Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22132
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Chandrel Géraud Massanga Matondo
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Chandrel Géraud Massanga Matondo, Congo
Represented by Thomas Normand
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22132
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Congolese player Chandrel Géraud Massanga Matondo
(hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter,
the Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the First
Contract) valid as from 29 August 2023 until 30 June 2027.
2.
Under the “Payments and Special Provisions” section of the First Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) the following
fixed remuneration:
2023/2024 season:
o EUR 62,000 net as advance payment, payable on the date of signature; and
o EUR 100,000 net as salary, payable in the following 10 instalments:
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 August 2023;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 September 2023;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 October 2023;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 November 2023;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 December 2023;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 January 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 29 February 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 March 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 April 2024; and
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 May 2024.
2024/2025 season:
o EUR 100,000 net as salary, payable in the following 10 instalments:
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 August 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 September 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 October 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 November 2024;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 December 2024;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22132
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 January 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 28 February 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 March 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 April 2025; and
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 May 2025.
2025/2026 season:
o EUR 100,000 net as salary, payable in the following 10 instalments:
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 August 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 September 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 October 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 November 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 December 2025;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 January 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 28 February 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 March 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 April 2026; and
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 May 2026.
2026/2027 season:
o EUR 100,000 net as salary, payable in the following 10 instalments:
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 August 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 September 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 October 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 November 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 December 2026;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 January 2027;
- EUR 10,000 net on 28 February 2027;
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 March 2027;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22132
- EUR 10,000 net on 30 April 2027; and
- EUR 10,000 net on 31 May 2027.
3.
On an unspecified date, the Parties concluded an amendment to the First Contract
(hereinafter, the Amendment Agreement), modifying the “Payments and Special Provisions”
section and, in particular, the amounts payable to the Player.
4.
Clause 3 of the Amendment Agreement establishes the Player’s revised fixed remuneration
as follows:
2024/2025 season:
o EUR 315,000 net, payable as follows:
- EUR 37,500 net on 31 August 2024;
- EUR 30,000 net on 30 September 2024;
- EUR 30,000 net on 31 October 2024;
- EUR 37,500 net on 30 November 2024;
- EUR 30,000 net on 31 December 2024;
- EUR 30,000 net on 31 January 2025;
- EUR 30,000 net on 28 February 2025;
- EUR 30,000 net on 31 March 2025;
- EUR 30,000 net on 30 April 2025; and
- EUR 30,000 net on 31 May 2025.
2025/2026 season:
o EUR 367,500 net, payable as follows:
- EUR 43,750 net on 31 August 2025;
- EUR 35,000 net on 30 September 2025;
- EUR 35,000 net on 31 October 2025;
- EUR 43,750 net on 30 November 2025;
- EUR 35,000 net on 31 December 2025;
- EUR 35,000 net on 31 January 2026;
- EUR 35,000 net on 28 February 2026;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22132
- EUR 35,000 net on 31 March 2026;
- EUR 35,000 net on 30 April 2026; and
- EUR 35,000 net on 31 May 2026.
5.
Regarding the remuneration for the 2026/2027 season, Clause 3 of the Amendment
Agreement provides that the Player will receive a total of EUR 420,000 net as follows:
- EUR 50,000 net on 31 August 2026;
- EUR 40,000 net on 30 September 2026;
- EUR 40,000 net on 31 October 2026;
- EUR 50,000 net on 30 November 2026;
- EUR 40,000 net on 31 December 2026;
- EUR 40,000 net on 31 January 2027;
- EUR 40,000 net on 28 February 2027;
- EUR 40,000 net on 31 March 2027;
- EUR 40,000 net on 30 April 2027; and
- EUR 40,000 net on 31 May 2027.
6.
Across the aforementioned payment table of the Amended Agreement submitted by both
Parties, a large handwritten marking is visible, consisting of continuous curved and
intersecting strokes that extend over the printed table, while the underlying text remains
legible.
7.
On 8 August 2024, the Parties signed a new employment contract (hereinafter, the Second
Contract), valid as from 1 July 2027 until 30 June 2028.
8.
Under the “Payments and Special Provisions” section of the Second Contract, the Player was
entitled to a fixed remuneration of EUR 472,500 net payable as follows:
- EUR 56,250 net on 31 August 2027;
- EUR 45,000 net on 30 September 2027;
- EUR 45,000 net on 31 October 2027;
- EUR 56,250 net on 30 November 2027;
- EUR 45,000 net on 31 December 2027;
- EUR 45,000 net on 31 January 2028;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22132
- EUR 45,000 net on 29 February 2028;
- EUR 45,000 net on 31 March 2028;
- EUR 45,000 net on 30 April 2028; and
- EUR 45,000 net on 31 May 2028.
9.
On 6 March 2025, the Player’s agent emailed the Club informing it that the Player’s flight
had been cancelled, as allegedly previously notified via WhatsApp on 28 February 2025.
The email stated that the Player had already informed the Club of his revised arrival date
and that the delay was not his fault.
10. On 11 March 2025, the Club responded, stating that arranging travel was the Player’s
responsibility and that any consequences of his late arrival were therefore attributable to
him. The Club also informed the Player that a warning had been imposed.
11. On 30 June 2025, the Player’s agent informed the Club by email that the Player had been
hospitalised in Africa the previous day.
12. On 1 July 2025, the Club replied that, for the Player’s absence to be authorised, it required
an official medical report and not handwritten or illegible notes. Pending receipt of such
documentation, the Club considered the Player’s absence unauthorised.
13. Also on 1 July 2025, the Player’s agent replied that medical documentation in Africa is
commonly handwritten and that the information provided was official and issued by the
treating doctor.
14. On 2 July 2025, the Player’s agent sent the Club a medical report.
15. On 1 October 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to
pay EUR 93,750 net under the Amendment Agreement, broken down as follows:
o EUR 15,000 net as part of the May 2025 salary;
o EUR 43,750 net as August 2025 salary;
o EUR 35,000 net as September 2025 salary.
16. On 16 October 2025, the Parties signed a “Settlement Agreement” under which the Player
granted the Club an extension of the payment deadline until 24 October 2025. The Parties
agreed, inter alia:
“3. For the sake of clarity, the Player’s right to unilaterally terminate the contract -starting
from 25.10.2025, if his outstanding remuneration (i.e. 93.750 Euro) is not paid by no later
than 24.10.2025- is reserved”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22132
17. On 25 October 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract for outstanding
remuneration.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 28 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
19. In his claim, the Player stated at the outset that the First Contract, the Amendment
Agreement and the Second Contract collectively constitute the full employment
relationship between the Parties.
20. The Player argued that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate his employment contract
with the Club due to outstanding remuneration, after having placed the Club in default, to
no avail, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter, the Regulations).
21. In light of the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of all the above, for these reasons and for those which may be further added during
this proceeding, and reserving the right to modify the following requests in a supplement of
the Claim, the Player respectfully requests to uphold the Claim filed by the Claimant and
establish that:
a) The Claim is well-founded for non-fulfilment of the Contract;
b) Order that [the Club] must pay in favour of [the Player] an amount of € 93.750 as the
outstanding amounts in relation to the Amendment Agreement, namely the non-payment
of part of the Player’s salary of May 2025, and the full salaries for August 2025 and
September 2025;
c) Order that [the Club] must pay in favour of [the Player] an amount of € 1.181,250 as
the residual value of the prematurely terminated Contract;
d) All amount claimed shall be considered as net;
e) Order the payment of legal interest at a rate of 5% p.a. to the values due by [the Club]
to the Player, starting to count on the date when each of them became due until effective
payment;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22132
f) Order [the Club] to pay any legal expenses or costs faced by the Player in an amount
prudently estimated in the excess of 8.000.00 € (eight thousand Euros);
g) Any other measure considered necessary in the decision of the case at stake be applied;
h) Order [the Club] to bear any and all administrative and procedural costs, which have
already been incurred or may eventually be incurred in connection with these or future
proceedings”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club argued that the Player failed to attend training sessions on 2 and 3
March 2025 without prior authorisation. The Club stated that the Player explained his
absence by claiming that his flight had been cancelled. The Club further submitted that the
Player did not return to Türkiye for the start of preseason on 30 June 2025, allegedly due
to illness, and ultimately arrived late, thereby missing the beginning of preseason activities.
According to the Club, the Player thus breached his contractual obligations on two
occasions within a period of three months, which, at the very least, constitutes contributory
fault. As a result, the Club maintained that the Player is not entitled to compensation, or
that any compensation must be adjusted accordingly.
23. The Club additionally argued that the remuneration for the 2026/2027 season contained in
the Amendment Agreement cannot be taken into account, as that portion of the agreement
was struck out. The Club asserted that although the Parties negotiated a full revision of the
Player’s remuneration for all remaining seasons, they ultimately agreed —via the Second
Contract— to extend the contractual relationship by one additional season while
maintaining the salary for the 2026/2027 season as originally set out in the First Contract.
Therefore, the applicable remuneration for that season is the one contained in the First
Contract.
24. The Club further submitted that the Second Contract was never registered with the Türkiye
Futbol Federasyonu (TFF). In addition, the Player terminated the employment relationship
nearly two years before the Second Contract was due to come into force. Consequently,
the Club argued that the Second Contract should not be taken into account when
calculating the residual value of the contract, or, in the alternative, that only one third of it
should be considered.
25. The Club also argued that it is highly probable that the Player will sign a new employment
contract with another club, and that any income received under such new contract must
be considered for the purposes of mitigation of damages.
26. In light of the foregoing, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22132
c. Replica of the Claimant
27. In his replica, the Player argued that he had duly informed the Club of his justified absence
in March 2025 due to a flight cancellation. He noted that the Club had imposed only a
warning, which, in his view, demonstrates that the Club did not consider the incident
serious; otherwise, a more severe sanction would have been applied.
28. The Player further submitted that he also properly informed the Club of his illness and
justified absence from the start of preseason in June 2025. Once again, the Club did not
treat the matter as serious or impose any significant disciplinary measure.
29. In any event, the Player argued that these circumstances do not exempt the Club from its
obligation to pay his contractual remuneration. He further emphasised that the Settlement
Agreement makes no reference to any alleged misconduct on his part, nor does it provide
for any reduction in salary based on fault. Therefore, the Player maintained that he cannot
be blamed for these absences and is entitled to receive his full contractual remuneration.
30. With respect to the remuneration for the 2026/2027 season under the Amendment
Agreement, the Player argued that his signature was inadvertently placed within the
section outlining that season’s remuneration due to a clerical error, rather than at the
bottom of the page. Nevertheless, his signature clearly appears on the document and
reflects the Parties’ agreement to all terms of the Amendment Agreement. The Player
therefore claimed entitlement to the remuneration amounts specified in the Amendment
Agreement rather than those set out in the First Contract.
31. Regarding the Second Contract, the Player likewise claimed entitlement to its financial
terms, invoking the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
32. On this basis, the Player reiterated his initial request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
33. In its duplica, the Club reiterated that the Player breached his contractual obligations and
failed to substantiate the alleged reasons for his absences. While the Club acknowledged
that it did not impose more severe disciplinary sanctions, it argued that this does not
preclude the Player’s conduct from being taken into account.
34. With respect to the Amendment Agreement, the Club contended that the Player failed to
explain why his signature appears precisely in the section detailing the remuneration for
the 2026/2027 season, rather than at the bottom of the page as on all other pages.
According to the Club, the Player deliberately crossed out that section of the Amendment
Agreement and, consequently, the applicable remuneration for that season is the one
contained in the First Contract. The Club further reiterated its arguments concerning the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22132
Second Contract, emphasising that the Player terminated the employment relationship
almost two years before that contract was due to enter into force.
35. On this basis, the Club reaffirmed its initial request that the Player’s claim be dismissed.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22132
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. 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 28 November 2025 and submitted for
decision on 2 April 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.
37. 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 (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
Congolese player and a Turkish club.
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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. 12
REF. FPSD-22132
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
41. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for breach of contract under art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
42. At the outset, the DRC observed that it was undisputed by the Club that the Player had just
cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations. The Chamber noted that the Club’s objections were limited to the legal
consequences resulting from the termination of the contractual relationship and, in
particular, to the Player’s entitlement to the amounts claimed.
43. Notwithstanding the above, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to art.
14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player
at least two monthly salaries in 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 obligations.
44. The DRC noted that, in casu, the Player claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to half of May 2025, as well as the full salaries for August and September
2025. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Player provided written evidence of
having put the Club in default on 1 October 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the employment relationship on 25 October 2025.
45. The Chamber further noted that, in the present case, the Club bore the burden of proving
that it had duly complied with its financial obligations under the contract concluded
between the Parties. However, and as previously established, the DRC observed that the
Club neither contested the existence of the outstanding salaries nor provided any evidence
substantiating payment thereof.
46. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the Player had just
cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations, and the Club is therefore liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
47. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22132
Outstanding remuneration
48. 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 128,750 net,
broken down as follows:
o EUR 15,000 net as balance of the May 2025 salary;
o EUR 43,750 net as August 2025 salary;
o EUR 35,000 net as September 2025 salary; and
o EUR 35,000 net as October 2025 salary.
49. 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 First Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., EUR 128,750
net as detailed ut supra.
50. In addition, taking into account 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 a rate
of 5% per annum on the aforementioned outstanding amounts, calculated as from the day
following their respective due dates until the date of effective payment. With regard to the
October 2025 salary, the Chamber determined that the dies a quo shall be the date of
termination of the Contract. Accordingly, the DRC decided that interest shall accrue as
follows:
o On the balance of the May 2025 salary, as from 1 June 2025;
o On the August 2025 salary, as from 1 September 2025;
o On the September 2025 salary, as from 1 October 2025; and
o On the October 2025 salary, as from 25 October 2025.
Compensation
51. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
52. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-22132
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
53. 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).
54. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the Club argued that the Player should not be
entitled to the full residual value of the employment relationship, submitting that: (i) the
Player bore contributory fault; (ii) the remuneration for the 2026/2027 season should revert
to the amounts provided for in the First Contract, as the Amendment Agreement was
allegedly partially struck out; and (iii) the Second Contract should be excluded from the
calculation of compensation, as it was not registered and was due to enter into force nearly
two years after the termination.
55. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse the Club’s arguments in turn.
Player’s alleged contributory fault
56. The DRC noted that the Club contended that the Player’s compensation should be reduced
—or denied entirely— because he bears contributory fault, as he allegedly breached the
contract by missing two training sessions in March 2025 and arriving late for preseason in
June 2025.
57. However, following a careful review of the case file, the Chamber observed that the
evidence confirms that the Player had duly informed the Club of the cancellation of his
flight and that the Club replied by imposing only a warning. In the Chamber’s view, this
disciplinary response demonstrates that the Club itself did not consider the incident
serious enough to warrant more severe sanctions, such as fines, suspensions, or salary
deductions. Accordingly, the Chamber held that the Club cannot retrospectively rely on this
event as a basis to reduce the Player’s compensation.
58. Moreover, the DRC emphasised that this event occurred several months prior to the Player
putting the Club in default due to unpaid salaries. The Club’s prior disciplinary stance and
temporal distance from the default notice reinforce that these incidents cannot justify
diminishing the compensation owed due to the Club’s own financial breach.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-22132
59. The Chamber found that the same reasoning applies to the Player’s alleged late arrival for
preseason. In this respect, it remained undisputed that the Player had been hospitalised in
Africa, was subsequently discharged, and returned to Türkiye immediately thereafter. The
Club again chose not to impose any significant disciplinary measures, implicitly
acknowledging the legitimacy of the Player’s situation.
60. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that these past events —resolved at the
time and unrelated to the Club’s salary default— cannot retroactively preclude full
compensation. Consequently, the Chamber decided that there were no grounds to reduce
the residual value of the employment relationship based on alleged contributory fault.
Remuneration for the 2026/2027 season
61. With regard to the Club’s allegations concerning the remuneration for the 2026/2027
season, the Chamber noted that the Club did not dispute that the Amendment Agreement
amended the First Contract in respect of the Player’s remuneration, but claimed that the
remuneration for the 2026/2027 season was struck out by the Player and therefore invalid,
such that the salary provided for in the First Contract should apply.
62. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the Player credibly explained that the
amounts for the 2026/2027 season were not crossed out, but that what appears in the
relevant section corresponds to his signature, which is positioned differently from the
other pages yet clearly expresses his consent. The Chamber further noted that the Club
failed to submit any contemporaneous evidence demonstrating that, as argued, the Parties
intended to exclude or invalidate the amended remuneration for that season.
63. Furthermore, the Chamber underlined that the Club did not provide any documentation
evidencing that the Player had agreed to revert to the remuneration of the First Contract
in exchange for the contractual extension provided by the Second Contract.
64. In light of the foregoing, the members of the DRC unanimously concluded that the
remuneration applicable for the 2026/2027 season under the Amendment Agreement was
not struck out and therefore remains valid and binding. The Player is consequently entitled
to the amended remuneration for that season.
Remuneration under the Second Contract
65. Lastly, the DRC addressed the Club’s argument that the Second Contract should be
excluded from the calculation of compensation on the grounds that it was not registered
with the TFF and that it was due to enter into force almost two years after the termination
of the employment relationship.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-22132
66. In this respect, the Chamber referred once more to art. 17 of the Regulations, pursuant to
which compensation shall be calculated taking into account the damage suffered in
accordance with the principle of the “positive interest”, having regard to the individual facts
and circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned. The Chamber recalled that, under this principle, compensation must place the
injured party in the position they would have occupied had the contract been properly
performed.
67. Against this background, the Chamber held that the Second Contract granted the Player an
additional season of guaranteed employment without any conditions precedent or
suspensive clauses. Accordingly, had the Club not breached the contract, the Player would
have been entitled to receive remuneration also for the 2027/2028 season.
68. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the remuneration due under the Second Contract
must be included in the calculation of the residual value and thus form part of the
compensation for breach of contract.
69. Having established this and bearing in mind the claim of the Player, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to him under the terms of the
employment contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,146,250 net serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken
down as follows:
o EUR 253,750 net, corresponding the period from November 2025 to May 2026 and
EUR 420,000 net corresponding to the remuneration agreed for the 2026/2027
season under the Amendment Agreement (i.e., amounting in total to EUR 673,750
net); and
o EUR 472,500 net under the Second Contract.
70. 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
Football Tribunal 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.
71. 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).
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-22132
72. 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 1,146,250 net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
73. Lastly, 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 25 October 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. In continuation, and 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.
75. 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 new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid.
76. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where
the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of art. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
77. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 5 March 2026 and notified on 12 March 2026, a transfer ban has been imposed
on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the case FPSD22205.
78. Accordingly, the Chamber established that, in casu, art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
79. In view of the above, the DRC decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
a formal decision.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-22132
80. 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.
d. Costs
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-22132
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Chandrel Géraud Massanga Matondo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 128,750 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 15,000 net as from 1 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 43,750 net as from 1 September 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net as from 1 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net as from 25 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
o EUR 1,146,250 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per
annum as from 25 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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-22132
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. 21