Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3991
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Harrison
Manzala Tusungama
BY:
DE WEGER Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
BOEYKENS Stijn (Belgium), member
CHETTY Elvis (Seychelles), member
CLAIMANT:
Harrison Manzala Tusungama, France
Represented by Aydin Doganay
RESPONDENT:
Kayserispor Kulubu, Turkey
Represented by Batu Mosturoglu
Page 2
REF FPSD-3991
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 31 August 2020, the French player Harrison Manzala Tusungama (hereinafter: the player
or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Kayserispor Kulubu (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter: the
contract).
2.
Under the contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration:
a. Season 2020/2021: EUR 200,000, payable in 10 equal instalments of EUR
20,000 each between August 2020 and May 2021;
b. Season 2021/2022: EUR 420,000, payable in 10 equal instalments of EUR
42,000 each between August 2021 and May 2022.
3.
The player was also entitled to the following benefits under clause 6 (b) of the contract
(quoted verbatim):
“In case the Player scores 10 (ten) goals or 15 (fifteen) assists at official Spor Toto Super Lig
matches during a football season, the additional bonus payment of 50.000,00-Euro (Fifty
Thousand Euros) shall be paid to the Player. This bonus payment will be valid for each football
season that the Player serves to the Club. The bonus will be paid at the latest on the last day
of the football season.
In case the Player scores 15 (fifteen) goals or 20 (twenty) assists at official Spor Toto Stiper
Lig matches during a football season, the additional bonus payment of 70.000,00-Euro
(Seventy Thousand Euros) shall be paid to the Player. This bonus payment will be valid for
each football season that the Player serves to the Club. The bonus will be paid at the latest
on the last day of the football season.
In case of the Club will qualify for the European Cup group stage, the Club shall pay to the
player in the amount of 25.000,00-Euro (Twenty-Five Thousand Euros). This bonus payment
will be valid for each football season that the Player serves to the Club. The bonus will be
paid at the latest on the last day of the football season.
In case of the Club will gain Turkish Cup in Spor Toto Super League at the end of the football
season. the Club shall pay to the Player in the amount of 25.000,00-Euro (Twenty-Five
Thousand Euros). This bonus payment will be valid for each football season that the Player
serves to the Club. The bonus will be paid at the latest on the last day of the football season.
In case of the Club \\'ill compete in UEFA Champions League Group stage at the end of the
football season, the Club shall pay to the Player in the amount of 150.000,00- Euro (One
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Euros). This bonus payment will be valid for each football season
that the Player serves to the Club. The bonus will be paid at the latest on the last day of the
Page 3
REF FPSD-3991
football season.
The club will pay 15.000 Euro (fifteen-thousands Euro) per season for all the living costs of
the player including car, housing, and flight tickets on the date of 15.09 of every year during
contract term”.
4.
On 6 June 2021, the player put the club in default of payment of his salaries between March
and May 2021 amounting to EUR 60,000. The player referred to art. 12bis of the RSTP and
granted the club 10 days to pay EUR 40,000.
5.
On 16 July 2021, the player put the club in default of payment of his salary of May 2021
amounting to EUR 20,000. The player referred to art. 12bis of the RSTP and granted the club
10 days to cure said breach.
6.
On 29 July 2021, the club wrote to the player assigning him an individual training schedule.
The letter more in particular stated the following:
“On behalf of Kayserispor Kulübü, in accordance with the consultation of first team
management the club has decided to assign you an individual training schedule with one of
club’s coach in order to contribute your fitness level due to low level of fitness which prevents
you from competing in professional level football. For sake of your health and best interest of
your career your individual training will be monitored closely”.
7.
On 31 July 2021, the player filed a claim against the club before FIFA seeking payment of his
May 2021 salary of EUR 20,000 (ref. FPSD-3205). The case was resolved by way of a proposal
of the FIFA general secretariat which was accepted by the player and the club. A confirmation
letter to this end was sent on 20 August 2021.
8.
On 1 August 2021, the player wrote to the club with reference to the letter of 29 July 2021
and sought clarification on his status, and denying that his fitness level was “low”. The player
outlined that a meeting was held with the club prior to such letter and that we was instructed
to find another club. The player asked the club to produce the medical reports of himself and
other players which justified such individual training. Lastly, the player outlined that the club’s
behaviour was abusive and requested that he be authorized to train with the first team
immediately.
9.
On 8 August 2021, the player wrote to the club, reiterate his previous correspondence and
awarded the club 72 hours to allow him to train again with the first team.
10. On 8 August 2021, the club sent an e-mail to the player’s representative enclosure pictures
and footage of the player’s training, together with the following message:
“You may find our statement on your allegatons regarding your client Harrison Manzala. I
also annexed relevant documents and footage in order to provide you convenience regarding
Page 4
REF FPSD-3991
your requests, footage are from this week's various training sessions. Please be advised that
all training sessions are very well recorded for performance tracking reasons.
11. On 9 August 2021, the club wrote to the player and informed him that a disciplinary
investigation started and that he would continue to train separately until a decision was made
by the club’s board on 16 August 2021. The club explained that the player had 3 days to
provide his position on the following allegations:
“1. bringing a cell phone to training ground without permission and using the phone during
the active part of the training in a disruptive manner which hinders the ongoing training
session on 09.08.2021;
2. engaging in oral arguments with first team management regarding their instructions on
09.08.2021,
3. sending abusive text messages to members of first team management on 09.08.2021,
4. showing unsportsman an undisciplined behaviour throughout the training session on
09.08.2021”
12. On 11 August 2021, the player wrote to the club, referring to two communications of 8 and
9 August 2021. For ease of reference, the contents of such letter are fully reproduced
verbatim below:
“A) Letter of 08 August 2021
2. The Club sent a document dated on 03.08.2021 in which the club’s doctor indicated that
regarding the different analysis realized, the medical and physical situation is not on line with
a fit player expectation and he has to train in order to approach “normal values”.
3. In this context, as requested in the last correspondences, we are still waiting your report
regarding the Player and all squad values in order to raise the potential relevant discrepancies
between them not based only on the doctor declaration but also justified by data.
4. In accordance to the article 5 e) of the contract signed between the Parties, the Player
requests the consent of the Club to be examined by a doctor of his choice.
5. In the second document dated on 03.08.2021, the “athletic performance” of the first team
indicated that following the different tests practiced, the Player is not in position to compete
with his teammates.
6. Again, could you provide us the formal data and their origin used to show the incapability
of the Player to compete?
7. Furthermore, it is surprising that you indicate that the Player is not at the same physical
level as the other players while he started training at the same time as the other players of his
team on 28 June 2021.
8. As you know, Mr. Manzala is a player who performed at professional level in the last 9
years.
9. Consequently, the Player indicating his good physical aptitude, requests the reintegration
in the first team.
10. In addition, you officially communicated photos in which we could believe that the Player
is training with the first team because you have taken care to make appear the rest of the
team in the background.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3991
11. In some photos we can see the Player with the new transfers of injured players but not
with the first team. The Player will easily demonstrate that the 2 others players on those
photos are for one a new transfer and the other one a player who is coming back after his
injury.
12. Could you provide photos of the Player with the players of the first team, or photos
publishing on the official website of the Club.
13. Moreover, it is not the first time that the Club used “mobbing” in order to push a Player
to accept to leave the Club.
B) Letter of 09 August 2021
14. In the first letter dated on 09 August 2021, you indicated “the club has decided to assign
you an individual training schedule with one of the First team coach in order to contribute
your fitness level due to low level of fitness which prevents you from competing in professional
level football”.
15. As indicated above, the Player requests an examination by a doctor of his own choice and
the communication of the data who permits you to conclude the “low level” of the Player.
16. The Player is training alone since 29 July 2021, i.e. 2 weeks. Could you inform us about
“the evolution of the physical level” of the Player during this period and communicate diploma
of the coach?
17. Also, you indicated that a disciplinary investigation started against the Player because he
would:
a. have brought a cell phone during the training session on 09.08.2021;
b. engaging in oral arguments with first team management on 09.08.2021;
c. sending abusive text messages to members of first team management on 09.08.2021;
d. showing unsportsman and undisciplined behavior throughout the training session on
09.08.2021.
18. The Player contests all of these points except point a). Indeed, the Player bring his cell
phone in order to prove that he was training alone.
19. It was the only way to prove that he was training on his own. However, this did not affect
the Club as he was on his own at this time.
20. Consequently, the Player contests your allegations.
21. Unfortunately, the Club acts with “mala fe” because the Player has not accepted the Club’s
proposal to terminate the contract.
22. By using “mobbing” the Club try to push the Player to accept the proposition of
termination of his contract.
23. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are unacceptable and are intented to
attempt to sanction the Player for not accepting the proposal to terminate his contract.
24. The Player has always had an irreproachable character.
25. Finally, you continue to not respect the contractual provisions by not allowing the Player
to train with the first team.
26. I invite you to reintegrate the Player in the first team training sessions from tomorrow.”
13. On 15 August 2021, the club wrote to the player and informed him that a second disciplinary
investigation started and that a decision would made by the club’s board on 23 August 2021.
The club explained that the player had 3 days to provide his position on the following
allegations:
Page 6
REF FPSD-3991
“1- Your post on social media platform Twitter dated 14.08.2021 which is in a celebrative
manner posted minutes after Kayserispor’s defeat in hands of Altay (annex-1) It is noted that
you have terminated your post after some time passed.
2- Your post on social media platform Instagram (verified account) dated 14.08.2021 which
is in a celebrative manner posted minutes after Kayserispor’s defeat in hands of Altay (annex1). It is noted that you have terminated your post after some time passed”.
14. On 26 August 2021, as reported by a letter from the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) dated
27 August 2021, the club unilaterally terminated the contract “due to continuous and
consistent lack of discipline and sportsmanship, ultimately severe breaches of your
employment contract which prevents employment relationship to continue in a healthy
manner”. The letter from the club to the player is not dated.
15. On 1 September 2021, the player wrote to the club and requested the following:
a. “the ‘data’ which permits to conclude that the player values are ‘normal’”;
b. The diploma of the coach whom the player was training with;
c. Authorization to be examined by a doctor of his choice under clause 5 (e) of
the contract;
d. Payment of his salary of August 2021;
e. That the club stopped its breaches and reintegrated the player to the first
team.
16. On 3 September 2021, the club wrote to the player and informed him that a third disciplinary
investigation started and that a decision would made by the club’s board on 6 September
2021. The club explained that the player had 3 days to provide his position on the following
allegations:
“1. You have failed to participate to respective training sessions on 11.08.2021, 18.08.2021,
20.08.2021 and 23.08.2021. According to the terms of employment between you and the
club, taking part in training sessions is a contractual obligation. Could you please provide a
statement justifying your absence during the aforementioned training sessions?
2. Assistant Coach Mr.Enes Karakaya reports and Mr.Yusuf Coşkun who is the General
Manager of the Club confirms that you have been skipping training sessions without providing
any reasons even notifications regarding your absence. Reports further involve following
allegations; procrastinating by using your mobile phone during training sessions, using utterly
foul language towards Mr.Karakaya and perishing the integrity of training sessions through
misbehaving. You are requested to provide a statement on allegations.
3. Team Physio Mr.Emre Şengül and Team Doctor Dr.Mehmet Karakuş has filed a formal
complaint on 03.09.2021 regarding your behavior on very same day and reported that you
have ignited chaos in medical room by hindering Medical Staff’s activity through vociferating,
using foul language against club and first team staff, demanding services in a manner which
would hinder the regular activites of the Medical Staff, lastly delaying other players’ medical
Page 7
REF FPSD-3991
treatments through loitering in the Medical Room. Could you provide a statement regarding
your actions.
4. Your post on social media platform Twitter dated 14.08.2021 which is in a celebrative
manner posted minutes after Kayserispor’s defeat in hands of Altay It is noted that you have
terminated your post after some time passed. You are requested to provide a statement
regarding your tweet.
5. Your post on social media platform Instagram (verified account) dated 14.08.2021 which
is in a celebrative manner posted minutes after Kayserispor’s defeat in hands of Altay. It is
noted that you have terminated your post after some time passed. You are requested to
provide a statement regarding your tweet.
6. Director of Football Activities Mr.Ali Naibi and Vice President Ali Çamlı has reported that
you have used foul language and derogatory statements during a private audience with
aforementioned club officials which was organized in order to increase your motivation. You
are requested to provide a statement regarding your actions.”
17. On the same date, the club informed the player that he had been fined EUR 8,000 with
regards to his first disciplinary proceedings, on the following grounds:
“Considering the facts of the case, statement provided by Football Player Harrison Manzala
on 11.08.2021 as a whole, it is decided that the Football Player Harrison Manzala NOT TO BE
PUNISHED due to allegations on articles 2 and 3 of the indictment letter.
It is noted that the Football Player Harrison Manzala did not deny the fact that he brought a
mobile phone to the training field and the phone was not used for any purpose complying
with the nature of sport or training and failed to prove an evidence which may confute the
allegations. After considering the visual material provided by the first team management,
statement of Coach Enes Karakaya and descriptions provided by the parties it is concluded
that the player has violated sports ethics, integrity and contractual obligations as a whole. It
is clear that the player has violated the order of training and failed to under take sporting
obligations as seen by the relevant evidence.
It hereby resolved that Football Player Harrison Manzala to pay €8.000,00 (EIGHT THOUSAND
EUROS) as a fine due to allegations stated under articles 1 and 4 due to violation of articles
5-a, 5-b and 5-d”.
18. On 6 September 2021, the player wrote to the club and objected to the two letters from the
club dated 3 September 2021.
19. Following the termination of the contract, the player and the French club, SC Bastia, signed
a contract valid as from 13 January 2022 until the end of season 2021/2022. Under such
contract the player is entitled to EUR 2,170 gross.
Page 8
REF FPSD-3991
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 14 October 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. Following two rounds
of submissions, a brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
21. According to the Claimant, the club persistently failed to comply with the contract. In this
respect, the player argued that the had to “chase” the club frequently to collect his salary,
and he even had to file a claim before FIFA.
22. The player highlighted that as from July 2021 he was separated from the rest of the team’s
first squad, but that the reasons for that were not authentic. He referred to his notices to the
club in this respect and argued that he never received a reply in this regard. What is more, he
argued that he tried to have his status with the first team reinstated, to no avail.
23. The player is of the opinion that such demotion from the first team is a violation of his
personality rights. In continuation, the player also made reference to the disciplinary
proceedings started by the club, and while contesting their basis argued that “He will only
admit that he brought his phone on the field in order to film to justify that he was training
alone; the Club clumsily tries to demonstrate that the Player was training with the professional
team. This characterizes the Club's total bad faith because on the one hand it sends individual
training programs to the Player (Exhibit 17 - Individual Training Program) and on the other
hand indicates that he was training with the professional team by providing photos (Exhibit
18 - Club Photos)”.
24. The player additionally argued that the club did not have just cause to terminate the contract,
and that although he could have terminated the contract on the grounds of article 14bis
RSTP, he did not do so in “spirit of cooperation”. The player rebutted the reasons forwarded
by the club as reason for termination and seeks the following:
“Wages due upon termination of the contract :42,000 euros
Compensation for breach of contract :393,000 euros
Additional compensation for breach of contract
Total
:210,000 euros
:645,000 euros
In addition, interest at the rate of 5% per annum is due according to the respective due dates
as detailed in this claim.”
Page 9
REF FPSD-3991
b. Position of the Respondent
25. The Respondent objected to the player’s claim and argued that “there is no material evidence
to support” the player’s position that the club forced the termination of the contract.
26. In the Respondent’s view, the player cannot claim that the club was in arrears for the payment
of the player’s salaries and argued that since 2018 Turkey has been facing an economic crisis.
27. The Respondent also objected to the player’s allegations regarding the facts taken place in
July 2021. In particular, the club accused the player of having caused serious “disturbances”
with the team, which included inter alia assaulting a team official and mocking the club after
a loss in the league on social media. It also insisted that the club ran a serious of tests on the
summer of 2021 that demonstrated the player’s poor fitness level.
28. Ultimately, the club is of the position that the numerous disruptions caused by the player
rendered impossible the continuation of the employment relationship. It argued thus that it
had just cause to terminate the contract and asked that the player’s claim be dismissed.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 14 October 2021 and submitted for decision
on 24 March 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
30. 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 (March 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 French player and a
Turkish club.
31. 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 (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 October 2021, the August 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
Page 10
REF FPSD-3991
b. Burden of proof
32. 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
33. 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 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
34. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute if the club had just cause to
terminate the contract on the basis of the player’s behaviour, and the consequences that
follow.
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine if the club
lawfully terminated the contract. In doing so, the DRC found that it had, first of all, determine
the exact date of termination, insofar as the allegations of the parties to this end were not
precise.
36. Per the letter of the TFF available on file, the club terminated the contract on 26 August 2021.
The Chamber noted that this was not challenged by the club in its submissions. Accordingly,
the Chamber was comfortable to determine that the date of termination of the contract by
the club is 26 August 2021.
37. At this point, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which 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 the 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 only be an ultima ratio.
Page 11
REF FPSD-3991
38. It must be noticed that by the time the club terminated the contract, it had started two
disciplinary proceedings against the player (respectively on 9 and 15 August 2021), the
findings of which would however be communicated only on 3 September 2021 for the first
disciplinary case. The DRC also highlighted that less than 30 days had elapsed since the player
was separated from the first team on 29 July 2021. For the sake of completeness, the DRC
also noted that the 3rd disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the club after the
termination of the contract.
39. From the above, it remained clear to the DRC that the club failed to follow its own
proceedings and terminated the contract while at least 2 of them were still ongoing. In the
Chamber’s view, it cannot be said therefore that the grounds of the player’s behaviour can
justify the termination of the contract. At the same time and in any event, the DRC underlined
that the club’s allegations regarding the player’s behaviour were not substantiated by any
evidence and thus the Chamber could not establish that by the time the contract was
terminated the continuation of the employment relationship could not continue.
40. As a final remark, the DRC noted that it seemed that the club tried to tried to do adopt more
lenient measures via starting the disciplinary proceedings, but that in any event the club
premature in ending the contract.
41. It follows that the club did not have just cause to terminate the contract. The player is entitled
thus to compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
42. 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.
43. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to the August 2021
salary under the contract, amounting to EUR 42,000.
44. 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, i.e. EUR 42,000.
45. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided to award
the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from one day
after the date of termination until the date of effective payment.
46. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-3991
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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of EUR 393,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract, considered from
September 2021 until May 2022, plus the lump sum of EUR 15,000 payable every September)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
50. 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.
51. Indeed, the player found employment with SC Bastia. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 2,170 gross per month.
The player claimed that this amounts to EUR 1,700 net, but filed no evidence to this end, and
thus this argument was rejected by the Chamber. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that
the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 11,935, that is, 5.5 times EUR
2,170.
Page 13
REF FPSD-3991
52. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination did not
take place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that
the player is not entitled to receive additional compensation.
53. 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 381,065
to the player (i.e. EUR 393,000 minus EUR 11,935), which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
54. 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 claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
Page 14
REF FPSD-3991
d. Costs
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-3991
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Harrison Manzala Tusungama, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kayserispor Kulubu, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- EUR 42,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 August 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 381,065 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 14 October 2021 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 (August 2021
edition), if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
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.
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
Page 16
REF FPSD-3991
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 17