Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18385
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Nicolas Julio N’Koulou Ndoubena
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
CLAIMANT:
Nicolas Julio N’Koulou Ndoubena, France
Represented by Umur Varat & Aygin Kuruloglu
RESPONDENT:
Gaziantep Futbol Kulübü AŞ, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18385
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 September 2023, the French player Nicolas Julio N’Koulou Ndoubena (hereinafter,
the Player or the Claimant) and the Turkish club Gaziantep Futbol Kulübü AŞ (hereinafter,
the Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract),
valid as from 11 September 2023 until 30 June 2024.
2.
Pursuant to “Payments and special provisions” section of the Contract, the Club undertook
to pay to the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties), inter alia, EUR 330,000
net in the following instalments:
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 September 2023;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 October 2023;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 November 2023;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 December 2023;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 January 2024;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 February 2024;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 March 2024;
o EUR 36,500 net on 30 April 2024; and
o EUR 38,000 net on 30 May 2024.
3.
On 19 April 2024, the Parties signed a document (hereinafter, the Bonus Agreement) in
accordance with which:
“In accordance with the decision taken by our Club’s Board of Directors, in case [the Club]
stays in the Turkish Super League at the end of the 2023-2024 season, to be clear, [the Club]
finished the Turkish Super League in the place 16th or higher level at the end of the 20232024 season and becomes eligible to play in the Turkish Super League in the 2024-2025
season, a success bonus of net 1,000,000 TL (One Million Turkish Liras) shall be paid by our
club to all professional players in the A Team.
(…)
The success bonus of 1,000,000 TL shall be paid (…) within 10 business days at the latest
following the math in which [the Club] guarantees to stay in the Super League in the 20232024 season without any additional conditions.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18385
4.
On 4 July 2024, the Player put the Club in default, requesting the payment of EUR 111,000
net, corresponding to the March, April and May 2024 instalments under the Contract (i.e.,
in the amounts of EUR 36,500, EUR 36,500 and EUR 38,000, respectively), and the payment
of TRY 1,000,000 in accordance with the Bonus Agreement. The Player granted the Club a
deadline of ten days to comply with its financial obligations.
5.
On 17 July 2024, the Player filed a claim against the Club before the Football Tribunal, with
reference FPSD-15271.
6.
In his claim, the Player denounced that the Club had failed to remit several of his monthly
salaries under the Contract and also the bonus in accordance with the Bonus Agreement.
7.
The Player requested the following relief in FPSD-15271:
“To condemn [the Club] to pay an outstanding remuneration from 2023/2024 football as
following:
1. From the Contract:
TOTAL NET € 111,000 (one hundred eleven thousand Euros) to add by an interest at 5%
per annum from following due dates until the date of effective payment;
30.03.2024 – 36.500,00 Euro
30.04.2024 – 36.500,00 Euro
30.05.2024 – 38.000,00 Euro
AND
2. From the [Bonus Agreement]:
TOTAL 1.000.000 Turkish Lira Net which is equivalent to 27.721 Euro NET according the
Turkish Central Bank of Republic of Türkiye (Exhibit 6) as a net to add by an interest of
5% per annum following due dates until the date of effective payment; in case our request
to be paid as an Euro payment will not be accepted we kindly ask to be ruled as 1.000.000
Turkish Lira with an interest.
3. To apply Art. 24bis FIFA RSTP.”
8.
On 3 October 2024, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC)
passed a decision (hereinafter, the Decision) in the aforementioned proceeding (FPSD15271), the findings of which were notified to the Parties on 7 October 2024. The operative
part of the Decision reads as follows:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18385
“Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant (…) is accepted.
2. The Respondent (…) must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 36,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 36,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 38,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May
2024 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. A fine in the amount of USD 52,500 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision (…).
5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of
this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.”
9.
On 9 October 2024, the Player requested the grounds of the aforementioned Decision.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18385
10. On 19 November 2024, the FIFA general secretariat notified the grounds of the Decision.
11. In its Decision, the DRC found the following regarding the bonus claimed by the Player:
“28. On the other hand, with respect to the additional contingent payments, the Chamber
observed that the Claimant claimed an entitlement to net TRY 1,000,000 bonus for keeping
the Respondent Club in the Turkish Super League, in support of which the Claimant
submitted the Bonus Agreement.
29. The Chamber observed that the Claimant provided no evidence for the events giving rise
to the bonus payment, such as the Club’s ranking at the end of the 2023/2024 season or its
position going into the following season.
30. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the Respondent’s failure to establish any arguments
or evidence to counter the Claimant’s position, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant
failed to discharge that the alleged contingent payments were in fact triggered and owed to
the Claimant.”
12. On 22 January 2025, the Player filed a new claim against the Club before FIFA, with
reference FPSD-17900, seeking payment of TRY 1,000,000 under the Bonus Agreement.
13. On 24 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the Player about the closure
of the aforementioned proceedings, informing the Player as follows:
“(…) we observed that you have already lodged a previous claim regarding the same
matter in front of the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber, which was filed under ref. no. FPSD15271. Furthermore, a final and binding decision has already been issued by the
Football Tribunal in such case, in line with article 20 of the Procedural Rules Governing
the Football Tribunal. Likewise, the legal remedy against it was expressly mentioned
therein (cf. Note Related to the Appeal Procedure).
Bearing the above in mind, please note that in accordance with the general principle of
res judicata, a deciding body is not in a position to deal again with the substance of a
matter already decided upon by another deciding authority (or by itself).
In light of the foregoing, we have to inform you that your claim appears to be
inadmissible, hence we will proceed with the closure of the case file.”
14. On 26 February 2025, the Player filed a third claim against the Club before FIFA, with
reference FPSD-18376, insisting on his entitlement to the bonus agreed in the Bonus
Agreement.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18385
15. Also on 26 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat reiterated the contents of its
previous letter dated 24 January 2025, sent in FPSD-17900, and proceeded to close the
case.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 27 February 2025, the Player filed another claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
claim is detailed in continuation.
17. The Player submitted that, according to the Bonus Agreement, the Parties agreed that the
Club would pay to the Player a bonus of TRY 1,000,000 in case the Club retained the
category at the end of the 2023/2024 season and thus became eligible to play in the Turkish
Super League in the 2024/2025 season.
18. In this respect, the Player asserted that the Club finished in the 11th position at the end of
the 2023/2024 season, and that therefore it is participating in the Turkish Super League in
the current 2024/2025 season. Accordingly, and considering that the Club’s last match in
the 2023/2024 season was played on 26 May 2024, the aforementioned bonus should have
been paid by 7 June 2024.
19. The Player further sustained that in the DRC Decision (FPSD-15271), the Chamber accepted
his claim regarding the outstanding remuneration arising from the Contract, but denied
the Player’s entitlement to the bonus claimed on the basis that “the Claimant failed to
discharge the requisite burden of proof”.
20. According to the Player, his previous claim for the bonus of TRY 1,000,000 under the Bonus
Agreement is deemed to be withdrawn in accordance with art. 18 par. 2 of the Procedural
Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules).
21. The Player requested the following relief:
“To condemn [the Club] to pay an outstanding remuneration from 2023/2024 football as
following:
1. From the [Bonus Agreement]:
TOTAL 1.000.000 Turkish Lira Net to add by an interest of 5% per annum starting from
07 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.
2. To apply sporting sanctions against the Respondent regarding to Art. 12bis of FIFA RSTP.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18385
3. To apply Art. 24bis FIFA RSTP.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the
Chairperson) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
23. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 27 February
2025 and submitted for a preliminary decision on 31 March 2025. Taking into account the
wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
24. Furthermore, the Chairperson confirmed that, in accordance with art. 19 par. 1 and 2 of the
Procedural Rules, he is competent to decide, in an expedited manner, whether the case at
stake is affected by any preliminary procedural matter. Likewise, the Chairperson
highlighted that, in case the claim is not affected by any preliminary procedural matters,
the FIFA general secretariat would be ordered to continue the procedure (cf. art. 19 par. 3
of the Procedural Rules).
25. Subsequently, the Chairperson referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of
the January 2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter, the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would be in principle
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.
b. Admissibility of the claim
26. At this point, the Chairperson then turned his attention to the Player’s statement of claim,
and observed that he claimed to be entitled to a bonus of TRY 1,000,000 in accordance with
the Bonus Agreement signed by the Parties.
27. At the same time, the Chairperson also noted that on 17 July 2024, the Player filed a claim
against the Club before the Football Tribunal (FPSD-15271) where he requested, inter alia,
to be awarded the aforementioned bonus.
28. Accordingly, the Chairperson confirmed that the claim at hand raises a preliminary
procedural matter that shall be analysed ex officio, i.e., whether the present claim is
affected by res judicata and, therefore, should be deemed inadmissible.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18385
29. In this respect, the Chairperson recalled that, on the basis of the principle of res judicata, a
decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case in the event
that another –competent– deciding body has already dealt with the same matter by passing
a final and binding decision.
30. The Chairperson further underlined that the cited principle of res judicata ensures that
whenever a dispute has been defined and decided upon, it becomes irrevocable,
confirmed, and deemed to be just – res judicata pro veritate habetur. This principle applies
whenever three elements are currently present, namely:
o The same persons - eadem personae;
o The same object - eadem res; and
o The same cause - eadem causa petendi.
31. As explained by the Panel in CAS 2019/A/6483 Wydad Athletic Club v. CAF & Espérance
Sportive de Tunis:
“(…) according to the SFT, there is res judicata when the claim in dispute is identical to that
which was already the subject of an enforceable judgement (identity of the subject matter
of the dispute). This is the case when both proceedings involve the same parties and the
same matter in dispute. The identity must be understood from a substantive and not
grammatical point of view, so that a new claim, not matter how is formulated, will have the
same object as the claim already adjudicated (ATF 140 III 278 at 3.3; ATF 139 III 126 at
3.2.3.).”
32. The Chairperson also recalled that the principle of res judicata has a positive and a negative
effect with regard to a previous decision. While the positive effect implies that the parties
can rely on the findings of the previous decision, the negative effect implies that a decidingmaking body is prevented to reconsider or to re-enter the merits of an issue previously
decided (in this regard, see, inter alia, CAS 2021/A/7915 Javier González López v. Hapoel Tel
Aviv FC & FIFA).
33. In addition, the Chairperson also remarked that the res judicata effect extend to all the facts
existing at the time of the first judgement, whether or not they were known to the parties,
stated by them, or considered by the first court (cf. CAS 2020/A/6884 Soukeyna Ba
Bengelloun v. FIFA & PFC CSKA-Sofia).
34. With the above in mind, the Chairperson went on to analyse the evidence on file regarding
the previous proceeding (FPSD-15271) and noted that, indeed, a decision has been passed
by a competent deciding body on 3 October 2024 (i.e., the Decision passed by the DRC in
FPSD-15271), which has become final and binding.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18385
35. Subsequently, the Chairperson underscored that the principle of res judicata is applicable
if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the matter in
dispute are identical. In this respect, he noted that both the Player and the Club were the
parties in the previous and already decided proceeding (FPSD-15271) as well as in the
dispute at stake.
36. As a consequence, the Chairperson concluded that the requirement of the identity of
parties is fulfilled.
37. The above having been established, the Chairperson went on to examine whether the
other necessary requirements were also met in casu. In this regard, the Chairperson
underlined that the identity of object is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant
requests of the two claims are similar.
38. After having carefully compared both the Player’s first claim in FPSD-15271 and the one at
hand, the Chairperson confirmed that both claims address, inter alia, the Player’s
entitlement to the bonus of TRY 1,000,000 under the Bonus Agreement.
39. Consequently, both legal actions were based on the Club’s alleged non-payment of the
aforementioned bonus after it was allegedly triggered, and in fact contained the very same
request for relief.
40. Based on the above, the Chairperson underscored that the requirement of identity of the
object of the matter in dispute is also fulfilled.
41. In conclusion, the Chairperson determined that both legal actions not only concern
identical parties to the dispute, but also identical objects and (partial) requests for relief.
42. Therefore, the Chairperson decided that as the DRC has already dealt with the exact same
matter, passing a final and binding decision, the present case is affected by res judicata,
and the DRC is not in a position to deal again with the substance of the dispute.
43. For the sake of completeness, and as opposed to Player’s arguments, the Chairperson also
wished to outline that in its previous Decision, the DRC did reject the Player’s entitlement
to the bonus claimed based on the fact that the latter failed to submit any evidence to
prove that the said bonus had been triggered, as determined in par. 3 of the operative part
of the Decision, which stipulates that:
“3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.”
44. Accordingly, the Chairperson underlined that the Player’s position regarding the
withdrawal of his particular claim for the bonus shall be rejected.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18385
45. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chairperson decided that the claim at hand is
inadmissible.
c. Costs
46. The Chairperson 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 Chairperson decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18385
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nicolas Julio N’Koulou Ndoubena, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18385
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. 13