Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22229
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Samba
Camara
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Samba Camara, France
Represented by Jean Gomis
RESPONDENT:
NET GLOBAL SIVASSPOR, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22229
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 August 2024, the French player, Samba Camara (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 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary as well as to EUR
1,000 as housing allowance per month with the total amount of EUR 10,000.
3.
According to clause 6 of the Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“No addition or amendment to or modification of any provision of this contract shall be
binding upon unless made in writing and signed by all the Parties hereto.”
4.
According to clause 9 of the Contract, the parties agreed on the following:
“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.”
5.
On 7 May 2025, the parties signed a protocol (hereinafter: the Protocol) and agreed on the
following:
“Whereas the Parties previously signed the Professional Football Player Contract with the
expiry date of 30.06.2025, the Parties mutually drafted and signed the present Protocol to
determine the amount of the receivables of the Player from the Club that became due and
will become due until 20.07.2025 and to restructure them by amending their due dates.
1. The Parties agree that the Player has receivables from the Club in the total
amount of 166.000.-Euro, which consists of the outstanding receivables of
the Player, as well those that will become due until 20.07.2025. The Player
hereby accepts, declares and undertakes that he does not have any other
receivables from the Club, that became due and will become due until
20.07.2025, apart from the amount of x.-Euro as given above and his all
other receivables were paid by the Club.
2. The Parties further agree that the receivables of the Player, that became
due and will become due until 20.07.2025, in the amount of x.-Euro, will be
paid to the Player by the Club on 20.07.2025.
3. Within the scope of the above, and his agreement for the new due date, the
Player undertakes not to put the Club in default before 20.07.2025.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22229
6.
On 13 August 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting the payment of
the following amounts within 10 days:
“As of the date of this notice, the following amounts remain outstanding and unpaid:
- March 2025 salary: 36,000 Euros
- April 2025 salary: 36,000 Euros
- May 2025 salary: 36,000 Euros
- June 2025 salary: 36,000 Euros
Contractual bonus: 20,000 Euros (agent’s commission)
Total amount due: 164,000 Euros (One hundred Sixty- Four Thousand Euros)”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 5 December 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
8.
The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for overdue payables arising from the
Contract and the Protocol.
9.
The Player alleged that the Club has only paid him EUR 50,000 and is in default of payment
of EUR 116,000.
10. In addition, the Player argued that payments arising from the Contract still remain
outstanding and in particular EUR 20,000 corresponding to agent fees as well as EUR 10,000
corresponding to the housing allowance.
11. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
-
EUR 116,000 arising from the protocol;
EUR 20,000 as agent commission;
EUR 10,000 as accommodation allowance.
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Club argued that the Football Tribunal does not have competence to
entertain the claim at hand due to clause 9 of the Contract that gave exclusive jurisdiction
to the civil courts of Sivas.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22229
13. However, should the DRC decide to enter into the merits of the case, the Club contested
the amounts claimed by the Player. In this respect, the Club maintained that there is no
contractual basis for the payment of agent fees. Furthermore, regarding the amounts
allegedly arising from the Contract, the Club argued that the Protocol expressly limits any
outstanding remuneration to EUR 116,000.
14. In light 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 before the competent bodies in detail, 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 Claimant is inadmissible.
-
Or alternatively, to reject the claims of the Claimant.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22229
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 5 December 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.
16. 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 in principle competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a French player and a Turkish club.
17. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Club, contested the competence
of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 9 of the Contract, alleging that the
competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract
are the local courts of Sivas. In the contrary, the Player insisted on the competence of FIFA
to adjudicate the claim.
18. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to 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”.
19. In the present matter, the Chamber observed that the parties had unambiguously and
exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the Contract would be
submitted to the local courts of Sivas.
20. In particular, clause 9 of the Contract provides 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. “
21. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that the parties may freely agree to give
jurisdiction to a civil court, and that such choice shall always prevail. In fact, according to
the DRC jurisprudence as well as the CAS jurisprudence in this regard, even if the choice of
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22229
law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g. a generic reference is made to a
region/city), FIFA is not competent when the parties have exclusively agreed upon the
jurisdiction of a civil court. In addition, the Chamber emphasized that art. 22 par. 1 of the
Regulations provides a clear hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
22. However, the Chamber noted that the present dispute arose from two separate documents
signed by the parties, namely:
(i)
(ii)
The Contract which contains clause 9; and
The Protocol, which does not contain any provision regarding jurisdiction.
23. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber wished to clarify that with respect to the amounts
allegedly due under the Contract itself, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain that part of the
claim, since the parties expressly agreed to submit any and all disputes arising out of or in
connection with the Contract to the courts of Sivas.
24. Regarding the amount of EUR 116,000 that arose from the Protocol, the Chamber noted
that the Club requested that the DRC decline jurisdiction over the entire claim, including
the amounts arising from the Protocol, whereas the Player merely argued that the
jurisdiction clause contained in the Contract is too generic to exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction.
25. Therefore, and before determining the DRC’s jurisdiction regarding the amount that arose
from the Protocol, the Chamber considered it necessary to assess whether the Protocol
forms an integral part of the Contract. In particular, the Chamber had to determine
whether the Protocol constitutes merely an amendment to the Contract (in which case the
jurisdiction clause contained therein would also apply) or whether it represents an
autonomous agreement or a novation that remains silent as to jurisdiction.
26. The Chamber recalled that the Protocol states that “whereas the Parties signed the
Professional Football Player Contract with the expiry date of 30.06.2025, the parties mutually
drafted and signed the present Protocol to determine the amount of the receivables of the Player
from the Club that became due and will become due until 20.07.2025 and to restructure them
by amending their due dates”. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Protocol merely
modified the amount to be paid to the Player and its due date.
27. On the basis of the above wording, the Chamber considered that the Protocol does not
establish new and independent obligations, but rather refers directly to the underlying
employment relationship and merely determines the outstanding amount owed to the
Player under the Contract while restricting their due dates.
28. Furthermore, the Chamber made reference to Clause 9 of the Contract, which provides
that “any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this Contract” shall fall under the
jurisdiction of the courts of Sivas. Such wording is broad and encompasses disputes that
are closely connected to the contractual relationship governed by the Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22229
29. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Player did not specifically dispute that the
jurisdiction clause could extend to the Protocol, but merely argued that the clause was not
sufficiently specific to exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction.
30. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that the Protocol constitutes an amendment
to the Contract and remains linked to the underlying contractual relationship between the
parties. As a consequence, any dispute arising from the Protocol must be considered as a
dispute arising out or in connection with the Contract.
31. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the jurisdiction clause contained in Clause 9 of the
Contract also applied to disputes arising from the Protocol.
32. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the DRC does not have jurisdiction to
entertain the claim.
b. Costs
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22229
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Samba
Camara.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22229
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. 10