Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13746
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Sagiv Shalom Jehezkel
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Sagiv Shalom Jehezkel, Israel
Represented by Roi Rozen and Tal Segev
RESPONDENT:
Bitexen Antalyaspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13746
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 September 2023, the Israeli player Sagiv Shalom Jehezkel (hereinafter the Claimant
or the Player) and the Turkish club Bitexen Antalyaspor (hereinafter the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement), valid
as from the signing date until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with Clause 3 of the Employment Agreement, the Claimant and the
Respondent (jointly referred to as the Parties) agreed upon the following remuneration:
−
Season 2023/2024: EUR 450,000, payable in 10 monthly instalments;
−
Season 2024/2025: EUR 450,000, payable in 10 monthly instalments;
−
Season 2025/2026: EUR 450,000, payable in 10 monthly instalments;
−
Various performance bonuses for each season, i.e.,
o
EUR 10,000 should the Player score or assist 15 goals in official matches;
o
EUR 25,000 should the Player score or assist 20 goals in official matches;
o
EUR 25,000 if the Club plays in Europe League group stage;
o
EUR 25,000 if the Club wins the Turkish cup title.
3.
On 15 December 2023, the Player received his October 2023 salary.
4.
On 14 January 2024, during a football match of the Club in the Turkish league against
Trabzonspor, the Player scored a goal and celebrated it with a hand gesture of "half heart"
sign.
5.
That same day, the Claimant spent the night following said match in jail as, according to
the Claimant, “he was taken by the Police who were invited to his house by the Club’s personnel
to a custody.” In the morning of 15 January 2024, the Player was released from jail and,
according to him, was “ordered by the Club to get out of Turkey (...)”.
6.
On 15 January 2024, the following article appeared in the media:
"I call on the international community and the international sports organisations to act
against Türkiye and against its political use of violence and threats against athletes,” Israeli
Foreign Minister Israel Katz said.
Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant also harshly critcized the Turkish authorities over the
detention of the player.
In his initial statement to the police on Jan. 15, Jehezkel explained that he did not intend to
provoke or incite anyone with his gesture, adding that he simply wanted to convey a message
for the end of the war.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13746
"I am not a supporter of war. And after all, Israeli soldiers are also in captivity in Gaza. I
believe that this 100-day process needs to come to an end. I want the war to end. That's why
I showed this sign. I am a non-political person.”
“I have never done anything related to politics since I arrived [in Türkiye]. I have never
disrespected anyone since I came here. I know the sensitivity in Türkiye, it was a pure gesture.
The point I wanted to highlight was the end of the war," Jehezkel said.
Following the incident, the head of the player's club announced that his contract would be
terminated, accusing Jehezkel of having "acted against the values of our country.”
"I will not accept such behavior, even if it costs us in winning titles," club president Sinan
Boztepe told the local media. "No matter how much respect the footballer brings us, the
values of the country and national honor stand above everything. We will invite him for a
conversation, hear his version, and say goodbye to him". (free translation from Turkish)
7.
On 15 January 2024, the case regarding the match incident was referred to the Disciplinary
Committee of the Turkish Football Federation. Based on the statements of both Parties, it
appears that around 15 January 2024, the Player left Türkiye. At the same time, the
Respondent allegedly requested the Claimant to provide his position on the events.
8.
On 22 January 2024, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, relating to the abovementioned incidents and asserting that the Respondent “decided unilaterally and without
just cause and/or any legal ground to end the contractual relationship between the parties”. In
the same correspondence, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent owed him three
monthly salaries.
9.
Consequently, in the letter of 22 January 2024, the Claimant requested the Respondent to:
“Officially release the Player from your Club.
Pay the Player the debt you owed of three consecutive salaries.
Pay the Player his salaries until the end of 2025/26 football season (bearing in mind the
obligation of the Player to reduce damages).
Pay the Player compensation for the severe damages caused by the Club.”
10. On 24 January 2024, the Player received his November 2023 salary.
11. On 24 January 2024, the following statement of Respondent’s coach appeared in the media:
“(…) When asked by a journalist about Israeli footballer Jehezkel's gesture after the
Trabzonspor match, he said, "He touched the sensitive points of the country. It was an act
that a professional footballer should not do. Athletes cannot and do not need to give such
messages. Their job should be just to play football, to play sports. For reasons beyond our
control, we decided to part ways with that friend. I think it was the right decision. He was a
good player, but the vulnerabilities are more important than football, more important than
sports" (free translation from Turkish).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13746
12. On 24 January 2024, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant in which it argued that
“no termination action has been taken by Antalyaspor Club against the player. We request a
response to the defense statement previously sent to the player, his return to Antalya within
three days, and his participation in training sessions. Additionally, we confirm that the
outstanding salary for December 2023 will be fully paid within 15 days from the date of
notification of your notice”.
13. In said letter, the Respondent pointed out that in the game against Trabzonspor, the
Claimant displayed a message “seemingly indicating a political stance related to the IsraelPalestine conflict”, which led to significant reactions in the press and led to a referral of the
case to the Disciplinary Committee of the Turkish Football Federation. Concerning the
arrest, the Respondent argued that such “proceedings are solely the result of actions taken by
the state in accordance with its laws and are in no way associated with Antalyaspor”.
14. Finally, also within the same correspondence, the Respondent asserted that “Following the
incident, Mr. Yehezkel personally expressed his desire to return to his country temporarily to
improve his motivation and stated his intention to leave the country first thing in the morning.
After ensuring Mr. Yehezkel's safe return, Antalyaspor requested a written defense from the
player, in accordance with FIFA rules, on January 15, 2024, to explain the incident. The political
connotation of the message on Mr. Yehezkel's wristband necessitated the club's request for a
comprehensive defense. As of this date, the player has not responded to this request for a
defense statement. We sincerely recognize the distress and fear experienced by Mr. Yehezkel and
wish to emphasize that Antalyaspor has continuously supported him without fail. After the
request for his defense statement, no legal action was taken against Mr. Yehezkel. He asked for
a week's leave to recover, which was granted. The club was surprised and began to question his
good faith upon receiving your notice, especially considering his unannounced departure from
the country, request for time off, and lack of response to the defense statement”.
15. On 25 January 2024, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, containing, inter alia, the
following replies:
−
“Regarding the hand gesture and the alleged claim of it being a political gesture – The
hand gesture of the Player has nothing to do with politics. It aimed to call for solidarity
regarding the return of civilian hostages.
−
Regarding the return of the Player to Israel – Another shameful claim by your Club, as
The Player returned to Israel not only because of the life threats he faced after the
onslaught following the afore-referred incident, and after he had to spent a night in
prison for celebrating a goal during an official football match, but rather he was ordered
by the Club to leave Turkey, with his family, immediately - because he must do that due
to personal safety.
−
Regarding the alleged violation of the TFF Disciplinary code – In addition, we regret that
you automatically consider the hand gesture as a violation of the TFF disciplinary code.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13746
−
Regarding the salaries of the Player – we would like you to send us proof of payment of
the salaries. There is no explanation for the delayed 3 payments, for months over
months.
−
In regard to your stance about contract termination – It is absolutely clear that the
announcements that were made at the match day and right after, were loud and clear
about your aim to end of the contractual relationship with the Player”.
16. On 25 January 2024, the Disciplinary Committee of the Turkish Football Federation issued
the following decision:
“10- BITEXEN ANTALYASPOR Club received a monetary fine of 97,500 Turkish Lira for
ideological propaganda conducted by its player following a goal in the BITEXEN ANTALYASPOR
vs. TRABZONSPOR A.Ş. match in the Trendyol Süper Lig on January 14, 2024. Additionally, the
player SAGIV SHALOM JEHEZKEL was suspended from 8 official matches for engaging in
ideological propaganda during the same match”.
17. On 26 January 2024, the Respondent reiterated that “the professional football player contract
between the player and our client is still in effect. We reiterate the need for the player to fulfill
his contractual obligations. We expect the player to return to Antalya for training by no later
than January 29, 2024”.
18. In his correspondence of 28 January 2024, the Claimant rejected that he is still under
contract with the Respondent as repeatedly pointed out in the statements of the
Respondent’s officials in various media, inter alia,
“The President of the Club was quoted as follows: "Following the incident, the head of the
player's club announced that his contract would be terminated, accusing Jehezkel of having
"acte against the values of our country. "I will not accept such behavior, even if it costs us in
winning titles" club president Sinan Boztepe told the local media. "No matter how much
respect the footballer brings us, the values of the country and national honor stand above
everything. We will invite him for a conversation, hear his version, and say goodbye to him"
The coach of the Club clearly said, as quoted, that "Regarding Israeli football player Jehezkel,
who was left out of the squad and sent to his country after his action in the Trabzonspor
match, Yalçın said "….We decided to part ways with that friend for unreasonable reasons. I
think it was the right decision. He was a good player, but sensitive points are more important
than football and sports".
19. In view of the above, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s call for his return to Türkiye
and offered to discuss in good faith the terms of the end of the contractual relationship
between the Parties.
20. Based on the evidence provided by the Parties, they tried to reach a mutual termination
agreement between 4 to 12 February 2024.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13746
21. In this regard, in an email of 12 February 2024, the Respondent indicated that the
registration period had ended and stated that “the Player did not sign any transfer agreement
and also termination agreement”.
22. Consequently, the following notice was sent by the Respondent:
“As you are aware, we have been in correspondence for some time regarding the matter
involving your client, footballer Sagiv Shalom Yehezkel. To date, there have been numerous
exchanges of letters and also a video online meeting between the parties in an attempt to
terminate the player's contract. As evident from the termination contract drafts you have sent,
it is fully acknowledged by you that the player's contract remains valid and in effect. However,
considering that the transfer period has ended, it appears that the player has been unable to
sign a contract with any third club either in Israel or elsewhere. Consequently, it is clear that
his contract with our client, Antalyaspor, remains in effect and ongoing.
Our client, Antalyaspor, hereby extends a third and final goodwill invitation to your client,
footballer Sagiv Shalom Yehezkel, to fulfill his contractual obligations by coming to Antalya.
Therefore, we kindly request that your client be present at the Antalyaspor facilities by no
later than 14:00 on February 14, 2024. Should your client fail to appear, we regret to inform
you that we will be compelled to exercise our legal rights”.
23. In reply thereto, on 13 February 2024, the Claimant reiterated that “there is no doubt that
the statements that were given respectively by the Club's president on 15 January 2024 and by
the Club's coach on 24 January 2024, are, in practice, reflecting the real truth and position of
the Club towards the Player, as these announcements are a pure notification of a unilateral
decision the terminate the contract with the Player”.
24. Consequently, the Player reiterated that it was “the Club that breached and cancelled the
contract without just cause, as well as not paying salary and risking the Player's life, which allows
the player to join any other club with just cause, and it is your Club that must take all
responsibility, and stop acting in such an absurd and cynical manner”.
25. On 18 February 2024, the following post appeared on Twitter: “Israeli football player Sagiv
Jehezkel, who left Turkey after celebrating a goal in Antalyaspor and whose contract was
announced to be terminated, was included in the squad reported to TFF”. (free translation from
Turkish)
26. The Claimant informed FIFA administration that he remained unemployed following the
termination of the contract with the Respondent.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13746
II. Proceedings before FIFA
27. On 20 February 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
28. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“Accept in full the Claim and stipulate that the Club prematurely, unlawfully and without just
cause, unilaterally terminated the Employment Agreement.
To find the Club liable for the early, unlawfully and without just cause termination of the
Employment Agreement and order the Club to compensate the Player in the amount equal to
the residual value of the Employment Agreement, in the amount of EUR 1,260,000 (in addition
to bonuses).
To order the Respondent to compensate the Player for damaging his good name and his
future earning capacity (which may be calculated already in line with article 17 of FIFA RSTP).
Alternatively, based on the Club's announcements (by its president and coach), and its lack of
good faith and lack of proper protection to the Player, to kindly stipulate that the Player has
a just cause to end the contractual relationship between the Parties, based on article 14 of
FIFA RSTP.
Alternatively, based on the Club's continuous failure to be in line with its financial obligations
towards the Player, that the Player has a just cause to end the contractual relationship, based
on article 14bis of FIFA RSTP.
To impose on the Respondent 5% interest on the top of the EUR 90,000 for the December and
January 2024 salary (respectively)”.
29. The Claimant argued that the Respondent “literally terminated the Employment Agreement
with the Player, as the Club officially announced after the 14 January 2024 match (given by its
president and thereafter by its coach)”.
30. In alternative, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent “failed to comply with its financial
obligation already after one month on contract, after which, the Club delayed the second salary
of October 23 (which was due on 30 October 23 and was paid on December 23), and the third
salary of November 23, which was paid only after the letter of intention the Player sent of 22
January 2024” and, “the remaining two salaries, of December 23 and January 24 were not paid
yet, and the Club is clearly in breach. In other words, the Club fails to comply with its basic
obligation, and delayed four (4) out of five (5) firsts salaries, two of which are yet to be paid
despite being due!”.
31. Consequently, the Claimant argued that “the Club is, in fact, in a delay of salaries and in
violation of article 14bis of FIFA RSTP, and hence the Player has the right and the sufficient just
cause to end the contractual relationship”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13746
32. In view of the above, the Claimant concluded that he is entitled to receive compensation of
EUR 1,260,000 for said breach of contract.
b. Position of the Respondent
33. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“1) The Claimant's claim on terminating the Contract under Article 14bis is incorrect. The
Claimant did not terminate his contract with just cause under the RSTP.
2) The Claimant's claims under Article 17 of the RSTP are invalid and the Claimant is not
entitled to any sort of compensation. On the contrary the Claimant owes the Club
compensation under Article 17 because he unlawfully terminated his Contract. And even
if the Esteemed Chamber considers the Claimant is entitled to compensation under Article
17, the Claimant's demands are excessive.
3) The Claimant's request for sporting sanctions under Article 17 of the RSTP to be applied
on the Club is unlawful and should be dismissed.
4) The sanctions the Claimant requested under Article 24 of the RSTP are not applicable
against the Club in the current case.
5) The Club's rights and requests which we submit with our submissions of counterclaim
are reserved.”
34. In its reply, the Respondent asserted that the contract has not been terminated. Regarding
any media statements, the Respondent argued as Türkiye is a “country where 99% of the
population is Muslim and due to its clear state policy, stands with Palestine in the conflict
between Israel and Palestine. In this context, the player's celebration during the match,
particularly highlighting the 100th day of the war and signalling the Israeli flag, a political
symbol, has very clearly heightened tensions within the country. Antalyaspor officials made
some statements to reduce this tension, but it must also be stated that these statements were
distorted by the press. This, as you will appreciate, is a matter that occurs everywhere in the
world. The press always aims to make news by taking only one sentence for its news value and
to get more reads”.
35. The Respondent further stated that despite such political massage by the Player, the
Respondent decided that “the Player should be with the team” and “has consistently called the
player back”.
36. The Respondent reiterated that “at no stage has the contract been terminated by the player.
The player has merely claimed that the contract was terminated based on a few simple news
stories published in the media”.
37. To support its position, the Respondent argued that what is “unequivocally clear is the
mutual recognition by the other party that the contract in question has not been terminated.
Indeed, due to the player's insistence, during the second transfer period, negotiations were
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13746
undertaken with Antalyaspor about terminating the contract. In reality, three emails have been
exchanged between the lawyers of the parties concerning the aforementioned termination”.
38. Finally, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant acts in bad faith as “he has not
adhered to the principle of termination as a last resort. He is not striving to meet the conditions
for the continuation of the contract. By blatantly ignoring the principle of adherence to the
contract, he is seeking to terminate the contract and gain economic benefits. Thus, it is clear
that our club must also protect its rights”.
c. Replica
39. The Claimant firstly pointed to article 14bis of the Regulations, arguing that “since the Club
failed to comply fully with its financial obligations (since it paid only November salary and not
December one), it already entitles the Player to have a just cause to terminate the contractual
relationship with the Club“. In this regard, the Claimant was of the opinion that this part of
his claim remained uncontested by the Respondent.
40. In any event, the Claimant reiterated that it was, indeed, the Respondent who terminated
the contract, “trying to diminish the significance of the Club's President, by blaming the media
in wrong interpretation”.
41. Finally, the Player rejected the Respondent’s “attempt to mislead the honorable of FIFA by
claiming that the correspondence between the Parties proves that no unilateral termination by
the Club occurred”, i.e.:
−
“The title of the first letter sent by the undersigned on 22 January 2024, is " MR. SAGIV
SHALOM Yehezkel – Demand and warning letter Termination of the Agreement by your
Club and BREACH of CONTRACT BY YOUR CLUB"
−
The remaining of the letter (and letters) expressly shows that the Player amicably tried
to reach an agreement and solve the matter before approaching FIFA in order to execute
his rights in full.
−
Letter of 22 January 2024 – clause 4 – summary of remedies – it is clear that the Player
position is that the Club is in breach.
−
Letter of 25 January 2024 – clause 17 – The Player rejects the Club position, means, it is
clear that the Player claims that the Club breached the Contract.
−
Letter of 25 January 2024 – clause 18 – The Player suggest to solve this issue amicably,
before approaching FIFA judicial bodies.
−
Letter of 25 January 2024 – clause19 & 21 – the Player amicably offers the Club to suggest
a solution and additionally reserves his right to exercise any of his rights in regard to the
unilateral breach of the Contract by the Club.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13746
−
Letter of 28 January 2024 – clauses 6-8 – The Player clearly emphasized that it is the Club
who breached the contract, and should no amicable solution is agreed, the Player keeps
his rights to address the case to the FIFA judicial bodies.
−
Notably, such an attitude of the Player (the attempt to bring an amicable solution before
addressing the case to FIFA) should not and does not derogate the Player's right to claim
that the Club unilaterally breached the Contract. Just the opposite!”.
d. Duplica
42. The Respondent reiterated its position and requested the claim to be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
43. 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 20 February 2024 and
submitted for decision on 27 June 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.
44. 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 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 an Israeli player and
a Turkish club.
45. 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 (June 2024 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 February 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
46. 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13746
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
47. 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
48. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this is a claim of a Player against a Club, concerning
an alleged termination of a contract.
49. The members of the Chamber observed that, in this particular case, the Claimant deemed
the employment contract to have been terminated by the Respondent as of
15 January 2024, based on a media statement allegedly made by officials of the
Respondent relating to the Player’s celebration after scoring a goal. On the other hand, the
DRC noted that the Respondent contested the contract ever being terminated as the latter
clarified to the Player on several occasions.
50. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish if the contract was
indeed terminated by the Respondent, as alleged by the Claimant, and started by recalling
the evidence presented by the Parties.
51. First of all, the DRC observed that the Claimant merely provided two news articles allegedly
quoting the president and the coach of the Club as well as his letter of 22 January 2024, by
which he requested to be released due to the Club’s termination of his contract without
just cause.
52. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that there is no official correspondence on behalf
of the Respondent terminating the contract and, what is more, the Respondent clearly
rejected that such termination occurred at any point, requesting the Player to return to the
Club per various correspondences as from 24 January 2024.
53. In continuation, the DRC duly noted that in his correspondence of 25 January 2024, the
Claimant insisted that “[i]t is absolutely clear that the announcements that were made at the
match day and right after, were loud and clear about [Club’s] aim to end of the contractual
relationship with the Player”.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13746
54. Furthermore, as per the evidence provided by the Respondent, the Chamber observed that
the Parties tried to reach a mutual termination agreement between 4 to 12 February 2024
and, after no such agreement was reached, the Respondent again requested the Player to
return to Türkiye, which the latter rejected as per his correspondence of 13 February 2024,
arguing that the contract was terminated on 15 January 2024.
55. Based on the above, while the Claimant has deemed from the very beginning of his
correspondence with the Respondent that the contract had been terminated by the
Respondent on 15 January 2024, the DRC was of the opinion that it cannot be established
that the contract was indeed terminated by the Respondent on 15 January 2024. The
members of the Chamber deemed that the news articles provided by the Claimant cannot
be considered as sufficient proof that the Respondent had at that point in time terminated
the contract, which was also communicated by the Respondent to the Claimant as soon as
it received a notice. Indeed, the DRC pointed out that regarding the media statements
allegedly made by the Club, the latter clarified in several correspondences to the Player
that no termination took place and there was a valid contract between the Parties in force.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took note of the behaviour of the Claimant, who
merely kept repeating to the Respondent that the contract was terminated, a stance the
DRC does not follow. Thus, contrary to the position of the Claimant, the Chamber
concluded that the contract had not been terminated yet when the Claimant returned to
Israel.
56. As a consequence of the above conclusion, the members of the Chamber turned to the
question whether this meant that the Claimant had the duty to return to Türkiye when the
Respondent asked him to do so.
57. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged the seriousness of the
situation, in particular the Player’s night in custody, which understandably may have
caused grave concerns to the Player and was no doubt the reason for the Player’s
departure to Israel. Likewise, said incident may have been, again understandably, the
reason for which the Player was reluctant to return to the Respondent and instead
considered the contract terminated. Yet, at the same time, the Chamber remarked that the
Player’s temporary custody cannot be attributed to the Club as this was an action instigated
by the state authorities over which the Respondent had no influence.
58. Taking into account all the above, the DRC concluded that the Player did not wish to return
to Türkiye upon the Club’s requests on 24 January 2024, strongly confirming his position by
his correspondence of 25 January 2024.
59. Equally, the Chamber stressed that the Club was not in a position to request the return of
the Player as it was not fully complying with its financial obligations towards the latter.
Moreover, the Chamber is not convinced that the Respondent put in sufficient effort to
restore the relationship after the incident on 14 January 2024. In fact, the Claimant left the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13746
day after, i.e. on 15 January 2024, and only after 9 days, i.e. on 24 January 2024, and after
a letter was sent by the Claimant on 22 January 2024, the Respondent contested the
termination and requested the return of the Claimant. Put differently, the Chamber finds
that the Respondent could have done more, and act more swiftly in light of the seriousness
of the incident, to show its willingness to continue the relationship with the Claimant.
60. In conclusion, the members of the Chamber decided that neither of the Parties can be held
responsible for the non-continuation of the contractual relationship.
61. For the sake of clarity, the DRC added that the Player cannot make use of art. 14bis of the
Regulations as from the very start of the exchange of correspondence between the parties,
the Player had, without reservation, indicated that the contract had already been
terminated by the Club. In this regard, the Chamber finds that the alternative request on
the basis of art. 14bis of the Regulations cannot be invoked as said provision establishes a
procedure to ‘save’ the employment relationship in case of a breach of contract by a club,
yet it can no longer be invoked if the contract was already considered terminated. Put
differently, it is inconsistent for the Player to argue that the Club should have paid him
salaries during a time where the Player himself considered the Contract as terminated.
62. As a result, the Chamber decided to only award the Player the outstanding salaries until
24 January 2024, when the Parties clearly departed from the contract.
ii. Consequences
63. The Chamber observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the present
case correspond to December 2023 (i.e. EUR 45,000) and pro rata January 2024
(i.e. EUR 34,838.71) salaries under the contract.
64. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
claimed as outstanding under the contract, in total EUR 79,838.71, as detailed above.
65. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the relevant due dates until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
66. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13746
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13746
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sagiv Shalom Jehezkel, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Bitexen Antalyaspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 45,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 34,838.71 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
25 January 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.
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. 16
REF. FPSD-13746
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. 17