DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15315
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Marco Filipe
Lopes Paixao
BY:
Alejandro Atilio Taraborelli (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Marco Filipe Lopes Paixao, Portugal
Represented by Gytis Rackauskas
RESPONDENT:
Sanliurfaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15315
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 January 2024, the Portuguese player Marco Filipe Lopes Paixao (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Sanliurfaspor (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract valid from the same date until 30 June
2024 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
In accordance with clause 4.A.1 of the Contract, the club undertook to pay the player a total
salary of EUR 126,000 net broken down into 5 instalments as follows:
-
EUR 56,000 on 11 January 2024;
EUR 17,500 on 8 February 2024;
EUR 17,500 on 8 March 2024;
EUR 17,500 on 8 April 2024;
EUR 17,500 on 8 May 2024.
3.
Furthermore, under clause 4.A.2 of the Contract, the club undertook to pay the player the
amount of EUR 1,500 net for each goal scored during the season 2023/2024.
4.
Beside the above, the club and the player (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties)
stipulated the following “benefits” in favour of the player:
“In addition to all the above financial entitlements of the Player, the Club will pay an
irrevocable monthly fee of 15.000 TL net to the Player for the full duration of the contract in
order to assist the Player in accommodation and other expenses.
Additionally, the Club will provide an appropriate car for the use of the Player and his family
for the full duration of the Contract. The cost of fuel will be paid by the Player.
The Club shall provide to the Player 2 (two) flight tickets, go and return, from any Turkish
airport the Player will indicate to Valencia (Spain) or Lisbon (Portugal), for the use of the
Player himself and/or his wife and/or children per sporting season, i.e . for the remaining of
23 /24, 2 (two) are due”.
5.
Lastly, pursuant to clause 6.6 of the Contract, the parties agreed that “Should any of the
afore-referred financial entitlements of the Player referred to above not being paid within 30
days after its due date, to the outstanding amount will be added to it a penalty of 20% (twenty
per cent) to be calculated over said amount(s) and added to it without need of any notice”.
6.
During the season 2023/2024, the player participated in a total of 17 matches, scoring 10
goals and serving 1 assist.
7.
By correspondence dated 18 June 2024, the player put the club in default of payment of
EUR 45,000 plus TRY 37,134.38, granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy the default.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15315
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 22 July 2024, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the player
9.
In his claim, the player stated that the club failed to comply with its contractual obligations
deriving from the Contract.
10. In particular, the player claimed unpaid salaries and goal bonuses, respectively under
clause 4.A.1 and 4.A.2 of the Contract.
11. Furthermore, the player held that the club’s breach of the Contract triggered the relevant
penalty fee stipulated under clause 6.6, thus entitling the player to receive an additional
20% over the outstanding amounts.
12. Lastly, the player demanded that all the above amounts shall be paid net of taxes as
contractually agreed and that the club shall “provide the Player with the relevant tax
certificates attesting the payment of taxes to the competent tax authorities in Turkey in relation
to all the overdue payments”.
13. The requests for relief of the player, accordingly, were the following:
“The overdue payments in the total amount of EUR 57,000 (fifty-seven thousand Euros) (NET of
any taxes) and TL 112,134.38 (one hundred twelve thousand one hundred and thirty-four
Turkish Liras with thirty-eight Kurus) (NET of any taxes), pending at the time of the expiry of the
employment contract, consisting of:
-
EUR 45,000 outstanding salary overdue payments;
EUR 12,000 outstanding “Goal bonus” payments; and
TL 75,000 the irrevocable fee to assist the Player with accommodation and other
expenses; and
TL 37,134.38 due in relation to plain tickets he was forced to pay on his own whereas it
was the Club’s obligation; and
the penalty in the total amount of EUR 11,400 (NET of any taxes) and TL 22,426.87 (NET of any
taxes), consisting of:
-
EUR 9,000 penalty for EUR 45,000 outstanding salary overdue payments;
EUR 2,400 penalty for EUR 12,000 outstanding “Goal bonus” payments;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15315
-
TL 15,000 penalty for TL 75,000 the irrevocable fee to assist the Player with
accommodation and other expenses; and
7,426.87 penalty for TL 37,134.38 due in relation to plain tickets he was forced to pay on
his own whereas it was the Club’s obligation;
the corresponding interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum applicable to the amounts
due until the date of effective payment”.
b. Position of the club
14. In its reply, the club argued having paid all the amounts claimed by the player, thus it
sustained that the claim shall be rejected in its entirety.
15. Subsidiarily, the club stated that the actual flight expenses incurred by the player in order
to travel from Türkiye to Portugal would amount to TRY 14,711 only, unlike what the player
alleged. The club therefore pleaded to reduce the amount to be awarded to the player
accordingly.
16. Lastly, the club objected to the penalty fee claimed by the player on the basis of clause 6.6
of the Contract, arguing that its amount is too high and disproportionate to the outstanding
sums.
c. Rejoinder of the player
17. In his replica, the player contested the club’ objections by arguing that the latter had not
provided any evidence of the alleged payments, thus failing to corroborate its arguments.
18. The player therefore upheld his original requests for relief.
d. Club’s final submissions
19. In its final statement, the club maintained its former pleadings, insisting on the objection
that the reimbursement of the travel expenses incurred by the player shall be reduced and
disputing the sum claimed by the latter as penalty fee(s).
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15315
In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 22 July 2024
and submitted for decision on 2 December 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.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 2024 edition), the Single Judge
of 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.
22. 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 (October 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 July 2024, the June 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
23. 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 he 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
24. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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 he will refer
only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties concluded an employment contract valid
from 11 January 2024 until 30 June 2024.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15315
26. In this context, the Single Judge observed that, while the player seeks unpaid wages for the
season 2023/2024, the club mainly argues having already made the due payments in favour
of the player.
27. With the above in mind, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine,
based on the evidence presented by the parties, which amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the club and, if so, whether the latter had any valid justification for not having
complied with its financial obligations.
28. In this respect, the Single Judge first wished to remark that the club bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge observed that the club failed to submit any
evidence of the alleged payments, nor it did it provide any reasonable justification for not
having complied with the terms of the contract. Hence, the Single Judge decided that the
club’s position could not be upheld.
29. As a consequence, the Single Judge ascertained that the club failed to pay the player’ due
remuneration under the Contract in the amount of EUR 57,000, which therefore remains
outstanding to date.
30. Similarly, the Single Judge noted that the club failed to pay the player’s accommodation
expenses during his stay in Türkiye as well as to reimburse the flight expenses incurred by
the player in May 2024, in spite of the unequivocal obligations deriving from the Contract.
31. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled the wording of clause 6.6 of the Contract and
concluded that that by failing to comply in due time with the payments stipulated therein,
the club triggered the relevant penalty fee corresponding to 20% of the total unpaid sums.
32. In this respect, the Single Judge considered that, taking into account the total outstanding
amount and the time it was overdue, such a penalty fee – which the parties contractually
agreed upon in the context of the employment agreement – is both proportionate and
reasonable and, thus, valid and applicable.
33. In light of the above, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts of EUR
57,000 and TRY 112,134.38 as outstanding remuneration and allowances, as well as EUR
11,400 and TRY 22,426.87 as penalty fee(s), in accordance with clauses 4.A.1, 4.A.2, 4.A.3
and 6.6 of the Contract, respectively.
34. Furthermore, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15315
35. In this context, the Single Judge highlighted that the sums due by the club to the player as
established in the present decision shall be paid net of any tax, in accordance with the
express terms of the Contract.
36. Lastly, the Single Judge turned to the issue of the tax certificates requested by the player.
In view of the fact that there is no contractual stipulation to this effect in the relevant
employment contract, the Single Judge found that the player’s claim in this respect lacks
contractual basis. He therefore dismissed this part of the player’s petitum.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
37. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
38. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and
granted the Respondent a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
39. Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations was met in the case at hand.
40. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it
has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. On account of the above and
bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Single Judge decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance with art.
12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
41. In this connection, the Single Judge highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15315
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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
47. 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.
48. 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 shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
49. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15315
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Marco Filipe Lopes Paixao, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sanliurfaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
-
EUR 57,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 12,000 as from 31 July 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
EUR 11,400 as contractual penalty;
-
TRY 75,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
TRY 37,134.38 as reimbursement for flight tickets;
-
TRY 22,426.87 as contractual penalty.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
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 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15315
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 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-15315
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 12