Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20503
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Yonathan Alexander del Valle Rodríguez
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Yonathan Alexander del Valle Rodríguez, Venezuela
Represented by Mehmet Göktürk Aslan
RESPONDENT:
Sakaryaspor AŞ, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20503
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 July 2023, the Venezuelan player Yonathan Alexander del Valle Rodríguez
(hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Sakaryaspor AŞ (hereinafter,
the Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract)
valid as from 1 August 2023 until 30 June 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following remuneration:
“The Club shall make the payment to the football player for 2023-2024 season as below:
43.200 Euro shall be paid in cash as follows:
o 21.600 Euro shall be paid on the date of signing the Contract.
o 21.600 Euro shall be paid on 01.07.2024 (If the Club is in the Super League at the end of
the season, this fee will be paid as 28.100 Euro on the same date, not as 21.600 Euro).
o Annual salary of 216.000 Euro (the salary shall be paid between 2023 June and 2024 May
with the amount of 18.000 Euro per month).
o If the Player starts with the first eleven in 18 official league competitions, he will receive
10.000 Euro extra bonus.
o If the Player contribute 10 goals (goals or assists) in official league competitions, he will
receive 10.000 Euro extra bonus.
o If the Club reach in the playoffs at the end of the season, he will receive 10.000 Euro extra
bonus.
o If the Club is promoted to the upper league, he will receive 40.000 Euro extra bonus.
The Club shall make the payment to the football player for 2024-2025 season as below:
o Annual salary of 216.000 Euro (the salary shall be paid between 2024 June and 2025 May
with the amount of 18.000 Euro per month).
o If the team promoted to the Super League and competes in the Super League in 20242025 season, the Club shall make the payment to the football player as below, instead of
as given above:
o The annual salary of 281.000 Euros will be paid like this:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20503
o (23.400 Euro June/2024 – 23.400 Euro July/2024 – 23.400 Euro August/2024 – 23.400 Euro
September/2024 – 23.400 Euro October/2024 – 23.400 Euro November/2024 – 23.400
Euro December/2024 – 23.400 Euro January/2025 – 23.400 Euro February/2025 – 23.400
Euro March/2025 – 23.400 Euro April/2025 – 23.400 Euro May/2025. It will be divided by
12 months and will be paid like this.
o All payments to the Player will be net”.
3.
Furthermore, according to Special Provision nº 17 of the Contract:
“The Club will pay to the Player 1.500 Euros monthly for a house and a car. All expenses
(except rent fees of house and car) of the house/apartment and the car will belong to/under
the responsibility of the Player. In addition, 1 round-trip plane ticket will be bought by the
Club for the Player and his wife duration of the contract”.
4.
Special Provision nº 20 of the Contract stipulates that:
“All payments and remunerations in this agreement are net and excluded from any type of
taxes. The Club is obliged to pay all taxes including the income tax of the Player. In case the
Player has to make declaration to Turkish Tax Authorities and to pay his income tax in
Türkiye, then all paid amounts will be immediately refunded to the Player by the Club”.
5.
On 14 August 2024, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to
pay EUR 93,399 net, broken down as follows:
o EUR 18,000 as salary for June 2024;
o EUR 18,000 as salary for July 2024;
o EUR 10,000 as goal bonus, payable in June 2024;
o EUR 10,000 as game bonus, payable in June 2024;
o EUR 10,000 as playoff final bonus, payable in June 2024;
o EUR 3,000 as house rent for June 2024;
o EUR 2,799 as flight tickets;
o EUR 21,600 as advance payment, payable in July 2024.
6.
On 3 September 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract for outstanding
salaries.
7.
On 12 September 2024, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Turkish club
Pendikspor AŞ, valid as from 12 September 2024 until 30 June 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20503
8.
Under Clause 3 of this new contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 100,000 net, payable in
10 instalments of EUR 10,000 from September 2024 to June 2025.
9.
On 9 October 2024, the Player filed a claim before FIFA against the Club, under reference
FPSD-16499, asserting that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract for
outstanding remuneration, after placing the Club in default, and requesting outstanding
salaries arising from the Contract
10. In his claim, the Player requested the following relief:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to apply the
corresponding sanctions to the Club on the basis of art. 12bis of the FIFA RSTP and to order
the Club to pay him the following outstanding amount:
o EUR 18.000 net from June 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment.
o EUR 18.000 net from July 2024 with its interests as of the corresponding due dates until
the effective day of payment.
o EUR 21.600 net from July 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment.
o EUR 10.000 net from June 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment.
o EUR 10.000 net from June 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment.
o EUR 10.000 net from June 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment.
o EUR 1.500 net from June 2024 with its interests as of the corresponding due dates until
the effective day of payment.
o EUR 1.500 net from July 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment.
o EUR 2.799 net from June 2024 plus with its interests as of the corresponding due dates
until the effective day of payment”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20503
11. On 9 December 2024, the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed a decision (hereinafter, the
Decision FPSD-16499) in the aforementioned proceedings, which was notified to the Parties
on 6 January 2025.
12. In its decision, the Chamber ruled as follows:
“Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant (…) is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent (…) must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 1,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o EUR 20,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 June 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o EUR 19,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o EUR 21,600 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 July 2024
until the date of effective payment;
o EUR 18,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August
2024 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of
this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20503
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs”.
13. Neither party requested the grounds of the Decision FPSD-16499 within the regulatory time
limit.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 25 August 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
15. In his claim, the Player asserted that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract on 3 September 2024 for outstanding salaries, after having placed the Club in
default, to no avail.
16. Accordingly, the Player claimed to be entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 134,000 net. The Player clarified that that this amount corresponds to the
residual value of the Contract (i.e., EUR 180,000 net for the period September 2024 to June
2025) minus the total value of his new contract with Pendikspor AŞ (i.e., EUR 100,000 net),
plus an additional compensation of 3 monthly salaries (i.e., EUR 54,000 net).
17. Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, the Player respectfully requests the FIFA DRC to:
o Order the Club to pay the Player the total NET amount of EUR 134,000 as compensation
for breach of contract plus 5% interest as from 3 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment, in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP, plus interest as of the
due dates until the effective day of payment;
o Impose the corresponding sporting sanctions on the Club in accordance with the FIFA
RSTP;
o Take due account of the negative impact suffered by the Player as a result of the Club’s
conduct, including the adverse effect on his career, professional stability, and
reputation”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20503
b. Reply of the Respondent
18. In its reply, the Club argued that the amount claimed by the Player is excessive,
disproportionate and contrary to the principle of proportionality. In particular, the Club
submitted that, pursuant to art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
when calculating compensation, the following elements must be considered: (i) the
remaining value of the Contract; (ii) the income earned from the Player’s new employment
contract; (iii) the amounts already paid by the Club; and (iv) the duty to mitigate damages.
19. The Club further contended that the Player’s request for 3 additional monthly salaries as
compensation must be rejected. It argued that the principle of contractual stability and the
jurisprudence of the DRC and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) prohibit a party from
claiming multiple compensations for the same factual background. According to the Club,
awarding the Player 3 additional monthly salaries would result in unjust enrichment, as the
Player would receive more than the actual damage allegedly suffered.
20. The Club emphasised that “the compensation awarded following the termination of a contract
is intended to place the injured party in the financial position they would have been in, had the
contract been properly performed — but never in a better position”. Accordingly, the Club
maintained that the additional compensation would amount to overcompensation.
21. Based on the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the above, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
a) Reject the Claimant’s request in its entirety as unfounded;
b) Alternatively, should the Chamber consider awarding any compensation, to apply the
principles of mitigation of damages and proportional reduction, deducting the income
from the Claimant’s new club and applying a fairness-based reduction not double
recovery;
c) Order the Claimant to bear all costs of the proceedings”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20503
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 25 August 2025 and submitted for decision
on 11 December 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.
23. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Venezuelan player
and a Turkish club.
b. Admissibility of the claim
24. Prior to examining the merits of the present dispute, the members of the Chamber noted
that the Player had already lodged a claim against the Club before FIFA on 9 October 2024,
which resulted in the Decision FPSD-16499. Bearing this in mind, and although the
admissibility of the claim was not challenged, the DRC determined that it must nonetheless
examine ex officio a procedural issue, namely whether the present claim is admissible or,
conversely, whether it is affected by the legal principle of res judicata and should therefore
be declared inadmissible.
25. The Chamber started its analysis by recalling that, according to the principle of res judicata,
a decision-making body is not in a position to decide on the substance of a case in the event
that another (competent) deciding body has already dealt with the same matter by passing
a final and binding decision. The DRC pointed out that this principle ensures that, whenever
a dispute has been defined and decided upon, it becomes irrevocable, confirmed, and
deemed to be just — res judicata pro veritate habetur.
26. In this context, the Chamber went on to analyse the arguments and the evidence submitted
by the Parties and first noted that, as acknowledged by the Player, a previous decision has
been passed by a competent deciding body on 9 December 2024 (i.e., the Decision FPSD16499).
27. Subsequently, the DRC observed that neither party requested the grounds of the
aforementioned decision within the regulatory time limit. Consequently, the Chamber
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20503
determined that the Decision FPSD-16499 is final and binding and, therefore, the main
requisite for the existence or applicability of res judicata — the existence of a final and
binding decision— is met in the case at hand.
28. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber emphasised that the principle of res
judicata is applicable if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to both disputes, the object
of the matter and the cause are identical. As confirmed by the well-established
jurisprudence of FIFA and CAS, the principle of res judicata applies when the following three
elements are cumulatively present:
o The same persons — eadem personae;
o The same object — eadem res; and
o The same cause — eadem causa petendi.
29. As explained by the Panel in CAS 2019/A/6483 Wydad Athletic Club v. CAF & Espérance
Sportive de Tunis:
“(…) according to the SFT, there is res judicata when the claim in dispute is identical to that
which was already the subject of an enforceable judgement (identity of the subject matter
of the dispute). This is the case when both proceedings involve the same parties and the
same matter in dispute. The identity must be understood from a substantive and not
grammatical point of view, so that a new claim, not matter how is formulated, will have
the same object as the claim already adjudicated (ATF 140 III 278 at 3.3; ATF 139 III 126 at
3.2.3.)”.
30. The Chamber further recalled that the principle of res judicata has a positive and a negative
effect with regard to a previous decision. While the positive effect implies that the parties
can rely on the findings of the previous decision, the negative effect implies that a decidingmaking body is prevented to reconsider or to re-enter the merits of an issue previously
decided (in this regard, inter alia, CAS 2021/A/7915 Javier González López v. Hapoel Tel Aviv
FC & FIFA).
31. The DRC also remarked that the res judicata effect extends to all the facts existing at the
time of the first judgement, whether or not they were known to the parties, stated by them,
or considered by the first court (cf. CAS 2020/A/6884 Soukeyna Ba Bengelloun v. FIFA & PFC
CSKA-Sofia).
32. Taking the foregoing into account, the Chamber first analysed whether the criterion of the
identity of parties is met in the present case. In this respect, the members of the Chamber
noted that both the Player and the Club were the parties in the proceedings leading to the
Decision FPSD-16499, and they are also the parties to the dispute at stake.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20503
33. Accordingly, the DRC concluded that the requirement of identity of parties was fulfilled in
casu.
34. The Chamber then proceeded to examine whether the criterion of the object of the matter
was also met. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the identity of the subject matter is
fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant requests of the two claims are similar.
35. The Chamber noted that, in his first claim, the Player denounced that the Club had failed
to remit several monthly salaries and other financial entitlements under the Contract,
including an advance payment and bonuses. Based on this, and although the Player stated
that he had just cause to terminate the Contract on 3 September 2024, the relief he sought
was limited to the outstanding remuneration owed at the time of termination and the
imposition of disciplinary sanctions on the Club pursuant to art. 12bis of the Regulations.
36. In contrast, in the present claim the Player seeks compensation for breach of contract.
37. The Chamber therefore noted that while the first claim was limited to the remuneration
that remained outstanding under the Contract at the time of termination, the present claim
concerns the Player’s entitlement to compensation for breach of contract, therefore
requiring an assessment of whether the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract —
an issue that was not examined or decided in Decision FPSD-16499.
38. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the requirements for the existence
of res judicata were not formally satisfied, as the subject matter of the present dispute is
different from that addressed in the Decision FPSD-16499.
39. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber considered that the (procedural)
behaviour of the Player cannot be overlooked. In this regard, the DRC emphasised that,
according to the Player’s own submissions —both in the present proceedings and in those
leading to Decision FPSD-16499— he had already terminated the Contract at the time of
filing his first claim. Indeed, the Player explicitly asserted in his first claim that he had
terminated the Contract with just cause.
40. In the Chamber’s view, this is crucial, as it demonstrates that the Player was fully aware of
the factual circumstances giving rise to both claims when he lodged his first claim, yet he
chose to pursue only outstanding remuneration.
41. As such, the DRC held that the Player not only could but should have raised the issue of the
alleged lawfulness of the termination and any associated claim for compensation for
breach of contract in his claim. By failing to do so, the Player is now precluded from
initiating a new proceeding on matters that could have been decided in the first claim.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20503
42. In this regard, the DRC recalled the principle of preclusion, which as a general principle of
law, denotes that the parties must (procedurally) act in good faith and file the entirety of
their requests in the appropriate time, under penalty of being prohibited from doing so at
a later stage.
43. The Chamber deemed that any different conclusion from the one above would jeopardize
the spirit of the Procedural Rules, in that parties would be able to file independent claims
as they please. The DRC emphasised that this conduct contravenes not only the principles
of good procedural order and procedural economy, but also the due process and,
ultimately, legal certainty within FIFA’s dispute resolution system (in this regard, inter alia,
DRC Decision of 13 March 2025, Mujakic, DRC Decision of 29 June 2023, Schenk, DRC
Decision of 23 June 2023, Rayhi, DRC Decision of 27 June 2023, Aganovic).
44. Likewise, the Chamber underscored that the submission of a first claim and then a different
one against the same party for amounts that could have already been claimed in the first
proceedings harmed the legitimate expectation of the debtor (in casu, the Club), which is
also reprehensible in line with the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium. Not claiming
compensation for breach of contract in the context of the first claim when the Player had
already terminated the Contract with alleged just cause, quite clearly, generated the
(legitimate) expectation on the Club that this concept was not in dispute.
45. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Player
is inadmissible.
c. Costs
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20503
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yonathan Alexander del Valle Rodríguez, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20503
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. 14