Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21976
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Funsho Ibrahim Bamgboye
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
CLAIMANT:
Funsho Ibrahim Bamgboye, Nigeria
Represented by Loizos Hadjidemetriou
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21976
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 July 2024, the Nigerian player Funsho Ibrahim Bamgboye (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 1
July 2024 until 31 [sic] June 2026.
2.
In the Contract, the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties)
agreed on an automatic extension option which reads as follows:
“During the contract period, within the scope of the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 seasons, if
the player plays 45 minutes in 35 official games (is subject to cumulative fulfilment of all
conditions) this contract will automatically be considered extended for one more year for
2026/2027 football season”.
3.
Pursuant to the “Payments and special provisions” section of the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player the following fixed remuneration:
2024/2025 Season — EUR 360,000 net as follows:
— EUR 60,000 net as advance payment, payable upon signing the Contract; and
— EUR 300,000 net as salaries, payable in the following 10 instalments:
o EUR 30,000 net on 31 August 2024;
o EUR 30,000 net on 30 September 2024;
o EUR 30,000 net on 31 October 2024;
o EUR 30,000 net on 30 November 2024;
o EUR 30,000 net on 31 December 2024;
o EUR 30,000 net on 31 January 2025;
o EUR 30,000 net on 28 February 2025;
o EUR 30,000 net on 31 March 2025;
o EUR 30,000 net on 30 April 2025; and
o EUR 30,000 net on 31 May 2025.
2025/2026 Season — EUR 380,000 net as follows:
o EUR 38,000 net on 31 August 2025;
o EUR 38,000 net on 30 September 2025;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21976
o EUR 38,000 net on 31 October 2025;
o EUR 38,000 net on 30 November 2025;
o EUR 38,000 net on 31 December 2025;
o EUR 38,000 net on 31 January 2026;
o EUR 38,000 net on 28 February 2026;
o EUR 38,000 net on 31 March 2026;
o EUR 38,000 net on 30 April 2026; and
o EUR 38,000 net on 31 May 2026.
2026/2027 Season — EUR 400,000 net as follows:
o EUR 40,000 net on 31 August 2026;
o EUR 40,000 net on 30 September 2026;
o EUR 40,000 net on 31 October 2026;
o EUR 40,000 net on 30 November 2026;
o EUR 40,000 net on 31 December 2026;
o EUR 40,000 net on 31 January 2027;
o EUR 40,000 net on 28 February 2027;
o EUR 40,000 net on 31 March 2027;
o EUR 40,000 net on 30 April 2027; and
o EUR 40,000 net on 31 May 2027.
4.
In addition, the Player was entitled to a bonus of EUR 500 net for each goal or assist scored
in official matches, payable “within 90 days following the registration of the leagues by TFF,
provided that this agreement is in force on the date of success and the relevant success. In the
event of early termination and/or termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Player shall
not claim any receivables regarding the success that will occur after the termination date. This
article is valid for contingent payments in case an amendment agreement is made between the
parties”.
5.
The “Payments and special provisions” section of the Contract also provided the Player’s
entitlement to the following fringe benefits:
“FRINGE BENEFITS (Applicable for the whole contractual period): The Player will be provided
with:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21976
o An apartment will be provided by the Club. All utility expenses (electricity, telephone,
water, etc.) will be paid by the Player.
o A car during the period of this employment contract will be provided by the Club. Traffic
fines, gasoline and any other expenses will be paid by the Player.
o Two round-trip business class flight tickets to the player’s country for his self and his family”
(per season).
6.
According to Clause 1 of the “Special Provisions” section of the Contract:
“Amounts determined under this Agreement (both fix and variable) are all net amounts and
the Club is liable to pay withholding taxes regarding these amounts in any and all
jurisdictions including if this contract is prematurely terminated”.
7.
On 1 October 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to
pay EUR 91,500 net, broken down as follows:
o EUR 38,000 corresponding to the August 2025 salary;
o EUR 38,000 corresponding to the September 2025 salary;
o EUR 2,000 as due bonuses for the 2024/2025 season;
o EUR 3,500 as due bonuses for the 2025/2026 season; and
o EUR 10,000 as accommodation allowances.
8.
On 19 October 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract due to outstanding
remuneration.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 18 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
10. In his claim, the Player argued that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract
due to outstanding remuneration, after having placed the Club in default, to no avail.
11. Based on the above, the Player claimed entitlement to the following amounts:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21976
— EUR 91,500 net as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
o EUR 38,000 net corresponding to the August 2025 salary;
o EUR 38,000 net corresponding to the September 2025 salary;
o EUR 2,000 net as bonuses for the 2024/2025 season; and
o EUR 3,500 net as bonuses for the 2025/2026 season.
— EUR 10,000 net as accommodation allowance for the 2025/2026 season. In this
regard, the Player argued that the Club agreed to pay him the total amount of
EUR 10,000 per season as contribution to his accommodation expenses, and
submitted a payment receipt for EUR 10,000 which, according to him, demonstrates
this.
— EUR 36,000 net as flight tickets. The Player confirmed that the Club provided him
with flight tickets for him and his wife for the 2024/2025 season. Accordingly, the
Player contended that the Club must pay him a total of six business-class return
tickets (i.e., two per season), which he estimated at EUR 6,000 per person per travel
“following information by the Respondent”.
— EUR 707,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Contract until May 2027. In this regard, the Player contended
that the Contract would have expired at the end of the 2026/2027 season even
though the extension of the Contract to cover said season was conditional upon the
Player participating in a minimum of matches. According to the Player, a condition
linking the extension of a contract to the player’s playing time or number of
appearances is potestative in nature, as it depends solely on the will of the Club, and
is therefore invalid and inapplicable.
— EUR 114,000 net as additional compensation.
12. Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“The Claimant requests the FIFA DRC to order the Respondent to pay the Claimant (…) the
following amounts:
o EUR 91,500 net, plus legal interest from the date when each payment became due, until
full settlement.
o EUR 704,000 net as compensation representing the Claimant’s agreed fixed
remuneration, plus legal interest from 19/10/2025 until full settlement.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21976
o EUR 10,000 net as compensation representing the Claimant’s agreed accommodation
allowance, plus legal interest from 19/10/2025 until full settlement.
o EUR 36,000 or any other compensation, as that will be determined by FIFA, representing
the Claimant’s agreed flight tickets, plus legal interest from 19/10/2025 until full
settlement.
o Additional compensation up to EUR 114,000, plus legal interest from 19/10/2025 until
full settlement”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Club first asserted that, at the time of termination, a total amount of
EUR 437,000 had accrued and was payable to the Player, broken down as follows:
o EUR 360,000 as fixed remuneration for the 2024/2025 season;
o EUR 1,000 as bonuses for the 2024/2025 season; and
o EUR 76,000 as salaries for August and September 2025.
14. The Club further stated that it has already paid EUR 360,000 and therefore considered the
Player’s request for EUR 91,500 as outstanding remuneration to be incorrect.
15. The Club also argued that the Contract stipulates that the Club is under the obligation to
pay withholding only, and therefore argued that the Player is not entitled to receive “net”
amounts.
16. Regarding the reimbursement of the accommodation allowance claimed, the Club
categorically denied having agreed with the Player to pay EUR 10,000 per season under this
concept. The Club noted that the Player failed to submit any evidence in this regard.
According to the Club, the payment of EUR 10,000 was made at the Player’s request, but
there is no agreement for any further payments for accommodation. The Club further
noted that the Contract does not provide for reimbursement of housing expenses but only
stipulates that accommodation will be provided by the Club. Referring to previous
decisions of the Football Tribunal, the Club argued that the Player failed to justify why he
entered into a separate rental agreement, failed to demonstrate any agreement with the
Club regarding reimbursement, and did not provide proof of actual payment of the alleged
rental amounts.
17. The Club maintained that the same reasoning applies verbatim to the claim for
reimbursement of flight expenses.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21976
18. Concerning compensation, particularly the inclusion of the amounts payable for the
2026/2027 season, the Club stated that “It cannot be understood how the Claimant reaches
the conclusion that compensation should be calculated by including the remuneration for the
2026/2027 season while also stating that such clauses are considered invalid and inapplicable”.
19. According to the Club, if the relevant clause is invalid and inapplicable, the remuneration
for the 2026/2027 season cannot be included in the calculation of compensation, and
therefore concluded that it should cover until 30 June 2026.
20. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Club added that the condition for the extension of
the Contract had not realized, and by referring to previous awards from the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS), concluded that the 2026/2027 season cannot be accounted in
terms of compensation.
21. The Club further stated that it is highly likely that the Player will sign an employment
contract with another club during the second transfer and registration period of the
2025/2026 season. The Club argued that any remuneration earned under such a contract
must be deducted from the amount claimed.
22. Based on the foregoing, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the explanations given above, by reserving all rights, the Respondent hereby
respectfully requests from the Honourable Chamber to reject the claims of the Claimant”.
c. Claimant’s additional comments
23. On 22 December 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
reply to the claim and informed the Parties about the closure of the submission phase of
the proceedings.
24. Notwithstanding the above, and based on art. 23 par. 2 of the Procedural Rule Governing
the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules), the FIFA general secretariat invited
the Player, by no later than 13 January 2026, to exclusively:
o Confirm whether the payments alleged by the Club had been received; and
o Inform of his employment situation as from the alleged termination of the Contract.
25. On 8 January 2026, the Player insisted that no payment was made during the 2025/2026
season, which was also confirmed by the Club itself, who acknowledged in its reply to the
claim that the Player was entitled to the salaries for August and September 2025.
26. Furthermore, the Player informed that he remains unemployed since the termination of
the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21976
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 18 November 2025 and submitted for
decision on 29 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
28. Furthermore, the Chamber 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 DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Nigerian player
and a Turkish club.
29. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it 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
30. The Chamber 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 Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it 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
31. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21976
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerned a
claim filed by the Player against the Club for breach of contract based on the alleged nonpayment of certain financial obligations by the Club as per the Contract, in accordance with
art. 14bis of the Regulations.
33. In this context, the members of the DRC acknowledged that their task was to determine,
based on the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact
remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of
the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
34. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
35. In this regard, and for the purposes of art. 14bis of the Regulations, the DRC observed that
the Player claimed not having received, inter alia, the August and September 2025 monthly
salaries. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player provided written evidence of
having put the Club in default on 1 October 2025 regarding the aforementioned
remuneration, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 19
October 2025.
36. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract. However, despite submitting
several receipts, the Club did not provide any documentary evidence confirming payment
of the aforementioned amounts.
37. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and the Club is therefore
liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the legal
consequences arising from the Club’s breach of contract.
Outstanding remuneration
39. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to EUR 119,500 net,
broken down as follows:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21976
o EUR 38,000 corresponding to the August 2025 salary;
o EUR 38,000 corresponding to the September 2025 salary;
o EUR 38,000 corresponding to the October 2025 salary;
o EUR 2,000 as due bonuses for the 2024/2025 season; and
o EUR 3,500 as due bonuses for the 2025/2026 season.
40. As to the bonuses, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant to the “Payments and special
provisions” of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a bonus of EUR 500 net for each goal
or assist scored in official matches. Having confirmed the contractual basis for the Player’s
claim, the Chamber observed that the documentation provided by the Player
demonstrates that he scored three goals and delivered one assist during the 2024/2025
season, thereby giving rise to a bonus entitlement of EUR 2,000 net (EUR 500 net times
four). The Chamber further noted that the evidence also confirms that, during the
2025/2026 season, the Player scored five goals and provided two assists, corresponding to
an additional entitlement of EUR 3,500 net (EUR 500 times seven).
41. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., EUR 119,500 net
126,500 as detailed ut supra.
42. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum over the outstanding fixed remuneration, as from the day
following each respective due date until the effective date of payment. For the October
2025 salary and the bonuses, the dies a quo shall be the date of termination, in line with
the Football Tribunal’s established jurisprudence, as follows:
o Over the August 2025 salary, as from 1 September 2025;
o Over the September 2025 salary, as from 1 October 2025;
o Over the October 2025 salary, as from 19 October 2025;
o Over the bonuses, as from 19 October 2025.
Accommodation allowance
43. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse the Player’s claim for accommodation allowance
in the amount of EUR 10,000 net.
44. In this respect, the Chamber first observed that the Contract granted the Player the right
to an apartment, but did not provide for any rent allowance or monetary compensation in
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21976
lieu thereof. As a result, the Chamber emphasised that any claim for a fixed
accommodation allowance would require clear and specific evidence demonstrating that
the Parties mutually agreed to such a payment beyond the contractual wording.
45. However, the Player failed to submit any documentary evidence —such as an addendum,
side agreement, written communication, or consistent payment pattern— establishing an
obligation on the part of the Club to pay EUR 10,000 per season for accommodation. In the
Chamber’s view, and consistent with the principle that the burden of proof lies with the
party asserting a right, the Player did not discharge his evidentiary burden.
46. Moreover, the Chamber concurred with the Club’s position that the single payment of
EUR 10,000 made during the 2024/2025 season cannot, by itself, create a contractual
obligation for subsequent seasons. A unilateral payment —absent evidence of a recurring
practice or a contractual amendment— does not suffice to demonstrate the existence of a
legally binding commitment for the future. The Chamber therefore found no basis to
establish that the Parties intended to convert the provision of an apartment into a fixed
monetary allowance.
47. In light of the above considerations, and given the absence of any contractual or evidentiary
foundation for the claim, the Chamber decided that the Player’s request for an
accommodation allowance in the amount of EUR 10,000 must be dismissed.
Flight tickets
48. In continuation, the Chamber proceeded to assess the Player’s claim for EUR 36,000 net
relating to flight tickets.
49. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, pursuant to the Contract, the Player was entitled
to two round-trip business-class flight tickets per season for himself and his family.
However, the Chamber noted that the Player expressly confirmed that he did not purchase
any flight tickets during the relevant contractual period. Notwithstanding this, the Player
claimed entitlement to the equivalent value of six business-class tickets (two per season),
which he estimated at EUR 36,000, calculated at EUR 6,000 per person per trip “following
information by the Respondent”.
50. The Chamber emphasised that claims of this nature must be supported by objective and
verifiable evidence, such as invoices, quotations, or official correspondence establishing
the cost of the flights. The DRC underlined that, in accordance with the principle of onus
probandi, as enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Regulations, the burden of proof lies with the
party asserting a fact. In the present case, the Player did not submit any documentation
whatsoever to substantiate the alleged value of EUR 6,000 per ticket, nor any evidence of
actual expenditure or loss.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21976
51. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for EUR 36,000 net relating
to flight tickets.
Compensation
52. Lastly, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable by
the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be
calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of
the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to the “positive interest”
principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of each case, and with
due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
53. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in
the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such
compensation clause was included in the Contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
54. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
55. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Parties had agreed that their employment
relationship would run from 1 July 2024 until 30 June 2026. The Parties also included an
automatic extension clause in the following terms:
“During the contract period, within the scope of the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 seasons, if
the player plays 45 minutes in 35 official games (is subject to cumulative fulfilment of all
conditions) this contract will automatically be considered extended for one more year for
2026/2027 football season”.
56. The Player argued that this clause is invalid and inapplicable due to its potestative nature,
since the extension depended entirely on his playing time — an element fully controlled by
the Club. Based on this, the Player maintained that the residual value for compensation
purposes should also include the amounts corresponding to the optional 2026/2027
season.
57. Conversely, the Club submitted that the optional season cannot be considered in the
calculation of compensation, arguing that the Player himself claimed the clause was invalid.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-21976
58. In any event, the Club noted that the conditions for the extension had not been fulfilled,
and therefore the 2026/2027 season cannot be taken into account.
59. The Chamber highlighted that, in general, potestative clauses, i.e., clauses dependent on
an event which can only be triggered by one of the contractual parties upon the latter’s will,
cannot be applied, as they limit the rights of the contractual counterparty in an excessive
manner and lead to an unjustified disadvantage of the latter.
60. In this respect, the Chamber referred to its jurisprudence, according to which clauses
conditioning an automatic contractual extension on a player’s playing time or number of
appearances are of a potestative nature. Since clubs retain full discretion over player
fielding, they are the sole party capable of triggering (or not triggering) such clause (in this
regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 5 June 2025; Chitiyo; DRC Decision of 30 March 2023, Al
Nabrasi; DRC Decision of 10 December 2020, Sastre Reus).
61. Having confirmed that the automatic extension clause included in the Contract was
potestative, the Chamber unanimously held that the clause is invalid, cannot produce legal
effects and must be disregarded in its entirety when assessing the consequences of the
early termination of the Contract.
62. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber further considered that, while it is true the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract, he nonetheless unilaterally ended the contractual
relationship with the Club in October 2025. By doing so, he implicitly declined to continue
the relationship until 30 June 2026, let alone until any hypothetical extended term covering
the 2026/2027 season.
63. The Chamber also noted that the termination occurred on 19 October 2025, at a time when
the extension conditions could not yet have been fulfilled. Furthermore, the Player neither
alleged nor demonstrated that the Club acted in bad faith or deliberately manipulated his
playing time to prevent the option from being triggered.
64. The Chamber further considered that including the optional 2026/2027 season in the
calculation of compensation would require presuming that the Player would have met all
contingent conditions for the extension and would have remained employed by the Club
beyond the initial contractual term. Such an assumption would be purely hypothetical and
unsupported by any objective evidence at the time the dispute arose, particularly given
that the Player himself terminated the Contract well before the end of the 2025/2026
season. In the Chamber’s view, awarding compensation based on a scenario that never
materialized —and whose realization was, by nature, uncertain— would contravene the
principle of positive interest and could result in an unjustified financial advantage for the
Player. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that relying on the optional season would
amount to speculation incompatible with the sound and equitable application of art. 17 of
the Regulations.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-21976
65. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber unanimously determined that the
2026/2027 could not be taken into account for compensation purposes.
66. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract from the date of its
unilateral termination until its end date (i.e., 30 June 2026). Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 266,000 net (i.e., seven monthly salaries of EUR 38,000
net from November 2025 to May 2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
67. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
68. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
69. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of
EUR 266,000 net to the Player (i.e., the residual value of the Contract until 30 June 2026)
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
70. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as from 19 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
71. The members of the Chamber finally took note of the Club’s submission that any amounts
awarded to the Player should not be considered on a “net” basis. According to the Club, the
Contract merely imposed an obligation on it to effect withholding, without establishing that
the remuneration owed to the Player was net of taxes.
72. In this respect, the DRC referred to the explicit wording contained in the “Special Provisions”
section of the Contract, which states:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-21976
“Amounts determined under this Agreement (both fix and variable) are all net amounts and
the Club is liable to pay withholding taxes regarding these amounts in any and all
jurisdictions including if this contract is prematurely terminated”.
73. The Chamber found that this clause leaves no room for interpretation: the Parties expressly
agreed that all remuneration due under the Contract was to be paid as net amounts, and
the Club unequivocally undertook the obligation to bear and settle all corresponding
withholding taxes.
74. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s objection could not be upheld. In
light of the Contract’s explicit terms, any amounts awarded to the Player in the framework
of the present dispute must be paid in net amounts.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
76. In this regard, the DRC 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.
77. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
78. 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.
79. The DRC 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-21976
d. Costs
80. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
81. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
82. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-21976
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Funsho Ibrahim Bamgboye, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 119,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 38,000 net as from 1 September 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 38,000 net as from 1 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 43,500 net as from 19 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
o EUR 266,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum
as from 19 October 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.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-21976
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-21976
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. 20