Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22462
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Rui Pedro Da Silva E Sousa
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Rui Pedro Da Silva E Sousa, Portugal
Represented by Carlos Ferreira Vaz
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22462
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 February 2024, the Portuguese player Rui Pedro Da Silva E Sousa (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 its
date of signature until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant as follows,
quoted verbatim:
“[…] 1. FOR THE 2023/2024 SEASON;
A. In total, a net warranty fee of 205.000 EUR will be paid to the Player in the following terms:
29.02.2024
31.03.2024
30.04.2024
31.05.2024
30.06.2024
45.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
B. CONTINGENT PAYMENTS
a. If the player plays in 12 matches of official league competition (play in the first 11 and for at
least 45 minutes), a total of net 50.000 EUR will be paid. Matches in which the player is sent off
from the game due to red card and matches not completed are not included in the match
calculation under this article.
b. In the 2023/2024 season, if the total number of goals and/or assists in official league matches
is equal or more than 7, an extra net 50.000 EUR will be paid.
c. At the end of the 2023/2024 season, if the club qualifies to play in the UEFA Europa League or
UEFA Champions League, a total net premium of 50.000 EUR will be paid.
d. All payments subject to these conditions will be paid to Player by the Club, within 30 days
following the last official league match of the relevant season, provided that this agreement is
in force on the date of success and the relevant success. In the event of early termination and/or
termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Player shall not claim any receivables
regarding the successes that will occur after the termination date.
2. FOR THE 2024/2025 SEASON;
A. In total, a net warranty fee of 409.187 EUR will be paid to the Player in the following terms:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22462
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
30.06.2025
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
40.000 EUR
B. CONTINGENT PAYMENTS
a. If the player plays in 20 matches of official league competition (play in the first 11 and for at
least 45 minutes), a total of net 50.000 EUR will be paid. Matches in which the player is sent off
from the game due to red card and matches not completed are not included in the match
calculation under this article.
b. In the event that the bonuses for the total number of goals and/or assists, in the 2024/2025
season are realised within the same football season, the Player shall only be entitled to higher
of the bonus set out below.
In the 2024/2025 season,
- if the total number of goals and/or assists in official league matches is equal or more than 12,
an extra net 30.000 EUR will be paid.
- if the total number of goals and/or assists in official league matches is equal or more than 18,
an extra net 60.000 EUR will be paid.
c. At the end of the 2024/2025 season, if the club qualifies to play in the UEFA Europa League or
UEFA Champions League, a total net premium of 50.000 EUR will be paid.
d. All payments subject to these conditions will be paid to Player by the Club, within 30 days
following the last official league match of the relevant season, provided that this agreement is
in force on the date of success and the relevant success. In the event of early termination and/or
termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Player shall not claim any receivables
regarding the successes that will occur after the termination date.
3. FOR THE 2025/2026 SEASON;
A. In total, a net warranty fee of 459.188 EUR will be paid to the Player in the following terms:
30.09.2025
45.000 EUR
31.10.2025
45.000 EUR
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22462
30.11.2025
31.12.2025
31.01.2026
28.02.2026
31.03.2026
30.04.2026
31.05.2026
30.06.2026
45.000 EUR
45.000 EUR
54.188 EUR
45.000 EUR
45.000 EUR
45.000 EUR
45.000 EUR
45.000 EUR
B. CONTINGENT PAYMENTS
a. If the player plays in 20 matches of official league competition (play in the first 11 and for at
least 45 minutes), a total of net 50.000 EUR will be paid. Matches in which the player is sent off
from the game due to red card and matches not completed are not included in the match
calculation under this article.
b. In the event that the bonuses for the total number of goals and/or assists, in the 2024/2025
season are realised within the same football season, the Player shall only be entitled to higher
of the bonus set out below.
In the 2025/2026 season,
- if the total number of goals and/or assists in official league matches is equal or more than 12,
an extra net 25.000 EUR will be paid.
- if the total number of goals and/or assists in official league matches is equal or more than 18,
an extra net 60.000 EUR will be paid.
c. At the end of the 2025/2026 season, if the club qualifies to play in the UEFA Europa League or
UEFA Champions League, a total net premium of 50.000 EUR will be paid.
d. All payments subject to these conditions will be paid to Player by the Club, within 30 days
following the last official league match of the relevant season, provided that this agreement is
in force on the date of success and the relevant success. In the event of early termination and/or
termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Player shall not claim any receivables
regarding the successes that will occur after the termination date. […]”
3.
In addition, the Contract read as follows:
“[…] 4. FRINGE BENEFITS (Applicable for the whole contractual period):
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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22462
1. Amounts determined under this Agreement are only net amounts and the Club is liable to pay
withholding taxes regarding these amounts. The Club shall not have any responsibility/liability
for the duties imposed by the Turkish Tax Legislation on the player as a taxpayer and/or
responsible person and for the taxes that may arise if the player is obliged to submit an Income
Tax Declaration in relation to the fee in this agreement. […]”
4.
On 28 February 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 22,500 to the Claimant.
5.
On 15 March 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 22,500 to the Claimant.
6.
On 29 May 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
7.
On 5 June 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
8.
On 16 July 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 80,000 to the Claimant.
9.
On 2 September 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
10. On 14 November 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
11. On 13 December 2024, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
12. On 21 January 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
13. On 20 February 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 20,000 to the Claimant.
14. On 11 March 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 29,187 to the Claimant.
15. On 27 March 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 20,000 to the Claimant.
16. On 30 April 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 20,000 to the Claimant.
17. On 6 May 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 20,000 to the Claimant.
18. On 30 May 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 20,000 to the Claimant.
19. On 23 June 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 48 hours of EUR 60,000 as outstanding remuneration under the Contract, i.e., EUR
20,000 as the remaining balance of the instalment due on 30 April 2025 and EUR 40,000 as
the instalment due on 31 May 2025.
20. On 27 June 2025, the Respondent remitted EUR 40,000 to the Claimant.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22462
21. On 22 July 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment within
15 days of EUR 80,000 as outstanding remuneration under the Contract, i.e., EUR 40,000 as
the instalment due on 31 May 2025 and EUR 40,000 as the instalment due on 30 June 2025.
22. On 6 October 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of EUR 145,000 as outstanding remuneration under the Contract, i.e., EUR
20,000 as the remaining balance of the instalment due on 30 April 2025, EUR 40,000 as the
instalment due on 31 May 2025, EUR 40,000 as the instalment due on 30 June 2025 and
EUR 45,000 as the instalment due on 30 September 2025.
23. On 20 October 2025, the Respondent’s legal representative sent the following
correspondence to the Claimant’s legal representative:
“[…] I was informed by my client, Hatay SK, that they reached an agreement with your client, Mr.
Rui Pedro, on the attached settlement; but Mr. Pedro requested the document to be forwarded
to your services as well. [...]”
24. On 21 October 2025, the Claimant’s legal representative answered the correspondence
from the Respondent’s legal representative as follows:
“[…] Further to the document you have sent, and following consultation with my client, Mr. Rui
Pedro, I hereby inform you that he is willing to accept the proposed agreement, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Payment of the total outstanding amount of € 145.000,00 (€ 20.000,00 – half of April; €
40.000,00 – May; € 40.000,00 – June and € 45.000,00 – September).
2. Payment to be made no later than 28 October.
3. Should the total amount not be paid by 28 October 2025, in addition to the Player being
entitled to terminate the contract with just cause, all amounts stipulated in the agreement
executed between the Parties shall become immediately due and payable, together with an
additional penalty of 10% on the total amount that Mr. Rui Pedro has already received or is yet
to receive under the entire contract. […]”
25. On 22 October 2025, the Respondent’s legal representative sent the following
correspondence to the Claimant’s legal representative:
“[…] I just had the opportunity to discuss your counter-proposal with the Chairman of the Club.
Our notes are as follows:
1. We believe that there is a miscalculation regarding the outstanding amounts. Our records
show 105.000.-Euro and, as I was informed, Mr. Rui Pedro also confirmed this amount yesterday.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22462
2. Notwithstanding above, we can undertake to pay the total amount of 150.000.-Euro (including
the salary of October, which will become due on 31.10.2025) by 08.11.2025.
3. However, we cannot accept the suggested penalty clause, since it is seen as a severe additional
obligation. We can propose to include a penalty clause for 5% of the amount to be paid
(150.000.-Euro).
Within the scope of the above, if you would have a second counter-proposal I will happily discuss
it with the Chairman once again. […]”
26. On the same day, i.e., 22 October 2025, the Claimant’s legal representative answered the
correspondence from the Respondent’s legal representative as follows:
“[…] After further consultation with our client, the total outstanding amount remains EUR
145.000,00, which must be settled by no later than 28 October 2025.
With regard to the penalty clause, our client is prepared to accept your proposal to reduce the
penalty to 5% of the total amount payable.
We kindly request your confirmation of acceptance of these terms at your earliest convenience.
[…]”
27. On 23 October 2025, the Respondent’s legal representative sent the following
correspondence to the Claimant’s legal representative:
“[…] Upon further examination, the Club is confident that the total outstanding amount is limited
to 105.000.-Euro.
I am enclosing a brief regarding the payments and the outstanding amount, could you please
check with your client?
We can also share the payment receipts if necessary.
Upon your confirmation of the above, we shall be ready to draft the settlement agreement. […]”
28. On the same day, i.e., 23 October 2025, the Claimant’s legal representative answered the
correspondence from the Respondent’s legal representative as follows:
“[…] Thank you so much for your reply and for sharing the brief about the payments.
After looking over the document you attached with Rui, we must point out that the figures and
dates included therein do not reflect the actual payments made. Based on our records, the
outstanding amount remains € 145,000.00.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22462
Accordingly, we must reiterate the contents of our previous email: the total amount due is €
145,000.00, and payment must be made by 28 October. […]”
29. On 24 October 2025, the Respondent’s legal representative sent the following
correspondence to the Claimant’s legal representative:
“[…] I am enclosing the payment receipts and kindly request from your services to confirm the
debt of 105.000.-Euro with your client, once again. [...]”
30. On the same day, i.e., 24 October 2025, the Claimant’s legal representative answered the
correspondence from the Respondent’s legal representative as follows:
“[…] Following the email below and all the attachments, for which we are very grateful, we would
like to inform you that we may have identified the error in your calculation. On 16/07/2024, two
identical payment receipts of € 40,000.00 each were attached, whereas Rui only received one
payment of € 40,000.00 on that date.
For this reason, please find our clarification below:
As of 30/09/2025, Rui Pedro was entitled to receive a total of € 659,187.00. However, to date, he
has received € 514,187.00.
Therefore, an outstanding balance of €145,000.00 remains to be paid.
Accordingly, we maintain everything stated in our previous emails, namely that this amount
must be settled by next Tuesday, the 28 October. […]”
31. On 25 October 2025, the Respondent’s legal representative sent the following
correspondence to the Claimant’s legal representative:
“[…] Please find enclosed the declaration of the bank, from which it will be seen that on
16.07.2024, two separate payments of 40.000.- Euro were made.
You can also see from the attached document that one of the payments hold the payment
description of "Mayıs Maaş Ödemesi" (which translates as May Salary Payment) and the other
one holds the payment description of "Haziran Maaş Ödemesi" (which translates as June Salary
Payment).
Consequently, we kindly request you to consult with your client once again. […]”
32. On 27 October 2025, the Claimant’s legal representative answered the correspondence
from the Respondent’s legal representative as follows:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22462
“[…] Following the email below, and after a new confirmation with Rui Pedro, he has confirmed
that both transfers of € 40.000,00 each were indeed received.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Accordingly, the payment to be made by tomorrow should be in the amount of € 105.000,00.
[…]”
33. On 29 October 2025, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
34. The Claimant confirmed to the FIFA general secretariat that he remained unemployed
following the termination of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
35. On 26 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
36. In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to
outstanding remuneration. In this respect, the Player stated that on the date of termination
of the Contract, i.e., 29 October 2025, his outstanding remuneration amounted to three
and a half monthly salaries. In this respect, the Player pointed out that the total value of
the Contract amounted to EUR 1,073,375 and that he only received EUR 514,187.
Accordingly, it is the position of the Player that he is entitled to EUR 559,188.
37. Having stated the above, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following, quoted
verbatim:
“a) Declare and confirm that the Claimant validly terminated the employment contract with just
cause, pursuant to Article 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players;
b) Order the Defendant to pay the Claimant the outstanding contractual remuneration in the
total amount of EUR 559,188.00 (five hundred and fifty-nine thousand one hundred and eightyeight euros) which corresponds to USD 659,058.98 (six hundred fifty-nine thousand fifty-eight
US dollars and ninety-eight cents), corresponding to unpaid salaries, plus interest at the
applicable FIFA rate as from the respective due dates until full and effective payment;
c) Order the Defendant to pay any performance-related bonuses contractually agreed between
the parties, in particular those linked to goals scored, which may be deemed due and payable
based on the contractual terms and the Claimant's sporting performance up to the date of
termination;
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22462
d) Alternatively, and insofar as the deciding body considers that the performance-related
bonuses were conditional upon future sporting achievements that could not be objectively
verified due to the premature termination of the contract, acknowledge that the Claimant was
deprived of the contractual opportunity to earn such bonuses as a direct consequence of the
Defendant’s breach, and take this circumstance into due consideration when assessing the
financial consequences of the unlawful conduct of the Defendant;
e) Confirm that the termination with just cause produces no sporting, disciplinary, or contractual
consequences for the Claimant, and that he is entitled to register with a new club without any
restriction or objection, including the issuance of the relevant ITC;
f) Order the Defendant to bear the procedural costs of the present proceedings, if applicable, in
accordance with the applicable FIFA regulations.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
38. In its reply, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration under
the Contract is limited to EUR 105,000 and that, in view of the Claimant’s requests for relief
and the legal principle ne ultra petita, he should not be awarded compensation for the
breach of their employment relationship.
39. In addition, the Respondent argued that the Claimant is not entitled to any performance
related bonuses.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 26 December 2025 and submitted for decision
on 12 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.
41. 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 competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Portuguese player and a Turkish club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22462
42. 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
43. 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
44. 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
45. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that, according to
the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
46. In addition, the Chamber took note that, according to the Respondent, the Claimant’s
outstanding remuneration under the Contract is limited to EUR 105,000 and that, in view
of the Claimant’s requests for relief and the legal principle ne ultra petita, he should not be
awarded compensation for the breach of their employment relationship.
47. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
48. The Chamber then referred to 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).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22462
49. In the present matter, the Chamber recalled the following facts:
•
On 6 October 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested
payment within 15 days of EUR 145,000 as outstanding remuneration under the
Contract, i.e., EUR 20,000 as the remaining balance of the instalment due on 30 April
2025, EUR 40,000 as the instalment due on 31 May 2025, EUR 40,000 as the
instalment due on 30 June 2025 and EUR 45,000 as the instalment due on 30
September 2025.
•
On 27 October 2025, the Claimant informed the Respondent that his outstanding
remuneration under the Contract in fact amounted to EUR 105,000 and requested
the corresponding payment by 28 October 2025.
•
On 29 October 2025, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
50. For the sake of completeness of the aforementioned facts, the Chamber observed that, in
accordance with the evidence on file, the Respondent remitted EUR 554,187 to the
Claimant during their employment relationship, i.e., from 9 February 2024 until 29 October
2025. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the Claimant was in fact entitled to EUR
659,187 from the Respondent during this period:
•
EUR 205,000 for the season 2023/2024;
•
EUR 409,187 for the season 2024/2025; and
•
EUR 45,000 as the first instalment for the season 2025/2026 due on 30 September
2025.
51. With the above considerations in mind, the Chamber underlined that the Claimant had
outstanding remuneration of EUR 105,000 on 29 October 2025, i.e., the date of termination
of the Contract. In this respect, the Chamber established that this amount corresponds, in
average, to more than two outstanding monthly salaries under the Contract. Accordingly,
the Chamber held that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations were met in the
present matter, given that the Claimant had more than two outstanding monthly salaries
on 6 October 2025 and that he provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in
default on the same day, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract
on 29 October 2025.
52. Moreover, the Chamber held that the Player’s correspondence to the Club dated 27
October 2025 was legally irrelevant for assessing whether the requirements of art. 14bis of
the Regulations were fulfilled in the present matter. In fact, the Chamber was of the opinion
that the deadline set by the Player in his default notice to the Club dated 6 October 2025
remained fully effective, and his right to terminate the Contract with just cause on 29
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22462
October 2025 persisted, irrespective of the content of his correspondence to the Club
dated 27 October 2025. In the Chamber’s view, this is because the Player had, in any event,
more than two outstanding monthly salaries on 6 October 2025.
53. 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 Contract
concluded with the Claimant. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the evidence
provided by the Respondent only partially proves the payment of the amounts claimed as
outstanding by the Claimant.
54. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
56. The Chamber observed that the Player’s outstanding remuneration under the Contract at
the time of its termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, related
to the last two instalments of the 2024/2025 season, as well as the first instalment of the
2025/2026 season.
57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant EUR 105,000
corresponding to his outstanding remuneration under the Contract at the moment of its
termination.
58. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on his outstanding remuneration as follows:
•
Over the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
•
Over the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 1 July 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
Over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 1 October 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
59. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-22462
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.
60. 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
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.
61. 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).
62. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 414,188 (i.e., the last 9 instalments under the Contract
of the 2025/2026 season) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
63. For the sake of completeness of its previous conclusion, the Chamber disregarded the
Respondent’s position according to which the Claimant should not be awarded
compensation for the breach of the Contract based on his requests for relief and the legal
principle ne ultra petita. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that the Claimant
requested an amount greater than the one awarded, thus the legal principle ne ultra petita
was not applicable to the present matter. In addition, the Chamber observed that the
Player expressly requested FIFA to (i) declare that he had terminated the Contract with just
cause pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations, and (ii) assess the financial consequences
of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct. Accordingly, the Chamber considered that the
Player implicitly but unequivocally requested compensation for the breach of the Contract.
64. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 DRC 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-22462
65. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, the Chamber held that no
mitigation or additional compensation applied in the present matter (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit.
ii) of the Regulations).
66. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 414,188 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
67. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 29 October 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
68. Lastly, the Chamber examined the Player’s claim for performance-related bonuses in
accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. In this respect, the Chamber
observed that the Player failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the conditions
for the payment of such bonuses had been fulfilled. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that,
pursuant to the Contract, entitlement to performance‑related bonuses was expressly
conditional upon the achievement of specific sporting results. In the absence of evidence
that these conditions were met and considering the contingent and non‑guaranteed nature
of such bonuses, the Chamber decided that the claimed amounts could neither be awarded
nor included in the compensation for the breach of the Contract.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-22462
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. In view of the above, the Chamber 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 formal decision.
75. 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
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-22462
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Rui Pedro Da Silva E Sousa, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 105,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 1 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 1 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
- EUR 414,188 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29
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. 18
REF. FPSD-22462
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. 19