Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20395
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Lucas Eduardo Dos Santos Joao
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI, Qatar
CLAIMANT:
Lucas Eduardo Dos Santos Joao, Portugal
Represented by Umur Varat
RESPONDENT:
Eminevim Umraniyespor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20395
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 February 2025, the Portuguese player, Lucas Eduardo Dos Santos Joao (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant), and the Turkish club, Eminevim Umraniyespor (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
Clause 3 of the Contract established:
“2024/2025 Football Season:
• 30.000-EUR net as advance payment have been paid signature date.
• A monthly salary of net 25.000.-EUR per month, totally net 125.000-EUR net will be
divided into 5 months (between February 2025- June 2025) and to be paid on the last
day of each month (25.000-EUR x 5).
• If the Player contributes to at least 10 goals (either through scoring or assisting) in the
official league matches (excluding special matches, cup matches, friendly matches, etc.)
in 2024/2025 football season, the Club shall pay to the Player in the amount of net
10.000,-EUR as a goal contribution bonus.
• The Player shall be entitled to a bonus of net 10.000-EUR in the event that he starts in
the starting line-up in 10 of the official league matches played by the Club (excluding
special matches, cup matches, friendly matches, etc.).
• In the event that the Club promote to the Super 2024/2025 football season, net bonus
fee.
The abovementioned bonus shall be due and payable on the last day of the month in
each the respective triggering event occurs.”
3.
On 7 May 2025, the parties concluded a document entitled “Termination and Settlement
Agreement” (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement), by means of which they terminated the
employment relationship.
4.
Clause 1.2 of the Settlement Agreement stipulated (quoted verbatim):
“The parties have agreed that the Player has to receive a total amount of 75.000, -EUR
net from the Club, regarding the salary from the Professional Football Player Contract
with the starting date of 11.02.2025 and ending date of 30.06.2025 and Protocol. The
Club will pay to the Player a total net amount of 75.000-EUR in two installments. The
Player accepts, declares and undertakes that with the payment of 75.000-Euro net to him
by the Club. The installments will be paid as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20395
37.500-EUR will be paid on 25.06.2025
37.500-EUR will be paid on 25.07.2025”
5.
Clause 1.3 of the Settlement Agreement provided as follows:
“1.3. In the event of delay in the payments, the CLUB shall be liable to pay to the PLAYER
a penalty equal to 10% of each instalment not paid on a timely manner.”
6.
Clause 1.4 stated (quoted verbatim):
“1.4. In case any tax arisen by the present termination, the Club agrees to pay it directly
to the competent entity. In case the Club does not comply, and the Player is obligated to
pay any of those amounts, the Club shall return any amount to the player within 10 days
after notification.”
7.
On 2 July 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of EUR 41,250
net, of which EUR 37,500 net corresponded to the first instalment of the Settlement
Agreement and EUR 3,750 net to a 10% penalty due to the non-payment of the first
instalment. The Player granted the Club 10 days to comply with the payment.
8.
On 21 July 2025, the Club paid EUR 30,000 to the Player.
9.
On 25 July 2025, the Club paid EUR 11,250 to the Player.
10. On 28 July 2025, the Player again put the Club in default and requested payment of EUR
41,250 net, of which EUR 37,500 net corresponded to the second instalment of the
Settlement Agreement and EUR 3,750 net to a 10% penalty due to the non-payment of the
second instalment. The Player granted the Club 10 days to comply with the payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 18 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
12. The Player argued that the parties first concluded the Contract, which was terminated
through the Settlement Agreement. In this respect, the Player pointed out that, under the
Settlement Agreement, the Club undertook to pay him EUR 75,000 in two instalments of
EUR 37,500 each - the first one due on 25 June 2025 and the second on 25 July 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20395
Furthermore, the Player stated that the Club undertook to pay a penalty equivalent to 10%
of each instalment in the event of delayed payments.
13. According to the Player, the Club failed to timely pay the first instalment, thereby triggering
the penalty over that instalment. Therefore, he mentioned that he requested payment of
EUR 41,250, including the penalty. The Player asserted that on 21 July and 25 July 2025 the
Club paid EUR 30,000 and EUR 11,250 respectively, covering the payment of the first
instalment and the penalty on the first instalment. However, the Player alleged that the
Club failed to pay the second instalment, and he therefore sent a new notice of default
requesting payment of the instalment along with the penalty. Hence, the Player argued
that the Club owes him EUR 41,250 net.
14. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“THEREFORE, Mr. Joao requests to FIFA DRC:
TO CONDEMN Ümraniyespor to pay:
1. TOTAL NET € 41.250 (forty one thousand two hundred fifty Euros) to add by an interest
at 5% per annum from 25.07.2025 (due date of second instalment) until the date of
effective payment:
2. TO APPLY Art. 12 bis/4 and 24 of FIFA RSTP.”
b. Position of the Respondent
15. In its reply, the Club acknowledged that the parties had concluded the Settlement
Agreement, under which it undertook to pay the Player EUR 75,000. Nevertheless, it stated
that the Player submitted the claim without taking into account the amounts paid by the
Club.
16. In this context, the Club remarked that it had fulfilled its obligations and stated that the
amount requested by the Player was significantly higher than it should be. In support of its
claims, the Respondent provided two proofs of payment: one for EUR 30,000 dated 21 July
2025 and another for EUR 11,250 dated 25 July 2025
17. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“7. Request for Relief
1. The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal
about the present case.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20395
2. Consider the amounts paid and good faith of the Respondent while evaluating the
Claimant requests according to the reasons explained above and according to the bank
receipts which was provided by the Respondent and setoff the mentioned amount from
the Claimant’s requests.
3. Finally, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that the
judicial costs and the attorneyship fees that the Respondent is faced with shall be paid
by the Claimant. If not, to award a minimum amount of procedural cost in connection
with the temporary amendment to the Procedural Rules declared with the Circular 1720.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 18 August 2025 and submitted
for decision on 10 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.
19. 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), 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.
20. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20395
c. Merits of the dispute
22. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
24. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him the second
instalment of the Settlement Agreement, along with the corresponding penalty.
Conversely, the Club stated that the Player is claiming an amount higher than he is entitled
to.
25. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
Player is entitled to the amounts claimed.
26. The Single Judge first observed that, according to the Settlement Agreement, the Player
was entitled to EUR 75,000 net, to be paid in two instalments of EUR 37,500 net each, on
25 June and 25 July 2025. The Single Judge also noted that, in the event of a delay in
payment, the Player would be entitled to a 10% penalty on each instalment.
27. The Single Judge recalled that the Player argued that the Club failed to pay the first
instalment and, therefore, he requested payment of the first instalment along with the
accrued penalty, which was paid by the Club on 21 and 25 July 2025. In this respect, the
Single Judge highlighted that the Club provided the same proofs of payment submitted by
the Player, and, therefore, she concluded that, in fact, the first instalment had indeed been
paid late, entitling the Player to the corresponding penalty.
28. In this sense, the Single Judge determined that the payments made by the Club on 21 and
25 July 2025 effectively covered both the first instalment and the 10% penalty accrued on
that instalment.
29. However, the Single Judge stressed that the Player is claiming payment of the second
instalment, along with the corresponding penalty, as this instalment should have been paid
on 25 July 2025. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that the Club only provided the
proofs of payment corresponding to the first instalment and its related penalty, which had
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20395
already been submitted by the Player. On the contrary, the Club did not provide any
evidence demonstrating that it paid the amounts claimed by the Player in this dispute,
although it bore the burden of doing so.
30. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that (i) the Club failed to timely pay the second
instalment of the Settlement Agreement, thereby triggering the 10% penalty, and (ii)
neither the instalment nor the penalty has been paid to date.
31. Hence, the Single Judge decided to award the Player EUR 37,500 as the second instalment
of the Settlement Agreement and EUR 3,750 as its corresponding penalty.
32. Regarding interest, the Single Judge underscored that it can only apply to the second
instalment and not to the penalty, based on the legal principle ne bis in idem. Thus, the
Single Judge decided to award 5% interest p.a. only over the amount of EUR 37,500 as from
the day following the due date until the date of effective payment.
33. Lastly, the Single Judge noted that the Player requested that the amounts be paid as net
amounts. The Single Judge also observed that this request is supported both by clause 1.2,
which established that the EUR 75,000 were net, and by clause 1.4 of the Settlement
Agreement, which established that (quoted verbatim) “In case any tax arisen by the present
termination, the Club agrees to pay it directly to the competent entity”. Therefore, the Single
Judge decided to award both amounts as net payments.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
34. 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. In this regard, she highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
principle, of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amounts are paid.
35. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that, in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where
the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
36. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on date 3 April 2025 and notified on 9 April 2025, a transfer ban has been imposed
on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the case FPSD17990.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20395
37. Accordingly, the Single Judge established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
38. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
39. 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.
d. Costs
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20395
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lucas Eduardo Dos Santos Joao, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Eminevim Umraniyespor, must pay to the Claimant the following
amounts:
- EUR 37,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 July 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,750 net as contractual penalty.
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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20395
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. 11