Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21982
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Queensy
Menig
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
CLAIMANT:
Queensy Menig, Netherlands
Represented by Donny Buisman
RESPONDENT:
Net Global Sivasspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21982
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 February 2024, Queensy Menig (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and Net Global
Sivasspor (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 8 February 2024 until 30 June 2026.
2.
On 25 August 2025, the parties signed a mutual termination agreement (hereinafter: the
Termination Agreement) and agreed on the payment of a compensation of the total amount
of EUR 410,000 net for the premature termination of the Contract.
3.
According to clause e) of the Termination Agreement, the parties agreed on the following
payment schedule:
-
4.
EUR 90,000 payable on 15 September 2025;
EUR 60,000 payable on 15 October 2025;
EUR 60,000 payable on 15 November 2025;
EUR 50,000 payable on 15 December 2025;
EUR 50,000 payable on 15 January 2026;
EUR 50,000 payable on 15 February 2026;
EUR 50,000 payable on 15 March 2026.
In addition, according to clause d) of the Termination Agreement, the parties agreed on the
following:
“In the event that the Club has outstanding payments towards the Player of at least 100.000.Euro without a valid reason, and provided that the Player puts the Club in default in writing and
provides the Club with an additional 5-day deadline to deliver the payment of the outstanding
instalments but the Club does not pay the total outstanding amount within the referred 5-day
deadline, all remaining instalments will immediately become due and additionally the Club will
be obliged to pay a penalty of 90.000.- Euro to the Player.”
5.
On 17 October 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club requesting the payment of the first
2 instalments of the total amount of EUR 150,000 net. In particular, the Player requested
the following instalments:
-
EUR 90,000 net due on 15 September 2025 ;
EUR 60,000 net due on 15 October 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 18 November 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21982
a. Claim of the Claimant
7.
The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for overdue payables and the payment of a
penalty clause.
8.
The Player alleged that the Club has not complied with its financial obligations as the first
2 instalments due on 15 September 2025 and 15 October 2025 respectively remain
outstanding.
9.
The Player further contended that, as the Club failed to settle the outstanding amount of
EUR 150,000 within the five-day deadline stipulated in the default notice dated 17 October
2025, and pursuant to clause d) of the Termination Agreement, all subsequent instalments
became immediately due and payables. Additionally, the Player asserted that the
contractual penalty of EUR 90,000 was thereby triggered.
10. Consequently, the Player requested the following relief:
“Consequently, the Club is liable to pay to the Player, in accordance with the Termination
Agreement and the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, an amount of NET EUR 500,000.- (in
words: five hundred thousand Euros), plus interest of 5% on an amount of EUR 90,000.- Net as
per 16 September 2025, EUR 60,000.- as per 16 October 2025 and EUR 350,000.- as per 23
October 2025.
In conclusion, in view of the above, we kindly request for the assistance of the FIFA DRC to decide
that the Club is obliged to pay to the Player:
•
an amount of NET EUR 500,000.- (in words: five hundred thousand Euros);
•
interest of 5% per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over an amount of NET EUR 90,000.- as from 16 September
2025;
- 5% interest p.a. over an amount of NET EUR 60,000.- as from 16 October 2025;
and
- 5% interest p.a. over an amount of NET EUR 350,000.- as from 23 October
2025.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
11. In its reply, the Club did not address the outstanding amounts.
12. However, the Club disputed the proportionality of the penalty clause. In particular, the Club
argued the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21982
“The Respondent must object against the penalty clause, on the grounds that it is excessive and
must be reduced, if not annulled completely.
It follows from the well‑established jurisprudence of the Honourable Chamber that penalties are
considered disproportionate where they exceed 50% of the principal amount due.
As the Mutual Termination foresees a penalty of 90.000.- Euro for an outstanding amount of
100.000.- Euro, the penalty corresponding to the 90% of the principal amount must be
considered as disproportionate.
Within the scope of the above, the Respondent respectfully requests the annulment of the
penalty clause completely, or in subsidiary order, the penalty amount to be reduced.
Finally, for the sake of good order, the Respondent wishes to underline that RSTP Art. 12bis is
not applicable since the Claimant did not provide the Respondent with a deadline of at least 10
days.
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 in full.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21982
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
14. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Dutch player and a Turkish club.
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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. 6
REF. FPSD-21982
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the proportionality of the penalty clause.
19. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine which amounts
remained outstanding, the proportionality of the penalty clause as well as the
consequences.
20. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the Player requested the amount of EUR 410,000
net arising from the Termination Agreement.
21. In particular, the Player requested the amounts of EUR 90,000 and EUR 60,000 that fell due
on 15 September 2025 and 15 October 2025 respectively. In addition, the Chamber noted
that the Player invoked the clause d) of the Termination Agreement and alleged that the
subsequent instalments fell due as the parties had agreed on an acceleration clause.
22. In this respect, the Chamber reminded that clause d) of the Termination Agreement stated
as follows:
“In the event that the Club has outstanding payments towards the Player of at least 100.000.Euro without a valid reason, and provided that the Player puts the Club in default in writing
and provides the Club with an additional 5-day deadline to deliver the payment of the
outstanding instalments but the Club does not pay the total outstanding amount within the
referred 5-day deadline, all remaining instalments will immediately become due and
additionally the Club will be obliged to pay a penalty of 90.000.- Euro to the Player.”
23. Therefore, the Chamber noted that the conditions for the fulfilment of the acceleration
clause have been met: (i) the outstanding amount was EUR 150,000, i.e. more than EUR
100,000, (ii) the Club had been put in default and given a deadline of 5 days and (iii) the
Club did not remedy its default.
24. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Club in its reply did not dispute that the above
amounts remain outstanding.
25. Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Player the total amount of EUR 410,000
that arose from the Termination Agreement.
26. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
proportionality of the penalty clause.
27. The Chamber noted that the Player requested the payment of the amount of EUR 90,000
net arising from clause d) of the Termination Agreement.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21982
28. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that as established above, the conditions for the
activation of the penalty clause have been duly fulfilled.
29. However, the Chamber observed that the Club disputed the proportionality of the penalty
amount.
30. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that according to its longstanding jurisprudence, a
penalty clause needs to satisfy the proportionality test on a case-by-case basis. In
particular, the DRC considers that penalties based on a percentage of the principal amount
due, as a general rule, are considered proportional if the amount due as penalty does not
exceed 50% of the principal amount due.
31. In the present case, the Chamber noted that the principal amount due corresponded to
EUR 410,000 and the penalty to EUR 90,000, which represents approximately 22% of the
principal amount due.
32. In addition, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, as well as the
fact that the penalty clause was specifically negotiated and mutually agreed upon between
the parties within the framework of the Termination Agreement, the Chamber considered
that the amount stipulated therein is not excessive or unreasonable and therefore
complies with the principle of proportionality.
33. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the penalty amount is proportionate.
34. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided to award the outstanding amount of EUR
410,000 net corresponding to the total amount agreed upon in the Termination Agreement
as well as EUR 90,000 as contractual penalty.
35. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 90,000 as from 16 September 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 60,000 as from 16 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 260,000 as from 22 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
36. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21982
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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
d. Costs
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21982
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Queensy Menig, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Net Global Sivasspor, must pay the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 410,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 90,000 as from 16 September 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 60,000 as from 16 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 260,000 as from 22 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 90,000 as contractual penalty
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. 10
REF. FPSD-21982
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21982
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 12