currency;
(b) All payments under this contract are ‘gross’. For the sake of clarity, the club will be
always obliged to pay stoppage tax and the player shall always receive net the indicated
amounts. For the avoidance of the doubt, the Club shall only be responsible of the
stoppage tax, social contributions and other levies accrued in accordance with the
Turkish Tax legislation and the Club shall not be responsible for any other obligations
due to the - including but not limited - additional tax duties, social contributions and/or
levies related to the other countries legislations.
(c) The compulsory minimum wage arising from Turkish law is included in all payments
mentioned above and will not be paid separately.”
8.
The Federative Contract and the Private Contract are hereinafter jointly referred to as the
Contracts.
9.
On 30 May 2025, the Club played the last official match of the 2024/2025 season.
10. On 3 June 2025, the Club notified the Player of its intention to extend their employment
relationship for an extra season pursuant to clause 3 of the Federative Contract or 2 of the
Private Contract (hereinafter: the Extension Option). The Club requested that the TFF correct
the Player’s registration accordingly.
11. On 5 June 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s notice and denied the validity of the
Extension Option. The Player stated that the Contracts would expire on 30 June 2025.
12. On an unspecified date, the Player sent a message in a WhatsApp group named
“Kasimpasa”, confirming that his contract with the Club would expire on 30 June 2025, and
thanking his colleagues for the memories shared on the pitch.
13. On 10 June 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s communication and insisted on the validity
of the Extension Option. The Club pointed out that the Player had not provided a valid
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20114
reason to depart from the Contracts and therefore concluded that they had been validly
extended for one extra season.
14. On 11 June 2025, the Player replied to the Club, alleging that the Extension Option did not
meet the legal requirements under the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The Player refused the extension of his contractual
relationship with the Club, stating that he would be free agent as of 1 July 2025. A copy of
this letter was also forwarded to the TFF.
15. On 2 July 2025, the Club contacted the Player via email, noting that he had left the team’s
WhatsApp group and therefore providing him with the training program for the following
season. The Club informed that the Player should report to the Club within 3 days. The Club
also alleged that the Player’s registration with the TFF had been extended for an additional
year; thus, claiming that the Contracts continued in place.
16. On 9 July 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, confirming that the Extension Option
was null and void, as previously communicated to the Club. The Player accused the Club of
compromising his ability to sign with a new club due to his incorrect registration with the
TFF. As a result, the Player formally terminated the Contracts to be released and to reflect
his status as a free agent, also reserving his rights to dispute the validity of the Extension
Option. A copy of this letter was also forwarded to the TFF.
17. In parallel, on 10 July 2025, the Player entered into an employment contract with the
Turkish club Gaziantep, valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2026. According to
this contract, the Player would be entitled to EUR 175,000 as signing fee and EUR 650,000
as fixed remuneration for the relevant period, as well as different performance bonuses.
18. On 11 July 2025, the Club contacted the Player and informed him that he had breached the
Contracts by failing to attend the training sessions since 1 July 2025. The Club invited the
Player to submit his defence within 48 hours.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 28 July 2025, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Club
20. The Club maintained that the Federative and Private Contracts had remained valid and in
force for the 2025/2026 season because of the proper exercise of the Extension Option.
21. The Club submitted that the extension clause met all criteria developed by FIFA and CAS
jurisprudence, as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20114
•
Maximum duration of contract: According to the Club, the total potential duration
of the Contracts was not excessive. In this respect, it explained that the Contracts
initially covered one season and provided for a single additional season in the event
that the extension option was exercised.
•
Exercise within an acceptable deadline: The Club stated that the Extension
Option was exercised within an acceptable and reasonable deadline prior to the
expiry of the Contracts. In particular, the Private Contract explicitly defined a clear
time window for the exercise of the option, namely between 1 June 2025 and 30 June
2025, and the Club notified both the Player and the TFF on 3 June 2025, i.e., shortly
after the beginning of the option window and well in advance of the contractual
expiry date, thereby allowing the Player sufficient clarity regarding his professional
situation.
•
Pre-determined salary and genuine salary increase: The Club alleged that the
remuneration applicable to the option year was clearly determined in the Contracts.
It added that the Private Contract expressly provided for an increase of the Player’s
remuneration in the event of an extension and that the salary applicable to the
2025/2026 season represented an approximate 9.9% increase compared to the
previous season. Furthermore, the fluctuation of the Turkish Lira (TRY) further
strengthens the economic importance of this raise.
•
Absence of the Player being at the Club’s complete discretion: According to the
Club, the Extension Option was clearly drafted, limited in scope, and regulated by
precise conditions, including a single extension period, a fixed deadline, and
predetermined financial terms. The Club noted that the Player freely negotiated and
voluntarily signed the Contracts, expressly confirming that the agreement had been
executed of his own free will. No amendments were imposed unilaterally, and no
objections or complaints were raised by the Player during the execution of the
Contracts.
•
Clear drafting and player awareness of the Extension Option: The Club alleged
that the Extension Option was clearly established, explicit, and sufficiently
emphasized in the contracts. According to the Club, the Contracts set out
unambiguously in the contractual text and the Player had countersigned all relevant
pages of the contract, thereby confirming his awareness and acceptance of the
clause at the time of signature.
•
Proportionality of the extension: The Club stated that the Extension Option was
proportionate in relation to the original employment relationship. The optional
extension covered a period equal to the initial contractual term and did not alter the
overall balance of the contract to the detriment of the Player.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20114
•
Limitation to a single extension: According to the Club, the Contracts provided for
only one unilateral extension, limited to one additional season.
22. On the basis of the above considerations, the Club concluded that the Extension Option
had been validly exercised and that the Contracts remained in force until 30 June 2026.
23. Consequently, the Club argued that the Player had terminated the Contracts without just
cause, in breach of art. 13 and 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
24. With regard to the consequences of the breach, the Club requested compensation
corresponding to the residual value of the Private Contract for the 2025/2026 season,
amounting to EUR 699,682.79, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the date of
termination until the date of effective payment.
25. In addition, the Club requested that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Player in
accordance with art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations.
26. The Club requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“As per all the above, the Claimant requests the Panel:
1. To accept this Claim against the Respondent.
2. To determine that Player’s Employment Contract was terminated by the Player without
just cause;
3. To condemn the Player to pay in favour of the Club the compensation for the
termination of the Employment Contract without just cause in the total amount of
699.682,79 EUR;
4. To impose sporting sanctions on the Player in accordance with art. 17 (3) FIFA RSTP for
a breach of contract during the protected period.
5. To condemn the Player to pay in favour of the Club the corresponding interest at the
rate of 5% per annum applicable to the compensation for the termination of the
Employment Contract without just cause, as from 09 July 2025 (the date of termination)
until the date of effective payment;
6. To order the Player to assume the entirety of the FIFA DRC administration and
procedural fees, if any.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20114
b. Position of the Player
27. On 5 September 2025, the Player submitted his reply to the Club’s claim.
28. The Player maintained that the Contracts concluded with the Club on 12 August 2024
naturally expired on 30 June 2025 and that no breach of contract occurred on his part.
29. The Player asserted that the Extension Option relied upon by the Club was invalid,
unenforceable, and contrary to the criteria consistently established by the Football Tribunal
and CAS, as follows:
•
Lack of a substantial increase: According to the Player, the salary increases
resulting from the extension amounted to approximately 10%, which, according
to established FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, could not be regarded as a substantial
salary increase and therefore did not satisfy one of the essential conditions for
the validity of an Extension Option. In particular, the Player pointed out that he
participated in 28 out of 35 matches played by the Club, which further
demonstrated that the salary increase was not proportionate to his sporting
contribution.
The Player further submitted that, in previous decisions, salary increases of 15%
and even 23% had been deemed insufficient, whereas only significantly higher
increases, such as 30% or more, had been accepted as substantial.
The Player rejected the Club’s argument that salary increases should be assessed
considering currency fluctuations, inflation, or the Player’s place of residence,
asserting that jurisprudence consistently applied an objective comparison
between the salary of the extension season and the remuneration agreed for the
previous contractual term.
•
Lack of an acceptable deadline to exercise the Extension Option: The Player
stated that the contractual window for exercising the option ran from 1 June 2025
until 30 June 2025, coinciding with the expiry date of the Contracts. The Player
noted that the Club exercised the option only 27 days prior to the expiry of the
Contracts, a period which, in comparable cases, had been considered insufficient
to qualify as an acceptable and reasonable deadline, as it left him in a state of
uncertainty until the very end of the contractual term and significantly restricted
his ability to plan his professional future.
•
Potestative nature of the extension clause: The Player argued that the
Extension Option was potestative in nature, as it depended exclusively on the
unilateral will of the Club without sufficient safeguards for the Player. According
to the Player, the combination of a modest salary increase, a late and restrictive
exercise deadline, and the unilateral nature of the clause resulted in an
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20114
imbalance of contractual rights and obligations. This imbalance ran contrary to
the principle of contractual stability and the requirement that one party may not
be placed at the complete mercy of the other.
•
Player placed at the complete mercy of the Club: The Player established that
the Extension Option effectively placed him at the complete mercy of the Club.
The Player objected immediately and unequivocally to the extension on 5 June
2025, reiterated his refusal on 11 June 2025, and informed the TFF accordingly.
Despite this, the Player noted that the Club insisted on registering the Extension
Option, summoned the Player to training sessions after the original expiry date
of 30 June 2025, and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for allegedly
failing to attend training. According to the Player, this conduct demonstrated the
Club’s intention to impose the Extension Option irrespective of the Player’s
express objection, thereby reinforcing the potestative and excessively restrictive
nature of the clause.
30. On the basis of the above, the Player concluded that the Extension Option did not satisfy
the mandatory criteria established by FIFA and CAS jurisprudence and was therefore invalid
and unenforceable.
31. As a consequence, the Player maintained that the Contracts expired on its original expiry
date of 30 June 2025. As of 1 July 2025, he was no longer contractually bound to the Club
and was entitled to sign an employment contract with another club without incurring any
contractual or regulatory liability.
32. On this basis, the Player argued that the Club’s claims for compensation and the imposition
of sporting sanctions under art. 17 of the Regulations were unfounded and had to be
rejected in their entirety. As such, the Player requested that the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) dismiss the Club’s claim in full.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. First of all, the DRC (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber) 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 28 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 16 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.
34. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20114
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Turkish club and a French player.
35. 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
36. 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
37. 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
38. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by a club against a player.
39. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Club argued that it had validly exercised the
Extension Option within the contractual window and that the option complied with
recognised criteria (maximum duration; acceptable deadline; predefined and increased
remuneration; absence of complete mercy; clarity; proportionality; single extension). It
requested a finding of termination without just cause, compensation equal to EUR
699,682.79 plus 5% interest as of 9 July 2025, and sporting sanctions.
40. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Player submitted that the Extension Option
was invalid because (i) the salary increase (~10%) was not substantial; (ii) the exercise
window, ending on the contract’s expiry date and used 27 days before, was not an
acceptable deadline; and (iii) the clause was potestative and left the Player at the mercy of
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20114
the Club, further evidenced by the Club’s insistence after his explicit refusal. He therefore
considered the Contract expired on 30 June 2025 and requested that all claims be rejected.
In this context, the Chamber determined that the parties’ dispute was essentially of a legal
nature, namely whether the unilateral Extension Option had been validly exercised by the
Club in accordance with the applicable contractual provisions and the relevant FIFA and
CAS jurisprudence. Consequently, it fell upon the DRC to determine whether the Contracts
had been validly extended, and, depending on such determination, to assess the legal
consequences, if any, arising from the alleged premature termination of the contractual
relationship.
Having established the above, the Chamber first emphasised that unilateral extension
options, by their very nature, entail a restriction on the autonomy of one of the parties, as
the decision to prolong or not an employment relationship under pre-defined conditions
remains exclusively within the discretion of a single party. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that such clauses must, as a rule, be subject to strict scrutiny. Consequently, the
party seeking to rely on a unilateral extension bears a heightened burden of proof to
demonstrate that the relevant terms were duly negotiated and balanced. Alternatively, and
in line with well-established jurisprudence of FIFA and CAS, such party may show that the
conduct of both parties effectively confirmed the continuation of the contractual
relationship during the extended period, thereby validating the extension prior to the
alleged breach.
41. The Chamber further recalled that the parties relied on the established criteria used by
FIFA deciding bodies and CAS to assess unilateral extension clauses – widely referred to in
the parties’ submissions as the Portmann criteria – including:
a. The potential maximum duration must not be excessive;
b. The option must be exercised within an acceptable deadline before the contract’s
expiry;
c. The remuneration for the option year must be predefined and correspond to a
(substantial) salary increase;
d. One party may not be at the complete mercy of the other;
e. The option must be clearly established and emphasized so the player is aware at
signature;
f. The extension should be proportional to the main contract; and
g. The number of extensions should be limited (ideally one).
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20114
42. In line with the above framework and the parties’ arguments, the Chamber determined the
following:
a. Maximum duration not excessive: The Chamber noted that the Contracts initially
covered one season (2024/2025) with a single option for one additional season
(2025/2026). Therefore, the total potential term (two seasons) remained within the
five‑year cap and, on its face, was not excessive. Therefore, the Chamber decided
that this criterion was satisfied.
b. Option exercised within an acceptable deadline before expiry: The Chamber
took notice that the Contract allowed the Club to exercise the Extension Option from
1 June 2025 until 30 June 2025, i.e., up to the very day of expiry. It also noted that the
Club exercised it on 3 June 2025 (i.e., 27 days before expiry). The Player argued that
such deadline unduly prolonged uncertainty and was not acceptable, invoking
decisions where options exercisable until the last day of the season or exercised
close to expiry did not meet this criterion.
Considering (i) the coincidence of the final exercise date with the Contracts’ expiry,
(ii) the short interval remaining at the time of exercise (27 days), and (iii) the
predictable impact on the Player’s contractual freedom at the end of the season, the
Chamber concluded, on the basis of the jurisprudential approach pleaded by the
parties, that the “acceptable deadline” requirement was not met in the specific
circumstances of this case.
c. Predetermined remuneration and (substantial) salary increase: The parties
agreed that, upon extension, the Player’s gross salary increased by approximately
9.9%–10% compared to 2024/2025; the Club described this as a genuine
improvement, while the Player maintained it was not “substantial” within the
meaning applied by FIFA deciding bodies and CAS, pointing to matters where even
15% or 23% had been deemed insufficient, and 30–36% accepted as substantial.
The Chamber noted that the amount for the option year was indeed predetermined
in the Contract, but – having regard to the quantum of the increase (~10%) and the
line of authorities invoked by the parties – considered that the increment did not
reach a level typically regarded as “substantial” in comparable scenarios pleaded on
the record. The Club’s further invitation to reassess the increase in local currency
(TRY) and/or by reference to macro‑economic conditions did not, in the Chamber´s
appreciation of the record, displace the contractual comparison used in the
jurisprudence relied upon by both parties.
This conclusion, in the Chamber’s view, was further confirmed by the fact that the
Player found a new contract with a different club in the same league, for a
remuneration considerably higher than the one defined in the Contracts.
Furthermore, and even if it was considered that the fixed amounts were not so
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20114
different, the Player was also entitled to several bonus payments depending on his
performance. Consequently, according to the Chamber, while predetermination was
satisfied, the requirement of a substantial increase was not satisfied.
d. Absence of the Player being at the complete mercy of the Club: The Player
immediately objected to the extension on 5 June 2025, reiterated such objection on
11 June 2025, and informed the TFF. The Club persisted in treating the option as
effective, invited the Player to training after 30 June 2025 and initiated disciplinary
steps for non‑attendance. The Player invoked case patterns where such insistence
after a clear refusal supported a finding that the clause placed the Player at the
Club’s mercy.
In light of the limited increase, the late exercise window and post‑expiry conduct,
i.e., in the specific constellation of facts before it, the Chamber considered that the
extension mechanism operated in a potestative manner, leaving the Player at the
Club’s discretion to an extent inconsistent with this criterion, and thus, decided that
this criterion was not satisfied.
e. Option clearly drafted and emphasized (player awareness): The Chamber noted
that the Extension Option and the exercise window were set out in both Contracts,
and the Player signed/countersigned the agreements. It also took notice that the
Club also issued its notice in writing within the window. Considering the case file, the
existence of the clause and the formal steps were clear, and the Chamber
considered that this criterion was satisfied.
f.
Proportionality to the main contract: According to the Chamber, the extension
period (one season) mirrored the initial term (one season); as such, the duration of
the extension was proportionate to the main contract, and consequently, it decided
that this criterion was satisfied.
g. Limitation to a single extension: The Chamber took notice that the Contract
provided only one unilateral extension right, and the Chamber concluded that this
criterion was satisfied.
43. In light of the above and while recalling the cited heightened burden of proof imposed on
the Club due to the unilateral nature of the extension, the Chamber considered that the
contractual arrangement established between the parties resulted, upon the exercise of
the extension option, in a structural imbalance to the detriment of the Player. In particular,
the combination of a limited salary increase, an exercise window extending until the expiry
date of the Contracts, and the unilateral nature of the clause, when assessed cumulatively,
placed the Player in a position of uncertainty regarding his professional future and did not
sufficiently safeguard his contractual interests.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20114
44. At the same time, the Chamber also noted that the Player was fully aware of the existence
and content of the Extension Option at the time of signing the Contracts. The clause was
clearly set out in the Contracts, and the Player knowingly accepted it by executing the
agreement. Consequently, the Chamber could not disregard that the Player had assumed
a certain contractual risk and that his subsequent conduct did not always reflect a diligent
safeguarding of his own contractual position.
45. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player only took concrete steps to formalise
his opposition to the Extension Option once the Club exercised it, and that he did not
proactively seek legal clarification or protective measures earlier, despite his prior
awareness of the existence and timing of the option.
46. Nevertheless, the Chamber also took notice that the Player did immediately and
unequivocally inform the Club that he was not interested in continuing the employment
relationship beyond the original contractual term. As early as 5 June 2025, and again on 11
June 2025, the Player clearly communicated his refusal of the extension and his intention
to consider the Contracts expired on 30 June 2025. In this sense, the Player did not act
opportunistically or ambiguously but rather expressed his position in a consistent and
transparent manner.
47. The Chamber further considered that, although the Player’s conduct could not be
described as entirely beyond reproach, the Chamber ultimately concluded that his
shortcomings did not outweigh the objective deficiencies affecting the validity of the
Extension Option itself. The Chamber highlighted that the defining element remained
whether the contractual mechanism, viewed as a whole, preserved an equitable balance
between the parties.
48. Therefore, upon balancing the respective conduct of the parties and the contractual
framework agreed upon, the Chamber concluded that the contractual imbalance inherent
to the Extension Option prevailed over the Player’s imperfect behaviour. As a result, the
shortcomings attributable to the Extension Option could not be remedied by invoking the
Player’s awareness of the clause or by pointing to his partial failure to safeguard his
interests more proactively.
49. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that the Extension Option could not be upheld as
valid and enforceable, that the Contracts between the parties expired on 30 June 2025, and
that the Player could not be held liable for termination of the Contracts without just cause.
50. Accordingly, the Extension Option was invalid and unenforceable. The Chamber therefore
decided that the Contracts expired on 30 June 2025, and that, as a consequence, as of 1
July 2025, the Player was free to sign with another club and did not terminate the Contracts
without just cause, thereby, rejecting the claim of the Club.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20114
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.
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 Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20114
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kasimpasa SK, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20114
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. 17