Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22205
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Guy Marcelin Kilama Kilama
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Guy Marcelin Kilama Kilama, Cameroon
Represented by Osama Al Sabbagh
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22205
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Cameroonian player Guy Marcelin Kilama Kilama (hereinafter:
the Claimant or the Player) and the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from 4 August 2023 until 30 June 2024.
2.
The Contract set out the following clause pertaining to its duration:
“The player accepts, declares and undertakes that if all the conditions specified in the
’temporary transfer contract with compulsory purchase option’ signed between
Hatayspor Club Association and Niort FC are realized, he will sign a permanent
professional football player contract with Hatayspor Club Association for 2 years (for the
2024/2025 - 2025/2026 season under the conditions specified below).”
3.
According to the Contract, for the 2023/2024 season, the Club undertook to pay the Player
an advance payment of EUR 50,000 on the date of signing the Contract and EUR 225,000
according to the following terms:
31.08.2023
30.09.2023
31.10.2023
30.11.2023
31.12.2023
31.01.2024
29.02.2024
31.03.2024
30.04.2024
31.05.2024
4.
32.500 EUR
20.000 EUR
32.500 EUR
20.000 EUR
20.000 EUR
20.000 EUR
20.000 EUR
20.000 EUR
20.000 EUR
20.000 EUR
In addition, for the 2024/2025 season, the Club undertook to pay the Player EUR 330,000
according to the following terms:
31.08.2024
30.09.2024
31.10.2024
30.11.2024
31.12.2024
31.01.2025
28.02.2025
31.03.2025
30.04.2025
31.05.2025
45.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
45.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
30.000 EUR
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22205
5.
Furthermore, for the 2025/2026 season, the Club undertook to pay the Player EUR 385,000
according to the following terms:
31.08.2025
30.09.2025
31.10.2025
30.11.2025
31.12.2025
31.01.2026
29.02.2026
31.03.2026
30.04.2026
31.05.2026
6.
52.500 EUR
35.000 EUR
52.500 EUR
35.000 EUR
35.000 EUR
35.000 EUR
35.000 EUR
35.000 EUR
35.000 EUR
35.000 EUR
Lastly, the Contract stipulated the following:
“[…] The Player will be provided with:
A. A house will be provided by the Club. All utility expenses (electricity, telephone, water
etc.) will be paid by the Player.
B. A car during the period of this employment contract. Traffic fines, gasoline and any
other expenses will be paid by the Player.
C. Two round-trip economy class flight tickets to the player’s country.
1. Amounts determined under this Agreement are only net amounts and the Club is liable
to pay withholding taxes regarding these amounts. […]”
7.
On an unspecified date, the Player’s legal representative put the Club in default and
requested payment within 15 days of EUR 112,500 net as outstanding remuneration under
the Contract.
8.
On 9 November 2025, the Player’s legal representative put the Club in default and
requested payment within 15 days of EUR 105,000 as outstanding remuneration under the
Contract.
9.
On 21 November 2025, the Club answered the latest correspondence from the Player’s
legal representative as follows:
“Dear Sir,
We refer to your notification dated 09.11.2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22205
Within this scope, we kindly inform you that we are currently in negotiations with Mr.
Kilama for the payment of his remuneration as follows: 50.000.-Euro on 25.11.2025 and
55.000.-Euro on 08.12.2025.
Mr. Kilama informed us that he, in principle, agrees with the aforementioned payment
plan, to withdraw the notification dated 09.11.2025 and not to terminate his employment
contract based on the referred notification; but asked us to inform your services to obtain
your confirmation as well.
We’d be grateful if you can confirm the above after consultation with Mr. Kilama,
following which we shall send a draft settlement agreement for your perusal. […]”
10. On 25 November 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
11. The Player confirmed that he remained unemployed until today.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 4 December 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
13. In his claim, the Player stated that, in accordance with the wording of the Contract, his
employment relationship with the Club was automatically extended to 30 June 2026. In
addition, the Player stated that his accommodation allowance was not explicitly included
in the Contract, but that it was nevertheless paid to him at the beginning of each season.
14. Having stated the above, the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“•To establish that the Club has been in repeated material breach of the contract without
prima facie basis, causing the premature termination with just cause by the Player.
•To establish that the Club must pay the Player outstanding net remuneration in the
amount of EUR 105,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
i. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 7,500 as from 1 September 2025;
ii. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 September 2025;
iii. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 35,000 as from 1 October 2025;
iv. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 52,500 as from 1 November 2025.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22205
•To establish that the Club must pay the Player net compensation in the amount of EUR
245,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the decision.”
b. Position of the Club
15. In its reply, the Club argued that it never agreed to pay the Player an accommodation
allowance for the 2025/2026 season. Therefore, it is the position of the Club that the claim
of the Player should be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 4 December 2025 and submitted for decision
on 5 March 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.
17. 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 Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Cameroonian
player and a Turkish club.
18. 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
19. 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 (hereinafter: the TMS).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22205
c. Merits of the dispute
20. 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
21. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that,
according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just cause due to outstanding
remuneration.
22. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Club merely asserted that it never agreed to pay
the Player an accommodation allowance for the 2025/2026 season and that the Player’s
claim should therefore be rejected.
23. As a preliminary consideration, the Chamber observed that the Club did not contest the
Player’s assertion that, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, their employment
relationship was automatically extended for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 seasons.
Accordingly, the Chamber referred to the information available in the TMS and determined
the Contract expiration date end date to be 30 June 2026.
24. In this context, the Chamber recalled 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 a 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).
25. In the present matter, the Chamber pointed out that, according to the Player’s latest default
notice sent to the Club, on 9 November 2025, the Player’s outstanding remuneration under
the Contract amounted to EUR 105,000. In this respect, the Chamber established that this
amount corresponds, in average, to more than two monthly salaries under the Contract.
Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player unilaterally terminated the
Contract on 25 November 2025, i.e., at least 15 days after having put the Club in default.
26. The Chamber further 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 concluded between the
parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber underlined that the Club failed to provide any evidence
to prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22205
27. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
28. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such a breach of contract committed by the Club.
29. The Chamber first observed that the Player’s outstanding remuneration under the Contract
at the time of its termination related to the first four instalments of the 2025/2026 season.
30. 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 EUR 130,000 net
corresponding to his outstanding remuneration under the Contract at the moment of its
termination.
31. 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% p.a. on his outstanding amounts as follows:
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7,500 net as from 1 September 2025 until
the date effective payment;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net as from 1 October 2025 until the
date effective payment;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 52,500 net as from 1 November 2025 until
the date effective payment; and
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of 35,000 net, as from 25 November 2025 until the
date effective payment.
32. Having stated the above, 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.
33. 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 the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22205
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.
34. 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).
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 210,000 net (i.e., the last 6 instalments of EUR 35,000
net under the Contract of the 2025/2026 season) serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
36. 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
Chamber 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.
37. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Player did not secure new employment
following the termination of the relevant contract, thus no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
38. 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
210,000 net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
39. 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% p.a. as of 25 November 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
40. Lastly, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s request for an accommodation allowance
of EUR 10,000 net for the 2025/2026 season due to a lack of contractual basis.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22205
iii. Sporting sanctions
41. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
42. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
43. In the present matter, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 30 May 1999
and that the Contract was concluded on 4 August 2023, at which time he was 24 years old.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause
on 25 November 2025, thus the breach of contract occurred within the protected period.
44. The Chamber then recalled that the Club had already been held liable for breaching other
players’ employment contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, for example
in cases FPSD-14930, FPSD-21852, and FPSD-21976. In the Chamber’s view, the Club’s
status as a repeat offender warranted the imposition of additional consequences in order
to uphold the principle of contractual stability enshrined in the Regulations.
45. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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.
47. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22205
48. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 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 article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
49. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Club 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 Club would be
moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, particularly the enforcement mechanism
established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
50. 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 Player, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for further consideration
and formal decision.
51. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
d. Costs
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22205
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Guy Marcelin Kilama Kilama, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 130,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7,500 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
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 52,500 net as from 1 November 2025 until the
date effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 35,000 net, as from 25 November 2025 until the
date effective payment.
- EUR 210,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
25 November 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22205
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. 13