Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20707
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Erzhan
Tokotaev
BY:
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia)
CLAIMANT:
Erzhan Tokotaev, Kyrgyz Republic
Represented by Rustam Dzhanybaev
RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Korhan Armağan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20707
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 July 2023, the Kyrgyz player Erzhan Tokotaev (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Turkish club Sanliurfaspor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract) and a separate agreement
(hereinafter: the Protocol), both valid from 10 July 2023 until the end of the 2024/2025
season.
2.
According to art. 3 of the Protocol, the Player was entitled to the following monthly salaries,
expressed in “Dolar” in the agreement and translated by the Player as USD:
-
2023/2024 season
• 11 July 2023 – 7,500 “Dolars”
• 11 August 2023 – 7,500 “Dolars”
• 11 September 2023 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 October 2023 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 November 2023 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 December 2023 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 January 2024 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 February 2024 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 March 2024 – 5,000 “Dolars”
• 11 April 2024 – 5,000 “Dolars”
-
2024/2025 season
• 11 July 2024 – 9,000 “Dolars”
• 11 August 2024 – 9,000 “Dolars”
• 11 September 2024 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 October 2024 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 November 2024 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 December 2024 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 January 2025 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 February 2025 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 March 2025 – 6,000 “Dolars”
• 11 April 2025 – 6,000 “Dolars”
3.
The Protocol further specified that all amounts stated therein were net.
4.
Art. 9 of the Employment Contract provides for the competence of the Dispute Resolution
Board of the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter: the TFF DRC and the TFF, respectively)
to adjudicate any disputes arising out of the contract between the parties:
“9 - DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the TFF Dispute Resolution Board for the resolution
of any disputes arising from this contract. (Note: The parties are free to accept or not accept the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20707
jurisdiction of the TFF Dispute Resolution Board for the resolution of all football-related disputes
arising from contracts between them. Decisions given by the Arbitration Board of the Dispute
Resolution Board become final unless an appeal is made to the Arbitration Board or with the
decision of the Arbitration Board given on appeal.)”
5.
Similarly, the Protocol provided that all disputes arising from the mentioned agreement
shall be resolved by the TFF DRC.
6.
On 6 May 2025, the Player put the Club in default by email, requesting payment of the
outstanding salaries for January through April 2024 totaling USD 20,000 and salaries for
January through April 2025 totaling USD 21,000. The Player further granted the Club a
deadline until 12 May 2025 to remedy the default.
7.
On 12 May 2025, the Player sent a second default notice, reiterating his request for the
USD 41,000 and granting a new deadline for payment, until 23 May 2025.
8.
On 7 June 2025, the Player sent a third default notice to the Club – including to the attention
of the new Club president – for the outstanding amount of USD 41,000, granting a further
deadline until 17 June 2025 to remit payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 6 September 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
10. First and foremost, the Player submits that the employment relationship between the
parties has an international dimension, as he is a national of the Kyrgyz Republic and the
Club is based in Türkiye, and that therefore FIFA is competent to hear the dispute in
accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
11. The Player further argues that, while the contract refers to the TFF DRC as the competent
body, said national chamber does not meet FIFA’s criteria for an independent and duly
constituted national dispute resolution chamber and is not recognised by FIFA as such.
Accordingly, in the Player’s view, the parties’ reference to the TFF DRC cannot exclude the
jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber.
12. On the merits, the Player claims that the Club failed to comply with its payment obligations
and that, despite partial payments received, an amount of USD 41,000 net remains
outstanding, broken down as follows:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20707
-
USD 20,000 corresponding to the monthly salaries of January to April 2024 (4 × USD
5,000) from the 2023/2024 season;
USD 21,000 corresponding to the monthly salaries of January to April 2025 from the
2024/2025 season (January 2025: USD 3,000; February to April 2025: USD 6,000 each).
13. The Player maintains that he complied with the formal requirements of art. 12bis of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players by placing the Club in default in
writing and granting deadlines of at least 10 days on 3 occasions, and that the Club failed
to cure its default within those time limits.
14. As a consequence, the Player requests USD 41,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus
5% interest p.a. as of the respective due dates.
15. The Claimant’s requests for relief were as follows:
“H) Request for Relief:
24. As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to order the Club
to pay him the following amounts:
USD 41 000 NET with the applicable interest of 5% as outstanding salaries corresponding to:
5 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.01.2024
5 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.02.2024
5 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.03.2024
5 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.04.2024
3 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.01.2025
6 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.02.2025
6 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.03.2025
6 000 - with the applicable interest of 5% as of 11.04.2025
Impose a sanction to the Club.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club raises a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber, referring to art. 9 of the employment contract, pursuant to which the
parties accepted the competence of the TFF DRC for the settlement of any disputes arising
out of the contract.
17. The Club maintains that the TFF DRC operates as a fully compliant National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) within the meaning of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, guaranteeing fair proceedings and equal representation of players and
clubs, and therefore that the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national
bodies, rather than FIFA.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20707
18. The Club further submits that, for registration purposes with the Turkish Football
Federation, the Player was registered under the status of a “Turkish” player, based on TFF
regulations whereby players from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan may be registered with Turkish national status. According to the Club, this
renders the employment relationship a domestic matter and removes the international
dimension invoked by the Player.
19. Without prejudice to its objection to jurisdiction, the Club argues that it has fully complied
with all of its contractual obligations vis-à-vis the Player. It provides a detailed breakdown
of payments allegedly made to the Player, including both TRY and USD payments, which,
according to the Club, amount to at least USD 72,833.33 prior to the filing of the claim:
Date of
Payment
12 July 2023
Amount
196,000.00 TRY (converted to approximately
USD 7,500.00)
Currency
Club’s Description
TRY
“SALARY / MAAŞ ÖDEMESİ
19 October 2023 5,000.00
USD
“SALARY / MAAŞ”
15 December
2023
10,000.00
USD
“2 MONTHS’ SALARY
PAYMENT”
28 March 2024
5,000.00
USD
“SALARY / MAAŞ”
24 July 2024
100,000.00 TRY (converted to approximately
USD 3,333.33)
TRY
“SALARY / MAAŞ ÖDEMESİ”
15 August 2024
180,000.00 TRY (converted to approximately
USD 6,000.00)
TRY
“SALARY / MAAŞ ÖDEMESİ”
17 September
2024
9,000.00
USD
“SALARY / MAAŞ”
25 October 2024 2,000.00
USD
“SALARY / MAAŞ”
11 November
2024
4,000.00
USD
“SALARY / MAAŞ”
13 December
2024
5,000.00
USD
“SALARY / MAAŞ”
13 February
2025
360,000.00 TRY (converted to approximately
USD 10,000.00)
TRY
“SALARY / MAAŞ” (conversion
rate used: 36.00)
27 March 2025
6,000.00
USD
20. The Club emphasises that the payments were made as salary payments (“maaş ödemesi”)
and “salary” in the payment descriptions, and underlines that, even if additional
documentation is pending retrieval due to a change in management, the evidence
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20707
submitted suffices to demonstrate that the Player’s entitlements were settled. It also
requests that, in any event, all amounts it paid be deducted from any eventual award.
21. The Club contests the Player’s calculation of the claim on the basis of currency, arguing that
the contract refers only to “dollars” and does not explicitly specify “United States Dollar
(USD)”. The Club notes that several currencies bear the name “dollar” (e.g. US, Canadian,
Australian), and submits that, in the absence of a clear reference to “USD”, the Player’s
claim calculated exclusively in USD lacks a sufficient contractual basis.
22. Concerning interest, the Club objects to the Player’s request to calculate interest as of each
contractual due date. It submits that, should any amount be awarded notwithstanding its
position, interest should only run from the date of filing of the claim before FIFA.
23. The Respondent’s requests for relief were as follows:
-
FIFA declare itself not competent to decide on the present dispute, directing the matter
to the TFF DRC;
All of the Player’s claims be dismissed in their entirety;
Alternatively, should any amount be found due, the payments already made by the Club
be deducted from the Player’s entitlements; and
The Player’s request for interest be rejected or, at least, recalculated from the date of
filing of the claim.
c. Replica of the Claimant
24. In his replica, the Player reiterates that he is a Kyrgyz citizen and refers to the agreement,
which expressly identifies him as a Kyrgyz national and mentions his Kyrgyz passport
number. He further refers to the registration document lodged with the TFF, which,
according to him, also records his nationality as Kyrgyz.
25. The Player submits that the Club’s allegation that he was registered as a Turkish player is
incorrect and should be disregarded. He argues that the TFF regulatory provision invoked
by the Club merely concerns the registration lists and the classification of certain foreign
players as “non-foreigners” for domestic competition purposes and does not alter the
international nature of the employment relationship.
26. With respect to jurisdiction, the Player stresses that the TFF DRC is not recognised by FIFA
as a compliant national dispute resolution body and that FIFA’s own public information
confirms that the TFF’s body is not included among the recognised NDRCs. Therefore, in
his view, the contractual reference to the TFF NDRC cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the
FIFA DRC under art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20707
27. As to the outstanding remuneration, the Player reiterates that he sent three default notices
(on 6 May, 12 May and 7 June 2025), including one addressed to the new Club president,
and that the Club did not respond or settle the outstanding amount. He rejects the Club’s
argument that new management could not access prior documentation, asserting that this
cannot justify the non-payment of salaries.
28. The Player maintains that, while he does not dispute having received certain payments, the
amount of USD 41,000 net remains unpaid. He underlines that the Club bears the burden
of proving that it paid all of the contractual entitlements and that, in his view, the Club has
failed to do so.
29. Regarding the currency, the Player rejects the Club’s argument about the alleged ambiguity
of “dollars” and argues that “USD” is the standard three-letter code for US dollars. He points
out that all previous payments between the parties, including those evidenced in the Club’s
own documentation, were made in United States dollars, which in his view confirms the
intended currency.
30. On interest, the Player reaffirms that, in line with FIFA DRC and CAS jurisprudence, interest
should accrue as from the due date of each unpaid instalment, rather than from the date
of filing of the claim.
31. In conclusion, the Player requests the FIFA DRC to:
-
Dismiss the Club’s objection to jurisdiction and confirm the competence of the FIFA DRC
Reject the Club’s arguments on the merits; and
Uphold his original claim for USD 41,000 net, plus 5% interest p.a. on each amount as
from its contractual due date until the date of effective payment.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
32. Despite being invited to do so, the Club did not submit a duplica.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20707
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. 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 06 September 2025 and submitted
for decision on . 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 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 – in principle – competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Kyrgyz player and a Turkish club.
35. However, the Single Judge noted that FIFA’s jurisdiction is disputed. Specifically, the Club
sustains that (i) the Player was registered, for all intents and purposes, as Turkish, and (ii)
the Employment Contract contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of
the TFF DRC. Conversely, the Player refutes both points, submitting that he is of Kyrgyz
nationality and both the contract and his registration reflect as much, and that the TFF DRC
is not recognised by FIFA.
36. As to the first matter, concerning whether or not there is an international dimension, the
Single Judge note the following:
-
-
The Player provided his Kyrgyz passport;
Both the Employment Contract and the Protocol referred to the Player’s Kyrgyz
nationality, with the Protocol specifically referring to the Player’s Kyrgyz passport
number;
The Player’s profile on the FIFA Transfer Matching System confirms his Kyrgyz
nationality (cf. art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules).
37. In this respect, the Single Judge reasoned that, internal league or federative rules
notwithstanding, it is established practice within the DRC that the nationality pursuant to
which the Player and Club entered into and carried out the employment relationship shall
determine questions concerning the presence or absence of an international dimension.
Here, based on that criterion and considering the evidence on file, the Single Judge was
satisfied that there is an international dimension to this dispute.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20707
38. Furthermore, the Single Judge was disinclined to follow the Club’s proposition that, because
the Club apparently availed itself of a national rule allowing them to avoid registering the
Player as a foreign player in Türkiye, that this could impact the DRC’s finding that there is
indeed diversity of nationality and, therefore, international dimension.
39. As to the second jurisdictional objection raised by the Club, the Single Judge noted that,
considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 6 September 2025, the
jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must once again be assessed based on art. 22 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association or club to seek redress before a
civil court for employment related disputed, FIFA is competent to hear:
[...]
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension; the
aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be decided
by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution body
operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance
with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction
clause must be exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining
agreement applicable to the parties.”
40. As established above, the Single Judge considered this dispute has an international
dimension and is employment-related. Therefore, it falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction
pursuant to the above-cited article, and, in principle, would only be prevented in the
hypothesis of (1) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in the relevant contract in favour
of the civil courts; OR (2) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause included in the relevant
contract in favour of an NDRC “that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with
the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles.”
41. It follows that in order for the Football Tribunal to decline jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC,
the interested party challenging the Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction must demonstrate that
the parties have validly agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decisionmaking body and that such body is recognised by FIFA. As pointed out by the DRC on
numerous occasions, these conditions are cumulative and must all be met at the
time a party submits a claim to FIFA.
42. Here, while the Single Judge considered that art. 9 of the Employment Contract and the
relevant clause in the Protocol could be considered as a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in favour of the TFF DRC, he noted that it does not refer to a body recognised under
the NDRC Recognition Principles at the time of filing the claim. In this sense, the Single
Judge recalled that the applicable Regulations in this case only foresee the DRC’s ability to
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20707
decline jurisdiction where there is a recognized NDRC, failing which, FIFA shall accept
jurisdiction.
43. Therefore, the Single Judge was satisfied that FIFA – in any case – has jurisdiction to decide
this matter.
44. 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
45. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
46. 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
47. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether the Player is entitled to outstanding remuneration.
48. On one hand, the Player submits that he received only USD 35,000 for the 2023/2024
season, plus USD 5,000 paid on 28 March 2024, allegedly for December 2023, and USD
45,000 for the 2024/2025 season. He argues that the Club still owes USD 41,000 net across
both seasons.
49. The Club, on the other hand, submits that it fully complied with its contractual payment
obligations and provides a list of payments made to the Player, including amounts paid in
TRY (converted to USD) and in USD, which allegedly total at least USD 72,833.33. The Club
stresses that additional receipts could be produced should they be retrieved following its
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20707
change in management. It therefore denies the existence of any outstanding balance. The
Club further contends that the Protocol was not clear as to the applicable currency, and
the Player’s contentions that he was paid in USD were unsupported.
50. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine what
amounts remain outstanding, if any.
51. First, the Single Judge noted that the Club itself paid the Player in USD on more than one
occasion, in addition to actively converting certain payments into USD in its submissions,
and sought to rely on these payments as proof of its compliance with the Employment
Contract and Protocol. Therefore, the Club’s contentions that the amounts set forth in the
Protocol were not in USD were, in the Single Judge’s view, not credible and against the
Club’s own behaviour (venire contra factum proprium).
52. Second, the Single Judge recalled that the Club bears the burden of proving, to the requisite
degree of certainty, that it complied with all amounts due under the Employment Contract
and Protocol. However, the Single Judge considered that the Club failed to demonstrate
with precision what payments corresponded to which salaries, whereas the Player put
forth his own allocation, apparently (partially) allocating payments to the earliest debts
due.
53. However, Single Judge considered that the proposition put forth by the Player for payment
allocation is not entirely consistent, not sufficiently supported by evidence, and constitutes
somewhat of a departure from the practice that the DRC has adopted in the past in similar
circumstances. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed it appropriate to rely on the wellestablished practice of the Football Tribunal and consider that, absent sufficient and
convincing evidence to indicate otherwise, payments which have been acknowledged as
having been made are allocated to the earliest debts due.
54. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the payments put forth by the Club, amounting
to USD 72,833.33, do not cover the entirety of the Employment Contract and Protocol,
whose value was USD 121,000 net.
55. Specifically, and applying the payments to the debts falling due first, the Single Judge
reached the following conclusions based on the evidence in the file:
-
all salaries for the 2023/2024 season would have been covered (USD 55,000), as would
the salary for July 2024 (USD 9,000);
however, the August 2024 salary would only be partially covered (USD 9,000 due, but
USD 8,833.33 covered), leaving a remainder of USD 166.67 for August 2024 plus USD
48,000 the remaining salaries from September 2024 through April 2025 (USD 6,000 x
8).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20707
56. As the Club failed to produce further proofs of payment and the Player did not provide any
additional explanations in this respect, the Single Judge was left to conclude that, pursuant
to the above, there was in principle still a balance of USD 48,166.67 net across the
Employment Contract and Protocol. Nevertheless, as the Player specifically limited his
request for relief to USD 41,000 net, the Single Judge could only award up to this amount
(ne ultra petita).
57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Employment Contract and Protocol, up to the amount
specifically requested by the Player, i.e., USD 41,000 net.
58. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts. However, given that the
allocation of payments by the Single Judge differs substantially from the allocation of
payments set forth by the Player (and even the total amount outstanding differs), the Single
Judge considered that the request for interest as set forth by the Player could not be
granted in this particular instance. Therefore, the Single Judge, following the Tribunal’s
constant practice under similar circumstances, considered it appropriate to award interest
on the outstanding amounts as of the date of the claim.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
59. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
60. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
61. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
62. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the sixth offense by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a fine of USD 12,500 on the Respondent in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20707
63. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
d. Costs
69. 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.
70. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20707
71. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20707
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Erzhan Tokotaev.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Erzhan Tokotaev, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 41,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 September
2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
A fine in the amount of USD 12,500 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-20707:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
8.
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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20707
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20707
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. 18