Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16964
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Milad Mohammadikeshmarzi
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Milad Mohammadikeshmarzi, Iran
Represented by Nazım Burçin Çelen
RESPONDENT:
Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Umur Varat
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16964
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Iranian player Milad Mohammadikeshmarzi (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Turkish club Adana Demirspor A.S. (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from 25 January 2024 until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant as follows
for the season 2023-2024:
“The yearly salary of the Player for season 2023/2024 shall be EUR 300,000 (three hundred
thousand Euro) totally. The amount (300,000 Euro) shall be divided into 5 (five) equal salaries
so Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand Euro) each month (February 2024
- June 2024).
All payments mentioned above will only be valid if the player has a valid contract with the club
on the payment date.”
3.
In addition, the Contract stipulated the following bonus for the season 2023-2024:
“Season 2023/2024 Guaranteed Bonus; EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand Euros) Guaranteed Bonus All
extra bonuses that the player will receive from the team's win and draw, will be deducted from
the EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand Euros) guarantee bonus. The remaining amount from the balance
guarantee bonus will be paid to the player on June 30,2024.”
4.
Lastly, the Contract stipulated that all amounts are net payments.
5.
On 1 August 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of EUR 170,000, corresponding to the monthly salaries of May 2024 and June
2024, as well as the guaranteed bonus for the season 2023-2024.
6.
By correspondence dated 18 August 2024, the Claimant terminated the Contract with the
Respondent pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
7.
On 21 August 2024, the Claimant lodged a first claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA, i.e. case number FPSD-15686 and requested EUR 185,000 net as outstanding
remuneration and EUR 1,650,000 net as compensation for breach of the Contract, plus 5%
p.a. interest.
8.
On 23 August 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement to settle
their dispute (hereinafter: the Settlement Agreement).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16964
9.
On 26 August 2024, the Claimant informed the Football Tribunal that he has concluded the
Settlement Agreement with the Respondent and withdrew his claim in case number FPSD15686, which led to the closure of the case.
10. The Settlement Agreement read as follows:
“[…] 3. FINANCIAL TERMS
Parties agree that the Club shall pay to the Player the overdue amounts of 170.000,00-Euro and
100.000,00-Euro as the compensation for the early termination of the professional contract by
the Player with just cause, which makes the total payment of 270.000,00-Euro. However the
Parties agree and undertake that provided that the Club makes the below payments on time
without any delay, the total payment to be made by the Club to the Player shall be discounted
to 170.000,00-Euro and this amount shall be paid to the Player as following;
• Net 85.000 Euro on or before 30 October 2024
• Net 85.000 Euro on or before 30 November 2024
If any of the payment(s) above is not paid by the Club in part or in full until the agreed date(s),
then the agreed discount shall be null and void and the total agreed amount of 270.000,00Euro, which was determined above, shall immediately be due and payable as of the date of the
default without the need of any further notice, notification and/or court verdict. The Parties
agreed on this provision with free will and waive any and all rights on the request of nullity of
this provision. All the payment above is net and all the corresponding taxes in relation with it
shall be paid by the Club additionally to the respective authorities. In case the Player faces any
tax liability in Turkey in result of these payments, the Club shall pay all the taxes, default interest
and/or penalties upon the first request of the Player. […]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 6 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. It is the position of the Claimant that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration amounting
to EUR 270,000 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment. In this regard, the Claimant argued that the Club failed to remit the first
instalment of the Settlement Agreement, which rendered invalid the discount agreed in
clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement.
13. In addition, the Claimant requested that the judicial costs and his attorney fees shall be
paid by the Respondent.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16964
b. Position of the Respondent
14. According to the Respondent, on 19 August 2024, the Claimant signed a new employment
contract with the Iranian club Persepolis FC and therefore earned two incomes.
15. In addition, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not act in good faith by not
sending a default notice for the payment of the instalments of the Settlement Agreement.
Therefore, it is the position of the Respondent that the Claimant wanted to take advantage
of its economic hardship and the extreme rise of the Euro against the Turkish Lira.
16. Considering the foregoing, the Respondent requested the following:
“1- To REJECT all the claims of Claimant.
2- As no notice of default was sent to the Respondent by the Claimant, the Respondent
respectfully request that the starting date for interest be set as the date of the filing of the claim
and that interest shall begins [sic] from the date the claim was filed.
3- The Respondent requests a proportional reduction of the payments stipulated in the
Settlement Agreement in line with his Persepolis FC Employment Contract earnings.
4- To order to pay Claimant to pay legal expenses, judicial cost and attorney fee to the
Respondent.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 6 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 13 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 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.
18. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (January 2025 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 an Iranian player and a Turkish club.
19. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16964
b. Burden of proof
20. 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 (hereinafter: the TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
21. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of the Player against the Club for outstanding remuneration arising out of
the Settlement Agreement.
23. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the Player, he is entitled to
EUR 270,000 net as the Club failed to remit the first instalment of the Settlement
Agreement and therefore could not benefit from the said discount. In fact, the Chamber
recalled the following wording of clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement:
“Parties agree that the Club shall pay to the Player the overdue amounts of 170.000,00-Euro and
100.000,00-Euro as the compensation for the early termination of the professional contract by
the Player with just cause, which makes the total payment of 270.000,00-Euro. However the
Parties agree and undertake that provided that the Club makes the below payments on time
without any delay, the total payment to be made by the Club to the Player shall be discounted
to 170.000,00-Euro […]
If any of the payment(s) above is not paid by the Club in part or in full until the agreed date(s),
then the agreed discount shall be null and void and the total agreed amount of 270.000,00Euro, which was determined above, shall immediately be due and payable as of the date of the
default without the need of any further notice, notification and/or court verdict. […]”
24. In addition, the Chamber took note of the position of the Club, namely that the Player did
not act in good faith by not sending a default notice for the payment of the instalments of
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16964
the Settlement Agreement and that the Player unjustly enriched himself by earning two
incomes from 19 August 2024 as he signed a new employment contract with another club.
In addition, the Chamber noted the argumentation of the Club regarding its economic
hardship and the extreme rise of the Euro against the Turkish Lira.
25. In this context, the Chamber first relied on evidence generated by the TMS and pointed out
that the Player’s new employment contract with Persepolis FC started on 20 August 2024,
i.e. after the Contract was terminated on 18 August 2024. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the Player had not in fact signed two employment contracts partially
covering the same period of time, and had not earned two incomes from two different
clubs during an overlapping period of time.
26. In continuation, Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
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.
27. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the
burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Settlement
Agreement concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber considered that the
Respondent did not provide any evidence to prove the payment of the amounts claimed
as outstanding by the Claimant and that no reasonable justification was presented by the
Respondent for not having complied with the terms of the first instalment of the Settlement
Agreement.
28. As for the financial difficulties invoked by the Respondent, it is a well-established
jurisprudence of the DRC that the financial difficulties of which no evidence was presented,
cannot discharge the Respondent from its financial liabilities’ vis a vis the Claimant.
Therefore, in the present case, the Chamber concluded that the allegations regarding the
financial difficulties cannot be accepted.
29. Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber highlighted that, while it is true
that, based on the evidence on file, the Player did not send any default notice to the Club,
this does not imply that the Club does not owe it to the Player. In fact, the Chamber noted
that the only consequence of the absence of a default notice is that the outstanding
remuneration cannot be considered as overdue payables in the sense of art. 12bis of the
Regulations and, therefore, the Club cannot be sanctioned based on that article. However,
the Chamber held that the Club shall bear the consequences stipulated in the Settlement
Agreement, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
30. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber stated that the Respondent could not benefit from
the contractually agreed discount in the Settlement Agreement and that it is therefore held
liable to pay the Claimant the requested amount of EUR 270,000 net plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 31 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16964
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
31. 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. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
principle, of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amounts are paid.
32. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
33. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal,
passed on 23 September 2024 and notified to the parties on 4 November 2024, a transfer
ban has been imposed on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations,
namely in case number FPSD-14997.
34. Accordingly, the Chamber established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not
apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
35. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is
not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
36. 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.
d. Costs
37. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16964
38. 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.
39. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16964
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Milad Mohammadikeshmarzi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Adana Demirspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- EUR 270,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 October 2024
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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16964
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. 11