Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6303
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 August 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kadeem Harris
BY:
Philippe Diallo (France), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Kadeem Harris, England
RESPONDENT:
Tuzlaspor, Turkey
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
Page 2
REF FPSD-6303
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 30 March 2022, the English player, Kadeem Harris (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the
Turkish club, Tuzlaspor (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2022.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following monies:
- USD 20,000 on 30 April 2022;
- USD 20,000 on 31 May 2022.
3.
Moreover, the contract established that:
- “The player will be entitled to USD 1,000 for each goal or assist maked in the official
league matches”.
- “The club will pay 10.000 USD if the club stays in TFF 1. League at the end of the
season ’’.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 9 June 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
5.
In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of the following monies:
- USD 40,000 as outstanding remuneration (both instalments of USD 20,000) plus interest
as of the due dates;
- USD 4,000 as bonus in connection with 3 goals and 1 assist of the player.
- USD 10,000 as bonus in connection with not being relegated at the end of the season.
The player requested payment of 10% interest p.a.
6.
In this context, the player held that the club failed to remit the claimed amounts.
7.
The player submitted statistics confirming that he scored 3 goals and made 1 assist as well as that
the club was not relegated during the relevant season.
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
In its reply, the Respondent rejected the claim.
9.
Further, the club maintained that if faced financial difficulties due to the economic crisis in Turkey.
10. Moreover, the Respondent held that it remitted an amount of EUR 26,000 to the player on 29
March 2022. In this regard, the club submitted a receipt allegedly signed by the player.
Page 3
REF FPSD-6303
c. Reaction of the player to alleged payment
11. The player did not acknowledge the partial payment and stated that he did not sign the submitted
receipt. Therefore he insists on payment of the full amount of EUR 54,000.
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 also referred to as
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 9 June 2022 and submitted for
decision on 3 August 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022 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. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 (March 2022 edition), he is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a English 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, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and considering
that the present claim was lodged on 9 June 2022, the March 2022 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: 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 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
16. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 it will refer only to the facts,
Page 4
REF FPSD-6303
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties dispute the amount of the outstanding remuneration
claimed by the player.
18. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine if the Claimant is
entitled to the outstanding remuneration and if yes, to what extent.
19. Subsequently, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent alleged having remitted a partial
payment to the player and submitted a receipt with the alleged signature of the player. The Single
Judge further noted that such payment was contested by the player, who denied having signed
such document.
20. On account of the above, the Single Judge started to analyse the submitted document and noted
that it was undated, issued without official letterhead of the club and the club did not submit an
official document from a bank confirming such payment. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded
that the club failed to meet its burden of proof in order to establish that partial payment to the
player.
21. Therefore, the Single Judge established that, taking into account the contract, the player is
entitled to the full amount claimed, i.e. EUR 54,000.
ii. Consequences
22. 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 EUR
54,000, corresponding to the two instalments of EUR 20,000 as well as bonus payments in the
amount of EUR 14,000.
23. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the relevant due dates until the date of effective
payment.
Page 5
REF FPSD-6303
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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
29. 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.
30. 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 or legal costs shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
31. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 6
REF FPSD-6303
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kadeem Harris, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Tuzlaspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- USD 20,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 34,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claim of the Claimant is 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.
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
Page 7
REF FPSD-6303
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).
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
Page 8