Acórdão do FIFA, processo Leal Rodrigues_2020-05-15

Data

15/05/2020

Fonte

inside.fifa.com

Labour Disputes

Texto da decisão

Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 May 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Jerom e Perlem uter (France), member
Angela Collins (Australia), member

on the matter between the player,

Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbos a, Portugal,
represented by Mr Pedro Macieirinha
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,

Akhis ar Belediy es por Kulübü, Turkey,
represented by Mr Levent Polat
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,

Hatay s por, Turkey
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties

Facts of the cas e

On 18 July 2017, the Portuguese player, Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa
(hereinafter: the player), and the Turkish club, Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü
(hereinafter: Akhisar), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the first contract)
valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2018.

In accordance with art. 3 of the first contract, the player was entitled to receive from
Akhisar the total amount of EUR 300,000 for the 2017-2018 sporting season (i.e. ten
instalments of EUR 30,000 each for the months of August 2017 to May 2018, payable
on the 25th of each month.

On 6 July 2018, the aforementioned parties signed a second employment contract
(hereinafter: the second contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May
2020.

In accordance with art. 3 of the second contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to
receive the following remuneration from Akhisar:
a. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2018-2019 sporting season, broken
down as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.

EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2018;
ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2018 to
May 2019, payable on the 25th of each month;
a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 20182019 season”;

b. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2019-2020 sporting season, broken
down as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2019;
ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2019 to
May 2020, payable on the 25th of each month;
a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 20192020 season”;
a bonus of EUR 25,000 “if the player had played in starting eleven at 25
Super League matches in 2018-2019 season”.

On 29 May 2019, the player put Akhisar in default of payment via regular post of the
total amount of TRY (Turkish Lira) 205,355 and EUR 52,500, broken down as follows:
a. “80 355,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract;

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Club Player Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal / Club Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey /
Club Hatayspor, Turkey
Page 2 of 16

b. 125 000,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the sports season
2018/2019;
c. 17 500,00 EUR as half salary due on 25.04.2019;
d. 35 000,00 EUR for the due salary of 25.05.2019”.
Furthermore, the player granted Akhisar a deadline of 15 days to comply with its
financial obligations.
6.

On 3 July 2019, the player unilaterally terminated in writing the contract with Akhisar.
In particular, the player held that the club failed to pay him the following amounts:
a. “80 355,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract;
b. 145 000,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the sports season
2018/2019;
c. The amount of EUR 10 000 as bonus for the final of the Turkish cup;
d. 17 500,00 EUR as half salary due on 25.04.2019;
e. 35 000,00 EUR for the due salary of 25.05.2019”.

On 5 July 2020, Akhisar responded to the player’s termination letter, holding that it
never received the default letter dated 29 May 2019. In particular, Akhisar stated that
“even if that letter was sent on 29.05.2019, it was sent by post and if this letter was
sent by post it was not delivered to our club” and that “the delivery of the post and
notifications to the legal persons (such as our club) is subject to the rules and
regulations stated in Turkish Notification Law and this posts and notifications must
be delivered to the person who is entitled to represent the legal person”.
Furthermore, Akhisar explained in its letter that the parties had been holding
negotiations in view of a possible mutual termination of the contract but that “the
player delayed the signature of the termination agreement”. Akhisar further stated
that, in any case, “the total amount of unpaid receivables of [the player] is less than
his two monthly salaries and the unilateral termination you have made is also unjust
for this reason”.

On the same day, the player replied to Akhisar in writing, reiterating that he had just
cause to terminate the contract and that sending a default letter via regular post is
not against any regulations. In this context, the player maintained that in its letter,
Akhisar never denied having received the default letter dated 29 May 2019. In
addition, the player stated that he was “open to negotiate with the club the value of
the due labour credits and compensation in order to achieve an amicable solution for
this case”.

On 31 July 2019, the player lodged a claim against Akhisar in front of FIFA maintaining
that he had just cause to terminate the contract and requesting to be awarded the

following amounts, plus “interests since the dates of the missing payments until full
payment”:
a. a total amount of TRY 225,355 and EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration, ,
broken down as follows:
i.
TRY 80,355 “for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract”;
ii.
TRY 145,000 “for overdue bonus payable for the season 2018-2019”;
iii.
EUR 10,000 as “bonus for the final of the Turkish cup”;
iv.
EUR 17,500 as “half salary due on 25.04.2019”;
v.
EUR 35,000 “for the due salary of 25.05.2019”;
b. the amount of EUR 400,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
10. The player further requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on Akhisar.
11. In his claim, the player firstly argued that Akhisar failed to pay him TRY 80,355,
corresponding to his “overdue bonus payable for the previous written contract”.
12. In continuation, the player held that Akhisar failed to pay him TRY 145,000 “as bonus
for the sport season 2018/2019” and EUR 10,000 “for the final of the Turkish cup”.
13. Moreover, the player stated that Akhisar owed him outstanding salaries in the total
amount of EUR 52,500, corresponding to half of his salary for April 2019 (EUR 17,500)
and his salary for May 2019 (EUR 35,000).
14. In this context, the player referred to his default notice sent on 29 May 2019 and
argued that he had a just cause to terminate the contract on 3 July 2019 based on art.
14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
15. Furthermore, the player referred to Akhisar’s correspondence dated 5 July 2019 and
held that his default letter was duly sent and received by the club. In addition, the
player declared that no agreement regarding the mutual termination of the contract
was ever reached between the parties.
16. With regard to his request for compensation for breach of contract, the player
deemed being entitled to the residual value of the contract, which according to his
calculations, amounts to EUR 400,000.
17. In its reply, Akhisar rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against the
player for breach of contract.
18. In this regard, Akhisar affirmed that the player’s default notice was only sent by
regular post and not directly notified to the club’s legal representatives. Furthermore,
Akhisar stated that “the amount of the unpaid receivables of the player did not give
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Club Player Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal / Club Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey /
Club Hatayspor, Turkey
Page 4 of 16

him the right to unilaterally terminate his contract with just cause according to FIFA
Regulations”.
19. More in particular, Akhisar submitted to the file a copy of the first contract and
affirmed that it “did not owe any bonus and/or any other amount to the player in
respect to the first contract” and underlined that the player “did not even submit his
first contract to the file” nor did he evidence his allegations in this regard. Akhisar
further stated that the player’s request for alleged outstanding bonuses deriving from
the first contract is “groundless” since “there is no article/clause in the first contract
which gave the right to the player to request bonuses”.
20. Furthermore, Akhisar affirmed that it “did not owe any bonus to the player in respect
to the second contract” and further declared that “there is nothing in the second
contract regarding any bonus payment except for the EUR 10,000 bonus for playing
in Tukish cup final” Consequently, Akhisar also rejected the player’ claim for alleged
outstanding bonuses for the 2018-2019 season and considered that such claim is
“groundless”.
21. Moreover, Akhisar affirmed that “the total amount of the unpaid receivables of the
player as of the date of termination is only EUR 62,500” and deemed that “in order
for the player to terminate his contract with just cause because of unpaid salaries, the
amount of his delayed payments must be at least EUR 70,000”, i.e. the amount of at
least two monthly salaries. In this context, Akhisar argued that the unilateral
termination of the contract by the player is “clearly against the FIFA Regulatons and
therefore it is unjust”.
22. Consequently, Akhisar rejected the claim of the player in its entirety and lodged a
counterclaim against the player and requested compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of EUR 350,000, which corresponds, according to Akhisar, to the
residual value of the contract.
23. The player informed FIFA that he signed a contract with the Turkish club, Hatayspor
(hereinafter: Hatayspor), valid as from 5 August 2019 until 31 May 2020, providing for
i) an “advance and warranty payment” of EUR 75,000, payable at the date of
signature of the contract and ii) for a monthly salary of EUR 22,500, payable “on the
last of each month”.
24. Despite having been invited to do so by the FIFA Administration, Hatayspor did not
provide any comments on the present dispute.

II.

Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber

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 submitted to FIFA on 31 July 2019.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction
with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
March 2020), 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 Portuguese player and a Turkish club.

Furthermore, 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 (edition March
2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 July 2019, the June
2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.

The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and documentation on file. However, the DRC 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.

First, the Chamber noted that the player and Akhisar entered into a first employment
contract valid as from 18 July 2017 until 31 May 2018, in accordance with which the
player was entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 300,000 for the 2017-2018
sporting season.

In continuation, the DRC observed that, following the expiry of the first contract, the
aforementioned parties entered into a second employment contract valid as from 6
July 2018 until 31 May 2020, which entitled the player to receive the following
remuneration:
a. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2018-2019 sporting season, broken
down as follows:
i.
EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2018;

ii.
iii.

ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2018 to
May 2019, payable on the 25th of each month;
a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 20182019 season”;

b. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2019-2020 sporting season, broken
down as follows:
i.
EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2019;
ii.
ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2019 to
May 2020, payable on the 25th of each month;
iii.
a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 20192020 season”;
iv.
a bonus of EUR 25,000 “if the player had played in starting eleven at 25
Super League matches in 2018-2019 season”.
7.

Furthermore, the DRC deemed essential to emphasise that the following factual
circumstances remained undisputed by the parties:
a) On 29 May 2019, the player put Akhisar in default of payment via regular post of
the total amount of TRY 205,355 and EUR 52,500, broken down as follows:
a. “80 355,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract;
b. 125 000,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the sports season
2018/2019;
c. 17 500,00 EUR as half salary due on 25.04.2019;
d. 35 000,00 EUR for the due salary of 25.05.2019”.
In particular, the Chamber noted that the player granted Akhisar a deadline of 15
days to comply with its financial obligations;
b) On 3 July 2019, the player terminated in writing the contract with Akhisar due to
alleged outstanding remuneration and referred in his letter to art. 14bis of the
Regulations.

In this context, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim against Akhisar in
front of FIFA and requested to be awarded the following amounts, plus “interests
since the dates of the missing payments until full payment”:
a. a total amount of TRY 225,355 and EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration,
broken down as follows:
i.
TRY 80,355 “for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract”;
ii.
TRY 145,000 “for overdue bonus payable for the season 2018-2019”;
iii.
EUR 10,000 as “bonus for the final of the Turkish cup”;

iv.
v.

EUR 17,500 as “half salary due on 25.04.2019”;
EUR 35,000 “for the due salary of 25.05.2019”;

b. the amount of EUR 400,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
9.

After having taken note of the above, the DRC also took note of the position of the
parties in the present matter. In this respect, the player argued that he terminated
the contract with just cause in view of his outstanding salaries and requested
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from Akhisar.

10. In particular, the player referred to his default notice sent on 29 May 2019 and argued
that he had a just cause to terminate the contract on 3 July 2019 on the basis of art.
14bis of the Regulations.
11. Equally, the Chamber took note that Akhisar argued that the player terminated the
contract without just cause and lodged a counterclaim against the latter, requesting
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 350,000. In particular, the
Chamber observed that Akhisar alleged that the player’s default notice was not
served to it properly as it was only sent by regular post and not directly notified to
the club’s legal representatives.
12. Furthermore, the DRC noted that Akhisar held that the player did not have a just
cause to terminate the contract on the basis of art. 14bis of the Regulations and that
“the total amount of the unpaid receivables of the player as of the date of
termination is only EUR 62,500” and deemed that “in order for the player to
terminate his contract with just cause because of unpaid salaries, the amount of his
delayed payments must be at least EUR 70,000”, i.e. the amount of at least two
monthly salaries.
13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying
issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the player and the counter-claim of
Akhisar, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally
terminated with or without just cause by the player, as well as to decide on the
consequences thereof.
14. Notwithstanding, the members of the Chamber, before entering in detail into the
substance of the matter, wished to recall the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right in regards to a fact
shall bear the respective burden of proof.
15. In this respect, the Chamber firstly referred to the player’s allegations that Akhisar
allegedly owed him TRY 80,355, corresponding to “overdue bonus payable for the
previous written contract”. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the player did
not corroborate his allegations and did not provide any evidence regarding his
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Club Player Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal / Club Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey /
Club Hatayspor, Turkey
Page 8 of 16

alleged entitlements pertaining to his first contract, which expired on 31 May 2018.
To that extent, the Chamber also pointed out that the first contract did not contain a
clause stipulating that the player would be entitled to receive such bonuses.
16. The members of the DRC equally considered that, in any case, the player could not
invoke alleged overdue payables derived from his first contract as grounds for
termination of his second contract, which constitutes the legal basis for the case at
hand, particularly considering that the player, knowingly and willingly, agreed to
conclude a new contract with Akhisar after the first contract had expired.
Consequently, the Chamber considered that the player’s allegations had to be
rejected on this point.
17. With regard to the player’s allegations that Akhisar failed to pay him TRY 145,000 “as
bonus for the sport season 2018/2019”, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and observed that the player failed to provide any
evidence regarding his alleged bonuses for the 2018-2019 sporting season. In this
regard, the Chamber also duly noted that the second contract does not contain any
clause entitling the player to receive bonuses, except the bonus of EUR 10,000 “for
the final of the Turkish cup”, which was acknowledged by Akhisar.
18. In continuation, and with regard to the player’s claim related to the bonus of EUR
10,000 “for the final of the Turkish cup”, the Chamber unanimously concurred that,
although Akhisar acknowledged in its reply owing said bonus to the player, at the
time the player had put the club in default on 29 May 2019, said bonus was not yet
due. In this regard, the Chamber was of the opinion that in the absence of any
indication in the contract, said bonus was presumably payable at the end of the
relevant sporting season, i.e. 31 May 2019.
19. With the above in mind, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’
submissions, it could be noted that the Respondent had admitted that “the total
amount of the unpaid receivables of the player as of the date of termination is only
EUR 62,500” and deemed that “in order for the player to terminate his contract with
just cause because of unpaid salaries, the amount of his delayed payments must be at
least EUR 70,000”, i.e. the amount of at least two monthly salaries.
20. In this context, the DRC referred to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter
alia, stipulates that, in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two
monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to
terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing
and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with
its financial obligation(s).
21. On account of the above, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that at the time
the player had put Akhisar in default of payment on 29 May 2019, only one and a half
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Club Player Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal / Club Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey /
Club Hatayspor, Turkey
Page 9 of 16

monthly salaries were to be considered outstanding. Consequently, the members of
the DRC concluded that the conditions outlined in art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations
were evidently not fulfilled.
22. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior
warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between
the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the
employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can always only be an ultima ratio.
23. In light of the foregoing considerations, the DRC concluded that the termination of
the contract by the player in the present case cannot be considered as an ultima ratio
measure.
24. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the player did not have a just cause to
terminate the contract on 3 July 2019 and that he is to be held liable for such
contractual termination.
25. In light of the foregoing, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to Akhisar.
26. Before turning its attention on the consequences of such a breach of contract, the
DRC first of all established that it remained undisputed that Akhisar failed to pay half
of the player’s salary for April 2019 (EUR 17,500), the player’s salary for May 2019 (EUR
35,000) as well as a bonus for reaching the final of the Turkish cup amounting to EUR
10,000. Therefore, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the player is entitled to
the total amount of EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration. As such, the Chamber
decided to partially accept the player’s claim and Akhisar must pay the amount of EUR
62,500 as outstanding remuneration in the case at hand.
27. In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that Akhisar
must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. as follows:
-

on the amount of EUR 17,500 as from 26 April 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
on the amount of EUR 35,000 as from 26 May 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective
payment.

28. Having stated the above, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract due to Akhisar. In doing so, the
members of the Chamber firstly reiterated 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(s), the time remaining
on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses
paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and
whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period.
29. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by
either contractual party in the event of breach of contract. Upon careful examination
of said contract, the members of the Chamber assured themselves that this was not
the case in the matter at stake.
30. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable in the case at stake 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 and that
the broad scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of
compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party. Therefore, other objective criteria
may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber stated beforehand that each request for compensation
for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis
taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
31. Consequently, in order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant
in the present case, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the financial terms of
the player’s former contract and the new contract, the value of which constitutes an
essential criterion in the calculation of the amount of compensation in accordance
with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this context, the members of the Chamber
deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations allows the DRC to take into consideration both the existing contract and
the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation, thus enabling
the Chamber to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by
both his former and his new club.

32. In this regard, the DRC established, on the one hand, that the total value of the
contract signed by the player with Akhisar, for the remaining contractual period,
amounted to EUR 400,000. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber
established that the value of the new contract concluded by the player with his new
club, i.e. the intervening party, for the same period, was EUR 300,000.
33. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that bearing in mind art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations, after having duly taken into account the specificities of the
present case, the compensation considering the player’s both existing contract and
any new contract(s) amounts to EUR 350,000, which is the average between the
amounts the player is entitled to both under the contract and new employment
agreement, a sum the Chamber found to be fair and proportionate.
34. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the
case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the amount of EUR
350,000 to Akhisar as compensation for breach of contract.
35. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established
jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently,
the Chamber decided to reject Akhisar’s request relating to legal expenses.
36. In addition, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the
Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. Hatayspor, shall
be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of
compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint
liability of the intervening party is independent from the question as to whether the
new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of
involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
37. Finally, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
38. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against players, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from playing in
official matches, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of
six months.

39. Additionally, 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
and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
player does not pay the amounts due to Akhisar within 45 days as from the moment
in which Akhisar, following the notification of the present decision, communicates
the relevant bank details to the player, a ban from playing in official matches, for the
maximum duration of six months shall become effective on the player in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
41. Likewise, the DRC decided that, in the event that Hatayspor does not pay the amounts
due to Akhisar within 45 days as from the moment in which Akhisar, following the
notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to
Hatayspor, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods shall become effective on Hatayspor in accordance with art. 24bis
par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
42. Equally, the DRC decided that, in the event that Akhisar does not pay the amounts
due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following
the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to
Akhisar, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally,
for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall
become effective on Akhisar in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
43. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art.
24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.

III.

Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber

The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues
Barbosa, is partially accepted.

The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, has to pay to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR
62,500, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 17,500 as from 26 April 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
- on the amount of EUR 35,000 as from 26 May 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
- on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective
payment.

Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on
the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amounts mentioned under point 2.
above.

The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amount in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address
[email protected], duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).

In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are
not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as from the
notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due
amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).

The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.

The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Akhisar Belediyespor
Kulübü, is partially accepted.

10. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, has to pay
to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 350,000.
11. The Intervening Party, Hatayspor, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
amount mentioned under point 10. above.
12. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
13. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / CounterRespondent and the Intervening Party, immediately and directly, preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant
bank account to which remittance is to be made in accordance with point 10. above.
14. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party shall provide evidence
of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 10. above to FIFA to the email address [email protected], duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
15. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 10. above is not paid by
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be restricted on playing in
official matches up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of six
months (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
16. The ban mentioned in point 15. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
17. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the restriction
on playing in official matches for six months, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
18. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 10. above is not paid by
the Intervening Party w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Intervening Party, the
Intervening Party shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players).
19. The ban mentioned in point 18. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Club Player Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal / Club Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey /
Club Hatayspor, Turkey
Page 15 of 16

20. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of
three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the players’ Status Committee or
the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to
the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain
all the elements in accordance with the Code of sports-related arbitration. Within another
10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal
with the CAS.
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

______________________________________
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Club Player Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal / Club Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey /
Club Hatayspor, Turkey
Page 16 of 16