DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12077
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 February 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Ronaldo Cesar Mendes De Medeiros
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT:
Ronaldo Cesar Mendes De Medeiros, Brazil
Represented by Bichara & Motta Advogados
RESPONDENT:
Caykur Rizespor, Türkiye
Represented by Anil Gürsoy Artan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12077
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 July 2021, the Brazilian player Ronaldo Cesar Mendes De Medeiros (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Turkish club Caykur Rizespor (hereinafter: the Respondent or
the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from the same
date until 31 May 2023.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter alia a
monthly net salary of EUR 70,000.
3.
Furthermore, the Club assumed the obligation to pay the Player the fixed amount of EUR
470,000, broken down as follows:
-
4.
EUR 117,500 net on 31 August 2021;
EUR 117,500 net on 30 November 2021;
EUR 117,500 net on 31 August 2022:
EUR 117,500 net on 30 November 2022.
Beside the above, under clause 3.2 of the Contract the parties stipulated the following
bonuses in favour of the Player:
-
EUR 50,000 in case of Player scoring or assisting 15 goals during a season of the Turkish
first division (i.e. Süper Lig);
-
EUR 50,000 in case of Club ranking 7th at the end of the season;
-
EUR 50,000 in case of Player being part of the starting line-up of the Club in at least 25
matches of the Süper Lig during a season.
5.
Lastly, clause 3 par. 3 of the Contract reads as follows: “all the amounts stated at the hereby
agreement is net”.
6.
At the end of the season 2021/2022, the Club ranked 17th in the Süper Lig and as a
consequence it got relegated to the Turkish second division, i.e. TFF Lig 1.
7.
By correspondence dated 30 January 2023, the Club informed the Player that few days
before, on 26 January 2023, the Rize Tax Office (hereinafter: the Tax office) notified the
assessment of unpaid taxes by the Player in relation to his personal income during the
fiscal year 2021, for which reason he would also be liable to pay a penalty.
8.
On 3 February 2023, the Player put the Club in default of EUR 117,500 as outstanding
amount under the Contract in relation to the season 2022/2023 and granted a deadline of
10 days in order to remedy the alleged breach. Contextually, the Player informed the Club
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12077
that he would seek “legal advice to examine his fiscal situation in Turkey, in particular whether
any taxes might applicable over his remuneration should have been paid by the Club or by the
Player himself (…)”.
9.
On 7 February 2023, the Club responded to the Player enclosing a payment receipt related
to the delayed instalment stated in the Player’s notice and stating that under the relevant
Turkish law “individuals are obligated to pay their own tax incurred from their income and that
“Football clubs are only obligated to pay withholding tax for the Players”.
10. On 24 February 2023, the Tax Office informed the Club that, due to the aforementioned
outstanding debt, a total of TRY 1,573,593.06 had been temporarily seized from the Club’s
bank account as lien on the Player’s receivables.
11. On 27 February 2023, the Club informed the Player accordingly and confirmed having had
no alternative but to pay the Player’s income tax in order to have the relevant “lien” lifted
up.
12. On 28 February 2023, the Player filed a “Reconciliation Request” with the local tax
authorities.
13. On 1 March 2023, the Player put the Club in default of his outstanding salaries for January
2023 and February 2023 as well as the unremitted income tax.
14. On 2 March 2023, the Club objected to the Player’s notice, arguing that it had “no obligation
to pay the Player’s income tax” and that it would have to pay instead the relevant authorities
an amount corresponding to the Player’s outstanding salaries in order to lift the lien
imposed on the Club’s bank account by the Tax Office.
15. In the meantime, on 7 March 2023, the Player sent a letter to the Club complaining about
the fact that the latter had de-registered him from the TFF 1. Lig as well as that it prevented
the Player from training with the first team.
16. On 8 March 2023, the Turkish Ministry of Labor and Social Security informed the Player
about the approval of his work permit exemption subject to the payment of the relevant
fees within a deadline of 30 days.
17. On 9 March 2023, the Tax Office informed the Player that an amount corresponding to his
salary for February 2023 had been paid by the Club to an escrow account pending the
relevant lien. On the same date, the Club confirmed to the Player having paid the latter’s
outstanding remuneration related to January 2023.
18. On 13 March 2023, the Player sent a letter to the Club requesting to be newly registered at
the TFF Lig 1 within the following 5 days and to provide clarifications regarding the required
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12077
actions as a consequence of the prior communication from the Turkish Ministry of Labor
and Social Security.
19. In response to the Player, on 20 March 2023 the Club first confirmed having taken in charge
the Player’s working permit-related expenses, and secondly clarified that as the Player had
been de-registered from the TFF Lig 1 at the end of the relevant registration window and
the 48-hours grace period granted to adopt any amendments had already expired, the
Player would not be any longer allowed to participate in any games of the TFF Lig 1 until
the end of the season. Nonetheless, the Club promised that it would maintain its
contractual obligations.
20. On 28 March 2023, the Player paid a total of TRY 3,446.20 as fee for his working visa.
21. On 30 March 2023, the Player paid the first instalment of his 2022 income tax, in the
amount of TRY 2,421,315.80.
22. On 6 April 2023, the Player put the Club in default of his outstanding salary for March 2023
as well as the reimbursement of the first instalment paid by the Player in relation to his
2022 income tax. Furthermore, the Player requested the Club to advance the relevant
amount to be paid as second instalment of the abovementioned tax.
23. On 10 April 2023, the Tax Office accepted the “Reconciliation Request” filed by the Player,
informing the latter that his fiscal debt in connection with the financial year 2021 had been
reduced from TRY 1,573,593.06 to TRY 396,053.71 and that any exceeding amount subject
to the lien previously imposed would constitute a tax credit in favour of the Player’s future
tax-related burdens.
24. Accordingly, the income tax to be remitted by the Player as second instalment related to
the fiscal year 2022 was re-computed in the total amount of TRY 1,411,075.60.
25. On 14 April 2023, the Club replied to the Player’s last default notice, arguing that the
relevant expenses for the working permit had already been paid by the Club, hence the
Player should have claimed them back from the authorities, while the Club objected to the
Player’s demand for reimbursement of the relevant income taxes arguing that these were
not a financial liability of the Club. Contextually the Club confirmed having paid the Player’s
outstanding salary for March 2023.
26. On 13 June 2023, the Player put the Club in default of his salaries for April 2023 and May
2023, as well as the bonus related to the Club’s final ranking in the TFF Lig 1. during that
season. The Player further requested the reimbursement of the amounts he had paid in
connection with the issuance of his work permit.
27. By letter dated 22 June 2023, the Club acknowledged outstanding amounts in favour of the
Player totalling EUR 133,000. Conversely, the Club rejected the Player’s request for bonus
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12077
and proposed the latter a payment plan to break down the relevant debt into instalments
to be paid within the successive months.
28. On 29 June 2023, the Player rejected the Club’s proposal and granted the latter a final
deadline of 5 days to remedy the relevant default.
29. On 31 July 2023, the Player paid the second instalment of his 2022 income tax in the
amount of TRY 1,411,075.60.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 5 October 2023 the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
31. According to the Player, the Club failed to comply with its financial obligations under the
Contract.
32. In particular, the Player states that, in spite of the several reminders and default notices,
the Club refused to pay part of the Player’s remuneration, nor it has reimbursed the
relevant income taxes incurred by the latter.
33. In this context, the Player sustains that the wording of the Contract is clear and
unequivocal, establishing the Club’s financial liability for the entire spectrum of fees, levies
and charges under the relevant Turkish law.
34. The requests for relief of the Player, accordingly, were the following:
-
EUR 140,000.00 net, corresponding to the nominal value of the Claimant’ salaries of April
and May 2023, and acknowledged by the same Respondent on its letter dated 22 June 2023;
-
EUR 50,000.00 net, corresponding to the bonus stipulated in clause 3.2 of the Contract,
which sole condition to be triggered was the Respondent’s final ranking within the first 7
positions at the end of the season, regardless of the division;
-
TRY 3,446.20 as working permit exemption fee paid by the Claimant on 28 March 2023 and
never reimbursed by the Respondent, although it admitted being responsible for it.
-
TRY 396,053.7, corresponding to the Claimant’s income tax in connection with the fiscal year
2021;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12077
-
TRY 4,842,041.79, corresponding to the Claimant’s income tax in connection with the fiscal
year 2022;
-
A 5% interest p.a. on each amount claimed as from the relevant due date until the date of
effective payment by the Respondent.
b. Position of the Club
35. In its reply, the Club first argues that a deduction of EUR 7,000 shall be realized from the
Player’s outstanding salaries as fine imposed on the latter for arriving late to his first day
of pre-season 2022/2023 camp.
36. Conversely, in the Club’s view, no bonuses would be due to the Player as these were
originally stipulated in 2021, when the Club had ranked 13th in the TFF Süper Lig and wished
to qualify for a UEFA competition by the end of the season 2022/2023. Accordingly, in the
Club’s view, the above-mentioned bonuses were linked to the achievement of goals which
would not be attainable by participating in the TFF Lig 1, as it is a lower division. In this
respect, the Club clarifies that there would be no benefit in reaching the 7th place in the
said lower competition as it does not guarantee the Club’s access neither to the relevant
playoff for the TFF Süper Lig.
37. In continuation, the Club objects to its liability with regard to the claimed reimbursement
of the Player’s income taxes on top of the amounts already withheld by the Club from the
Player’s gross salary.
38. In particular, the Club sustains that pursuant to the relevant Turkish law, “if the Player’s
income exceeds a certain threshold - during the relevant fiscal period - the Player is also
required to submit an annual income tax declaration and shall be responsible personally liable
to pay tax on the income declared, at the relevant rate”.
39. In essence, the Club holds that the current Turkish fiscal regime implements a mechanism
to protect Clubs against excessive tax pressure by redistributing part of the relevant
burden on players once they reach a certain remuneration.
40. Accordingly, the Club affirms that once the Player had reached the relevant threshold in
terms of personal incomes, no further amounts would be due by the Club to the competent
tax authority, while these were rather to be paid directly by the Player.
41. In support of its position, the Club submitted copy of a “Special Notice”, i.e. an official letter
despatched by the Revenue Directorate in Rize following the Club’s previous request for
clarification on Players’ income taxation, on 19 August 2022.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12077
42. In this context, the Club also argues having paid the Player’s monthly salary as per the
agreed net value of EUR 70,000, thus acting in compliance with the relevant employment
contract.
43. Finally, with regard to the Player’s request for reimbursement of the relevant working visa
fee, the Club confirms having already paid it prior to the Player, hence the latter shall simply
proceed with the respective procedure for refund before the competent administrative
office in Türkiye.
c. Player’s rejoinder
44. In response to the Club’s allegations concerning the fine imposed on the Player for
attending late the pre-season 2022/2023, the latter acknowledges the said delay, thus
accepting the relevant deduction of EUR 7,000 from his outstanding salaries.
45. Conversely, with regard to the claimed bonus, the Player argues that the respective
provision under the Contract does not make the Player’s entitlement to the relevant
amount subject to the Club’s ranking 7th in the TFF Süper Lig only, but simply refers to the
“season”. In this context, the Player rejects the Club’s argument that no benefits would
derive from ranking at the 7th place of the TFF Lig 1, highlighting on the contrary that teams
ranking 4th to 7th typically qualify for the “Süper Lig Playoff Quarter Finals”, thus obtaining
a chance to get promoted to the TFF Super Lig, whereas no qualification would be gained
by ranking at the 7th place of the TFF Super Lig as the participation to UEFA competitions is
currently limited to the first 4 positions.
46. As to the reimbursement of the relevant income taxes, the Player challenges the Club’s
arguments by arguing that at no point during the relevant negotiations conducted prior to
signing the Contract in 2021, the Club’s representatives had mentioned the existence of
any additional nor potential fiscal burden on the Player.
47. In this respect, the Player submitted, inter alia, several screenshots taken from previous
conversation held between the Player’s agent and the Club’s representatives on WhatsApp
as well as copy of the relevant exchange of emails prior to the conclusion of the Contract.
48. Furthermore, referring to the “Special Notice” emitted by the Revenue Directorate in Rize,
the Player emphasizes the Club’s relevant prior inquiry would constitute further proof of
the latter’s ignorance regarding the relevant applicable tax law, namely as “it was not until
August 2022, more than 1 year after the execution of the Contract, that the Club obtained
clarification from the Turkish authorities about the taxation of players’ contracts”.
49. Against this background, the Player emphasizes that it appears therefore clear the mutual
and common intent of the parties when negotiating the inclusion of the term “net” in the
Contract, namely to establish that the Player’s remuneration should be free of any taxes
and that the Club should sustain the entire financial burden associated thereto – if needed,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12077
via direct payment to the tax authorities by the relevant withholding and/or
reimbursement of any payment made by the Player on top of his personal income.
50. Accordingly, in the Player’s view, the Club cannot invoke the Turkish tax law in order to get
exonerated from its financial liabilities under the Contract.
51. Lastly, in reference to the Club’s refusal to refund the fee related to his working visa, the
Player states that in light of the Club’ inactivity and having received a notice of payment
from the relevant administrative office setting a deadline on 31 March 2023, the Player felt
compelled to autonomously settle the corresponding debt in a timely manner on 28 March
2023, while on the contrary the Club waited until 14 April 2023, i.e. after the expiry of the
relevant deadline for payment, to inform the Player of having executed the same payment,
and not before having received an email from the Player as reminder.
52. In conclusion, the Player upholds his original claim except for the acknowledged deduction
of EUR 7,000 to be executed on the Player’s salary for the month of April 2023.
d. Club’s final comments
53. In its final submission, the Club argues that the lack of sufficient knowledge by the Player
and his attorney with regard to the relevant Tax Turkish law cannot translate the
corresponding burden on the Club’ shoulders.
54. In particular, the Club objects to the Player’s allegations according to which the latter would
have been reassured during the relevant contractual negotiations that no further income
taxes would be due on top of the amounts withheld by the Club on the Player’s gross salary.
55. On the contrary, in the Club’s view, the Player was not able to prove having acted with
relevant due diligence but failed to get adequate information regarding the applicable tax
regime in Türkiye.
56. To further support its position, the Club referred to the decision of the DRC between the
player Yala Bolasie and the Club (FPDS 7549, decision of 7 December 2022) and the CAS
award in the subsequent appeals proceedings before CAS (CAS 2023/A/9438) (the “Bolasiecase”). In this regard, the Club argued that the present case is identical to the “Bolasie-case”
and that the Player, similar as Yala Bolasie, could not discharge his burden of proof.
57. With regard to the Player’s demand for reimbursement of the relevant working visa’s fee,
the Club argues having been not informed by the Player that the latter had already paid
the said amount, whereas the Club confirmed that it would have taken care of the matter
in its email dated 20 March 2023, hence the Player’s alleged concern would have no
grounds.
58. Moving to the claimed bonus under clause 3.2 of the Contract, the Club maintains its
objection to the Player’s entitlement based on the assumption that the parties’ mutual
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12077
intent was to award the Player in case of qualification to any UEFA competition only and
that in prior similar cases the TFF National Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed the
restrictive interpretation of the abovementioned provision, thus excluding any bonus in
connection with team’s participation to the lower divisions.
59. In conclusion, the Club upholds its statement of defence.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
60. 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 5 October 2023 and submitted
for decision on 8 February 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.
61. 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 (May 2023 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 Brazilian player
and a Turkish club.
62. 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 (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 5 October 2023, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
63. 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).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12077
c. Merits of the dispute
64. 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
65. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the main bone of contention between the parties
concerns the Club’s financial liability towards the Player and, in part, the Turkish Tax
authorities, as well as the existence of outstanding amounts in favour of the Player.
66. In particular, the Chamber recalled that the Player asserts his right to be fully covered by
the Club with regard to all his taxable incomes in relation to the financial years during which
the relevant employment relationship was in force, namely on the basis of clause 3.3 of the
Contract and regardless of the amounts effectively perceived, whereas the Club argues that
any amount related to the Player’s income exceeding the relevant threshold set under the
Turkish tax law shall be paid directly by the Player to the competent authority, without any
additional burden on the Club.
67. In this respect, the Chamber first reverted to the content of the Contract binding the Club
with regard to its financial liabilities towards the Player as the latter’s former employer and
observed that according to the above-mentioned clause 3.3 “all the amounts stated at the
hereby agreement are net”.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the documentation at his disposal, in particular
the exchange of correspondence occurred between the parties, would suggest that the
Player had clearly manifested, even prior to the signing of the Contract, an evident concern
with respect to the issue of applicable taxes over his remuneration, whereas the Club’s
response in this respect, either at a verbal or factual level, appeared constructed in the
Chamber’s view as reassuring and averting any potential issue, de facto engendering certain
expectations in the Player's mind, in particular the conviction that he would not be subject
to any tax burden in addition to the regular withholding operated by the Club on his gross
salary.
69. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber was of the opinion that, in the case at stake, the
expression “net” as adopted in the Contract shall postulate the Club’s full liability in relation
to the whole Player’s income, regardless of the amount stipulated and the recipient of the
payment notices emitted by the competent tax authorities (in claris non fit interpretatio).
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12077
70. Therefore, the sole consequence of having said payment notices been addressed by the
Tax Office directly to the Player, would be, in the Chamber’s view, that the Club should have
instead paid the relevant amounts to the Player himself, so as to adhere to the actual terms
of the Contract.
71. In this respect, the Chamber also assessed that the Player has fully met his burden of proof
by submitting evidence of the relevant invoices and receipts of payment, which confirm the
said additional taxation being strictly connected with the employment-relationship in force
between the parties.
72. The members of the DRC also took note of the Club’s reference to the “Bolasie-case”. As
was also noted in the CAS award (CAS 2023/A/9438), also in the present case the Club was
aware of an obligation on the Player to pay taxes in Türkiye and that the Club did not inform
the Player accordingly. In fact, the Chamber notes that during the entire negotiation
process the Club did not address this issue with the Player. Whilst the Chamber finds that
there is a responsibility on a player to be aware of tax obligations, the DRC, as was also
noted in the CAS award, cannot be blind for the Club’s diligence to make sure that the
Player was in full understanding of the Club’s understanding of the term “net”, all the more
so taking into account the customary expectation in the football industry as to the word
“net” and, more importantly, having in mind that the Player brought up this tax issue.
73. As a matter of fact, it was the agent of the Player on the latter’s behalf that made clear in
WhatsApp correspondence between him and the Club, the existence of which was also not
disputed by the Club, that “net” was to be understand as “without taxes”. By means of this
message, and at least as from this moment, it was clear to the Club that the Player was on
the understanding that no taxes had to borne by him and that this was how he understood
it. In the absence of any further reply from the side of the Club and by making the choice
not to discuss the tax issue directly with the Player before signing of the Contract and
despite being aware of the position of the Player, the DRC finds that the Player could in
good faith have expected that the term “net” would be that he was to be reimbursed by the
Club for any private payable income tax originating from his contractual relation with the
Club.
74. What was also an important difference, and reason for the CAS panel to rule in favour of
the club in the “Bolasie-case”, is that it attached value to the fact that the term “net” was
also applied in relation to the buy out provision in that specific employment contract. This
was however also not the case in the present matter as nowhere else in the Contract
reference was made to “net” and it was only used to address his bonuses and salaries.
Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that pursuant to the principle of “pacta sunt servanda”
the Club shall be held financially liable towards the Player for the payment of the income
taxes claimed by the latter in the amount of TRY 5,238,095.5.
75. In continuation, the members of the DRC turned their attention to the Player’s claim for
reimbursement of the fee admittedly paid by both parties in order to process the relevant
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12077
Player’s working visa, and noted that in spite of having been informed by the Player about
the deadline granted by the relevant authority for the payment of the mandatory fee, the
Club remained inactive to the extent of forcing de facto the Player to personally execute the
said payment in order to avert any potential issue regarding his immigration permit. In this
context, the Chamber noted that after having received a letter of confirmation by the
Player, thus contrarily to any logic, the Club executed a second payment in the same
amount already paid by the Player whereas at that point it could have simply proceeded
with refunding the latter.
76. In this respect, the DRC therefore concluded that it appears unclear the rationale followed
by the Club when asking the Player to request the abovementioned reimbursement from
the relevant authorities, namely as the corresponding fee had already been paid.
77. Accordingly, the Chamber established that the Club shall refund the Player of the relevant
sum paid as fee for the working visa, in the amount of TRY 3,446.20.
78. In furtherance, the Chamber delved into the question of the Player’s outstanding
remuneration. In this regard, the Chamber observed that it remained uncontested that the
Club failed to pay the Player’ salary related to (part of) the months of April 2023 and May
2023, for a total of EUR 133,000, hence the Chamber acknowledged that the said amount
is outstanding to date and shall be paid by the Club.
79. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the parties strongly dispute the Player’s entitlement
to the sum of EUR 50,000 as bonus agreed under clause 3.2 of the Contract and connected
with the Club’s final ranking at the end of the season 2022/2023.
80. In this respect, the Chamber wishes to emphasize that the mentioned provision, by
adopting the term “season” instead of referring expressly to the name of the relevant
competition, would suggest that the sole condition for the activation of the corresponding
bonus was the achievement by the Club of the 7th place in any of the championships played
by the team, irrespective of whether these were the TFF Süper Lig or the TFF Lig 1.
81. The above conclusion, in the Chamber’s view, results congruent with the apparent parties’
mutual intent, especially if read in conjunction with the constellation of additional bonuses
stipulated under the same clause 3.2, which conversely make express reference to the TFF
Süper Lig only.
82. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that by having ranked 7th at the end of the season
2022/2023, the Club shall pay the Player the relevant bonus in the amount of EUR 50,000.
83. On account of all the above considerations, and in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the
Player the amounts which are outstanding under the Contract, i.e. EUR 183,000 and TRY
5,241,541.7.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12077
84. In addition, 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 at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Consequences of overdue payables
85. In continuation, the Chamber 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.
86. To this end, the Chamber 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.
87. Accordingly, the Chamber 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.
88. The Chamber 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 first offense by the Respondent within the last two years, the
Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
89. In this connection, the Chamber 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
90. 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.
91. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12077
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-12077
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ronaldo Cesar Mendes De Medeiros, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Caykur Rizespor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
EUR 183,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 63,000 as from 1 May 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 70,000 as from 1 June 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 as from 21 June 2023 until the date
of effective payment.
TRY 5,241,541.7 net as outstanding amount plus interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of TRY 396,053.71 as from 10 March 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of TRY 1,009,650.39 as from 10 March 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of TRY 3,446.20 as from 29 March 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of TRY 2,421,315.80 as from 31 March 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of TRY 1,411,075.60 as from 1 August 2023 until
the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-12077
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-12077
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. 18