Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22866
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Armin Hodžić
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Armin Hodžić, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Dupovac Feđa
RESPONDENT:
Atakas Hatayspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22866
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 July 2023, the Bosnian player Armin Hodžić (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant)
and the Turkish club Atakas Hatayspor (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 11 July 2023 until 30 June
2026.
2.
Pursuant to the “Payments and Special Provisions” section of the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) the following
fixed remuneration:
2023/2024 season
EUR 157,500 net in salaries, payable in the following 11 instalments:
o EUR 32,500 net on 31 August 2023;
o EUR 10,000 net on 30 September 2023;
o EUR 10,000 net on 31 October 2023;
o EUR 10,000 net on 30 November 2023;
o EUR 10,000 net on 31 December 2023;
o EUR 35,000 net on 31 January 2024;
o EUR 10,000 net on 29 February 2024;
o EUR 10,000 net on 31 March 2024;
o EUR 10,000 net on 30 April 2024;
o EUR 10,000 net on 31 May 2024; and
o EUR 10,000 net on 3 June 2024.
2024/2025 season
EUR 168,000 net in salaries, payable in 10 equal monthly instalments on the last day of
each month from August 2024 and May 2025.
2025/2026 season
EUR 189,000 net in salaries, payable in 10 equal monthly instalments on the last day of
each month from August 2025 and May 2026.
3.
The “Payments and Special Provisions” section of the Contract further granted the Player,
inter alia, the following fringe benefits:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22866
“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.
(…)”.
4.
Clause 1 of the “Special Provisions” section of the Contract stipulates the following:
“Amounts determined under this Agreement are only net amounts and the Club is liable to
pay withholding taxes regarding these amounts”.
5.
On 4 October 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 15 days to
pay EUR 53,422, broken down as follows:
o EUR 5,622 as the outstanding balance of the May 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the August 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the September 2025 salary; and
o EUR 10,000 as house rent compensation.
6.
On 1 December 2025, the Player sent a second default notice, granting the Club a final 7day deadline to pay EUR 91,222, broken down as follows:
o EUR 5,622 as the outstanding balance of the May 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the August 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the September 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the October 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the November 2025 salary; and
o EUR 10,000 as house rent compensation.
7.
On 10 December 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract citing outstanding
remuneration.
8.
On 16 February 2026, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Bosnian club
FK Željezničar, valid as from 16 February 2026 until 31 May 2028.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22866
9.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of this new contract, the Player is entitled to a fixed monthly
remuneration of BAM 4,000 net for the period from 16 February 2026 to 31 January 2027,
and BAM 10,000 net for the period from 1 February 2027 to 31 May 2028.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 30 January 2026, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
11. In his claim, the Player argued that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract
due to the Club’s persistent failure to pay outstanding remuneration, after having placed
the Club in default, to no avail, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations).
12. On this basis, the Player claimed entitlement to the following amounts:
Outstanding remuneration
o EUR 5,622 as the outstanding balance of the May 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the August 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the September 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the October 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 as the November 2025 salary; and
o EUR 10,000 as house rent compensation.
Compensation for breach of contract
o EUR 113,400 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Contract until 30 June 2026; and
o EUR 56,700 as additional compensation, corresponding to three monthly salaries.
13. Accordingly, the Player requested the following relief:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine
that he terminated the employment relationship with the Club with just cause on 10th
December 2025 - and to order the Club to pay the Player the following amounts:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22866
o Overdue payables, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant payment dates until the date
of effective payment, specified as follows
o 81.222,00 EUR (including outstanding salaries for the months of May 2025, September
2025, October 2025, November 2025)
o 10.000,00 EUR for the compensation of rent;
o 113.400,00 EUR net (for remaining remuneration for season 2025/26) as the amount due
as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as from 10th December 2025 until
the date of effective payment and an additional 3 months of compensation in amount of
56.700,00 EUR are being requested”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
14. In its reply, the Club categorically rejected the Player’s claim in its entirety. In particular, the
Club argued the following:
o The Contract clearly stipulates that the Club is solely responsible for the payment of
withholding taxes; accordingly, the Player is not entitled to receive net amounts.
o While the Contract provides for the provision of housing to the Player, it does not
grant him any contractual entitlement to a monetary payment of EUR 10,000 or any
other amount as compensation for accommodation expenses.
o Any compensation that might be awarded must be mitigated in light of the Player’s
new employment contract with FK Željezničar.
15. On these grounds, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22866
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 30 January 2026 and submitted for decision
on 9 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.
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 (July 2025 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Bosnian 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 (TMS).
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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22866
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for breach of contract and its legal
consequences in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
22. In this context, the DRC 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 Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
23. 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).
24. The Chamber noted that the Player alleged that the Club had only partially paid his salary
for May 2025 and had failed to pay his salaries for the period from August to November
2025. The Chamber further noted that the Player provided written evidence of having
placed the Club in default on 4 October 2025 in respect of the outstanding balance of the
May 2025 salary, as well as the August and September 2025 salaries, i.e., at least 15 days
before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 10 December 2025.
25. The Chamber 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 Chamber noted that the Club failed to provide any documentary evidence
of compliance with the aforementioned financial terms.
26. In light of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations, and that the Club
is therefore liable for the legal consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
27. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
Outstanding remuneration
28. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to EUR 81,222 net,
broken down as follows:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22866
o EUR 5,622 net as the outstanding balance of the May 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 net as August 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 net as September 2025 salary;
o EUR 18,900 net as October 2025 salary; and
o EUR 18,900 net as November 2025 salary.
29. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Player would, in principle, be entitled to EUR 81,222 net as
outstanding remuneration at the moment of termination, as detailed ut supra.
30. However, the DRC noted that the Player did not expressly request that outstanding
remuneration be awarded on a net basis. Consequently, and so as not to contravene the
legal principle of ne ultra petita, the Chamber determined that the outstanding
remuneration could not be qualified or awarded as net amounts.
31. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Club is liable to pay to the
Claimant EUR 81,222 as outstanding remuneration.
32. 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% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following each
respective due date until the date of effective payment, as follows:
o On the amount of EUR 5,622, as from 1 June 2025;
o On the amount of EUR 5,622, as from 1 September 2025;
o On the amount of EUR 5,622, as from 1 October 2025;
o On the amount of EUR 5,622, as from 1 November 2025; and
o On the amount of EUR 5,622, as from 1 December 2025.
Accommodation allowance
33. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse the Player’s claim for accommodation allowance
in the amount of EUR 10,000, which the Club contested on the grounds that, while the
Contract provides for the provision of housing to the Player, it does not confer any
entitlement to a monetary payment for accommodation expenses.
34. In this regard, the DRC first observed that, as argued by the Club, the Contract granted the
Player the right to a house, but did not provide for any rent allowance or monetary
compensation in lieu thereof. As a result, the Chamber emphasised that any claim for a
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22866
fixed accommodation allowance would require clear and specific evidence demonstrating
that the Parties mutually agreed to such payment beyond the contractual wording.
35. However, the Player failed to submit any documentary evidence (such as an addendum,
side agreement or written communication) establishing an obligation on the part of the
Club to pay the claimed amount for accommodation. In accordance with the principle that
the burden of proof lies with a party asserting a fact, the Chamber found that the Player
did not discharge his evidentiary burden.
36. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s claim for an
accommodation allowance in the amount of EUR 10,000 must be rejected.
Compensation
37. 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.
38. 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 them 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.
39. 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).
40. 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 113,400 net serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. The Chamber clarified that this
amount corresponds to six monthly salaries of EUR 18,900 net each, covering the period
from December 2025 to May 2026.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22866
41. 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
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.
42. Indeed, the Player found employment with FK Željezničar. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player is entitled to BAM 4,000 net per month during the relevant
period, corresponding to approximately EUR 2,045 net per month. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 8,180 net,
corresponding to the period from February to May 2026.
43. Subsequently, the Chamber 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 Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
44. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
EUR 56,700 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
45. At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, which
stipulates that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
46. 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 113,400 net to the Player (i.e., EUR 113,400 net minus EUR 8,180 net plus EUR 56,700
net, limited to EUR 113,400 net as the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
47. Lastly, 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% per annum as from the date of termination (10 December
2025) until the date of effective payment.
48. The members of the Chamber finally took note of the Club’s submission that any amounts
awarded to the Player should not be considered on a “net” basis. According to the Club, the
Contract merely imposed an obligation on it to effect withholding, without establishing that
the remuneration owed to the Player was net of taxes.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22866
49. In this respect, the DRC referred to the explicit wording contained in the “Special Provisions”
section of the Contract, which states:
“Amounts determined under this Agreement are only net amounts and the Club is liable to
pay withholding taxes regarding these amounts”.
50. The Chamber found that this clause leaves no room for interpretation: the Parties expressly
agreed that all remuneration due under the Contract was to be paid as net amounts, and
the Club unequivocally undertook the obligation to bear and settle all corresponding
withholding taxes.
51. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s objection in this regard could not be
upheld. In light of the explicit contractual wording, the Player was contractually entitled to
receive his remuneration on a net basis.
52. In light of the foregoing, and having already established that the Player did not expressly
request that the outstanding remuneration be awarded as net amounts, while he did
explicitly request that the compensation for breach of contract be awarded on a net basis,
the Chamber decided that only the amount awarded as compensation shall be granted in
net amounts.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
53. In continuation, and 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.
54. 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 new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid.
55. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 lit. a) 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 art. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
56. 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 FPSD
22205.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22866
57. 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.
58. 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 Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
a formal decision.
59. 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
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22866
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Armin Hodžić, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Atakas Hatayspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 81,222 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,622 as from 1 June 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,900 as from 1 September 22025 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,900 as from 1 October 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,900 as from 1 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,900 as from 1 December 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
o EUR 113,400 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum
as from 10 December 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. 14
REF. FPSD-22866
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. 15