Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21460
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Žan Žužek
BY:
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia)
CLAIMANT:
Žan Žužek, Slovenia
Represented by Akın Sarımustafa
RESPONDENT:
Gençlerbirliği Spor Kulübü, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21460
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 August 2024, the Slovenian player Žan Žužek (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant)
and the Turkish club Gençlerbirliği Spor Kulübü (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 8 August 2024
until 30 June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to the “Payments and Special Conditions” section of the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties), inter alia, a fixed
remuneration of EUR 220,000 net for the 2024/2025 season, as well as EUR 10,000 net for
housing and car expenses, payable for the period August 2024 – June 2025.
3.
The “Payments and Special Conditions” section of the Contract also stipulates:
“Amounts mentioned under this contract are net of Turkish taxes which are subject to
stoppage, that the Club is obliged to pay only. The amounts mentioned under this contract
are net of all Turkish taxes (existing and future) payable on the amounts paid by the club,
of all social charges and/or insurance contributions, of all bank fee, of all exchange fees
and/or losses and of all deductions of any kind whatsoever”.
4.
On 12 September 2025, the Player paid TRY 1,505,133.34 to the Turkish tax authorities as
income tax corresponding to his earnings for the period from 1 January to 12 December
2024.
5.
On 10 October 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it seven days to pay
EUR 31,033.94, corresponding to the income tax he paid for the 2024 fiscal year.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 21 October 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
7.
In his claim, the Player argued that, pursuant to the Contract, the Parties agreed on a netsalary structure that “operates as a contractual gross-up mechanism under which the Club
assumes the entire tax and charges burden so that the Player’s Remuneration is preserved intact
at the agreed net level”. The Player further stated that, under the Contract, all payments
were net and all tax liabilities were to be borne by the Club.
8.
On this basis, the Player maintained that he is entitled to reimbursement of the income tax
he paid on 12 September 2025 to the Turkish tax authorities in the amount of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21460
TRY 1,505,133.34, together with interest as from the date of payment or, alternatively, from
10 October 2025.
9.
Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“The Claimant firstly would like to request you to make a decision that the Respondent has
to pay the tax amount paid by the Player in the amount of 1.505.133,34-TL (One Million Five
Hundred Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Three Turkish Liras Thirty-Four Cents) with its
5% p.a. interest as from the 12 September 2025 (or, in the alternative, as from 10 October
2025) until the date of effective payment. Alternatively, the same to be paid in EUR at the
CBRT banknote selling rate on 12 September 2025, together with any statutory surcharges
related to the Remuneration.
In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file the case herein,
we would like to request your honourable chamber to make a decision that the judicial costs
and the attorneyship fees that the Claimant is faced with shall be paid by the Respondent.
All bank fees, transfer costs and exchange rate losses incurred to effect payment shall
likewise be borne by the Respondent pursuant to the Net of Turkish Taxes Clause”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club categorically rejected any liability to reimburse the amounts claimed.
It argued that, pursuant to the Contract, its responsibility was limited solely to the payment
of stoppage (withholding tax). According to the Club, under Turkish law, the obligation to
declare and pay income tax lies with the individual earning the taxable income, whereas
the employer’s duty is confined to deducting withholding tax through payroll and remitting
such amounts to the tax authorities.
11. The Club submitted that the relevant contractual clause clearly and unambiguously
provides that it is obliged to pay only taxes subject to stoppage. Consequently, its fiscal
responsibility is limited to withholding and remitting the tax amounts required to be
deducted from employment income. The Club further argued that the reference to “net
amounts” must be interpreted in light of the preceding sentence, which restricts its
obligations exclusively to withholding tax.
12. In view of the above, the Club asserted that withholding tax is the only tax for which it was
contractually responsible, and therefore it bears no additional fiscal or contractual
obligations towards the Player.
13. On this basis, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in its entirety.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21460
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 21 October 2025 and submitted for decision on 19 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.
15. 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 Slovenian player and a Turkish club.
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21460
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for reimbursement of income tax.
20. In this respect, the Single Judge first noted that, on the one hand, the Player asserted that
he is entitled to reimbursement of TRY 1,505,133.34, corresponding to the amount he paid
to the Turkish tax authorities on 12 September 2025 as income tax for the 2024 fiscal year.
21. The Single Judge further noted that, conversely, the Club categorically rejected the Player’s
entitlement to such reimbursement, arguing that, under the Contract, its responsibility was
limited exclusively to the payment of stoppage (withholding tax).
22. At the outset, the Single Judge observed that the Club did not dispute that, on 12
September 2025, the Player paid TRY 1,505,133.34 to the Turkish tax authorities as income
tax for the 2024 fiscal year, nor that the tax liability derived directly from the Parties’
employment relationship. Accordingly, the Single Judge noted that the dispute focused
solely on the interpretation of the Contract and whether the Club contractually undertook
to assume all tax liabilities, including income tax, and not only withholding tax.
23. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the arguments and evidence presented by the Parties, whether the Player is entitled to the
reimbursement of the income tax he paid.
24. In analysing this issue, the Single Judge turned to the relevant clause in the “Payments and
Special Conditions” section of the Contract, and noted that it provides as follows:
“Amounts mentioned under this contract are net of Turkish taxes which are subject to
stoppage, that the Club is obliged to pay only. The amounts mentioned under this contract
are net of all Turkish taxes (existing and future) payable on the amounts paid by the club,
of all social charges and/or insurance contributions, of all bank fee, of all exchange fees
and/or losses and of all deductions of any kind whatsoever”.
25. After careful consideration of the aforementioned contractual provision, the Single Judge
found that the wording of the clause is explicit and comprehensive. In this respect, the
Single Judge underscored that the Contract clearly stipulates that all amounts are “net of
Turkish taxes”, not limited to taxes “subject to stoppage,” but explicitly extending to all
existing and future Turkish taxes, all social charges, insurance contributions, bank fees,
exchange losses, and all deductions of any kind whatsoever. In the Single Judge’s view, such
drafting unequivocally establishes a full net-salary agreement under which the Player’s
remuneration must be preserved entirely free of any tax burden. Accordingly, the Single
Judge held that any tax paid personally by the Player constitutes a transfer of a financial
obligation that the Contract expressly assigned to the Club.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21460
26. Based on the foregoing, and considering the evidence submitted by the Player regarding
the amounts paid to the Turkish tax authorities as income tax for the 2024 fiscal year (which
remained undisputed by the Club), the Single Judge decided that the Player is entitled to
reimbursement of the amount paid, i.e., TRY 1,505,133.34, together with interest at a rate
of 5% per annum as from 13 September 2025, i.e., the day following the payment date, in
line with the established practice of the Football Tribunal.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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
32. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21460
33. 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.
34. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21460
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Žan Žužek Filip Mihaljević, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Gençlerbirliği Spor Kulübü, must pay to the Claimant TRY 1,505,133.34 as
reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as from 13 September 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. 9
REF. FPSD-21460
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. 10