Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22163
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Lois Diony
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
CLAIMANT:
Lois Diony, France
RESPONDENT:
Royal Hastanesi Bandirmaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22163
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 February 2025, the French Club Angers SCO (hereinafter: Angers SCO) and the Turkish
club Royal Hastanesi Bandirmaspor (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
agreement for the loan (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement) of the French player Lois Diony
(hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player) from Angers SCO to the Respondent, valid as from
its date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with art. 2 of the Loan Agreement, Angers SCO undertook to pay the
Respondent EUR 275,000 in 5 instalments of EUR 55,000, i.e., on 5 March 2025, 5 April 2025,
5 May 2025, 5 June 2025 and 5 July 2025.
3.
In addition, art. 3 of the Loan Agreement read as follows:
“3.1. BANDIRMASPOR acknowledges and agrees that it shall use its best endeavors to enter into
an employment contract with the PLAYER in the standard form provided by the Turkish Football
Federation and the FIFA for the duration of the Loan Period only, subject to medical and personal
terms (the “Bandirmaspor Contract”);
3.2. BANDIRMASPOR acknowledges and agrees that it shall be responsible for the payment of
the financial dues and other expenses of the PLAYER in accordance with the Bandirmaspor
Contract only. The financial participartion of ANGERS SCO in the salary of the PLAYER is limited
to the amount described in article 2.2 above; […]”
4.
On 6 February 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the end of the 2024/2025 season, which, according
to Transfer Matching System (TMS), ended on 1 June 2025.
5.
The Contract stipulated that its duration would automatically be extended for the
2025/2026 and 2026/2027 season in the event that the Respondent was promoted to the
Süper Lig.
6.
According to art. 6 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant as
follows (quoted verbatim):
“[…] For 2024/2025 Football Season
• 100.000, - EUR net as advance payment was paid on the date of signature of the
Employment Agreement.
• 30.000, - EUR net as advance payment was paid on the date of signature of the
Employment Agreement.
• 200.000, - EUR net will be paid in total in five (5) equal installments between 28
February 2025 – 30 June 2025 as 40.000 – EUR net for each month.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22163
Bonus Payments
• In case the Club promotes to SuperLig at the end of the 2024/2025 football
season the Club will pay 20.000, - EUR net bonus to the Player.
• The Club will provide two round economy class fly tickets.
• The Player will get 2.000 – EUR net to be per month for car and accommodation
as a support.
• The Player will get 1.500 – EUR net per goal and assist. […]”
- All payments in this Agreement are to be considered as “NET” payments. […]”
7.
On 10 February 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an appendix to the
Contract (hereinafter: the Appendix).
8.
The Appendix read as follows:
“[…] Article 1 – OBJECT
BANDIRMASPOR and ANGERS SCO agreed for the loan of the professional player Lois DIONY that
Angers must pay 275,000 euros NET to partially cover the salary of the player during the period
of the loan.
In this context it has been agreed that BANDIRMASPOR must pay 100% of this amount NET of
tax to the player Lois Diony (0% tax applied for the player). These amounts are added to the
salary specified in the employment agreement signed on February 6, 2025.
In accordance with the tripartite agreement “LOAN TRANSFER AGREEMENT” signed between
BANDIRMASPOR, ANGERS SCO and Lois Diony.
Article 2 – CONDITIONS
ANGERS SCO agrees to pay BANDIRMASPOR the sum of 275,000 euros NET to partially cover the
PLAYER's total salary during the Loan Period.
Payment of this sum will be made as follows:
(a) 55,000 euros on March 5, 2025
(b) 55,000 euros on April 5, 2025
(c) 55,000 euros on May 5, 2025
(d) 55,000 euros on June 5, 2025
(e) 55,000 euros on July 5, 2025
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22163
Upon receipt of these amounts, BANDIRMASPOR commits to immediately transfer the total
amount received (from ANGERS SCO) to the player Lois Diony, applying 0% fiscal tax and any
other possible fees for the player.
Article 3 – LATE PAYMENT PENALTY CLAUSE
If any installment due under this Agreement is not received by the player within 10 days following
receipt of payment from ANGERS SCO, BANDIRMASPOR shall incur a penalty of 10% of the
outstanding amount. This penalty is payable in addition to the principal amount. […]”
9.
On 30 July 2025, Angers SCO remitted EUR 275,000 to the Respondent.
10. On 12 November 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of EUR 302,500 net under the Appendix, i.e., EUR 275,000 net as outstanding
remuneration and EUR 27,500 as the corresponding contractual penalty.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 1 December 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. The Player argued that he did not receive any portion of the EUR 275,000 net stipulated in
the Appendix.
13. In addition, the Player stated that he made several attempts to reach an amicable
settlement with the Club regarding the outstanding amount; however, the Club
consistently rejected such attempts.
14. In this context, and after allowing the Club a period of three and a half months to comply
with its financial obligations under the Appendix, the Player mentioned that he put the Club
in default on 12 November 2025, granting it 15 days to either settle the outstanding amount
or present a new proposal for agreement.
15. In light of the above and given the Club’s failure to respond to the default notice, the Player
requested payment of EUR 302,500 net under the Appendix, i.e., EUR 275,000 net as
outstanding remuneration and EUR 27,500 as the corresponding contractual penalty.
b. Position of the Respondent
16. The Respondent argued that the contractual penalty of the Appendix is unlawful and that
it has fulfilled its financial obligations towards the Claimant.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22163
17. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“7.1 The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal about
the present case.
7.2 Consider the amounts paid and good faith of the Respondent while evaluating the Claimant
requests according to the reasons explained above and according to the bank receipts which
was provided by the Respondent and setoff the mentioned amount from the Claimant’s requests.
7.3 It is clear that the penalty clause set in the Employment Contract is unlawful because it is too
high. Therefore, the Claimant's claims regarding the penalty clause should be rejected.
7.4 Finally, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that the judicial
costs and the attorneyship fees that the Respondent is faced with shall be paid by the Claimant.
If not, to award a minimum amount of procedural cost in connection with the temporary
amendment to the Procedural Rules declared with the Circular 1720.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 1 December 2025 and submitted for decision
on 29 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2026
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
19. Furthermore, the 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), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Turkish
club.
20. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22163
b. Burden of proof
21. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
22. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties dispute the payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent as per the
Appendix.
24. On one hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him
EUR 302,500 net under the Appendix, i.e., EUR 275,000 net as outstanding remuneration
and EUR 27,500 as the corresponding contractual penalty.
25. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the position of the Club, according to which
the contractual penalty of the Appendix is unlawful and that it has fulfilled its financial
obligations towards the Player.
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the validity of
the contractual penalty stipulated in the Appendix, whether the claimed amounts by the
Player had in fact remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid
justification for not having complied with its financial obligations under the Appendix.
27. In this respect, the Chamber held that penalty clauses may be freely entered into by the
contractual parties and may be considered acceptable if the pertinent written clause meets
certain criteria such as proportionality and reasonableness based on the circumstances of
the case.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22163
28. With the above in mind, the Chamber recalled the following wording of the contractual
penalty stipulated in the Appendix:
“[…] If any installment due under this Agreement is not received by the player within 10 days
following receipt of payment from ANGERS SCO, BANDIRMASPOR shall incur a penalty of 10% of
the outstanding amount. This penalty is payable in addition to the principal amount. […]”
29. In this respect, the quantum of said contractual penalty was analysed by the Chamber and
was deemed reasonable and proportionate in line with the well-established jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal (i.e., 10% of the outstanding amount in the matter at hand).
30. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the
burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Appendix
concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber established that the
Respondent failed to provide any evidence to prove the payment of the amounts claimed
as outstanding by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that no reasonable
justification was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of
the Appendix.
31. As a consequence, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the general
legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable
to pay to the Claimant EUR 302,500 net under the Appendix, i.e., EUR 275,000 net as
outstanding remuneration and EUR 27,500 as the corresponding contractual penalty.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
32. The Chamber then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
33. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
34. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
35. The Chamber further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations the
Chamber has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, and
bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Chamber decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance with art.
12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22163
36. The Chamber also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the
Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
41. 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22163
44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22163
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lois Diony, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Royal Hastanesi Bandirmaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following
amounts:
- EUR 275,000 net as outstanding remuneration; and
- EUR 27,500 as contractual penalty.
3.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22163
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