Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20274
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bruno Miguel
Ponces Lourenco
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenco, Portugal
Represented by Duarte Costa
RESPONDENT:
Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, Türkiye
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20274
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 July 2024, the Portuguese player Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenco (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Amed Sportif Faaliyetler (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from the date of signature until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia the following amounts / benefits:
a. 2024-2025 season:
- Signing bonus of EUR 150,000 payable until 31 July 2024;
- Monthly salary of EUR 30,000 net due on last day of the month, payable within
10 days of the due date; and
- 3 round trip business class tickets from Diyarbakir to Lisbon.
b. 2025-2026 season:
- Signing bonus of EUR 150,000 payable until 31 July 2025;
- Monthly salary of EUR 30,000 net due on last day of the month, payable within
10 days of the due date; and
- 3 round trip business class tickets from Diyarbakir to Lisbon.
c. 2025-2026 season (if the Club competes in the Turkish Super League):
- Signing bonus of EUR 200,000 payable until 31 July 2025;
- Monthly salary of EUR 36,000 net due on last day of the month, payable within
10 days of the due date; and
- 3 round trip business class tickets from Diyarbakir to Lisbon.
3.
Further, clause 3 of the Contract also entitled the Respondent to unilaterally extend the
Contract as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Special Provisions:
[...]
c. The Club hold the rights to unilaterally trigger an automatic 1 year extension to this contract
upon informing the player prior to the date of termination. In case the extension is triggered,
the conditions of the contract will remain the same as the final season of this contract. Such
a contract will commence on 30-06-2026 and terminate on 30-06-2027.”
4.
Additionally, the Contract provided that all amounts specified therein are net of taxes, as
follows, quoted verbatim:
“All and every amounts specified in this contract are ‘NET’ amounts, meaning they are free
from any personal taxes, including but not limited to income tax, withholding tax, social
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20274
security contributions, stamp duty, and other personal taxes arising in Turkey (hereinafter
referred to as ‘NET’). The Club will make all payments to the Player, including monthly salaries
and bonuses, NET. However, if the Player is required to pay any income tax under the Turkish
tax system, the Club will reimburse the Player in Euros for the amount paid, based on the
exchange rate on the tax payment date, provided the Player submits the payment receipt to
the Club. The parties agree that the Player is solely responsible for declaring income in Turkish
tax records, and if this section is expanded, the Club will not be held liable for any penalties
and interest arising from this violation.”
5.
On 2 December 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the
monthly salary for the month of October 2024 amounting to EUR 30,000, setting a time
limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default.
6.
On 12 December 2024, the Respondent paid the claimed amount of EUR 30,000 to the
Claimant.
7.
On 15 May 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the monthly
salaries for the months of February 2025 to April 2025 and the signing bonus under the
Contract due on 30 November 2024 amounting to EUR 115,000, setting a time limit of 15
days in order to remedy the default.
8.
On 29 May 2025, the Respondent paid the claimed amount of EUR 115,000 to the Claimant.
9.
On 3 August 2025, the Claimant sent a letter to the Club unilaterally terminating the
Contract invoking art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) as the Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with its
financial obligations due under the Contract on time and failed to pay the outstanding
salaries for the months of May and June 2025 along with the second instalment of the
signing bonus due on 31 July 2025.
10. On 4 August 2025, upon request from the Claimant, the Turkish Football Federation
(hereinafter: the TFF) informed him that the termination of the Contract was registered with
the federation.
11. On 5 August 2025, the Respondent responded to the Claimant’s termination notice and
stated that it does not accept the termination by the Claimant, as according to the Club, it
was done in bad faith in the middle of settlement negotiations. The Respondent further
stated that the termination of the Contract was in violation of the Regulations as the
Claimant did not provide a default notice under art.14bis with respect to the latest debts.
12. On 21 August 2025, the Player and the Portuguese club AVS –Futebol, SAD entered into an
employment contract valid as from 19 August 2025 until 30 June 2026 with a salary of EUR
36,750 gross payable in 11 instalments.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20274
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 8 August 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
14. The Claimant argued that the Respondent repeatedly breached its obligations under the
Contract, wherein all ten agreed monthly salaries from September 2024 to April 2025 were
paid late (and the salaries for May and June 2025 and a part of the signing bonus, not paid),
with the following specific periods of default, quoted verbatim:
“a. September/2024 salary: 43 days in default (due 30.09.2024, payable until 10.10.2024 and
effectively paid on 22.11.2024)
b. October/2024 salary: 32 days in default (due 31.10.2024, payable until 10.11.2024 and
effectively paid on 12.12.2024)
c. November/2024 salary: 44 days in default (due 30.11.2024, payable until 10.12.2024 and
effectively paid on 23.01.2025)
d. December/2024 salary: 49 days in default (due 31.12.2024, payable until 10.01.2025 and
effectively paid on 28.02.2025)
e. January/2025 salary: 68 days in default (due 31.01.2025, payable until 10.02.1025 and
effectively paid on 18.04.2025)
f. February/2025 salary: 80 days in default (due 28.02.2025, payable until 10.03.2025 and
effectively paid on 29.05.2025)
g. March/2025 salary: 50 days in default (due 31.03.2025, payable until 09.04.2025 and
effectively paid on 29.05.2025)
h. April/2025 salary: 19 days in default (due 30.04.2025, payable until 10.05.2025 and
effectively paid on 29.05.2025)
i. May/2025 salary: 53 days in default as of the termination letter – August 3, 2025 (due
31.05.2025, payable until 10.06.2025 and not paid)
j. June/2025 salary: 23 days in default as of termination letter – August 3, 2025 (due
30.06.2025, payable until 10.07.2025 and not paid)
k. Second installment of the signing bonus, in the sum of EUR 150,000 – due no later than 31
July 2025, not paid.”
15. The Claimant further highlighted that in the same pattern of repeated late payments in
breach of the Contract, the Respondent paid the monthly salaries of February to April 2025
only after repeated verbal warnings, and only within the 15-day deadline granted in the
formal letter sent on 15 May 2025 which constituted a warning pursuant to art. 14bis of
the Regulations, after significant delays, with the amounts having been overdue for 80
days, 50 days, and 19 days, respectively.
16. The Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14 of the
Regulations due to the repeated violations of the Respondent’s duty to pay his salary in a
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20274
timely manner for the entire duration of the 2024/2025 season, which, in his view,
established a practice of the Respondent making payments only after default notices,
systematically ignoring the contractual due dates and disregarding the his right to financial
stability and security.
17. The Claimant further argued that the successive breach of the Contract combined with the
irreparable breakdown in trust, have rendered the continuation of the contractual
relationship between Claimant and Respondent impossible to maintain.
18. The Claimant additionally argued that the Respondent cannot rely on the procedural
requirement of art. 14bis of the Regulations as a defence when it has repeatedly delayed
payments in violation of its obligations under the Contract, rendering formal default
notices meaningless, as the Respondent continued to default on payments even after the
two notices sent by the Player on 2 December 2024 and 15 May 2025. The Claimant further
rejected the allegations of the Respondent in its letter dated 5 August 2025, stating that
the Claimant was not involved in any settlement negotiations with the Respondent.
19. The Claimant further argued that the automatic unilateral extension until 30 June 2027
under clause 3 (Special Provisions) par. c) of the Contract should be included in the
calculation of the compensation under art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations as the clause is valid
and enforceable as per the ‘Portmann criteria’ and the Respondent validly had such right
of extension as the time of termination of the Contract.
20. The Claimant finally argued that he is entitled to receive additional compensation of 6
months’ salaries, due to the egregious circumstances present in the matter at hand, as he
suffered emotional and financial distress due to the lack of timely payments by the
Respondent, as he had committed to various agreements for two important family
functions.
21. Consequently, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“a) Confirming that the Claimant terminated the employment contract with just cause, in
accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP);
b) Ordering the respondent club to pay the claimant player for breach of contract of the
amount of EUR 600.000 as the residual value of the contract, including the season 2026/2027
as per de extension option, plus interest of 5% as of 15.06.2023 until the date of effective
payment. This payment shall be made on a net basis, free of any taxation, the Respondent
being responsible for the filling and payment of all taxes relating to this payment due to the
Claimant.
c) Ordering the Respondent to pay the Claimant all outstanding and unpaid remuneration
accrued up to the effective date of termination: EUR 30.000 (May 2025); - EUR 30,000
(June2025); - EUR 150.000 (second installment of the Signing fee, due on 31 July 2025) in Total
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20274
outstanding is EUR 210.000, plus interest of 5% as of 03.08.2025 until the date of effective
payment.
d) Ordering the Respondent to pay additional compensation equivalent to three (3) monthly
salaries, pursuant to Article 17/1 (ii) of the FIFA RSTP, due to the termination being caused by
overdue payables, corresponding to EUR. 90.000;
e) Ordering the Respondent to pay a further amount equivalent to three (3) additional
monthly salaries as aggravated damages, in light of the existence of egregious and
aggravating circumstances, consistent with applicable jurisprudence of the FIFA Football
Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), corresponding to EUR. 90.000;
g) Imposing the appropriate sporting sanction on the Respondent Club, in accordance with
Article 17(4) of the FIFA RSTP. Given the Club’s breach of contract during the protected period,
the Claimant specifically seeks a registration ban prohibiting the Club from registering new
players, both at national and international level, for up to two full and consecutive
registration periods.
h) Awarding interest at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum on all amounts awarded,
calculated from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
i) Ordering Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü to bear all costs related to this procedure.”
b. Position of the Respondent
22. On 14 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Respondent to provide its reply
to the claim by no later than 3 September 2025.
23. On 2 September 2025, the FIFA general secretariat granted the Respondent an extension
to reply to the claim by no later than 15 September 2025, as per its request. However, the
Respondent filed its reply on 20 September 2025.
24. On 23 September 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged that no timely reply had
been submitted by the Respondent and that the late submission would be disregarded.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20274
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. 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 8 August 2025 and submitted for decision on
19 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.
26. 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 (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 Portuguese player and a Turkish club.
27. 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.
28. Lastly, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber confirmed that since the
Respondent’s submission was filed outside the relevant time limit granted by the FIFA
general secretariat (which expired on 15 September 2025), the Respondent’s reply to the
claim was correctly disregarded as per art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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
30. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20274
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber 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 Claimant against the Respondent.
32. The Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause under art. 14 of the
Regulations due to the repeated violations of the Respondent’s duty to pay his salary in a
timely manner for the entire duration of the 2024/2025 season, which, in his view,
established a practice of the Respondent making payments only after default notices,
systematically ignoring the contractual due dates and disregarding the his right to financial
stability and security, thereby rendering the employment relationship impossible to
continue in good faith.
33. The Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent has not validly responded to the claim
and therefore any decision must be made solely on the basis of the evidence provided by
the Claimant (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
34. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether the
Claimant terminated the Contract with just cause, and whether outstanding remuneration
and compensation must be awarded.
35. Having established the above, the Chamber first acknowledged that throughout the
contractual relationship the Player’s salaries were systematically paid after their
contractual due dates, with delays ranging from a few days to months, which delay in
payments although ultimately remedied, show a pattern of successive breach of Contract
by the Club.
36. The Chamber noted that it is undisputed that at least 3 monthly salaries were paid by the
Respondent only upon receipt of two formal default notices from the Claimant with respect
to outstanding remuneration, starting on 2 December 2024 with respect to the salary of
October 2024 and on 15 May 2025 with respect to his salaries of February to April 2025 and
a part of the signing bonus.
37. The Chamber further noted that it is undisputed that the Respondent found itself again in
default of payment of the monthly salaries of May and June 2025 and the second
instalment of the signing bonus, thereby repeating the above-mentioned pattern of
breach.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20274
38. The Chamber observed that prior to terminating the Contract, the Claimant did not send a
written notice putting the Respondent in default of the specific debt, nor did he grant a
specific deadline to remedy the alleged breaches.
39. The Chamber then recalled that pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations, a contract may be
terminated by either party without consequences only where there is just cause.
Furthermore, just cause must be assessed on a case‑by‑case basis, and termination of an
employment contract is an exceptional measure, only admissible where the breach is of
such severity that the injured party cannot reasonably be expected to continue the
employment relationship.
40. Similarly, art. 14bis of the Regulations establishes specific requirements in cases of alleged
non‑payment of salaries, namely that a player must put the club in default in writing and
grant a deadline of at least 15 days to comply with its financial obligations, unless
alternative provisions apply.
41. In the present case, the Chamber established that the Claimant did not comply with the
formal requirements set out in art. 14bis of the Regulations, as he did not grant the Club a
written deadline prior to terminating the Contract.
42. However, the majority of the Chamber pointed out that the absence of a formal default
notice did not automatically exclude the existence of just cause, particularly where the
contractual breaches invoked were of a repetitive and systematic nature.
43. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber found decisive that the Club paid the Player’s
salary late on every single occasion during the contractual relationship. In the majority of
the Chamber’s view, such conduct went beyond isolated or minor delays and instead
constituted a pattern of recurrent late payments.
44. The majority of the Chamber also took into account that the obligation to pay salaries in
due time constituted one of the Club’s most fundamental obligations under the Contract.
As such, the majority of the DRC considered that the repeated failure to comply with this
obligation was indeed capable of undermining the mutual trust necessary for the
continuation of the employment relationship.
45. Further, in analysing the other criteria, the majority of the Chamber highlighted that the
outstanding amount at the time of termination of the Contract by the Claimant was
significant amounting to EUR 210,000 equalling 7 monthly salaries.
46. Consequently, even if unimpressed by the Player’s decision not to send a further default
notice, the majority of the Chamber was still convinced that the cumulative effect of the
repeated salary delays in the specific facts of the present case was sufficiently serious to
justify the Player’s loss of trust in the Club. In other words, the majority of the Chamber
concluded that the systematic nature of the late payments could reasonably justify the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20274
termination, in that the Club had persistently failed to comply with its contractual
obligations over a prolonged period of time, despite being provided previous default
notices and therefore could not benefit from its own shortcomings.
47. Therefore, in light of the specific elements on file, and in the absence of a valid reply from
the Respondent, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Player terminated the
Contract on 3 August 2025 with just cause (cf., art. 14 of the Regulations) and that the Club
is liable for the ensuing consequences.
48. As the decision on the just cause was already adopted by the majority,
all subsequent considerations were likewise determined by the majority. For ease of
reading, any reference to the Chamber shall be understood as referring to the findings
of the prevailing majority of the DRC.
ii. Consequences
49. 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.
50. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, is equivalent to the
outstanding signing fee and salaries for the months of May and June under the Contract,
amounting to EUR 210,000.
51. 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
210,000 (i.e., EUR 30,000 time 2 as salaries for the months of May and June and EUR 150,000
as the outstanding signing fee).
52. 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 3 August 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
53. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20274
54. 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.
55. 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
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).
56. 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 300,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
•
EUR 30,000 per month for 10 months between September 2025 and June 2026
for the 2025/2026 season as per clause 3 of the Contract.
57. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that the automatic unilateral
extension until 30 June 2027 under clause 3 (Special Provisions) par. c) of the Contract
should be included in the calculation of the compensation under art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations. The Chamber recalled that the clause 3 (Special Provisions) par. c) of the
Contract provides the following:
“c. The Club hold the rights to unilaterally trigger an automatic 1 year extension to this
contract upon informing the player prior to the date of termination. In case the extension is
triggered, the conditions of the contract will remain the same as the final season of this
contract. Such a contract will commence on 30-06-2026 and terminate on 30-06-2027.”
58. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the clause provides the Club with a unilateral
option to extend the Contract, upon informing the Player. The Chamber noted that this
clause does not automatically extend the term of the Contract upon the satisfaction of
certain conditions but instead leaves the extension up to the discretion of the Club. Given
that in the present case, the Player has not provided any evidence that the Club expressly
informed the Player that the term of the Contract would be extended, thereby specifically
triggering clause 3 (Special Provisions) par. c) of the Contract, the Chamber concluded that
the extension has not legally come into force, that it was speculative at the time of the
termination, thus that it should not be considered for the calculation of the compensation.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20274
59. 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.
60. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Portuguese club AVS – Futebol, SAD. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to a salary of
EUR 36,750 gross payable in 11 instalments. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 36,750.
61. 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.
62. However, the Chamber noted that as per art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, the overall
compensation may never exceed the residual value of the prematurely terminated
contract. Therefore, as three-monthly salaries (i.e., EUR 90,000) under the Contract, would
exceed the mitigated amount (i.e., EUR 36,750), the Chamber concluded that the Player be
awarded the entire residual value of the Contract as compensation for breach of contract.
63. 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 300,000 net to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
64. 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 3 August 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
65. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber observed that the Club appears to have been
repeatedly found guilty of breaches of contract in previous years. In this context, it
emphasized that any future violations may result in the imposition of additional sporting
sanctions.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20274
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20274
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenco, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Amed Sportif Faaliyetler, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 210,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 August 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 300,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
3 August 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. 15
REF. FPSD-20274
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. 16