Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20157
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Lamine Diack
BY:
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Lamine Diack, Senegal
Represented by Anıl Dinçer
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20157
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Senegalese player Lamie Diack (hereinafter, the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 30 July 2024
until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with the “Payments and special provisions” section of the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties), inter alia, a fixed
remuneration of EUR 450,000 in 10 equal instalments of EUR 45,000, payable by the end of
each month from 31 August 2024 to 31 May 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
3.
On 31 July 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
4.
In his claim, the Player argued that the Club has failed to pay EUR 22,500 for April 2025 and
EUR 45,000 for May 2025.
5.
Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“For the facts and legal arguments that were developed above, as reserving all legal rights
and additional requests, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is respectfully requested:
1. To accept the claim of [the Claimant].
2. To condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant the total unpaid and
overdue receivables of 67.500 EUR along with the interest rate of 5% p.a. starting from
the due dates below:
o 22.500 EUR from 01.05.2025
o 45.000 EUR from 01.06.2025
3. To establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20157
b. Reply of the Respondent
6.
In its reply, the Club argued that its Chairman and Board had recently changed, and that it
was planning to submit an offer to the Player with a view to reaching an amicable
settlement of the matter.
7.
The Club requested that the claim of the Player be dismissed.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
8.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single
Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 31 July 2025 and submitted
for decision on 22 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.
9.
Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Senegalese player and a Turkish
club.
10. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
11. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the Parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20157
c. Merits of the dispute
12. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
13. The Single Judge the moved to the substance of the matter and observed that the dispute
concerned a claim lodged by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration under
the Contract concluded between the Parties.
14. In particular, the Single Judge noted that the Player alleged that the Club has failed to pay
part of his salary for April 2025 as well as the full salary for May 2025, amounting in total
to EUR 67,500.
15. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having
complied with its financial obligations.
16. The Single Judge first recalled that, in accordance with the general principle of burden of
proof enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Club bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between
the Parties.
17. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Club neither contested the amounts claimed
by the Player nor submitted any evidence demonstrating payment of the outstanding
salaries.
18. Moreover, the Single Judge found that the Club failed to present any valid justification for
not having complied with the terms of the Contract. In particular, the Single Judge
emphasised that a change in the Club’s administration cannot be invoked as a valid excuse
to disregard the fundamental legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which requires that
agreements be honoured in good faith.
19. The Single Judge further noted that the Club failed to submit any evidence of having made
an offer to the Player aimed at resolving the matter amicably.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20157
20. In light of the above, and in accordance with the legal principal of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the amounts claimed as
outstanding under the Contract, i.e., EUR 67,500, corresponding to the unpaid portion of
the April 2025 salary and the full salary for May 2025.
21. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as follows:
o On the April 2025 salary, as of 1 May 2025; and
o On the May 2025 salary, as of 1 June 2025.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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. 6
REF. FPSD-20157
d. Costs
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20157
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lamine Diack, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 67,500 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 22,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20157
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. 9