Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21975
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Milos Deletic
BY:
Johan VAN GAALEN, South Africa
CLAIMANT:
Milos Deletic, Serbia
Represented by Alkis Papantoniou
RESPONDENT:
Panserraikos 1946 FC, Greece
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21975
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 July 2024, the Serbian player Milos Deletic (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player) and
the Greek club Panserraikos 1946 FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its date of signature until 30
June 2026.
2.
On 18 August 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement to settle
their financial obligations under the Contract (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement).
3.
The Settlement Agreement read as follows:
“[…] 2. The parties decide that the football player will be transferred without fee to PAE POT
lraklis and he will receive as compensation for the remainder of his contract that would expire
on 30.06.2026 and any other agreement with Panserraikos 1946 FC, the amount of €75,000.00
(seventy-five thousand euros), in five (5) installments as it follows:
A) On 15.09.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
B) On 30.10.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
C) On 30.11.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
D) On 30.12.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
E) On 30.05.2026 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
[…]
3. All the amounts payable to the Player under the present agreement shall be paid to the Player
net of any taxes (including but not limited to income tax and any other taxes and/or burdens
arising from the said payments) or obligations - deductions in favor of social insurance funds,
and generally any taxes, fees and burdens existing at the time of signing or generated in the
future, regardless of their title, even if all of the aforesaid amounts have been confirmed and/or
charged on the Player's Tax Identification Number (TIN) and/or social insurance number,
whenever they are confirmed/or charged.
[…]
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21975
6. In the event that any installment of paragraph 2 or amount of paragraph 7 is not paid on
time and the relevant amount is not repaid within ten (10) days from the sending of a written
notice by the player, then the player will have the right to lodge a claim before FIFA for the entire
remaining amount of the settlement and will be entitled to compensation at an interest rate of
5% per annum from the due date of the installment until the payment date, as provided.
[…]
7. The parties agree that in the event that the club to which the player is transferred, PAE POT
IRAKLIS, after the end of the 2025-2026 season, secures promotion to Super League 1, then the
player shall receive from installment E (30.05.2026), of paragraph 2 of this agreement, only the
amount of €5,000 (five thousand euros). In the event that PAE POT lraklis does not secure
promotion to Super League 1, then PAE Panserraikos shall be obliged to pay the full amount of
installment E (30.05.2026) of paragraph 2, totally €15,000 (fifteen thousand euros). […]”
4.
On 16 September 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested
payment within 10 days of the first instalment of the Settlement Agreement in the amount
of EUR 15,000 net.
5.
On 26 September 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 15,000 net to the Claimant.
6.
On 31 October 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 10 days of the second instalment of the Settlement Agreement in the amount of EUR
15,000 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 18 November 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.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations
under the Settlement Agreement, thus he is entitled to the remaining balance of the
Settlement Agreement in the amount of EUR 60,000. In this respect, the Claimant referred
to the wording of article 6 of the Settlement Agreement.
9.
Accordingly, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“(a) EUR 15,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31.10.2025 and until the date of effective payment;
and
(b) EUR 45,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11.11.2025 and until the date of effective payment.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21975
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Respondent argued that the Claimant
incorrectly interpreted the wording of the Settlement Agreement. In fact, the Respondent
stated that the fifth instalment of the Settlement Agreement is conditional to the
occurrence of the specific event stipulated in its article 7, which did not occur yet.
11. Considering the foregoing, it is the position of the Respondent that it is currently under no
obligation to pay the fifth instalment of the Settlement Agreement to the Claimant as it is
premature.
12. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“- Accept the present brief in its entirety;
- Dismiss the Claimant's requests to the extent and for the reasons described above;
- Acknowledge that the only outstanding balance, correctly calculated, amounts to EUR 45.000;
- Reject any request for sporting sanctions, or legal costs;”
c. Replica of the Claimant
13. In his replica, the Claimant argued that for the payment of the fifth instalment of the
Settlement Agreement to be conditional, it should have been explicitly provided in its article
2 rather than in its article 7.
14. In other words, it is the position of the Claimant that the debt of the Respondent was not
under a condition precedent, and that, in any event, the Respondent must have complied
with its financial obligations under the Settlement Agreement until 31 May 2025 to benefit
from said reduction of its debt. In this respect, the Claimant stated that at the time the
Respondent breached the Settlement Agreement, which validly activated its acceleration
clause, the said condition precedent was not realised.
15. Having stated the above, the Claimant reiterated his initial requests for relief, namely that
the acceleration clause of the Settlement Agreement is clear and that he is therefore
entitled to EUR 60,000 as the remaining balance of the Settlement Agreement.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
16. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its initial position, namely that the occurrence of
the sporting event stipulated in article 7 of the Settlement Agreement has not occurred and
that the Claimant is therefore not yet entitled to the fifth instalment of the Settlement
Agreement.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21975
17. Accordingly, the Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“- Accept the present and the brief in their entirety;
- Dismiss the Claimant’s requests to the extent and for the reasons described above;
- Acknowledge that the fifth instalment provided under Article 7 of the Private Settlement
Agreement dated 18 August 2025 is conditional, not yet due, and therefore not payable at this
stage;
- Confirm that the alleged amount of EUR 60,000 claimed by the Claimant is contractually and
legally unfounded;
- Declare that, in any event, the maximum possible outstanding amount cannot exceed EUR
45,000, subject to the outcome of the sporting condition described in Article 7;
- Reject any request for interest in relation to the conditional fifth instalment;
- Reject any request for sporting sanctions, procedural costs, or legal costs;”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 18 November 2025 and submitted
for decision on 11 February 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.
19. 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 Serbian player and a Greek club.
20. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21975
b. Burden of proof
21. 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
22. 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
23. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
it concerned a claim from the Player against the Club for overdue payables under the
Settlement Agreement.
24. On one hand, the Single Judge noted the Player’s position that he is entitled to the
remaining balance of the Settlement Agreement in the amount of EUR 60,000 as per the
wording of its acceleration clause.
25. On the other hand, the Single Judge observed that the Club acknowledged its debt of EUR
45,000 to the Player but argued that he incorrectly interpreted the wording of the
Settlement Agreement, as its fifth instalment is conditional to the occurrence of the specific
event stipulated in its article 7, which did not occur yet.
26. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if the Claimant is
entitled to the claimed amounts and accordingly determined that the validity of the
acceleration clause had to be assessed.
27. In this framework, the Single Judge first recalled the following wording of the Settlement
Agreement:
“[…] 2. The parties decide that the football player will be transferred without fee to PAE POT
lraklis and he will receive as compensation for the remainder of his contract that would expire
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21975
on 30.06.2026 and any other agreement with Panserraikos 1946 FC, the amount of €75,000.00
(seventy-five thousand euros), in five (5) installments as it follows:
A) On 15.09.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
B) On 30.10.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
C) On 30.11.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
D) On 30.12.2025 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
E) On 30.05.2026 the amount of 15.000,00€ net, which will be deposited into the bank account
listed below, unless the Player designates a different bank account.
[…]
6. In the event that any installment of paragraph 2 or amount of paragraph 7 is not paid on
time and the relevant amount is not repaid within ten (10) days from the sending of a written
notice by the player, then the player will have the right to lodge a claim before FIFA for the entire
remaining amount of the settlement and will be entitled to compensation at an interest rate of
5% per annum from the due date of the installment until the payment date, as provided.
[…]
7. The parties agree that in the event that the club to which the player is transferred, PAE POT
IRAKLIS, after the end of the 2025-2026 season, secures promotion to Super League 1, then the
player shall receive from installment E (30.05.2026), of paragraph 2 of this agreement, only the
amount of €5,000 (five thousand euros). In the event that PAE POT lraklis does not secure
promotion to Super League 1, then PAE Panserraikos shall be obliged to pay the full amount of
installment E (30.05.2026) of paragraph 2, totally €15,000 (fifteen thousand euros). […]”
28. The Single Judge then recalled that acceleration clauses have been traditionally recognized
by the Football Tribunal and by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and are not
considered as penalties stricto sensu, as such clauses do not entail the payment of
additional amounts different to the principal amounts whose payment was agreed, but
rather trigger the accelerated payment of the principal amounts due, which is a practice
considered proportional if the parties agreed on its application, as occurred in the present
case.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21975
29. In the Single Judge’s view, the acceleration clause in question constitutes a security in
benefit of the creditor since it encourages the debtor party to respect its financial
obligations towards the creditor party. In other words, the Single Judge held that article 6
of the Settlement Agreement is an early maturity of the principal amount due, which – in
casu – is proportionate, in light of what was specifically agreed between the parties under
the Settlement Agreement within their autonomy of the will (pacta sunt servanda).
30. In continuation, the Single Judge emphasized that the acceleration clause of the Settlement
Agreement expressly provided that, if any of its instalments is not paid on time and is not
remedied following the Player’s default notice to the Club, the Player shall have the right to
lodge a claim before FIFA for the entire remaining amount of the Settlement Agreement. In
this respect, the Single Judge took note that the wording of article 2 of the Settlement
Agreement established the compensation awarded to the Player to EUR 75,000 and did not
refer in any way to a reduction under article 7 of the Settlement Agreement. Similarly, the
Single Judge pointed out that the wording of the acceleration clause of the Settlement
Agreement did not refer to a contingent, future adjustment that may arise under its article
7.
31. Furthermore, the Single Judge held that article 6 of the Settlement Agreement prevailed
over its article 7 as the contrary would be against the purpose of the acceleration clause,
namely for the Player to receive the accelerated payment of the principal amount due
under the Settlement Agreement. Put differently, the Single Judge stressed that article 7 of
the Settlement Agreement operated only as a conditional modification of its instalment E
at its scheduled time if the specified event occurred and did not operate retroactively to
reduce the amount recoverable by the Player under the acceleration clause.
32. For the sake of completeness, based on the principle in dubio contra stipulatorem, the Single
Judge considered that any ambiguity with the wording of the Settlement Agreement shall
be interpreted against the Club.
33. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the acceleration
clause stipulated in the Settlement Agreement is valid and binding on the parties. Given
the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined that said
acceleration clause was triggered on 11 November 2025. In this respect, the Single Judge
recalled that the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations concerning the
second instalment of the Settlement Agreement, due on 30 October 2025, despite
benefiting from an additional period of ten days pursuant to the Claimant’s default notice
dated 31 October 2025 and in accordance with article 6 of the Settlement Agreement.
34. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Player’s claim for the accelerated balance of
the Settlement Agreement should not be reduced by the contingent promotion-based
adjustment in its article 7.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21975
35. Consequently, bearing in mind the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in
essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single
Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant EUR 60,000 as the
outstanding amount under the Settlement Agreement, corresponding to its second to fifth
instalments.
36. 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 amount under the Settlement Agreement
as follows:
•
Over the amount of EUR 15,000, as from 31 October 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
Over the amount of EUR 45,000, as from 11 November 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21975
41. 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21975
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Milos Deletic, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Panserraikos 1946 FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 October 2025 until
the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 45,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 November 2025
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21975
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