Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12325
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 March 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Goran Karacic
BY:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), member
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina), member
CLAIMANT:
Goran Karacic, Bosnia & Herzegovina
RESPONDENT:
Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12325
I. Facts of the case
1. On 3 August 2022, the player and Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S. concluded an
employment contract for 3 seasons, valid as from 3 August 2022 until 31 May 2025.
2. Accordingly, the player’s net remuneration was established as follows:
Season
Yearly
To be paid in Bonus Payment (EUR) per
Salary
10
League Match (Starting 11 &
No Conceded Goal)
(EUR)
instalments
(EUR)
per
season of:
2022/2023
300,000
30,000
1,000 (for starting 11 and no
goal
conceded,
cumulative
conditions)
2023/2024
300,000
30,000
1,000 (for starting 11 and no
goal
conceded,
cumulative
conditions)
2024/2025
300,000
30,000
1,000 (for starting 11 and no
goal
conceded,
cumulative
conditions)
3. In addition, the player was entitled to the following guarantee net bonus:
Guarantee Payment Date
Season
Bonus
2022/2023
€50,000
June 30, 2023
2023/2024
€75,000
June 30, 2024
2024/2025
€100,000
June 30, 2025
4. The contract further stipulated the following:
“Club shall totally 10.000 Euro each season to the Player for accommodation, car, flight
ticket and other expenses.”
5. On 14 September 2023, the player sent a letter via his lawyer, indicating the following:
“On 12.09.2023, Mr. Karacic has been informed by your Club’s representatives that he is
not allowed to attend first team trainings on 12.09.2023 and 13.09.2023.
(…)
In accordance with the FIFA and CAS studies, the Club’s obligation toward to the Players
are not only paying their salaries, also giving them opportunity to do training with the first
team and participate in matches. There are plenty of FIFA and CAS decisions in this regard.
For this reason, we are kindly requesting your Club not to give any other permission letter
to Mr. Karacic and immediately re-integrate him to the first team trainings as starting from
tomorrow.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12325
6. On the same date, the club issued a document for the player with the following
contents:
“With your request, you have been granted a temporary permission which will be valid
between September 14, 2023 and September 15, 2023.
There is no harm in not participating in the events such as Professional A Team training,
camps, matches,
organizations etc. or not being in Adana within the specified period.
At the end of the period, we kindly ask you to be ready for the training at Adana Demirspor
Facilities (…) on September 16, 2023”
7. On 19 September 2023, the player sent a letter to the Turkish Football Federation,
requesting to confirm whether the player was registered with the club for the 20232024 season.
8. On 22 September 2023, the Turkish league published the list of A Team players. The
Claimant was not included in said list.
9. On 25 September 2023, the player, via his lawyer, sent a termination letter indicating
the following:
“Unfortunately, your Club has failed to register Mr. Karacic on the A team list (attached list)
and
registered another three goalkeepers (Ertaç Özbir / Vedat Karakuş / Şaxrudin
Magomedoviç
Magomedaliyev). It is also crystal clear that Şaxrudin Magomedovic Magomedaliyev was
transferred by your Club on 08.09.2023, for the position of Mr. Karacic.
(…)
Your Club has failed to register Mr. Karacic on the A team list and more importantly, your
Club has never informed Mr. Karacic about this de-registration before and after this
unlawful decision which is to seriously affect Mr. Karacic’s sporting career and an attempt
to depreciate his market value. Mr. Karacic has learnt his de-registration from the social
media and the Turkish Football Federation’s website on 22.09.2023.
(…)
Given the above, on behalf of the Player we herewith inform the Club that the Player now
exercises his right to unilaterally terminate the Contract with its immediate effect.”
10. On 13 October 2023, the club replied to the player, indicating that it is its
understanding that the player terminated the contract without just cause.
11. On 4 January 2024, the player concluded a contract with the Bosnian club, HSK Zrinjski
Mostar, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2024.
12. Accordingly, the player was entitled to a salary of BAM (Bosnia-Herzegovina
Convertible Marka) 1,000 net.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12325
II. Proceedings before FIFA
1. On 20 October 2023, the player lodged a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal for
breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the following
amounts:
Compensation for Breach of Contract
EUR 795,000 (Net) with 5% p.a. interest
from claim date
Additional Compensation for Sporting EUR 90,000 (Net) for three monthly
and Financial Damages
salaries
Responsibility for Arbitration Costs
Respondent (Club) to bear the costs
2. In this respect, the player provided the following breakdown for the compensation:
Season Total Salary
Guarantee
Expenses
Total
Bonus
2023/24 300,000.-EUR
75,000.-EUR
10,000.-EUR
385,000.-EUR
2024/25 300,000.-EUR
100,000.-EUR
10,000.-EUR
410,000.-EUR
3. The player argued that the club breached its duties by excluding him from team
training and not registering him on the A team list.
4. In the opinion of the player, the Club's actions demonstrate a lack of planning, bad
faith, and a disregard for his rights.
5. Thus, the player stated that he terminated his contract with just cause due to the
Club's failure to register them.
6. In the view of the player, the lack of registration hinders a player's development and
reduces future career opportunities. As such, he stated that the Club's actions violate
FIFA Regulations, Swiss law, and the Swiss Code of Obligations.
7. On 22 November 2023, the club replied to the claim and simultaneously lodged a
counterclaim against the player.
8. In particular, the club considered that the player terminated the contract without just
cause.
9. The club argued that the Player played twice as many minutes in the first 6 matches
of the 2023/2024 season compared to the entire 2022/2023 season, indicating that it
had a real interest and trust in the Player.
10. The Club stated that has complied rigorously with all its financial obligations towards
the Player, demonstrating its commitment to the employment relationship.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12325
11. The Club also considered that the de-registration of the Player from the A-list was
carried out by mutual consent due to third-party interest in the Player's services and
Turkish limitations regarding the number of foreign players in the A-list.
12. The Club explained that it did not impede or deny the Player's access to training
sessions.
13. The Club further insisted that it had the right to decide whether the Player would play
in the first team or the reserves team, and the Player was still eligible to play with the
reserve team.
14. The Club also considered that the player has a history of making unilateral
terminations against football clubs and using it against the clubs with bad faith, which
should be taken into consideration.
15. As a result, the club requested the following:
Order
Amount (EUR)
Residual Value Payment by Player and New 750,000
Club
Player's Contribution to Club's Legal Fees
7,000
16. In his replica, the Claimant argued that he retained the right to terminate the contract
for the 2022/23 season, opting not to based on assurances regarding playing time.
17. In addition, the player argued that the club failed to fulfil its financial obligations.
18. The Player explained that he was not informed or consented to de-registration and
noted that no meeting or communication with the Respondent occurred.
19. The Claimant highlighted his fundamental right to train with the A-team training and
to participate in official matches.
20. The Player argued that he sought a positive and constructive professional experience.
21. The player kept his initial request.
22. In its duplica, the Respondent argued that the Player consistently made false
assertions without providing any evidence to support his claims.
23. The club maintained that the permission letters clearly demonstrated its intention to
favor the player, and it argued that the Player's attempts to undermine the letters
were contradicted by the Whatsapp correspondence.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12325
24. The club denied instructing the Player to find alternative clubs and stated that the
Player was never denied access to training facilities.
25. The club defended its decision to recruit a new goalkeeper, emphasizing that it was a
result of the club's good planning and anticipation of the Player's possible departure.
26. As to the foreign quota regulations, the club acknowledged the existence of the
regulations and asserted that it did not shift responsibility but made difficult choices
within the constraints.
27. The club pointed to the example of another deregistered player still training with the
A-team to dispute the Player's claim about the impact on player development.
28. The club claimed that it communicated transparently with the player.
29. The club explained that there was an agreement to deregister the Player temporarily
until the next transfer window for optimal preparation.
30. The player’s new club was invited to provide its position, but failed to do so.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12325
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
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 20 October 2023 and submitted
for decision on 21 March 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the May 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.
2.
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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players October 2022 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 Bosnian player
and a Turkish club.
3.
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 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 February 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
4.
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. Likewise, the Chamber 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
5.
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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12325
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
6.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the player and Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S.
concluded an employment contract for 3 seasons, valid as from 3 August 2022 until 31 May
2025.
7.
Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim for breach of contract
without just cause, arguing that, on 25 September 2023, he terminated that contract due
to the club’s failure to register him for the season 2023-2024.
8.
The Chamber observed that, according to the club, the player was still able to train despite
being de-registered. The Chamber also observed that, according to the club, this deregistration of the Player from the A-list was carried out by mutual consent due to thirdparty interest in the Player's services and Turkish limitations regarding the number of
foreign players in the A-list.
9.
On this note, the Chamber recalled the jurisprudence of FIFA, which is clear in relation to
de-registration of player. Indeed, following said longstanding jurisprudence, by refusing to
register a player, a club is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access
of a player to competition and, as such, violating one of his fundamental rights as a football
player.
10. Moreover, the Chamber considered that the club’s argument concerning the “Turkish
limitations regarding the number of foreign players in the A-list” evidences a lack of
planning from the club, for which the player cannot be held liable.
11. Furthermore, the Chamber examined the club's argument that the parties mutually
consented for the player's de-registration. In this regard, the Chamber observed that said
alleged consent lacks clear and unequivocal evidence. In fact, the Chamber noted that the
default notice from the player explicitly contradicts the club's assertion, emphasizing the
player's disagreement with the de-registration.
12. Thus, given the absence of explicit consent in the correspondence, coupled with the
player's subsequent actions, such as seeking confirmation from the TFF and terminating
the contract, the Chamber considered that the player sufficiently demonstrated a lack of
acknowledgment or acceptance by himself of said de-registration.
13. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player's decision to terminate the contract in
response to the club's failure to register him for the 2023-2024 season is justified under
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12325
FIFA jurisprudence. Indeed, the refusal to register a player is a direct violation of the
player's fundamental rights.
14. Consequently, the Chamber established that the player terminated the contract with just
cause and is therefore entitled to compensation.
ii. Consequences
15. 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.
16. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
equivalent to two monthly salaries under the contract, amounting to EUR 60,000 (i.e. EUR
30,000, corresponding to the months of August and September 2023).
17. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, as explained
above.
18. 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 the date of termination until the date of
effective payment.
19. 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.
20. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12325
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. In particular, the Chamber noted that the player would earn the following:
Season
2023/2024
Yearly Salary (EUR)
240,000
2024/2025
Season
2023/2024
2024/2025
Season
2023/2024
2024/2025
Residual value:
300,000
Guarantee Bonus
75,000
100,000
Expenses
10,000
10,000
EUR 735,000
(i.e. 300,000 minus 60,000 for the salaries of August
and September 2023)
Payment Date
June 30, 2024
June 30, 2025
24. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 735,000 serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
25. 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.
26. Indeed, the player found employment with HSK Zrinjski Mostar. Accordingly, the player was
entitled to a salary of BAM (Bosnia-Herzegovina Convertible Marka) 1,000 net. Thus, the
Chamber estimated that, from said contract, the player would have earned 1,000*12 = BAM
12,000, equivalent to approx. EUR 6,130.
27. 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 728,870 to the player (i.e. EUR 735,000 minus EUR 6,130), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12325
28. 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 the date of termination until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
29. 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.
30. 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 of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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
34. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12325
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. 13
REF. FPSD-12325
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Goran Karacic, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant the following
amounts:
- EUR 60,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 September
2023 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 728,870 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 25 September 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12325
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. 15