Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00724
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC)
passed on 13 November 2020
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ibrahim Sangare
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
IBRAHIM SANGARE, France
RESPONDENT:
MENEMEN BELEDIYESPOR KULÜBÜ DERNEGI,
Turkey
Page 2 of 16
REF 20-00724
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 9 July 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
“the contract”), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2021.
2.
According to art. 6 of the appendix of the contract (hereinafter: “the appendix”), the Claimant was
entitled to the following remuneration and benefits:
“For 2019/2020 Football Season: 70.000,00-EURO (Eighty-five Thousand Euros)
The aforementioned amount is to be paid to the Player by the Club on the below mentioned
dates:
20.000,00- EUR on 15th of July 2019, (on the date of signature)
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of September, 2019
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of October, 2019,
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of November, 2019,
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of December, 2019,
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of January, 2020,
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of February, 2020
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of March, 2020
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of April, 2020
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of May, 2020
5.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of June, 2020
If the Player is involved in starting 11 of the squad for 20 matches (TKP matches not included)
in official league games, the Club accepts to pay 10.000,00-EUR to the Player.
If the player contributes to 10 goals with goals and assists in the official league games in Spor
Toto 1. League (TKP matches not included), the Club shall pay 10.000,00-EUR to the player.
The Club shall provide an appropriate car (the discretion of choosing the car is belong to the
Club) for the use of the Player during the continuation of this Contract provided that the
Player has a driving license which is valid in Turkey. The daily costs of the car shall be paid by
the Player.
The Club shall provide a furnished flat for use of the Player during the continuation of this
Contract.
For 2020/2021 Football Season:
If the Player is involved in starting 11 of the squad for 25 official league matches (TKP matches not
included) of TFF 1. League in 2019/2020 football season:
Page 3 of 16
REF 20-00724
The amount of 150.000,00-EUR (One Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Euro) is to be paid to the Player
by the Club on the below mentioned dates:
30.000,00- EUR on 15th of August 2020 as advance payment,
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of September, 2020
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of October, 2020,
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of November, 2020,
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of December, 2020,
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of January, 2021,
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of February, 2021
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of March, 2021
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of April, 2021
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of May, 2021
12.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of June, 2021
If the Player is not involved in starting 11 of the squad for 25 official league matches (TKP matches
not included) of TFF 1. League in 2019/2020 football season;
The amount of 100.000,00-EUR (One Hundred Thousand Euro) is to be paid to the Player by the Club
on the below mentioned dates:
30.000,00- EUR on 15th of August 2020 as advance payment,
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of September, 2020
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of October, 2020,
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of November, 2020,
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of December, 2020,
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of January, 2021,
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of February, 2021
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of March, 2021
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of April, 2021
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of May, 2021
7.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of June, 2021
In case the Club competes in Spor Toto Super League in 2020/2021, the Club shall pay 350.000,00EUR to the Player in addition to the abovementioned amount as follows:
50.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of August 2020
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of September, 2020
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of October, 2020,
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of November, 2020,
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of December, 2020,
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of January, 2021,
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of February, 2021
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of March, 2021
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of April, 2021
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of May, 2021
30.000,00- EUR between the dates of 5th and 15th of June, 2021
Page 4 of 16
REF 20-00724
The Club shall provide an appropriate car (the discretion of choosing the car is belong to the
Club) for the use of the Player during the continuation of this Contract provided that the
Player has a driving license which is valid in Turkey. The daily costs of the car shall be paid by
the Player.
The Club shall provide a furnished flat for use of the Player during the continuation of this
Contract.
Should the Club not promote to the Super League for 2020/2021 football season, the Player
shall be released if the Player brings 70.000,00-EUR to the Club until the date of 31st July
2020”.
3.
On 31 December 2019, the Claimant received a WhatsApp message saying “Hey ibo. It´s not
necessary to go to Antalya anymore. The president wants to speak with you and abdi in Izmir on
04/04/2020. If u don´t want to go to Izmir, u can send your agent to Izmir for talks”.
4.
On 2 January 2020, the Claimant received another WhatsApp message from the Respondent asking
him to confirm if he will attend the meeting with the club´s President on Saturday. The Claimant
replied: “I don´t understand why I am not authorize to come in Antalya. I am a player of the team. I
don’t speak Turkish I can meet the President. Let me know when I can come in Antalya to train with
the team”. The Respondent replied: “Bro it´s president´s decision. U have to be in Izmir for negotiations.
If u can not come to Izmir please send your agent … If u accept to reduce your salary maybe u can
stay with us they said”.
5.
On 6 January 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default to pay the total amount of EUR 7,500
within 15 days, corresponding to EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount of September 2019 and EUR
5,000 as monthly salary of October 2019.
6.
By means of another letter sent on the same day, i.e. 6 January 2020, the Claimant indicated that “the
Club did not allowed the Player to participate to training sessions with the team in Antalya on
03.09.2020 without reason”. Instead, the Respondent asked the Claimant “to go to Izmir in order to
meet the President of the club on 04.01.2020”, where “it was asked to the Player to lower his salary
in order to continue to train with the professional team. Failing that, the player would be removed
from the professional team in the same way that players do not accept the reduction of their salary.”
Moreover, the Claimant complained about having been removed from the team’s WhatsApp group.
As such, the Claimant requested to be authorised to join the “first team in Antalya as soon as possible
in order to be able to train with his teammates”.
7.
On an unknown date, the Respondent informed the Claimant of the decision of its Board of Directors
dated 10 January 2020 to fine him in the amount of EUR 30,000 pursuant to art. 5 clauses c. and n.
of the contract “on the grounds that he did not participate the trainings which is realized at the training
field of the Titanic Hotel on 07.01.2020 and 08.01.2020 and at the training field of the Mardan Palace
Hotel on 09.01.2020”.
Page 5 of 16
REF 20-00724
8.
On 13 January 2020, the Claimant contested the fine and requested to be reintegrated into the team
immediately.
9.
On 14 January 2020, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of a training schedule but informed the
Respondent that “there is no indication about the starting date of the training and the address”, and
asked for this information. The Respondent provided this information, with training resuming on 16
January 2020.
10. On an unknown date (note: probably on 21 January 2020) the Respondent informed the Claimant
that the training of 22 January was cancelled and the “performance measurement will be done at
16:00. Our training schedule will be updated according to the test results”.
11. On 24 January 2020, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract on the basis of art. 14bis of the
RSTP, the grounds being that the Respondent did not pay the outstanding amounts within 15 days as
requested in the default letter dated 6 January 2020 which remained unanswered by the Respondent.
The Claimant stated the monthly salaries of September, October, November 2019 and January 2020
were unpaid by the Respondent.
12. In his claim, the Claimant stated that the Respondent threatened him early January 2020, whereby he
would not be allowed to play for the club again and would receive a fine if he did not accept a
reduction of his salary. Following this, the Respondent executed his threats by isolating the player with
a ban to train, pressure to accept a reduction of his salary, restriction to access club’s facilities,
impossibility to consult a doctor and no access to a coach.
13. The Claimant explained that although he possessed a bank account in Turkey, the Respondent told
him that salaries would be paid in cash given the accounting problems faced by the club.
14. The Claimant argued having sent two letters to the Respondent on 6 January 2020, to no avail and
added that the only communication that he received from the Respondent was its decision to impose
a fine to him. In this respect, the Claimant added that the Respondent at any point request him to rejoin the team showing lack of interest in his services.
15. The Claimant also mentioned that he was not the only player in the team suffering the same treatment
by the Respondent. In this regard, the Claimant referred to the claim lodged before FIFA by the player
Diakite (ref. 20-00700) which was decided by the DRC on 13.08.2020.
16. With regard to the fine, the Claimant contested the date of the decision and the document, which do
not match and held that the Respondent could not fine him for not being present at trainings in
Antalya, when at the same time the Respondent forbid him to join the team in Antalya. The Claimant
considered that the fine had no contractual basis and was only a result of his default notice.
17. The Claimant also explained that the Respondent cut his electricity and hot water in his home to
threaten/scare him and to make him accept the salary reduction. The Respondent also took away the
rental car provided to the Claimant, meaning he had to rent a car at his own costs.
Page 6 of 16
REF 20-00724
18. The Claimant signed an employment contract with the French club, US Créteil, valid for 6 months.
However, the Claimant stated that the Respondent told him that it would refuse to sign the TPO and
would oppose to the ITC unless he accepted to sign a document acknowledging that he waived his
right to outstanding remuneration. Due to this, the Claimant missed 4 official matches with his new
club. He was only able to provisional register with the French club due to a FIFA´s decision dated 28
February 2020 (i.e. one month after the signature of the new contract).
19. Since the start of the contract, the Claimant maintained having only received EUR 22,500 as salary
corresponding to:
a) EUR 20,000 in August 2019;
b) EUR 1,500 paid on 7 November 2019 and
c) EUR 1,000 paid on 12 December 2019.
20. At the date of termination, the Claimant held that EUR 22,500 was outstanding corresponding to the
monthly salaries from September 2019 until January 2020.
21. In particular, the Claimant explained that on 27 September 2019, the Respondent requested him to
sign a receipt written in Turkish for an amount of EUR 5,000. According to the Claimant, the
Respondent argued that it needed a sign receipt in order to proceed to the transfer of the money
which was allegedly for the salary of September 2019. The Claimant added not having received said
amount.
22. In this respect, the Claimant explained to have been forced to sign documents in Turkish, which he did
not understand, with amounts to be paid both in euros and Turkish liras (TRY). In this regard, the
Claimant held that the Respondent tried to disguise these payments and the payments of bonuses in
the payment of salaries. As salaries, the Claimant reiterated having only received the amount of EUR
22,500 (cf. point 21 above).
23. The Claimant further explained that monthly salaries were paid in EUR and bonuses in TRY
respectively. Moreover the Claimant confirmed having received from the Respondent the following
payments in TRY as bonuses:
“• 09/09/2019 : 3,000 Turkish Lira (TL) qui correspond en réalité à la prime versée suite
à la victoire contre le club de Giresunspor ;
• 10/10/2019 : 2,000 TL correspondant en réalité à la première partie de la prime versée
suite à la victoire contre le club d’Adana Demirspor ;
• 17/10/2019 : 2,000 TL correspondant en réalité à la seconde partie de la prime versée
suite à la victoire contre le club d’Adana Demirspor ;
• 08/11/2019 : 3,000 TL qui correspond en réalité à la prime versée suite à la victoire
contre le club de Cesar Grup Umraniyespor ;
• 21/11/2019 : 5,700 TL qui correspond en réalité à la prime versée suite à la victoire
contre le club Istanbulspor ;
• 29/11/2019 : 3,500 TL correspondant en réalité à la prime versée suite à la victoire
contre le club de Balikesirspor ;
• 07/12/2019 : 1,500 TL qui correspond en réalité à la prime versée suite au match nul
contre le club de Boluspor ;
Page 7 of 16
REF 20-00724
• 20/12/2019 : 3,500 TL qui correspond en réalité à la prime versée suite à la victoire
contre le club d’Adanaspor ;
• 27/12/2019 : 4,000 TL correspondant en réalité à la prime versée suite à la victoire
contre le club de Bursaspor »
Note: The Claimant enclosed a printout of the Turkish Football Federation official website indicating
the list of matches, dates and results for the season 2019/2020.
24. In light of the above, the Claimant requested the following:
(i)
EUR 22,500 as outstanding remuneration + 5% interest as from 5 September 2019. Said
amount is composed as follows:
EUR 2,500 as outstanding balance of the monthly salary of September 2019 (EUR
5,000 – EUR 1,500 + EUR 1,000);
EUR 5,000 as monthly salary of October 2019;
EUR 5,000 as monthly salary of November 2019;
EUR 5,000 as monthly salary of December 2019 and
EUR 5,000 as monthly salary of January 2020.
(ii)
To observe a violent behaviour of the club against the player;
(iii)
To reject the fine of EUR 30,000 imposed by the club;
(iv)
EUR 125,000 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual value of
the contract + 5% interest as from 5 September 2019. Said amount is composed as follows:
EUR 25,000 (EUR 5,000 x 5) as monthly salaries related to the months from February
2020 until June 2020 and
EUR 100,000 remuneration related to the sporting season 2020/21;
(v)
EUR 50,000 as compensation for the violent behaviour of the club;
(vi)
All the legal costs and costs of the proceedings on the club.
25. The Respondent referred to “payment order in enforcement proceedings without judgment” issued on
22 June 2020 by the execution office of the Republic of Turkey by which it was ordered to pay EUR
17,500 with EUR 9.11 interest to the player “actual payment date from 1 March 2020”.
26. In view of this order, the Respondent argued that there were already ongoing proceedings in Turkey,
and that therefore the current proceedings in front of FIFA should be declared not admissible.
27. In view of this order, the Respondent argued that there were already ongoing proceedings in Turkey,
and that therefore the current proceedings in front of FIFA should be declared not admissible. In
addition, at the end of the position, the Respondent stated that the claim of the player is admissible
and the FIFA DRC is competent.
28. The Respondent stated that the player was absent on 7, 8 and 9 January 2020, absences which were
acknowledged by a public notary. As a consequence, on 10 January 2020, the Respondent fined the
player for not attending said training sessions for an amount of EUR 30,000.
29. In this respect, the Respondent argued having informed the player that he could come to Izmir or send
his agent, not that he had to go to Izmir himself.
Page 8 of 16
REF 20-00724
30. Moreover, the club provided a copy of payments receipts allegedly made to the player for an amount
of EUR 31,423.45. As such, the club concluded that the amount of EUR 61,423.45 (payments plus
fine) should be offset from the amounts claimed by the Claimant, and that therefore the conditions of
art. 14bis were not met when he unilaterally terminated the contract. The Respondent enclosed the
following payment receipts:
Date
Amount
Equivalent to
09.08.2019
27.09.2019
07.11.2019
12.11.2019
09.09.2019
10.10.2019
17.10.2019
21.11.2019
29.11.2019
09.12.2019
20.12.2019
27.12.2019
EUR 20,000
EUR 5,000
EUR 1,500
EUR 1,000
TRY 3,000
TRY 2,000
TRY 2,000
TRY 5,700
TRY 3,500
TRY 1,500
TRY 3,500
TRY 4,000
EUR 475.59
EUR 309.36
EUR 306.70
EUR 904.71
EUR 554.40
EUR 234.23
EUR 533.06
EUR 605.40
31. In addition, the Respondent claimed that the economic crisis in Turkey and the 30% decrease in the
exchange rate of the LYR/EUR had played a crucial part in the delays in paying the player’s
remuneration.
32. The Respondent requested the FIFA deciding bodies:
to dismiss the claim of the Claimant;
to consider the requested amounts set-off by the remuneration paid and the fines imposed;
to impose costs on the Claimant.
33. After the unilateral termination of the contract, i.e. on 31 January 2020, the Claimant signed an
employment contract with the French club, US Créteil, valid until 30 June 2020 involving a monthly
salary amounting to EUR 1994.34.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
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 submitted to FIFA on 11 May 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the
2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in
Page 9 of 16
REF 20-00724
principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake. The matter concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Turkish club.
3.
With the aforementioned in mind, the DRC turned its attention to the Respondent´s allegation that
there were ongoing proceedings in Turkey which were allegedly initiated by the Claimant.
4.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that at the same time the Respondent stated that the DRC was
competent to decide the present matter.
5.
From the evidence at disposal, the Chamber held that the Respondent did not provide evidence of an
existing proceeding in Turkey. In fact, the DRC observed that the Respondent only enclosed a request
of payment made by the Claimant on 22 June 2020 (i.e. after lodging the present claim before FIFA).
6.
Therefore, the DRC concluded that it was competent to enter into the substance and decide the
present matter.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2020 edition), and considering that the
claim was lodged on 11 May 2020, the March 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
8.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
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.
9.
Having said that, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 9 July 2019, the Claimant and
the Respondent signed the contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2021, pursuant
to which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant, in the 2019/2020 season, the total amount
of EUR 70,000 as follows:
EUR 20,000 on 15th of July 2019;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of September 2019;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of October 2019;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of November 2019;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of December 2019;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of January 2020;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of February 2020;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of March 2020;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of April 2020;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of May 2020;
EUR 5,000 between the dates of 5th and 15th of June 2020.
Page 10 of 16
REF 20-00724
10. What is more, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant explained that on 24 January
2020, he had terminated the contract invoking a just cause because of several outstanding salaries,
the fact that the Claimant was ordered to train separate from the team and that fines were imposed
because of alleged missed training sessions.
11. The DRC observed that the Claimant maintained that as from 31 December 2019, the Respondent
separated him from the Respondent’s first team and did not allow him anymore to participate in its
training sessions unless he would accept a reduction of his salary. What is more, the Claimant alleges
that – after he had allegedly missed some individual training sessions – an amount of EUR 30,000 as
fine was imposed on him on 10 January 2020.
12. Besides these events, the DRC took note that on 6 January 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in
default for the total amount of EUR 7,500, corresponding to EUR 2,500 as outstanding amount of
September 2019 and EUR 5,000 as monthly salary of October 2019 granting a 15 days’ deadline to
comply with said request, however to no avail.
13. The DRC acknowledged that on the same date the Claimant requested in writing the Respondent to
be authorised to join the “first team in Antalya as soon as possible in order to be able to train with his
teammates”.
14. In particular, the DRC noted that the Claimant, in view of the foregoing circumstances, unilaterally
terminated the contract on 24 January 2020, since he was not allowed to join the team and due to
outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 22,500.
15. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent argued that the Claimant was
absent from training on 7, 8 and 9 January 2020.
16. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Respondent maintained having paid to the Claimant a total amount
of EUR 31,423.45 as remuneration. The DRC further noted that the Respondent argued that the
amount of EUR 61,423.45 (payments plus fine) should be offset from the amounts requested by the
Claimant.
17. The members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the
diverging position of the parties, was to determine as to whether the contract had been terminated
with or without just cause by the Claimant on 24 January 2020. The Chamber also underlined that,
subsequently, it would be necessary to determine the consequences of the early termination of the
contractual relation.
18. The Chamber, first of all, wished to highlight that the unilateral termination of the contract by the
Claimant on 24 January 2020, was based on the fact that the Respondent neither request the Claimant
to re-join the team nor reply to the communications sent by the latter on 6 January 2020 and that
several contractually agreed amounts due to the Claimant, were not timely paid by the Respondent.
19. Moreover, the Chamber reiterated that despite the facts described in point 18 above, the Respondent
decided on 10 January 2020 to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Claimant.
Page 11 of 16
REF 20-00724
20. At this stage, the DRC analysed the payments receipts presented by the Respondent and concluded
that most of them were payments confirmed by the Claimant with only one exception, i.e. the payment
of EUR 5,000 made on 27 September 2019 which the Claimant argued having signed the receipt but
not receiving the wire transfer.
21. Following this general observations, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to outline that
it remained uncontested that in the default notice dated 6 January 2020, the Claimant requested for
the payment of the outstanding part of the September salary, as well as the full salary for October.
Moreover, in the Claimant’s claim, it is further explained that next to the previously mentioned salaries,
also the salaries for the months of November 2019, December 2019 and January 2020 had remained
outstanding, and that the Respondent had only made a payment of EUR 2,500 as salary payment.
22. In this context, the Chamber reiterated that the Claimant confirmed having signed a receipt dated 27
September 2019 for an amount of EUR 5,000.
23. Moreover, as to the fine imposed on the Claimant on 10 January 2020 for alleged absences, the
Chamber wished to point out that the Respondent neither requested the Claimant to re-join the team
nor replied to the letters sent by the Claimant on 6 January 2020.
24. What is more, the DRC stated there was no clear evidence on file that the Respondent followed a due
process while imposing this fine on the Claimant. In addition, according to the Chamber, an alleged
absence of several training sessions can by no means justify a fine in the amount of EUR 30,000, i.e.
almost 5 monthly salaries. Hence, the Chamber considered that by fining the Claimant based on an
unproven absence of several alleged training sessions, the Respondent acted in an abusive manner.
25. Furthermore, and in any case, the Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any
other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off
outstanding financial obligations towards players.
26. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that the Respondent could not set-off its debt towards the
Claimant by means of the fine imposed on him and that thus, the amount of EUR 30,000 is due to the
Claimant.
27. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the Claimant had unilaterally terminated the contract on 24
January 2020, after he had put the Respondent in default and granted a deadline of 15 days for the
club to comply with its financial obligations. In this respect, the DRC pointed out that art. 14bis of the
RSTP does not apply to the matter at stake since the Claimant mentioned in his default notice of 6
January 2020 that 5 monthly salaries were unpaid but requested only one monthly salary and a half.
28. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, and recalling the provisions set out in art. 14
of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that taking into account the absence of a reply of the
Respondent to the Claimant´s letters, the lack of interest in his services and the overdue remuneration,
the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship on 24 January 2020
Page 12 of 16
REF 20-00724
based on art. 14 of the Regulations. Consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the
respective consequences.
29. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations
towards the Claimant as per the employment contract up until the date of termination of the contract
in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
30. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant confirmed having signed a receipt dated 27
September 2019 for an amount of EUR 5,000. The Chamber pointed out that said amount corresponds
to half of September 2019 and half of October 2019 salaries.
31. On this basis the Chamber decided, that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the salaries
that were outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of EUR 17,500, consisting of the
overdue salary payment for part of the month of October and full salary of November and December
2019, as well as the salary for January 2020.
32. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. as of the
respective due dates, i.e. the 15th day of each month.
33. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in
addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
34. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, the amount of
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 Claimant 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.
35. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the
pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand
agreed upon a 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.
36. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent, the members
of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the
employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional
situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred.
37. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment
contract on 24 January 2020, the contract would run until 31 May 2021. Consequently, taking into
Page 13 of 16
REF 20-00724
account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the
contract as from its early termination by the Claimant until the regular expiry of the contract amounts
to EUR 163,000 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
38. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that following the early termination of the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute, the Claimant was able to find new employment and to
mitigate his damages in an amount of EUR 7,977.36 (i.e. EUR 1994.34 x 4 months).
39. What is more, the Chamber noted that the Claimant limited his request for compensation to the total
amount of EUR 125,000.
40. Therefore, the Chamber established that the Claimant, in principle, would be entitled to a mitigated
compensation amounting to EUR 117,000.
41. In continuation, and referring to art. 17 par. 1 ii. of the Regulations, the Chamber stated that since
the early termination of the contract was due to overdue payables, in addition to the mitigated
compensation, the Claimant shall be entitled to an additional compensation. However, the Chamber
highlighted that the compensation cannot exceed the requested residual value, i.e. EUR 125,000.
42. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR
125,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract without just case, which is considered
by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.
43. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. as of 11 May
2020 on the compensation payable.
44. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the Claimant requested an amount of EUR 50,000 as
“compensation for the violent behaviour of the club”. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that
since the claim for moral damages is not fully substantiated, it should be dismissed.
45. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the total amount of EUR 142,500
to the Claimant, consisting of the amount of EUR 17,500 corresponding to the Claimant’s outstanding
remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant
and the amount of EUR 125,000 corresponding to compensation for breach of contract.
46. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter stipulating that any
further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. In conclusion, the Claimant’s claim is partially
accepted.
47. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber referred
to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
Page 14 of 16
REF 20-00724
48. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire
and consecutive registration periods.
49. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does
not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant,
following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
50. Finally, the Chamber 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. 24bis par. 3 of the
Regulations.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahim Sangare, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Menemen Belediyespor Kulübü Dernegi, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of
EUR 17,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 2,500 as from 16 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 16 November 2019 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 16 December 2019 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 16 January 2020 until the date of effective payment.
4.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of EUR 125,000 as compensation for breach
of contract.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
6.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amounts.
7.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with this decision
to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English,
French, German, Spanish).
Page 15 of 16
REF 20-00724
8.
In the event that the amounts due, plus interest as established above are not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1.
2.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire
and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted
immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of the
ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 16 of 16