Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11343
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 October 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Marko Futacs
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), member
CLAIMANT:
Marko Futacs, Hungary
Represented by Kristof Wenczel
RESPONDENT:
Içel Idmanyurdu Spor Kulübü, Türkiye
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11343
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 13 June 2014, the Hungarian player Marko Futacs (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club, Mersin Idman Yurdu Spor Kulübü (hereinafter: the Debtor
Club) entered an employment agreement valid until 31 May 2016.
2.
By means of decision 16-00445 passed by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 17
August 2017 (hereinafter: the FIFA Decision), the Debtor Club was ordered to pay the
following sums to the Player:
-
EUR 200,004 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the decision plus interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of expiry of the date of the Decision for outstanding remuneration;
-
EUR 133,336 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the Decision plus interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of expiry of the date of the Decision as compensation for breach of the
Contract.
3.
On 23 August 2018, due to the non-compliance of the Debtor Club with the FIFA Decision,
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed disciplinary sanctions on the Debtor Club.
4.
On 18 September 2018, the Player and the Debtor Club entered into a further agreement
(hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement) by means of which the Debtor Club undertook to
pay the outstanding amount of EUR 330,000 in several instalments as follows:
-
EUR 5,000 by 31 January 2019
EUR 5,000 by 30 June 2019
EUR 5,000 by 31 November 2019
EUR 2,500 by the last calendar day of each month commencing from December 2019.
5.
In this context, by means of letter dated 8 October 2018 with reference no. 180356, the
FIFA Disciplinary Committee informed the Player that the relevant proceeding against the
Debtor Club would have been closed following the Settlement Agreement and that,
according to the FIFA Circular no. 1628 of 9 May 2018, any future potential claim resulting
from the breach of the aforementioned agreement signed by the parties should have been
lodged before the Players’ Status Committee or Dispute Resolution Chamber, as applicable,
or before the competent bodies at national or international level as mutually agreed by the
parties.
6.
On 30 June 2019, the Debtor Club was officially dissolved.
7.
On 16 September 2019 the Player contacted the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in order to
request a re-opening of the relevant procedure against the Debtor Club since the latter had
not complied with the Settlement Agreement.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11343
8.
In reply to the above, FIFA Disciplinary confirmed the content of its previous
communication dated 8 October 2018.
9.
By means of a letter dated 6 June 2023, the Player addressed the Turkish club Içel
Idmanyurdu Spor Kulübü, also known as Yeni Mersin Idman Yurdu Anonim Şirketi
(hereinafter: the Respondent) as the alleged sporting successor of the Debtor Club and put
the Respondent in default of EUR 330,000 “in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
dated 18 September 2018, concluded between the Player and Mersin Idman Yurdu Kulübü”.
10. On 20 June 2023, the Respondent replied to the Player, arguing that it was not the sporting
successor of the Debtor Club, and contextually referring to another Turkish club named
Mersim Talim Yurdu.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 14 August 2023, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
12. According to the Player, after being dissolved on 30 June 2019, the Debtor Club merged
with the Turkish club Mersin Talim Yurdu Spor Kulübü, thus creating a new club called
Mersin İdmanyurdu Futbol A.S, i.e., the Respondent.
13. In support of its allegations, the Player highlighted that the Debtor Club and the
Respondent share several elements in common, such as the name, the team colors, the
logo, and stadium, which in the Player’s opinion would render evident the sporting
succession.
14. Furthermore, the Player stated that the alleged sporting succession occurred without
temporal gaps, as the Respondent started its football-related activities the exact season
following the dissolution and merge with the Debtor Club.
15. Accordingly, in the Player’s view, the Respondent shall be considered the sporting
successor of the Debtor Club, having inherited the latter’s history and fan base, thus being
also liable for the financial obligations deriving from the relevant Settlement Agreement
dated 18 September 2018.
16. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11343
-
“to declare the Respondent Club as the (legal and/or sporting) successor of the Debtor Club;
-
to oblige the Successor Club of payment of the net amount € 330,000 plus interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. commencing from the effective date of the Settlement Agreement (…);
-
alternatively, to oblige the Successor Club to the payment of the net amount € 135.000 and
additional monthly € 5.000, for 39 additional months plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a.
commencing from the effective date of each instalment in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement.”
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In response to the claim, the Respondent firstly argued that the Player erroneously
addressed it as the sporting successor of the Debtor Club, whereas this has been simply
changed its name into Mersin Talim Yurdu, hence the relevant claim should have been
lodged against the latter.
18. In this respect, the Respondent emphasized that there was no previous decision confirming
the sporting succession alleged by the Player, hence the Respondent would have no
standing to be sued.
19. In continuation, the Respondent argued that even if the latter had been the sporting
successor of the Debtor Club, the relevant source of obligation, i.e. the Settlement
Agreement, dates back to September 2018, hence the statute of limitations under the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) would apply because the Football
Tribunal shall not hear any case when more than two years have elapsed since the event
giving rise to the dispute.
20. In this context, the Respondent underlined that the Player had been properly informed by
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 27 November 2019 about his right to file a new claim
in front of the relevant FIFA judging body.
21. Accordingly, in the Respondent’s opinion, the Player’s substantial right to demand the
relevant outstanding amounts would have expired two years after, on 27 November 2021,
hence the present claim shall be rejected as time barred.
22. The request for relief of the Respondent was therefore to declare the claim inadmissible.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11343
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence, admissibility, and applicable legal framework
23. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 14 August 2023 and submitted
for decision on 18 October 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March
2023 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.
24. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the
RSTP May 2023 edition (hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in
principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Hungarian player and a Turkish
club.
25. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations,
which establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application
of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
26. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on
14 August 2023. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts fallen
due before 14 August 2021 are affected by the statute of limitations.
27. The Chamber noted that, in the present case, the Player requested the payment of EUR
330,000 as outstanding amount under the Settlement Agreement stipulated with the
Debtor Club on 18 September 2018.
28. In this context, the DRC however noted that, while the Player in his claim referred to 30
June 2019 as the date in which the Debtor Club merged with another Turkish club thereby
generating the sporting succession of the Debtor Club with the constitution of the
Respondent, nonetheless the Player waited until 6 June 2023 before sending any formal
notice to put the Respondent in default.
29. In this respect, the DRC also wished to emphasize that already on 8 October 2018 and on
27 November 2019 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee had clearly informed the Player about
the relevant proceeding being closed and that any potential claim resulting from the breach
of the Settlement Agreement should have been lodged before the (then existing) Players’
Status Committee or the Dispute Resolution Chamber ex novo.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11343
30. To this extent, the Chamber considered in particular that (i) it was evident in the Player’s
understanding that the Debtor Club had apparently failed to comply with the Settlement
Agreement as of the relevant first instalment, due on 31 January 2019, as well as that (ii)
the Debtor Club was dissolved on 30 June 2019 and that (iii) to the Player’s knowledge, the
sporting successor of the Debtor Club – allegedly the Respondent – was founded on the
very same date.
31. With the above in mind, the Chamber determined that aforementioned date shall be
considered as the starting moment from which the Player should (or could) have filed his
claim in front of FIFA, namely because the perception of the Respondent as sporting
successor of the Debtor Club had already been formed in said point in time. By not doing
so, the members of the Chamber were unanimous in concluding that the Player has
willingly postponed his decision to act in order to collect the alleged outstanding sums,
thus losing his rights to file the relevant claim at hand due to the statute of limitations. Put
differently, the DRC found that event which trigger the dispute in the matter at hand,
insofar as the sporting successorship is raised by the Claimant, is the date of constitution
of the alleged successor, i.e., the Respondent, which unequivocally took place more than 2
years before the Player’s claim was lodged with FIFA regarding the supposed breach fo the
Settlement Agreement.
32. Consequently, the DRC established that the Player’s entire claim shall be considered
inadmissible.
33. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber wished to point out that the
aforementioned conclusion suffices to confirm that the claim at hand is inadmissible. As a
result, the DRC found no reason to examine the issue of sporting succession and
accordingly makes no ruling in connection thereto.
b. Costs
34. Finally, 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.
35. 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.
36. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11343
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Marko Futacs, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11343
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 9