Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22931
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Artem Sergeevich Yuran
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Artem Sergeevich Yuran, Russia
Represented by Mariam Galoian
RESPONDENT:
Serik Belediyespor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22931
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 August 2025, the Russian player Artem Sergeevich Yuran (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 1
August 2025 until 30 June 2026.
2.
On 27 October 2025, the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties)
signed a termination and settlement agreement (hereinafter, the Termination Agreement),
by which they agreed, inter alia:
“1.1. The parties hereby immediately terminate by mutual agreement all relationships and
disputes which existed between them up to date hereof for whatever concept and the Player
expressly declare not to have any claims whatsoever against the club, except as specified
below, because of the early termination of Player Contract with the starting date of
02.08.2025 and ending date of 30.06.2026.
1.2. The parties have agreed that the Player has shall [sic] receive a salary of USD 15,000
from the Club, from the Player Contract with the starting date of 02.08.2025 and ending
date of 30.06.2026. The Club shall pay the Player 5,000 USD of the 15,000 USD salary by 14
November 2025, the remaining 5,000 USD of the 15,000 USD by 15 December 2025, the last
remaining 5,000 USD of the 15,000 USD 15 January 2026 and, due to early termination of
the contract, 5,000 USD of the 10,000 USD compensation on 28 November 2025 and the
remaining USD 5,000 by 31 December 2025. This Mutual Termination / Termination Protocol
is issued at the request of the both parties. The Player accepts, declares and undertakes that
with the payment of 25,000 USD to him by the Club, the Player has no rights and receivables
arising and to arise from the Club”.
3.
On 10 December 2025, the Player put the Club in default of payment, granting a 10-day
deadline to pay USD 10,000, corresponding to the instalments due on 14 and 28 November
2025 (i.e., USD 5,000 each) under the Termination Agreement.
4.
On 18 December 2025, the Player issued a second default notice, granting an additional
10-day deadline and reiterating his previous request, while also demanding payment of a
further USD 5,000 corresponding to the instalment due on 15 December 2025.
5.
On 12 January 2026, the Player issued a third default notice, granting another 10-day
deadline, reiterating his previous requests, and demanding an additional USD 5,000
corresponding to the instalment due on 31 December 2025.
6.
On 19 January 2025, the Player issued a fourth default notice, granting an additional 10day deadline, reiterating his previous requests, and demanding payment of a further USD
5,000 corresponding to the instalment due on 15 January 2026.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22931
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 6 February 2026, the Player lodged the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
8.
In his claim, the Player asserted that the Club has failed to pay USD 20,000 under the
Termination Agreement, corresponding to the instalments due on 28 November 2025, 15
December 2025, 31 December 2025 and 15 January 2025 (i.e., USD 5,000 each).
9.
Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“In view of all the above factual and legal arguments, the Claimant hereby respectfully
requests the FIFA DRC:
a) to accept the Claimant’s Statement of Claim in full;
b) to order the Club to pay the payments due under the Agreement in the total amount of
20,000.00 USD (net), in accordance with paragraph 1.2 of the Agreement, plus interest at
the rate of 5% per annum on each outstanding amount since as from its respective due
date, specifically:
o the payment in the amount of 5,000.00 USD (net), which was due to be paid on 28
November 2025, plus 5% interest per annum as from 29 November 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
o the payment in the amount of 5,000.00 USD (net), which was due to be paid on 15
December 2025, plus 5% interest per annum as from 16 December 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
o the payment in the amount of 5,000.00 USD (net), which was due to be paid on 31
December 2025, plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 January 2026 until the date of
effective payment
o the payment in the amount of 5,000.00 USD (net), which was due to be paid on 15
January 2026, plus 5% interest per annum as from 16 January 2026 until the date of
effective payment.
c) to impose on the Club a sporting sanction in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 12bis
of the RSTP in the form of a ban on registering new players at both national and
international level for two consecutive registration periods.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22931
In view of the economic sanctions currently in force against the Russian Federation, of which
the Claimant is a citizen, the Claimant respectfully request that any payments awarded in
his favour by the FIFA DRC be made to his bank account in Russian rubles / Turkish lira /
Euros, using the bank details provided in the case file, at the applicable exchange rate on
the date of payment, in an amount equivalent to the sums awarded by the FIFA DRC in USD”.
b. Reply of the Club
10. In its reply, the Club argued that it has already paid the USD 20,000 claimed by the Player.
11. On this basis, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in its entirety.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22931
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single
Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 6 February 2026 and
submitted for decision on 13 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.
13. 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), 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 Russian player and a Turkish club.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
15. 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 she 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
16. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22931
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for overdue payables under the Termination
Agreement concluded between them.
18. At the outset, the Single Judge noted that it remained undisputed that, on 27 October 2025,
the Parties signed the Termination Agreement, under which they mutually agreed to
terminate the Contract. It also remained undisputed that, in accordance with the
Termination Agreement, the Club undertook to pay the Player the total sum of USD 25,000
as follows:
o USD 5,000 on 14 November 2025;
o USD 5,000 on 28 November 2025;
o USD 5,000 on 15 December 2025;
o USD 5,000 on 31 December 2025; and
o USD 5,000 on 15 January 2026.
19. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, according to the Player, the Club has failed to
pay USD 20,000 under the Termination Agreement, corresponding to the instalments due
on 28 November 2025, 15 December 2025, 31 December 2025 and 15 January 2026.
20. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the aforementioned amounts had in fact
remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations arising from the Termination Agreement.
21. The Single Judge noted that, in casu, the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the Termination Agreement concluded between the
Parties.
22. Nevertheless, the Single Judge noted that, although the Club stated in its reply to the claim
that it had submitted payment receipts, no documentary evidence of payment was actually
provided with its submission. Accordingly, the Single Judge determined that no proof of
compliance with the aforementioned financial terms was provided by the Club.
23. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount
of USD 20,000 under the Termination Agreement, corresponding to the instalments due
on 28 November, 15 and 31 December 2025, and 15 January 2026, in the amount of
USD 5,000 each.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22931
24. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforementioned amount as from the day following each
respective due date until the date of effective payment.
25. However, the Single Judge determined that the aforementioned payment shall be made in
US Dollars, as expressly agreed by the Parties, and not in Russian Roubles, Turkish Liras or
Euros as requested by the Player, there being no contractual basis in this respect.
26. Likewise, and in the absence of any contractual provision to the contrary, the Single Judge
determined that the amounts payable to the Player cannot be awarded on a “net” basis.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
27. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
28. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
29. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
30. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the
above, and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last
two years, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
31. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offense will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
32. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22931
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22931
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Artem Sergeevich Yuran, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Serik Belediyespor, must pay to the Claimant USD 20,000 as outstanding
amount plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 29 November 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 16 December 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 1 January 2026 until the date of
effective payment; and
o 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 16 January 2026 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22931
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22931
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