Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22605
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Marcos Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI, Argentina & Italy
CLAIMANT:
Marcos Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva, Portugal
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
Serik Belediyespor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22605
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 August 2025, the Portuguese player Marcos Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva (hereinafter,
the Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Serik Belediyespor (hereinafter, the Club or
the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from
3 August 2025 until 30 June 2026.
2.
According to the “Payments and Special Provisions” section of the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties), inter alia, the
following fixed remuneration:
•
•
3.
USD 30,000 net as an advance payment, payable on 10 August 2025; and
USD 150,000 net in salaries, payable in 10 monthly instalments of USD 15,000 net each,
due on the last day of each month from September 2025 to June 2026.
On 2 December 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days
to pay USD 65,000 net, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
USD 20,000 net as the remainder of the advance payment;
USD 15,000 net as salary for September 2025;
USD 15,000 net as salary for October 2025; and
USD 15,000 net as salary for November 2025.
4.
On 18 December 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract for outstanding
salaries.
5.
On 8 January 2026, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Turkish club
Sariyer Spor Kulübü, valid as from 8 January 2026 until 30 June 2026.
6.
Under this new employment contract, the Player is entitled to a fixed remuneration of EUR
100,000 net from February to June 2026.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 12 January 2026, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
8.
In his claim, the Player asserted that the Club breached its financial obligations under the
Contract, as it paid only USD 10,000 of the USD 30,000 advance payment and failed to pay
any of the monthly salaries.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22605
9.
On this basis, the Player argued that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract for outstanding salaries, after having put the Club in default, to no avail.
10. Accordingly, the Player claimed entitlement to USD 65,000 net as outstanding
remuneration —representing the balance of the advance payment (i.e., USD 20,000 net)
and the salaries for September, October and November 2025 (i.e., USD 15,000 each)— as
well as USD 105,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Contract.
11. Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of all of the above, [the Player] respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
to:
1. Determine that the present Statement of Claim is admissible;
2. Determine that the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations established
under the Employment Agreement and, consequently, [the Player] terminated the Employment
Agreement signed on 3 August 2025 with just cause;
3. Order the Respondent to the payment of the amount of U$ 65.000,00 (sixty-five thousand
United States Dollars) net as outstanding remuneration, together with the payment of the total
amount of U$ 105.000, 00 (one hundred and five thousand United States Dollars) as
compensation for breach of contract;
4. Order the Respondent to pay 5% interest p.a. calculated over the outstanding amount, as of
the day after such amount became due, i.e. 11 August 2025, 1 October 2025, 1 November 2025
and 1 December 2025, until the date of effective payment”.
b. Position of the Club
12. Despite being invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 12 January 2026 and submitted for
decision on 19 February 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,
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22605
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
14. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese player and a
Turkish club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
16. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
17. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations, he would refer only to the facts, arguments, and documentary evidence,
which he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the dispute concerned a claim lodged by the Player against the Club for breach of contract
based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club under the
Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
19. In this context, the Single Judge’s task was to determine, based on the evidence presented
by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Club and,
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22605
if so, whether the formal prerequisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had, in fact, been
fulfilled.
20. The Single Judge established that, according to art. 14bis of the Regulations, 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 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).
21. The Single Judge noted that, for the purposes of art. 14bis of the Regulations, the Player
claimed not having received the monthly salaries for September, October, and November
2025. Furthermore, the Player provided written evidence of having put the Club in default
on 2 December 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on
18 December 2025.
22. The Single Judge also 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 Club failed to reply to the claim despite being duly invited to do
so, and therefore, no proof of compliance with the aforementioned financial terms was
submitted.
23. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and the Club is therefore liable for the
consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
24. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such an unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
25. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, when considering that the Player
terminated the Contract on 18 December 2025, was equivalent to four salaries under the
Contract plus a partial remnant of the advance payment, which amounted to a total of USD
80,000 net.
26. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the Claimant the
amounts which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination,
i.e., USD 80,000 net (i.e., USD 15,000 net times 4 and USD 20,000 net as the remainder of
the advance payment).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22605
27. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest on the following outstanding amounts that should accrue as follows:
•
•
•
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 20,000 net as from 11 August 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 15,000 net as from 1 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 15,000 net as from 1 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 15,000 net as from 1 December 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
28. The Single Judge noted that the Player only requested interest over the unpaid balance of
the advance payment and the monthly salaries for September, October and November
2025. Therefore, and so as not to contravene the legal principle of ne ultra petita, the Single
Judge decided that no interest should be paid over the December 2025 salary.
29. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
30. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in the
event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
31. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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).
32. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
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,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22605
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 90,000 net (i.e., USD 15,000 multiplied
by 6) served as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
USD 15,000 corresponding to the month of January 2026;
USD 15,000 corresponding to the month of February 2026;
USD 15,000 corresponding to the month of March 2026;
USD 15,000 corresponding to the month of April 2026;
USD 15,000 corresponding to the month of May 2026; and
USD 15,000 corresponding to the month of June 2026.
33. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
34. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Turkish club Sariyer Spor Kulübü. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to a fixed
remuneration of EUR 100,000 net from February to June 2026, which is approximately USD
117,000 net. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his
damages in the total amount of USD 117,000 net.
35. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant should receive additional compensation.
36. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the amount of additional compensation
of USD 45,000 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
37. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 18,000 net to the Claimant (i.e., USD 90,000 minus USD 117,000 plus USD 45,000),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
38. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s failure to request the applicability of interest
over the compensation amount, the Single Judge decided not to award the Claimant
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22605
interest on said compensation in order not to contravene the legal principle of ne ultra
petita.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
39. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
40. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
41. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
42. 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.
43. The Single Judge 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
44. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
45. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge 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-22605
46. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Marcos Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Serik Belediyespor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 80,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 20,000 net as from 11 August 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 15,000 net as from 1 October 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 15,000 net as from 1 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 15,000 net as from 1 December 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
- USD 18,000 net as compensation for breach of contract.
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.
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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22605
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-22605
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