Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21708
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Joelson Augusto Mendes Mango Fernandes
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Joelson Augusto Mendes Mango Fernandes, Portugal
Represented by José Gomes Mendes
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21708
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 July 2023, the Portuguese player Joelson Augusto Mendes Mango Fernandes
(hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter,
the Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract)
valid as from 12 July 2023 until 30 June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to the “Payments and Special Provisions” 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 2023/2024 season, EUR 246,000 net for the
2024/2025 season and EUR 262,000 net for the 2025/2026 season.
3.
On 29 August 2025, the Parties concluded the so-called “Mutual Termination” (hereinafter,
the Termination Agreement), by means of which they “agreed on the premature termination of
[the Contract] in accordance with the following conditions, to enable his transfer to Gil Vicente
Futebol Clube”.
4.
The Termination Agreement provides, inter alia, the following:
“The Parties mutually and amicably agreed as follows:
a. The Player, as of the signing date of this Mutual Termination, has outstanding receivables
in the total amount of 69.800 Euro (sixty-nine thousand eight hundred euros) NET from
the Club. The Player hereby irrevocably and explicitly agrees and declares that all of his
receivables from the Club, apart from the 69.800 Euro mentioned above, arising from
any and all contracts signed between the Parties were paid in full.
b. The totality of the Player’s receivables from the Club, in the total amount of 69.800 Euro,
will be paid to the Player by the Club in two equal instalments of 34.900 Euro (thirty-four
thousand nine hundred euros) NET, respectively on 20.09.2025 and 20.10.2025. All
instalments shall be paid by wire transfer to the Player’s bank account known to the Club,
net of any taxes, banking fees or withholding, all such charges to be borne by the Club.
c. In case the Club fails to deliver the payment of the first instalment on its due date and in
full, the second instalment will immediately become due and payable, without the need
for a notification or any other action. In case of a delay of the payment (of either
instalment) interest in the rate of 18% p.a. will apply”.
5.
The Termination Agreement provided the following email addresses of the Club:
i*****[email protected] and h**********[email protected].
6.
On 26 September 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 10 days
to pay EUR 69,800 net plus 18% interest p.a. on said amount under the Termination
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21708
Agreement. The Player addressed his default notice to i*****[email protected] and
h**********[email protected].
7.
On 22 October 2025, the Player sent the Club a second default notice, also addressed to
i*****[email protected] and h**********[email protected], granting it an additional
deadline of 10 days to pay EUR 69,800 net plus 18% interest p.a. on said amount under the
Termination Agreement.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 3 November 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
9.
In his claim, the Player asserted that the Club failed to pay the first instalment under the
Termination Agreement, amounting to EUR 34,900 net, which was due on 20 September
2025.
10. The Player further contended that, as a consequence of the foregoing, the second
instalment under the Termination Agreement —also amounting to EUR 34,900 net—
became automatically due in accordance with paragraph (c) of the Termination Agreement.
In addition, the Player claimed entitlement to interest at a rate of 18% per annum as from
21 September 2025 until the date of effective payment.
11. Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Tribunal:
A. Determine that, on 22 October 2025, the Respondent had overdue payables towards the
Claimant for the purposes of article 12bis of the RSTP;
B. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the outstanding remuneration due under the
Termination Agreement in full, in the amount of EUR 69,800 (sixty-nine thousand eight
hundred euros) NET.
C. Order the Respondent to pay interest on the outstanding amount at a rate of 18%
(eighteen percent) per annum, accruing from 21 September 2025 until the date of actual
payment, as expressly established in the Termination Agreement and accepted, and in
accordance with FIFA DRC jurisprudence;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21708
D. Impose on the Club a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amounts are paid to the Claimant, pursuant to Article
24 FIFA RSTP, if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days
of notification of the decision, and until such time as the due amount is paid;
E. Order the Respondent to bear all costs related to the present proceedings, including any
legal representation expenses incurred by the Claimant”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Club asserted that it only became aware of the Termination Agreement
upon the Player’s filing of the present claim before FIFA, arguing that its President and
Board had changed following the conclusion of said agreement. The Club further
contended that it did not receive the notifications referenced by the Player in his claim.
13. Moreover, the Club submitted that it is still suffering the consequences of the earthquake
of 6 February 2023 that struck Hatay, which, according to the Club, constitutes a force
majeure event.
14. Based on the above, the Club requested the following:
“Within the scope of the above, we respectfully request:
a. The cancellation of the alternative interest clause in light of the unjust enrichment and
lesion beyond moiety; and
b. No sanctions to be imposed since the Respondent did not receive the notification of
22.10.2025”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21708
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 3 November 2025 and
submitted for decision on 9 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.
16. 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.
17. 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
18. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
19. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21708
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerns a
dispute between the Player and the Club for overdue payables arising from the
Termination Agreement concluded between them on 29 August 2025.
21. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay
the first instalment stipulated in the Termination Agreement by its due date. As a result,
and pursuant to the terms of said agreement, the Player argued that the second instalment
became automatically due, together with interest at a rate of 18% per annum on the total
outstanding amount.
22. The Single Judge further noted that, for its part, the Club did not dispute its failure to pay
the first instalment nor challenge the validity or applicability of the automatic extension
clause under the Termination Agreement. Instead, the Club submitted that it was allegedly
unaware of the Termination Agreement due to a subsequent change in its President and
Board, and additionally invoked an alleged situation of force majeure stemming from the
earthquake of February 2023 in Türkiye as justification for its non-compliance.
23. In this context, and considering that the non-payment of the amounts claimed remained
undisputed, the Single Judge held that the key issue was whether the Club had provided
sufficient and credible evidence demonstrating a valid legal justification for its failure to
comply with its obligations under the Termination Agreement.
24. In this regard, the Single Judge first emphasised that internal changes in a club’s
management —such as a change of President or Board— do not extinguish or mitigate the
club’s contractual obligations towards its counterparties. The principle of pacta sunt
servanda remains fully applicable, and such internal governance changes cannot constitute
a valid justification to avoid or delay the performance of binding financial commitments.
25. With respect to the Club’s allegation of force majeure arising from the earthquake of 6
February 2023, the Single Judge noted that the Termination Agreement was concluded
more than two years after the occurrence of such event. Therefore, and as established in
the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Club could have anticipated its
financial (in)ability to comply with the financial obligations undertaken under the
Termination Agreement (in this regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 23 July 2025, Donkor, DRC
Decision of 16 January 2025, Mendes de Andrade).
26. Consequently, the Single Judge rejected the arguments submitted by the Club and
concluded that no valid justification existed to derogate from the general legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda in the case at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21708
27. Having established the foregoing, and given that it remained undisputed that the Club has
failed to comply with the payment of the first instalment of the Termination Agreement,
amounting to EUR 34,900 net and due on 20 September 2025, the Single Judge decided
that the Player is unquestionably entitled to receive said amount.
28. Regarding the automatic acceleration of the second instalment —which the Club also did
not contest— the Single Judge noted that, pursuant to paragraph (c) of the Termination
Agreement, which provides:
“In case the Club fails to deliver the payment of the first instalment on its due date and in
full, the second instalment will immediately become due and payable, without the need for
a notification or any other action. In case of a delay of the payment (of either instalment)
interest in the rate of 18% p.a. will apply”.
29. After having carefully analysed the aforementioned contractual provision, the Single Judge
observed that the Parties explicitly agreed that, in case the Club failed to remit the first
instalment on its due date (i.e., 20 September 2025), the second instalment would become
automatically due. Accordingly, the Single Judge concluded that said instalment became
payable on 21 September 2025.
30. Furthermore, and without prejudice to the Club’s lack of objection to the acceleration of
the second instalment, the Single Judge deemed it relevant to emphasise that the
acceleration of subsequent payments upon the non-payment of an amount previously due
as principal is a practice traditionally recognized and considered proportionate, insofar as
it constitutes a security in benefit of the creditor, since it encourages the debtor party to
respect its financial obligations towards the creditor party (in this regard, inter alia, DRC
Decision of 18 July 2025, Hevel).
31. As a result, and by referring again to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge
decided that the Club is also liable to pay the Player the accelerated amount of EUR 39,900
net (i.e., the second instalment).
32. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request, the explicit terms of paragraph
(c) of the Termination Agreement, as well as the constant practice of the Football Tribunal
in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 18% per
annum on the aforementioned amount, as from 21 September 2025 until the date of
effective payment, which the Single Judge found to be aligned with the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
33. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21708
34. At this point, the Single Judge noted the Club’s argument that it allegedly did not receive
the Player’s default notices. However, after thoroughly examining the evidence submitted
by the Player, the Single Judge observed that the default notices were sent to the email
addresses expressly designated by the Parties in the Termination Agreement. Moreover,
the documentary evidence clearly demonstrates that the notices were duly dispatched. As
the Club failed to provide any substantiating evidence supporting its assertion, the Single
Judge found that the Club’s argument in this respect could not be upheld.
35. Having established the above, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club 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.
36. 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.
37. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
she has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. 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.
38. On account of the above, and bearing in mind that the Club is a repeat offender, the Single
Judge decided to impose a fine of USD 10,000 on the Club, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
iii. 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
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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21708
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.
d. 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 her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21708
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joelson Augusto Mendes Mango Fernandes, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 69,800 net as outstanding amount plus 18% interest per annum as from 21
September 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A fine in the amount of USD 10,000 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-21708:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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.
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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21708
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21708
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. 13