Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12245
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 February 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Dmytro Grechyshkin
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Dmytro Grechyshkin, Ukriane
Represented by Yuliya Bogdanova
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Sakaryaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Umur Varat
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12245
I. Facts of the case
1. On 30 January 2023, the Ukrainian player Dmytro Grechyshkin (hereinafter: the player) and the
Turkish club Sakaryaspor (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract valid until 31
May 2024 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2. Clause 3 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
The club shall make the payment to the football player for 2022-2023 Season as below:
27.500 euro net shall be paid on the date of signing the agreement.
Annual salary of 55,000 euro net (the salary shall be paid between 2023 February and 2023 june
with the amount of 11.000 euro net per month)
The club shall make the payment to the football player for 2023-2024 Season as below:
38.000 euro net shall be paid on 30.08.2023 in cash.
8.000 euro net shall be paid on 30.09.2023 in cash.
Annual salary of 130.000 euro net (the salary shall be paid between 2023 August and 2024 May
with the amount of 13.000 euro net per month)
16. The Player will be paid 1,000 Euro, per month for car and house rent during the contract period.
All expenses related to vehicle and house (excluding the rent of the house and the car) belong to
the Footballer.
3. On 16 September 2023, the player sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting to be
allowed to train with team, to be allowed in the club’s facilities and to be informed of his
registration with the team. The player also requested EUR 52,000 to be paid within 15 days.
4. On 18 September 2023, the player requested to be informed of his registration with the team as
soon as possible.
5. Between 19 September 2023 and 28 September 2023, the player sent additional default notices
reiterating his previous requests.
6. On 2 October 2023, the club replied to the notices stating inter alia that:
-
“You are not registered to our A team until 11 January 2024 because of your insufficient
physical conditions”
“you should train with personal coach until your physical conditions reach the level of A team.”
“we have paid amount of 52.000 Euro as you have asked. The reason of the delay is financial
problems we have suffered”
7. On 3 October 2023, the player sent a termination notice adducing just cause. In particular, the
player states that “the Club had repeatedly violate my fundamental rights as a professional football
player, namely: was forcing me to terminate the Contract, using such abusive conduct as depriving me
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12245
from the due training process for a long period of time, and, what is even more sufficient - FC
Sakaryaspor didn’t register me to play in the Championship, which deprives me of the opportunity to
be eligible to participate in organized football,”
8. On 13 October 2023, the club sent a default notice to the player stating inter alia that it had paid
the amounts due, that his services were valued and required “during training between 16.09.2023
and 11.01.2024 and thereafter as a registered player of the club.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9. On 17 October 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
10. The player states that the Respondent “repeatedly violated the Player’s fundamental rights as a
professional football player, namely: was forcing him to terminate the Contract, using such abusive
conduct as depriving the Player from the due training process for a long period of time, and, what is
even more sufficient - FC Sakaryaspor didn’t register the Player, which deprived him of the opportunity
to be eligible to participate in organized football, – the Player didn’t had other choice than to
unilaterally terminate the Contract with FC Sakaryaspor with just cause as of October 03, 2023.”
11. The player states that he did not receive any payments for September (namely, the monthly
payment in the amount of EUR 14,000 and the rest of the season bonus in the amount of EUR
8,000).
12. The player filed the following requests for relief:
1. RULE, that the Contract, concluded between the Player and the Club, was prematurely
terminated by the Player with just cause.
2. ORDER FC Sakaryaspor to pay in favor of the Player:
- outstanding payment for September 2023 in the amount of 22 000,00 (twenty two thousand) EUR,
plus 5 % of interest which should be calculated starting from October 01, 2023 till the date of
effective payment;
- the compensation for the premature termination of the Contract with just cause in the amount of
112 000,00 (one hundred twelve thousand) EUR, plus 5 % of interest which should be calculated
starting from October 04, 2023 till the date of effective payment.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12245
b. Position & Counterclaim of the Club
13. In its reply, the club states that the player was trying to create the circumstances for termination
with just cause.
14. The club states that after several notices, it had complied with the request of the player since it
“allowed him to train with the A team therefore there is no reason left to terminate the Contract.
Because Club also paid the amount he has asked for”.
15. The club states that in its correspondence of 16 October 2023, it confirmed that the player was
going to be registered again with the team in January 2024.
16. In the view of the club, it “fulfilled all its obligations regarding to Contract. However Player terminated
his Contract. This termination made without just cause. Therefore as Respondent we kindly request to
reject this case regarding to above mentioned reasons. In case of Football Tribunal decides opposite
there must be a deduction regarding to very high possibility of Player’s new transfer on January 2024.
Player’s new contract must be deducted from the compensation therefore this case to be suspended
until 15 February 2024 to receive Player’s new contract otherwise we request a %40 deduction from
Player’s compensation”.
17. The club filed the following request for relief:
To decide termination made by the Player is termination without just cause.
TO REJECT the claim submitted by the Player.
If DRC decides opposite suspend the case until 15 February 2024 to see possible transfer of the
Player. In case of a transfer to deduct the amounts written on his possible new contract. If
suspension request is rejected to make %40 deduction from Player's compensation regarding to
possibility of Player's mitigating damages.
As Claimant (for the counter claim)
To decide termination made by the Player is termination without just cause.
TO CONDEMN Player to pay 112.000 Euro compensation plus %5 p.a. interest starting from the
termination date 03.10.2023.
TO IMPOSE a sanction according to Art. 17 of FIFA RSTP
c. Replica of the Player
18. The player states that the club had ignored his request and the club “broke the Player’s trust to
such an extent, that, in good faith, he could no longer be reasonably expected to continue the
employment relationships with FC Sakaryaspor. as the player was not registered, he won’t be able to
play competitive football, irrespective of his commitment, general attitude, or performance in training
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12245
sessions.”
19. The player underscores that the club “not only deprived the Player of the opportunity to be effectively
trained by the Club, but, what is more crucially important – the Club didn’t register the Player to
participate in the championship, in other words, blocked his access to the competitive football and
violated the Player’s fundamental right, which gave the Player a just cause to terminate the Contract”
20. The player filed the following requests:
1. REJECT the Counter-Claimant’s counter-claim in its entity.
2. RULE, that the Contract, concluded between the Player and the Club, was prematurely
terminated by the Player with just cause.
3. ORDER FC Sakaryaspor to pay in favor of the Player:
- outstanding payment for September 2023 in the amount of 22 000,00 (twenty two thousand) EUR,
plus 5 % of interest which should be calculated starting from October 01, 2023 till the date of
effective payment;
- the compensation for the premature termination of the Contract with just cause in the amount of
112000,00 (one hundred twelve thousand) EUR, plus 5 % of interest which should be calculated
starting from October 04, 2023 till the date of effective payment.
d. Duplica of the Club
21. In the view of the club, the Claimant “admitted that Club informed him about not-registering him.”
22. The club reiterates its previous arguments and request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as “the DRC” or “the
Chamber”) 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 17 October 2023 and submitted for
decision on 14 February 2024. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12245
24. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (May 2023), it is competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Ukrainian player and a Turkish club.
25. 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. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023) and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 17 October 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
26. 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.
c. Merits of the dispute
27. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the matter at
hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
28. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the
contract by the player.
29. In this context, the player adduces several reasons according to which his termination was with
just cause. Mainly, the player states that the club failed to register him for official competitions,
and he was deprived from performing his employment duties.
30. In this regard, the DRC noted that the club has admitted that it did not register the player and
that it would re-register him in January 2024. The club adduces that it had a foreign players quota,
and that the player was in bad shape. Moreover, the club states that the player was informed of
this de-registration.
31. The DRC observed that the club has admitted several times that the player had been de-registered
and that he would be registered again in January 2024.
32. Thus, the Chamber underscored that according to the club’s own admission the player was not
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12245
going to be registered until January 2024 (at the earliest). In this regard, the DRC recalled that the
jurisprudence of the DRC is reflective that it is within the player’s rights to be registered and
remain as such, since the de-registration jeopardizes the player’s capability of being able to play
with his teammates in the relevant matches. The Commentary to the RSTP is reflective of the
above (page 114):
“The rationale for this is that players have a fundamental right to train and to be in a position to
play official matches. In order for a player to be eligible to participate in organised football, they
must be registered to participate in championships for their club. If they are not registered, they
will not be able to play competitive football, irrespective of their commitment, general attitude, or
performance in training sessions. This is a violation of the player’s fundamental rights.178 Even
stronger language was used in a 2015 Award,179 where it was stated that deregistering the player
constituted the “factual termination of the employment contract.”
33. As to the argument of the club that the player had been informed of his de-registration, the
Chamber underscored that considering the important implications such measure has on the
employment conditions of the player, a de-registered player not only has to be informed, he or
she would under all circumstances have to agree to the de-registration.
34. Based on the above, the Chamber decided that the player terminated the contract with just cause.
ii. Consequences
35. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of
the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
36. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the player, are the salary of September 2023, a performance
bonus and an allowance, amounting to EUR 22,000 (13,000 + 8,000 + 1,000).
37. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were outstanding
under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 22,000.
38. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 1 October 2023 until the date of effective payment.
39. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the player 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, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and
further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the
player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing
contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls
within the protected period.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12245
40. 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.
41. As a consequence, the members of 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. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
42. 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 112,000 (i.e. the residual value) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
43. 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 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 player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
44. In this regard, the player informed that he had remained unemployed. Thus, no mitigation nor
additional compensation is to be considered.
45. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 112,000 to the
player (i.e. the residual value), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
46. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of 4 October 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
47. 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.
48. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12245
of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
49. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
50. 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.
51. The DRC 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
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12245
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Dmytro Grechyshkin, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Sakaryaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 22,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 112,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 4 October 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of Sakaryaspor is rejected.
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/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter-Respondent
in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12245
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. 12