DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-10754
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 August 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Pedro Miguel De Almeida Lopes Pereira
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Pedro Miguel De Almeida Lopes Pereira, Portugal
Represented by Nazim Burcin Celen
RESPONDENT:
Alanyaspor, Türkiye
Represented by Sami Dinc
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-10754
I. Facts of the case
1. On 18 August 2022, the Portuguese player Pedro Miguel De Almeida Lopes Pereira (hereinafter:
the Claimant or the Player) and the Turkish club Alanyaspor (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 31 May 2023.
2. Art. 6 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
6.1- Financial Benefits In Favor Of The Player
For 2022/2023 Football Season: 393.750,00-Euro Net
18.750,00-Euro of the abovementioned total amount is to be paid to the Player by the Club until
30.03.2023. This payment is made in consideration of the whole service period of the Player during
2022/2023 football season and it shall be a progressed amount at the end of the football season.
- 375.000,00-Euro of the abovementioned total amount is to be paid to the Player by the Club as
the monthly salary in 10 (ten) equal installments (10 x 37.500,00-Euro) between the period
September 2022 - June 2023. The monthly salaries are to be paid the last day of the relevant months
3. On 1 June 2023, the Claimant sent a default notice requesting the amount of EUR 150,000 to be
paid within 10 days, to no avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4. On 3 July 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
5. The Claimant sustains that the Respondent has failed to pay the following amounts to the
Claimant:
18.750,00.- Euro A part of the monthly salary of February 2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of March 2023
18.750,00.- Euro Guarantee payment of 30.03.2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of April 2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of May 2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of June 2023
6. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:
7.1. The Claimant request your Chamber to make a decision that the Respondent has to pay the
overdue net amount of €187.500,00.- (one hundred and eighty-seven thousand five hundred Euros)
as of today with its interest at the rate of 5% per annum as from the dates stipulated herein below
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-10754
respectively until the date of effective payment.
18.750,00.- Euro Part of the monthly salary of 01.02.2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of 30.03.2023
18.750,00.- Euro Guarantee payment of 30.03.2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of 30.04.2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of 30.05.2023
37.500,00.- Euro Monthly salary of 30.06.2023
7.2. In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file the case herein,
we would like to request your Chamber to make a decision that the judicial costs and the legal fees
that the Claimant is faced with shall be fully paid by the Respondent.
b. Position of the Respondent
7. In its reply, the Respondent states that it made several payments to the Claimant.
8. The Respondent sustains that “According to the annexed payment receipts, it can clearly be seen that
our Club pay to the player contractual payment of 206.250,00-Euro + additional payment of
209.6555,00-TL + bonus payment of 7.830,00-TL with regards to 2022/2023 football season's
remunerations and in this context our Club completed its financial obligations towards the Player
including but not limited to 2022/2023 football season remunerations.”
c. Comments of the Claimant
9. The Claimant was invited to comment of the alleged payments.
10. The Claimant underlines that the Respondent acknowledged it had paid EUR 206,250 to the
Claimant as contractual payment. The Claimant states that “In line with this statement, the bank
receipts also indicate that the Respondent’s contractual payments were made for September, October,
November, December, January and February (half) salary payments”.
11. In this regard, the Claimant concludes that “the difference between the total receivables of the
Claimant and the actual payments that were made by the Respondent is equal to the disputed amount
that was requested by our Statement of Claim (393.750 - 206.250 = 187.500).”
12. The Claimant further states that “The other payments, were made by the Respondent with the
explanation of “additional payments and bonus payments”. As the explanations indicate, these
payments were off contract payments and made in return for the results of the matches and cannot be
considered as salary payment”
13. The Claimant reiterates his previous requests for relief.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-10754
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was
competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
presented to FIFA on 3 July 2023 and submitted for decision on 21 August 2023. 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.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023), he is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Portuguese player and a Turkish club.
16. 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 (May 2023 edition) and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 3 July 2023, the same edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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.
c. Merits of the dispute
18. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the
Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial
obligations by the Respondent as per the contract, namely the salaries for the months of February
to June 2023.
20. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-10754
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by
the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied with
its financial obligations.
21. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
22. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the evidence provided by the Respondent, namely
multiple receipts for payments without any further itemisation or explanation does not prove the
payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant. Furthermore, no reasonable
justification was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of the
contract. In particular, regarding the payment made in TRY, the Respondent has not presented
any reasonable justification according to which payment in such currency were made and
moreover, why ought to set-off contractual payments agreed in USD.
23. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which
in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the
Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from the contract
concluded between the parties, namely EUR 187,500.
24. 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 respective due date until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Art. 12bis
25. 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.
26. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the player put the club in default of payment of the
amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the club a 10-day
deadline to cure such breach of contract.
27. Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the club had delayed a due payment without a prima
facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the Regulations was
met in the case at hand.
28. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in mind that
this is the second offense by the club within the last two years, the Single Judge decided to impose
a reprimand on the club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) of the Regulations.
29. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-10754
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-10754
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Pedro Miguel De Almeida Lopes Pereira, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alanyaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 187,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
On EUR 18,750 from 1 February 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 37,500 from 1 April 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 18,750 from 1 April 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 37,500 from 1 May 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 37,500 from 1 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 37,500 from 1 July 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent (cf. art. 12bis of the Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players).
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.
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. 8
REF. FPSD-10754
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. 9