Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21206
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Leandro
Deyrinio Kappel
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Leandro Deyrinio Kappel, Netherlands
Represented by Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Korhan Armağan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21206
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 January 2025, the Dutch player, Leandro Deyrinio Kappel (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant) and the Turkish club, Sanliurfaspor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Standard Contract) valid as from 30
January 2025 until 30 June 2025.
2.
According to clause 3 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to the “minimum wage.”
3.
On the same day, the parties signed a second contract (hereinafter: the Employment
Contract).
4.
According to clause 6 of the Employment Contract, the parties agreed on the following
salary:
“For the remaining of 2024/2025 Football Season
•
A monthly salary of 12.500.-EUR net per month, totally 50.000.-EUR net will be divided into
4 months and to be paid on the last day of each month between February 2025 and May
2025 (12.500.-EUR x 4).
•
20.000.-EUR net have been paid as advance payment on the signature date of this
Employment Agreement.
•
The club will also pay €1.000,- per month for 4 months for accommodation and car. The
Player may stay in a single room with foods at the Club facilities.”
5.
On 8 May 2025, the Player lodged a claim before FIFA under the reference FPSD-19165
(hereinafter: the First Claim). The Player later amended his request for relief and requested
among others, the payment of the salary of May 2025 as well as the accommodation and
car allowance corresponding to the same month.
6.
On 26 January 2026, both the grounds for the First Claim and the rectified decision were
notified to the parties. The decision stated the following:
“[…] 2.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 33,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 6,500 as from 1 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21206
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,500 as from 1 April 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,500 as from 1 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected, without prejudice to any
amounts deemed premature at the date of filing of the claim. […]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 6 October 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
8.
The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for overdue payables.
9.
The Player stated that he lodged the First Claim requesting the salary of February, March
and April 2025. However, as the salary and the allowances of May 2025 became due only
on 1 June 2025, he could not include these payments in the First Claim.
10. He further argued that the Club has not yet paid the salary and allowances corresponding
to the month of May 2025.
11. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“V. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
16. The Claimant declares that he reserves his rights for surplus.
17. Given all the foregoing, the Claimant requests the DRC to:
Order that the Respondent has to pay the overdue and unpaid amount of 13,500
Euros (12,500 May Salary and 1,000 May Accommodation) with its interest starting
from 1st June 2025 until the effective payment date.
If and so far, the amounts as mentioned over will not be paid to the Player within the
stated time limit, Article 24 of RSTP and disciplinary sanctions will be imposed to the
club.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21206
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Club argued that the present claim has been affected by res judicata as “The
Player's current claim arises from the identical contractual framework – the same employment
agreement and player contract – that was the subject of the first case.”
13. In addition, the Club alleged that it has complied with all its financial obligations and
submitted 3 proofs of payment (the same as in the First Claim) from 30 January 2025 and
27 March 2025.
14. Regarding the accommodation allowance, the Club argued that the Player stayed in the
Club’s facilities and therefore the Club cannot be held responsible for the costs of his extra
accommodation.
15. In view of the above, the Club requested the following:
“In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request:
•
Uphold the preliminary objection regarding the inadmissibility of the claim based on the
principles of res judicata and ne bis in idem since the claims are already demanded and
rejected on the case of FPSD-19165.
•
In any cases, that all claims of the Claimant be dismissed in their entirety;
•
In the event that the Tribunal reaches a contrary conclusion, deduct the Payments made
by the Club from the Player’s earnings,
•
In any case we respectfully also request that the claim be dismissed at least in respect of
the unclear interest commencement dates and rule that the interest shall be start from the
date of filing of the claim.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
16. Regarding the admissibility of the claim, the Player argued that when he submitted the First
Claim, the amounts for May 2025 had not yet fallen due.
17. He further alleged that “although the salary receivable for May was later requested through an
amendment in the same case, this amendment was not taken into consideration by the DRC, the
amended petition was not served on the Respondent, and FIFA did not request any response
from the Respondent regarding this amendment. It is therefore evident that the amended was
not considered in the [First Claim].” Consequently, the Player argued that “the principle of res
judicata is clearly not applicable.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21206
18. Regarding the proof of payment presented by the Club, the Player argued that they had
already been submitted in the context of the First Claim and therefore these payments
cannot possibly correspond to the salary and allowances of May 2025.
19. In light of the foregoing, the Player reiterated his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
20. Despite being invited to do so, the Club did not provide its final comments.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21206
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 6 October 2025 and submitted for
decision on 16 March 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.
22. 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 Dutch player and a Turkish club.
23. 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. Admissibility
24. Having established the above, the Single Judge observed that the Club contested the
admissibility of the claim, alleging that the present claim was barred by the principle of res
judicata.
25. In view of the above, the Single Judge had to establish whether, considering the general
principle of res judicata, it could enter into the substance of the matter and pass a decision.
Accordingly, the Single Judge recalled that on the basis of the principle of res judicata, a
decision-making body is not in a position to deal with 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.
26. In this regard, the Single Judge went on to analyse the evidence on file regarding the First
Claim and noticed that indeed a decision had been passed by the DRC on 16 January 2026
which is now final and binding.
27. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that the principle of res judicata is applicable if
cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the matter in
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21206
dispute are identical. In this respect, we recall that the criterion of the identity of the parties
is given if the parties to the disputes are the same. Having said this, both the Claimant and
the Respondent were the parties in the proceedings leading to the decision previously
rendered as well as in the dispute at stake. As a consequence, considering that the parties
to both disputes are the same, the Single Judge concluded that the condition of the identity
of parties is fulfilled.
28. Regarding the criterion of object of the matter in dispute, the Single Judge recalled that the
identity of the subject matter is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant requests of
the two claims are analogous.
29. In this regard, the Single Judge considered that pursuant to the modified decision in the
First Claim, the amounts corresponding to May 2025 were deemed premature. Hence, in
the absence of a formal ruling on this part of the claim in the First Claim, the Single Judge
considered that the criteria of identity of object has not been met.
30. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the present claim has not been affected by the
principle of res judicata.
c. Burden of proof
31. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
32. 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
33. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the amounts that remained outstanding from the parties’
employment relationship.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21206
34. The Single Judge noted that the Player requested the salary and the housing allowance of
May 2025 of the total amount of EUR 13,500 arising from the Employment Contract (EUR
12,500 as salary and EUR 1,000 as accommodation allowance).
35. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that, although the Club alleged having fulfilled all
its financial obligations towards the Player, it failed to discharge its burden of proving such
compliance, as the proofs of payment submitted corresponded to payments relating to
previous months.
36. In continuation, regarding the accommodation allowance, the Single Judge noted that the
Club disputed that the Player was entitled to such allowance, arguing that he was
supposedly residing at the Club’s premises and therefore could not be responsible for
paying the allowance. In this regard, the Single Judge deemed that the allowance was
indeed due and payable to the Player. Not only does the Employment Contract not specify
any obligation to provide proof of rental expenses, but furthermore, the allowance itself is
defined as covering both accommodation and car, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that
no link to actual living expenses was required for the payment to be made.
37. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to award the Player the total amount of EUR 13,500
corresponding to the salary and allowance of May 2025 of EUR 12,500 and EUR 1,000
respectively arising from the Employment Contract.
38. Finally, 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 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21206
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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
e. Costs
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21206
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Leandro Deyrinio Kappel, is admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay the Claimant the following amount:
- EUR 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 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. 11
REF. FPSD-21206
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. 12