Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2702
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mattias Erik
Johansson
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
Mattias Erik Johansson, Sweden
Represented by Mr Nihat Güman
Genclerbirligi Spor Kulubu Dernegi, Turkey
Represented by İsmet Bumin Kapulluoğlu
Page 2
REF FPSD-2702
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 24 August 2020, the Swedish player, Mattias Erik Johansson(hereinafter: player or the
Claimant) and the Turkish club, Genclerbirligi Spor Kulubu Dernegi (hereinafter: club or the
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 a salary of EUR
40,000, payable 10 times per season between September and June.
3.
Furthermore, the Claimant was entitled to the following “down payments”:
- EUR 150,000 on 31 August 2020;
- EUR 100,000 on 31 August 2021.
4.
Art. 6 of the contract states: “Both parties declare and accept to abide by the Regulations,
Statutes, Instructions and Decision of the Turkish Football Federation and to act in accordance
with them and their all amended forms”.
5.
Art. 9 of the contract reads as follows: “Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with
this contract shall be dealt with exclusively by the Courts and Enforcement Offices in Ankara”.
6.
Art. 12 of the contract establishes: “The Player will have the right to unilaterally terminate the
employment agreement if the Club is relegated to the second-tier league (PTT 1. League). If
the Player exercises this right, he will not have any claims from the Club; as compensation,
remuneration or in any other name”.
7.
On 4 May 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of EUR
120,000, corresponding to the salaries of February until April 2021, within 15 days.
8.
On 21 May 2021, the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent due to its
nonfulfillment of its financial obligations and in reference to art. 14 RSTP.
9.
According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 1 July 2021,
the player signed an employment contract with the Polish Club, Legia Warszawa, valid as of
the date of signature until 30 June 2023, including a monthly salary of EUR 42,133 during
the overlapping period.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2702
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 2 June 2021, 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
11. In his claim, the Claimant held having had just cause to terminate the contract on 21 May
2021 in reference to art. 14 RSTP, after having put the Respondent in default.
12. The Claimant requested payment of the following monies:
- EUR 147,999 as outstanding remuneration (February until April 2021, plus May 2021
pro rata) plus 5% interest p.a. as of the respective due dates;
- EUR 552,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual
value of the contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 21 May 2021.
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction due to art. 9 of the contract.
14. According to the Respondent, the parties agreed upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the local
civil court in Ankara, where the Respondent’s headquarter is based.
15. As to the substance, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim.
16. The Respondent argued that the Claimant could not depend on art. 14 RSTP as the parties
agreed upon the application of the Regulations of the Turkish Football Federation, which
foresee a longer period for the club to follow up on a default notice.
17. On account of the above, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had no just cause to
terminate the contract on 21 May 2021.
18. Moreover, the club maintained that it was relegated to the second division on 15 May 2021,
and therefore the player could have terminated the contract invoking art. 12 of the contract,
but did not do so in order to claim compensation. In the club’s view the player did not act in
good faith.
19. Additionally, the Respondent held that a fine was imposed on the player in the amount of
Turkish Lira (TL) 13,000, which shall be deducted from his entitlement.
20. Furthermore, the Respondent held that the decision was appealed against and that the club
paid the costs of TL 2,000. As a conclusion, the appeal was dismissed and the decision
confirmed.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2702
21. On account of the above, the club held being entitled to deduct EUR 1,627.57 (corresponding
to TL 15,000) from the player’s receivables.
22. The Respondent further pointed out that the player found new employment and therefore
should not be entitled to any compensation.
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 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 02 June 2021 and submitted for decision
on 14 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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 par. 1 lit. b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, would in principle be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player
and a club.
25. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of the
FIFA DRC to deal with the present case, alleging the exclusive competence of the local court
in Ankara, based on art. 9 of the contract.
26. Therefore, in order to examine its competence and for the sake of good order, the Chamber
wished to recall the wording of the relevant clause, which read:
“Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this contract shall be dealt with
exclusively by the Courts and Enforcement Offices in Ankara”.
27. In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber duly analysed the above-mentioned clause
and wished to emphasize that art. 9 of the contract unequivocally establishes exclusive
competence of the court in Ankara in relation to “any and all disputes arising out or in
connection with this contract”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2702
28. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasise that art. 22 of the Regulations
is clearly “without prejudice” to the parties “right to seek redress before a civil court for
employment related disputes”. As such, the aforementioned provision indeed allows players
and clubs to refer any employment-related disputes possibly arisen between them to the local,
national courts.
29. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that, due to the wording of the jurisdiction
clause in the case at hand, which appears to be specific, clear and literally refers to all the
disputes related to the employment relationship between the parties, such as the one at stake,
the parties had voluntarily and beforehand agreed upon the content and the applicability of
art. 9 of the contract and, therefore, accepted the exclusive jurisdiction of the local court in
Ankara to decide upon any employment-related dispute arisen between them.
30. In consideration of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s claim before
the FIFA DRC is inadmissible.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2702
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Mattias Erik Johansson, is inadmissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7
REF FPSD-2702
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