Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18655
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Otabek Shukurov
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Otabek Shukurov, Uzbekistan
Represented by Didem Sunna
RESPONDENT:
Bellona Kayserispor, Türkiye
Represented by Batu Mosturoglu
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18655
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 February 2024, the Uzbek player, Otabek Shukurov (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Turkish club, Bellona Kayserispor (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
In the Contract, it was specified that the Player’s nationality was Uzbek and that all the
financial terms were included in an “attached agreement”.
3.
On the same day, the parties concluded another document entitled “Contract” (hereinafter:
the Annex), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
4.
Clause 3 of the Annex established:
“ARTICLE 3 - SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT
The present contract was drafted in order to designate the terms of employment
relationship with Professional Football Player Otabek Shukurov and Football Club
Kayserispor Fútbol Anonim Çirketi. The Parties shall be bound by an employment
relationship between 08.02.2024 and 30.06.2025 (if the last official game is set to be
played after 30.06.2025 employment relationship shall continue until the end of last
official game in accordance with TFF, UEFA and FIFA Regulations or instructions).”
5.
In clause 6 of the Annex, the parties included, inter alia, the following:
“ARTICLE 6 - OBLIGATIONS OF THE CLUB
The Club is obliged to pay the amounts as written below to the Player in return of his
services subject to this employment contract, all payments indicated in the employment
contract are to be considered as “net” payments where the obligation to pay all
applicable taxes, stamp duty and all the taxes, charges an/or expenses under any name
whatsoever in accordance with the Turkish tax legislation shall be borne by the club in
addition to the below mentioned amounts. In case the player has to pay any tax, charge
and/or any expenses under any name whatsoever in relation with the below mentioned
amounts only in Turkey which have to be paid by the player with their interests
immediately following the first written notice of the player. For the avoidance of any
doubt, the Club shall not be responsible for any other obligations due to the - including
but not limited - additional tax duties, social contributions and/or levies related to the
legislation of other countries.
6.1. Salaries:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18655
The remaining part of 2023/2024 football season: The Player’s total salary in the amount
of 250.000,00-Euro (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Euros) for the remaining part of
2023/2024 football season will be paid in 5 (five) installments according to the following
schedule:
28.02.2024
30.03.2024
30.04.2024
30.05.2024
30.06.2024
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
2024/2025 football season: The Player's total salary in the amount of 500.000,00-Euro
(Five Hundred Thousand Euros) for 2024/2025 football season will be paid in 10 (ten)
installments according to the following schedule:
30.09.2024
30.10.2024
30.11.2024
30.12.2024
30.01.2025
28.02.2025
30.03.2025
30.04.2025
30.05.2025
30.06.2025
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
50.000,00- Euro
(…)”
6.
In clause 9 of the Annex, the parties stipulated the following:
“ARTICLE 9 - FUTURE TRANSFER SHARE
In case the Player will be transferred from the Club to a 3rd club in exchange of a transfer
compensation, the Club shall pay to the Player %15 (fifteen percent) of the fixed transfer
fee which will be paid by 3rd club to the Club for the transfer of the Player from the Club
as the future transfer share. This amount shall be paid in 30 (thirty) days following the
receipt of the fixed transfer amount in full by the Club.”
7.
Clause 10 established (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 10 - MISCELLANEOUS
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18655
A. The disputes arising from the present Contract shall be referred by either party to FIFA
- Federation International Football Association, headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, as
the competent party for solving any queries arising from this Agreement and Court of
Arbitration for Sports (CAS) as the appeal body, FIFA Regulations and Swiss law shall be
applied to the dispute.
B. The parties accept the addresses as written in the front page of the Contract as
notification addresses and
and [email protected]
These e-mail addresses shall be considered as notification address of the Club and the
Player. Notifications made to the aforesaid addresses are deemed to be valid unless
address changes are not notified to the related party properly.
C. Invalidity of any of the clauses of the present Contract is not affected the validity of
the remaining clauses. Delay or non exercise of any of the rights by the parties cannot be
construed as a waiver thereof.
D. The present Contract is the integral part and annex of the Standard Contract. But the
present contract is the final one, which will be binding between the parties despite any
other contract (Standard one) signed in Turkish language that might be presented before
the TFF.”
8.
On 1 September 2024, the Saudi club, Al Fayha FC (hereinafter: the Third Club), the Player
and the Club concluded a document entitled “Transfer Agreement” (hereinafter: the
Transfer Agreement).
9.
The preamble of the Transfer Agreement was as follows:
“PREAMBLE
Otabek Shukurov born on June 22th 1998, in Chirakchi, Uzbekistan, hereinafter referred
to as "the Player", is currently bound with KAYSERISPOR by an employment contract as
a professional football player until 30.06.2025.
Per FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players as applicable as of the date
of this Transfer Agreement (FIFA RSTP), before any negotiations with the Player, [the Third
Club] has informed [the Club] of their intention to conclude an employment contract
with the Player.
As the Player and [the Third Club] agreed to conclude an employment contract with effect
on September 1, 2024, [the Club] and [the Third Club] hereby agree to set out the
financial terms and conditions for the transfer of the Player to [the Third Club].
Notwithstanding its signature by the parties, the validity of this Transfer Agreement
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18655
depends on the satisfaction of each of the following conditions precedent:
€100.000,00 NET is transferred to [the Club] on 02.09.2024
[The Player] passing medical examination and signing an employment contract is signed
by the Player with [the Third Club] by no later than on September 2nd, 2024.
The Parties agree that this Transfer Agreement and the employment contract signed by
the Player with [the Third Club] are connected agreements, so that the validation of one
is a condition precedent for the other one to come into force.
If only one of the above conditions precedent is not fulfilled on September 02nd 2024, the
transfer of the Player as defined in this Transfer Agreement shall be considered null and
void, as shall the obligations that have already been fulfilled by either party.
The preamble is an integral and essential part of this Transfer Agreement.”
10. Clause 4 of the Transfer Agreement set forth:
“ARTICLE 4-TERMINATION COMPENSATION
[The Player] shall pay [the Club] €100.000,00 (One hundred thousand Euros) NET for
premature termination of the employment contract between [the Club] and [the Player]
on 02.09.2024.
[The Player] hereby declares that he is well aware of consequences of premature
termination of the employment contract. He shall not challenge the termination
compensation before any judicial or arbitral body. [The Player] was informed about
payment of termination compensation is a condition precedent for termination of his
employment contract with [the Club]. [The Club] shall not proceed with termination of
the contract without receiving termination compensation and other articles of the
present contract shall become null and void.”
11. Clause 5 of the Transfer Agreement was as follows:
“ARTICLE 5 - TRANSFER FEES
In consideration for the transfer of the Player, the [Third Club] hereby agrees to pay to
[the Club] a fixed and final transfer fee under the following conditions and calendar.
5.1 Fixed transfer fee
The fixed transfer fee (FIXED INDEMNITY) shall amount to NET €300.000,00 (four hundred
thousand Euros) Euros.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18655
30.09.2024 €75.000,00 NET (seventy five thousand Euros)
31.10.2024 €75.000,00 NET (seventy five thousand Euros)
30.11.2024 €75.000,00 NET (seventy five thousand Euros)
31.12.2024 €75.000,00 NET (seventy five thousand Euros)
Both [the Player] and [the Third Club] acknowledge that they are mutually liable for
payment of transfer fee.”
12. On 14 January 2025, the Player sent a notice to the Club, stating that, according to clause 9
of the Annex, he was entitled to a “future transfer share” of 15% of the fixed transfer fee to
be paid by a third club for his transfer. Additionally, the Player asserted that, based on the
Transfer Agreement, the Club was entitled to receive EUR 300,000 net in four instalments,
and that the payment of this fee had been completed. In this respect, the Player alleged
that the amount of EUR 45,000 net corresponding to 15% of the transfer fee would be due
on 30 January 2025 and, therefore, he requested that the Club pay this amount by no later
than 31 January 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 19 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
14. In his claim, the Player stated that the parties concluded the Annex, which, in clause 9,
established that, in the event of a future transfer, the Player would be entitled to 15% of
the transfer fee. Additionally, the Player asserted that the Club and the Third Club
concluded the Transfer Agreement, by means of which he was transferred from the Club
to the Third Club and the latter undertook to pay a total amount of EUR 300,000 net. The
Player mentioned that this amount was to be paid in four instalments of EUR 75,000 net
each, on 30 September, 31 October, 30 November and 31 December 2024.
15. According to the Player, the Third Club complied with the last payment on 31 December
2024 and, therefore, the Club was obliged to pay him EUR 45,000 net on 30 January 2025.
Thus, the Player argued that he sent a notice informing the Club that the payment had to
be made on 30 January 2025. Nonetheless, the Player alleged that the Club failed to pay
any amount.
16. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18655
“By reserving our every legal right to claim the remaining installments and for the facts
and legal arguments that were developed above, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
is respectfully requested:
1. To accept the claims of Otabek Shukurov,
2. To condemn Club Kayserispor Kulübü Dernegi to pay in favour of the Claimant the
total unpaid and overdue receivables of Net EUR45.000.- along with the interest rate of
5% p.a. starting from 31 January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
3. To establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Club objected to FIFA’s jurisdiction arguing that the claim lacked an
international dimension and was not an employment-related dispute.
18. Regarding the international dimension, the Club asserted that the Player’s registration had
to be assessed season by season. In this context, the Club alleged that the Player was
registered with the Turkish club, Solwie Energy Fatih Karagümrük, during the 2022-2023
season as a foreign player, in accordance with the applicable regulations. As such, he was
subject to both registration quotas and match-day fielding restrictions imposed by the
Turkish Football Federation (TFF). Nonetheless, the Club argued that, at the beginning of
the 2023-2024 season, the TFF introduced a significant regulatory amendment concerning
the categorisation of players and, under this amended league statute, players holding
citizenship from, inter alia, Uzbekistan, were granted the opportunity to register and
compete as domestic players in the Turkish Super League. According to the Club, this
change meant that Uzbek players were no longer subject to the foreign player quotas, nor
where they restricted in terms of fielding eligibility during official matches.
19. The Club further contended that this change was not automatic or retroactive, but it
required eligible players to opt in and change their registration status accordingly.
Therefore, the Club stated that the Player, who holds Uzbek citizenship, enjoyed all the
benefits of the exceptional status allowed to the citizens of that country and became a
more attractive transfer target. According to the Club, when a player elects to change
status, he also accepts the full legal consequences attached to that new classification and
therefore, in this case, the international dimension that may have once existed was
extinguished.
20. The Club argued that the Player cannot enjoy the benefits of being both a domestic player
and a foreign player within the framework of the TFF, nor can he invoke elements of each
status depending on what is most favourable in a given context. In this regard, the Club
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18655
referred to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), according to
which the existence of an international dimension cannot be presumed merely from the
nationality of a player at the time the contract was signed and, instead, the relevant time
for assessing the international dimension is the moment when the dispute actually arises.
21. According to the Club, the decisive factor for determining the international dimension is
not nationality in isolation, but the former status and regulatory position of the parties
within the relevant footballing framework. In this case, the Club stated that both parties
held the status of domestic parties under the authority of the TFF. Hence, the Club
concluded that the dispute does not fall under the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
22. Regarding the nature of the dispute, the Club sustained that it is not employment-related
in the legal sense required under art. 22 par. 1 lit b) of the Regulations, as it does not
concern the essential elements of an employment relationship, i.e., remuneration for work
actually performed under a relationship of subordination. According to the Club, the
dispute pertains to the sharing of a transfer fee between the Player and the Club, a concept
that is fundamentally commercial in nature. In this context, the Club asserted that the
allocation of this fee links it directly to a commercial transaction and not to the
employment-relationship between the parties.
23. The Club further stated that the Player held a position of direct influence over potential
transfer moves, with the power to block such transactions based on commercial
considerations, which does not arise from the typical dynamics of an employment
relationship. In this context, the Club alleged that the Player exercised direct control over
his transfer by virtue of holding the final authority to approve or reject the transfer on the
basis of discontent with the share allocated to him.
24. The Club pointed out that this role aligns with that of a commercial partner rather than a
subordinate employee, which makes clause 9 a standalone commercial agreement
embedded within a broader contract, i.e., it is a separate agreement that is distinct in
nature. In this respect, the Club stated that the clause providing the Player with a share in
any subsequent fee merely offers a contingent and speculative benefit, rather than a
guaranteed income and it is impossible to interpret that clause 9 was an attempt to
increase the Player’s salary.
25. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“Therefore, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal to declare
that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the present dispute and to dismiss the claim in its
entirety.”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18655
c. Replica of the Claimant
26. In his rejoinder, the Player stated that the Club’s allegations were unfounded and baseless,
and that the purpose of these explanations was to mislead the Football Tribunal. In this
regard, the Player contended that the special regulatory arrangement of the TFF applies
only to football players who are citizens of the Turkic Republics and their citizenship status
does not change. According to the Player, the players in question are listed as members of
their countries of citizenship of both in the TFF records and contracts they sign with their
Clubs. In this sense, the Player mentioned that according to the official records of the TFF
his status is indeed that of a foreign player.
27. The Player explained that the purpose of the article in question is to define the number of
players that clubs can register for their A teams, and its goal is to open up quotas for more
foreign football players. Nonetheless, the Player pointed out that with this regulation, the
players, including him, were not given a Turkish passport or a Turkish identity number: they
had and still have foreign citizenship status. The Player alleged that the players have not
gained any rights under this new regulation, as it was implemented solely with the interest
of the clubs in mind, i.e., as a result, a foreign quota was opened for transfers from outside
the Turkic Republics.
28. Furthermore, the Player highlighted that he was transferred to the Club from abroad and
then transferred to the Third Club with his Uzbek nationality. According to the Player, every
aspect of the dispute has an international dimension. The Player remarked that the parties
chose FIFA as the competent authority in case of a dispute.
29. Regarding the nature of the dispute, the Player referred to clause 3 of the Contract, which
stipulated that the subject of the Annex was to designate the terms of the employment
relationship between the parties. Given that clause 9 was included in the Annex, the Player
stated that it is clear and undisputed that the Player is entitled to the payment.
30. Lastly, the Player reiterated his requests for relief as set out in this statement of claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
31. In its final comments, the Club stated that the Player acknowledged that he underwent a
change in his status during the 2023/2024 football season and did not contest that he had
the opportunity to reject this change. Hence, the Club asserted that the Player was not
registered as a foreign player.
32. According to the Club, this regulatory amendment benefitted the players and not the clubs,
as only three players across the entire Turkish professional system were eligible to benefit
from this regulatory change. Additionally, the Club stated that the Player was benefitted as
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18655
he acquired a status similar to a domestic player, both in terms of registration and
matchday eligibility.
33. Furthermore, the Club mentioned that the Player was transferred from a Turkish club to
the Club and that his subsequent transfer to the Third Club is irrelevant to the question of
his registration status before the TFF. The Club reiterated its previous arguments and
pointed out that the determining factor for the international dimension is not the place of
incorporation but the sporting affiliation and regulatory status.
34. Regarding the nature of the dispute, the Club restated its previous allegations and
highlighted that the Player’s power to influence or prevent the transfer based on the
financial offer indicates that the clause functions more as part of a commercial negotiation
rather than a standard employment relationship.
35. Lastly, the Club reiterated its requests for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 19 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
37. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle,
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between an Uzbek player and a Turkish club.
38. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA
to deal with the present matter, arguing that the dispute (i) lacks an international
dimension and (ii) is not employment related.
39. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Player asserted that (i) the claim has an
international dimension, as he is Uzbek and the Club is from Türkiye, and that (ii) the
dispute arises from the Annex, which was drafted to establish the terms of the employment
relationship between the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18655
40. Therefore, the Chamber determined that its tasks were to establish whether the dispute
has an international dimension and whether it is employment-related.
a) International dimension of the dispute
41. The Chamber first moved on to analyse whether this dispute is a matter of international
dimension. In this context, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Commentary) (2023 edition, p. 444),
which defines the notion of international disputes between clubs and players as follows:
“(…) An employment-related dispute between a club and a player is generally deemed to
have an international dimension whenever the player is of a nationality other than that
of the country in which their club is domiciled. This means that, for example, an
employment-related dispute between a Brazilian player and a Brazilian club will not
normally fall within FIFA’s jurisdiction, whereas an employment-related dispute between
a Brazilian player and a Malaysian club will normally fall within FIFA’s jurisdiction. In
other words, contrary to standards that may apply under international private laws, it is
not the domicile of the player that is decisive, but only their nationality.
(…)
In summary, a dispute between a player and a club is deemed to be international
whenever the player and the club are of different nationalities. If the player holds
dual nationality, the dispute will be deemed to have an international dimension if the
player is registered by their club under their “foreign” nationality (e.g. a Brazilian/Italian
player playing for a Brazilian club is registered to play as an Italian). This is because
players registered as locals as a result of their “shared” nationality with the club cannot
be deemed to be international players. By the same token, the DRC has established that,
for independent countries which have more than one member association of FIFA
incorporated within their territory, there was no international element for players who
were nationals of those countries.”
(emphasis added by the Chamber)
42. The Chamber then mentioned that, in casu, it is undisputed that the parties are of different
nationalities: while the Player is an Uzbek national, the Club is from Türkiye. Nevertheless,
the Chamber acknowledged that the Club is not arguing that the Player held dual
nationality or that he was registered as a Turkish player, but rather states that, due to an
amendment to the TFF’s regulations, the Player benefitted from being registered as a
domestic player and therefore cannot also enjoy the benefits of being a foreign player.
43. The Chamber noted that the Club provided evidence demonstrating that the Player was
not registered as a “foreign player with blue card” but as a “citizen of Turkic State” and
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18655
provided, inter alia, the 2023/2024 season statute of the Turkish Super League which, in
art. 1 (2) of the Appendix 1 established (freely translated into English by the Club):
“(2) In addition to the 14 foreign players who are not eligible to play for the Turkish
National “A” Team and are listed on the A Team List as per paragraph one, clubs may
also sign contracts with and register up to one player holding citizenship from
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan, and up to one player
who, although not eligible to play for the Turkish National “A” Team, holds Turkish
citizenship or a blue card, within the transfer and registration periods, and include them
in the A Team List.”
44. Additionally, the Chamber observed that art. 4 (1) a) of the Appendix 1 established (freely
translated into English by the Club):
“1-a) As a rule, up to 14 players referred to in paragraph 1 of the article titled "Player
Eligibility" above may be included in the matchday squad list, provided that no more
than 8 of them are on the field at the same time during the match. In addition, clubs
may include up to 1 of the 2 additional players referred to in paragraph 2 of the "Player
Eligibility" article in the matchday squad list and may also have such a player on the field
at the same time.”
45. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber referred again to the Commentary and to the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and pointed out that regardless of the rules
established by the TFF regarding the registration of players from Uzbekistan, the key
element to establish whether this dispute has an international dimension is to determine
if the parties share nationality.
46. The Chamber further noted that the mens legis of the relevant provision is to safeguard the
parties’ access to justice and ensure fair proceedings, particularly where the relevant
events – and the employment relationship as a whole – took place in a foreign jurisdiction.
The Chamber also recalled that this protective purpose is distinct from considerations
related to eligibility for participation in a specific competition, as invoked by the
Respondent in the present matter.
47. The Chamber stressed that not only is it undisputed that the parties do not share the same
nationality, but (i) both the Contract and the Annex specified that the Player was from
Uzbekistan and (ii) the TFF’s records indicated that he was Uzbek. Additionally, the
Chamber found that the fact that the Player was registered as a citizen of a Turkic State,
which includes, inter alia, Uzbekistan, further supports the argument that the Player was
never registered as a Turkish player, regardless of any benefit he may have received in
relation to foreign player quotas.
48. In view of the above, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that this
is a matter of international dimension.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18655
b) Employment-related dispute
49. Having stated the above, the Chamber recalled that the Club also argued that the dispute
is of a commercial nature, because it concerns a share of a transfer fee and it is not related
to the Player’s remuneration for the work he performed. In this respect, the Club alleged
that the parties were commercial partners, and that this clause pertained to a separate
agreement and not to the employment relationship. Conversely, the Player referred to
clause 3 of the Annex and stated that all the terms included therein were employment
related.
50. At this point, the Chamber referred again to the Commentary (edition 2023, p. 460), which
stipulates:
“A crucial aspect in such disputes, however, can often be whether a dispute is actually
“employment-related”. Generally speaking, it can be held that whenever the origin of a
dispute lies within the contractual employment relationship between a player and their
club, i.e. whenever the relevant employment contract serves as the legal basis for
the claim between the parties, it can be assumed that the dispute is “employmentrelated” within the meaning of article 22 paragraph 1 b), Regulations.”
(emphasis added by the Chamber)
51. In this case, the Chamber noted that the transfer fee claimed by the Player arises from
clause 9 of the Annex, which set out the terms of the employment relationship between
the parties, including, inter alia, its duration, the Player’s monthly salary and bonuses, and
the competent decision-making body in the event of a dispute.
52. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that clauses 3 and 10 lit. d) of the Annex provided as
follows:
“ARTICLE 3 - SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT
The present contract was drafted in order to designate the terms of employment
relationship with Professional Football Player Otabek Shukurov and Football Club
Kayserispor Fútbol Anonim Çirketi. The Parties shall be bound by an employment
relationship between 08.02.2024 and 30.06.2025 (if the last official game is set to be
played after 30.06.2025 employment relationship shall continue until the end of last
official game in accordance with TFF, UEFA and FIFA Regulations or instructions)”
“D. The present Contract is the integral part and annex of the Standard Contract. But the
present contract is the final one, which will be binding between the parties despite any
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18655
other contract (Standard one) signed in Turkish language that might be presented before
the TFF.”
53. In this context, the Chamber found it clear that the Player’s claim is employment-related,
as it was expressly included in the employment contract between the parties and it
constitutes a consideration for the services rendered to the Club. Furthermore, although
this amount was not part of his fixed salary, the Chamber consider it to be part of his
conditional remuneration, such as a bonus. The Chamber remarked that this interpretation
is also consistent with treating the dispute as employment-related, as it is possible that the
negotiation of clause 9 also influenced other terms of the Annex.
c) Interim conclusion
54. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide
on the matter.
55. 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 (July 2025 edition) the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
56. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
57. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
58. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18655
59. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him the amount
established in clause 9 of the Annex, related to a share of a future transfer fee.
60. The Chamber noted that the Club only disputed FIFA’s jurisdiction but failed to provide any
allegations or evidence regarding the substance of the case.
61. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse whether the Player
is entitled to the amounts claimed.
62. The Chamber recalled that clause 9 of the Annex set forth:
“ARTICLE 9 - FUTURE TRANSFER SHARE
In case the Player will be transferred from the Club to a 3rd club in exchange of a transfer
compensation, the Club shall pay to the Player %15 (fifteen percent) of the fixed transfer
fee which will be paid by 3rd club to the Club for the transfer of the Player from the Club
as the future transfer share. This amount shall be paid in 30 (thirty) days following the
receipt of the fixed transfer amount in full by the Club.”
63. Additionally, the Chamber noted that the Player provided a copy of the Transfer
Agreement, by means of which the Third Club undertook to pay the Club EUR 300,000 net
in four instalments, the last one to be paid on 31 December 2024. The Chamber also
remarked that the Club did not dispute having received the amounts from the Third Club.
64. Furthermore, based on art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber highlighted that,
based on the information retrieved from TMS, the Third Club complied with the four
payments on or before their due dates, paying the last instalment on 28 December 2024.
The Chamber then determined that the Club was obliged to pay the Player his share of the
transfer fee no later than 27 January 2025. However, the Club failed to provide any evidence
of having paid this amount.
65. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber decided to award the Player 15% of the total transfer
fee, i.e., EUR 45,000. Considering that the Player requested this amount as “net”, and clause
6 of the Annex established that all payments indicated in the “employment contract” were
to be considered as “net” payments, the Chamber decided to award this amount as “net”.
66. Regarding interest, as the Player requested that it be applied as from 31 January 2025, the
Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a. as from that date, to avoid ruling ultra petita.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18655
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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18655
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Otabek Shukurov.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Otabek Shukurov, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Bellona Kayserispor, must pay to the Claimant EUR 45,000 net as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
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.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-18655
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 19