Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14720
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 July 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Valentin Rosier
BY:
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Valentin Rosier, France
Represented by Mr Laurent Fellous
RESPONDENT:
Beşiktaş A.Ş., Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14720
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 June 2022, the French player Valentin Rosier (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the
Turkish club Besiktas JK (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: Contract) valid as from as from the date of signature until
31 May 2025.
2.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of EUR 135,000 net, payable over 10 instalments per season between August and May
respectively.
3.
On 17 January 2024, the Respondent, the Claimant and the French club OGC Nice
(hereinafter: the New Club) concluded a loan agreement by way of which the Claimant would
be temporarily transferred to the New Club as from the date of signature thereof until
30 June 2024 (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement).
4.
In accordance with art. 4 of the Loan Agreement, the parties agreed as follows:
“It is agreed and accepted by all Parties that BESIKTAS shall bear no liability in respect of any
salary, bonus payments, benefits, remuneration or costs due to the Player during the Loan
Period from 17 January 2024.”
5.
On 11 April 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
EUR 69,677.42 net setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
6.
On 19 April 2024, the Respondent replied to the default notice, indicating that, as the
instalment of EUR 135,000 net was only due on 31 January 2024, thus being excluded by
virtue of the Loan Agreement.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 23 May 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
The Claimant requested overdue payables of EUR 69,677.42 net, corresponding to the prorata salary of January 2024 until the signature of the Loan Agreement.
9.
In his claim, the player argued that he performed the Contract until the date of signature
of the Loan Agreement, thus being entitled to the pro-rata salary for said month under the
Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14720
10. The Claimant requested the above amount without any interest, however, soliciting a
sanction in accordance with art. 12bis RSTP, as well as EUR 10,000 legal fees.
b. Position of the Respondent
11. According to the Respondent, the amount of EUR 135,000 net fell due on 31 January 2024i.e., following the conclusion of the Loan Agreement.
12. Consequently, as the Contract was allegedly suspended before the amount fell due, it was
not payable at all.
13. The Respondent, hence, requested for the claim to be rejected.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14720
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 May 2024
and submitted for decision on 17 July 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.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 June 2024 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.
16. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 May 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
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
18. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14720
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the payment of part of
the Claimant’s salary corresponding to the month of January 2024 under the Contract.
20. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether or
not the Loan Agreement suspended the obligation of the Respondent to pay the salary for
the month of January 2024 altogether, in part – for the number of days leading up to its
signature, or not at all.
21. In respect of the above, the Single Judge recalled the positions of the parties, starting with
the Claimant, who argued that he was entitled to a pro-rata amount of EUR 69,677.42 net,
which corresponds to a proportion of 16/31 days of one monthly salary of EUR 135,000 net
– i.e., the number of days before the Loan Agreement was signed.
22. Equally, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s line of argument, namely that the
Loan Agreement suspended the Contract as from 17 January 2024, therefore meaning that
the former was absolved from having to remit any amounts falling due thereafter.
23. With this established, the Single Judge revisited the wording of art. 4 par. 3 of the Loan
Agreement, according to which it was “agreed and accepted by all Parties that BESIKTAS shall
bear no liability in respect of any salary, bonus payments, benefits, remuneration or costs due
to the Player during the Loan Period from 17 January 2024.”
24. In line with the abovementioned provision, the Single Judge understood that any amounts
falling due as from 17 January 2024 would exclusively be borne by the New Club.
25. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge equally recalled that it had remained
uncontested that the Claimant rendered services up to said date – for which he must, under
the terms of the Contract (and the general principles of labour law) be remunerated.
26. In this sense, the Single Judge emphasised that, pursuant to both the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal and Swiss Law, it is trite that a player (as an employee) cannot waive his
entitlement to salaries corresponding to work already performed.
27. Lastly, and for completeness’ sake, the Single Judge pointed out that the Loan Agreement
does not specify that any debt of the club (including the remuneration due for said prorated period) shall be absolved (or have been absolved in another way).
28. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the remuneration for the first 16 days of the
Agreement (given that the loan period started on 17 January 2024) shall be payable to the
Claimant – in exchange for the services he had rendered under the Contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14720
29. The Single Judge understood that said amount was to be calculated as EUR 135,000 net x
(16/31) = EUR 69,677.42 net.
30. Therefore, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided that the amount of EUR 69,677.42 net shall be awarded to the
Claimant as outstanding remuneration.
31. Furthermore, since no interest was requested, in accordance with the principle of ne iudex
eat ultra petita partium, the Single Judge decided that the above amount shall be paid
without any additional interest.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
32. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
33. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
34. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
35. 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.
36. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14720
d. Costs
37. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
38. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of
art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall
be awarded in these proceedings.
39. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14720
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Valentin Rosier, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Beşiktaş A.Ş., must pay to the Claimant EUR 69,677.42 net as
outstanding remuneration.
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, 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.
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. 9
REF. FPSD-14720
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. 10