Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22082
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luan De
Campos Cristino da Silva
BY:
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal)
CLAIMANT:
Luan De Campos Cristino da Silva, Brazil
Represented by Gabriel Ziccarelli Rodrigues Mendes
RESPONDENT:
NET GLOBAL SIVASSPOR, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22082
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 June 2025, the Brazilian player, Luan De Campos Cristino da Silva (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club, NET GLOBAL SIVASSPOR (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from 7 August 2025 until 30 June 2028.
2.
The parties agreed on the total salary of USD 140,000 for the 2025/2026 season as well as
a down payment of USD 50,000.
3.
According to clause 9 of the Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this Contract shall be dealt with exclusively
by the Courts and Enforcement Offices of Sivas and shall be resolved definitely in accordance
with Turkish Law, which includes the regulations of the Turkish Football Federation.”
4.
On 5 November 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting the payment
of the salaries for September and October 2025 of the total amount of USD 28,000 within
the next 15 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 24 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
6.
The Player lodged the present claim against the Club for overdue payables.
7.
The Player alleged that after sending the default notice, the Club partially paid the amount
requested.
8.
Therefore, the Player argued that the amount that remains outstanding corresponds to
USD 18.800 as salaries as well as USD 20,000 for the balance of the down payment.
9.
In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“Considering all the above, [the Player] trusts this Association, upon conclusion, after
consideration of the arguments will:
(i)
Accept this Claim, granting [the Player] with its rights in
accordance to this Claim;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22082
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Declare, by judgment, the termination with just cause of the
Employment Contract between [the Player] and [the Club], with
the financial consequences below required;
Order the immediate release of the Player;
Summon the Club to pay the amount of 38,800 US (thirty-eight
thousand and eight hundred dollars) to [the Player], with
compensation for breach (remaining value of the contract);
Apply the disciplinary measures and/or sports sanctions provided
in FIFA Regulations against the Club, if the club does not comply
with its obligation towards [the Player];
Impose to the Club the responsibility for all the costs related to this
Claim, including, but not limited, to the legal fees, eventual fees of
FIFA, as well as other costs incurred.
[The Player] requires the production of all kinds of evidence
admitted under FIFA Regulations, including, but not limited, to
depositions of the parties and witnesses, submission of additional
documents and expert opinion, if required;
Inform Turkish Football Federation, to which the Club is affiliated,
of this present Claim.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club made reference to clause 9 of the Contract and argued that FIFA is not
competent to deal with the present claim. In particular, the Club argued that the parties
agreed that the courts of Sivas, in Türkiye would be exclusively competent to deal with any
dispute arising from the Contract.
11. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the explanations given above, by reserving its right to submit its answers on the
substance of the matter and claim the consequences of the unilateral termination of the
employment contract without just cause against the Claimant before the competent bodies, the
Respondent hereby respectfully requests from the Honourable Chamber to rule that the Football
Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant and to declare that the
claim of the of the Claimant, Mr. Luan De Campos Cristino da Silva, is inadmissible.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22082
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. 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 24 November 2025 and
submitted for decision on 21 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.
13. 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, a priori, competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Brazilian player and a Turkish club.
14. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Club disputed the
competence of FIFA on the basis of clause 9 of the Contract alleging that the competent
body to deal with any dispute deriving from the Contract are the courts of Sivas.
15. The Single Judge recalled that clause 9 of the Contract stated as follows:
“Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this Contract shall be dealt with exclusively
by the Courts and Enforcement Offices of Sivas and shall be resolved definitely in accordance
with Turkish Law, which includes the regulations of the Turkish Football Federation.”
16. Taking into account the above, the Single Judge recalled that in accordance with art. 22 par.
1 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment related disputes between a
player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player
[…] or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes.”
17. In the present matter, the Single Judge duly noted that the Player and the Club had
unambiguously and exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the
Contract would be submitted to the courts of Sivas, in Türkiye.
18. In this regard, the Single Judge stressed that the parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction
to a civil court, and that such choice shall always prevail. In fact, the Single Judge recalled
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as the CAS jurisprudence in this regard,
indicate that even if the choice of law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g. a
generic reference is made to a region/city), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is not
competent when the parties have exclusively agreed upon the jurisdiction of a civil court.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22082
In addition, the Single Judge reminded that art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations provides a clear
hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
19. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that FIFA is not competent to hear the dispute
between the parties, and consequently she declared the claim inadmissible.
b. Costs
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22082
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Luan De
Campos Cristino da Silva.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22082
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. 8