Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6950
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 November 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Adam
Mieczyslaw Stachowiak
COMPOSITION:
Livia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil), Acting Deputy Chairperson
Khalid AWAD AL-THEBITY (Saudi Arabia), member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), member
CLAIMANT:
Player Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak, Poland
Represented by Bora İmadoğlu
RESPONDENT:
Denizlispor Kulubu, Türkiye
Page 2
REF FPSD-6950
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 19 August 2021, the Polish player Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak (hereinafter: the
Claimant) and the Turkish club Denizlispor Kulubu (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded
an employment contract valid until 31 May 2023 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
At the same time, the Parties also signed a document titled “protocol” (hereinafter: the
Protocol).
3.
Art. 3 of the Contract reads as follows:
the Club undertakes to pay a total of 30.000 Euros net to the Player for the 2021/2022 season
for the following terms:
3.000 Euros net on 31.08.2021
3.000 Euros net on 30.09.2021
3.000 Euros net on 31.10.2021
3.000 Euros net on 30.11.2021
3.000 Euros net on 30.12.2021
3.000 Euros net on 31.01.2022
3.000 Euros net on 28.02.2022
3.000 Euros net on 31.03.2022
3.000 Euros net on 31.04.2022
3.000 Euros net on 31.05.2022
Other Benefits:
The club hereby undertakes to provide a rental house (3-1) and a rental car for using of the
player.
FOR THE FOOTBALL SEASON 2022-2023
A. If the clubs competes in the current league (TFF 1 League)
Advance Payment
45.000 Euros advance payment will be made to the player on 20 August 2022
Guaranteed Salaries
11.250 Euros net on 31.08.2022
11.250 Euros net on 30.09.2022
11.250 Euros net on 31.10.2022
11.250 Euros net on 30.11 .2022
11.250 Euros net on 31.12.2022
Page 3
REF FPSD-6950
11.250 Euros net on 31 .01.2023
11.250 Euros net on 28.02.2023
11.250 Euros net on 31.03.2023
11.250 Euros net on 30.04.2023
11.250 Euros net on 31.05.2023
If the player plays in 25 games in official league matches (play-off games are not counted), the
club hereby accept to pay 50.000 Euros as a bonus fee. If the player achieves the condition, the
payment will be made on 30th June 2023.
If the club promotes to the super league at the end of the season, the club hereby undertakes
to pay 75.000 Euros bonus. If the condition is met, this payment will be made on 30 June 2023.
4.
The Protocol reads inter alia as follows:
1. This protocol has been concluded in addition to the TFF Professional Football Player Contract
to be signed between the parties. The parties have agreed on the additional fees to be paid in
the 2021/2022 football season and have stated in this contract. For the 2021/2022 season, the
Club undertakes to pay the Player a monthly additional fee of 60,000 Euros net for the
following terms:
6,000 Euro net on 31.08.2021
6,000 Euro net on 30.09.2021
6,000 Euro net on 31.10.2021
6,000 Euro net on 30.11.2021
6,000 Euro net on 30.12.2021
6,000 Euro net on 31.01.2022
6,000 Euro net on 28.02.2022
6,000 Euro net on 31.03.2022
6,000 Euro net on 30.04.2022
6,000 Euro net on 31.05.2022
2. The club undertakes to pay 36,250 Euro as sign on fee.
5.
On 20 June 2022, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting the
amount of EUR 18,000 corresponding to the salaries of April and May 2022, and gave
deadline of 15 days to comply, to no avail.
6.
On 7 July 2022, the Claimant sent a termination notice to the Respondent adducing just
cause.
7.
After the request from FIFA, the Claimant informed that he remained unemployed since
the termination of the Contract.
Page 4
REF FPSD-6950
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 5 August 2022, 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
9.
The Claimant states that according to the Contract and the Protocol, the Respondent is
bound to pay the following amounts:
“For the 2021/2022 Season
Net EUR 36.250.- as sign on fee on the signing date of the Contract,
Net total amount of EUR 90.000.- as salary to be paid for 10 months as EUR9.000.- net for the
period between 31 August 2021 and 31 May 2022.
Net EUR 30.000.- as bonus to be paid on 30 June 2022, in case the Player plays in 23 official
league matches of the Club.
Net EUR 75.000.- as bonus to be paid on 30 June 2022, in case the Club promotes to Super
League at the end of the 2021/2022 Season.”
10. The Claimant further states that as of 20 June 2022, the Respondent was in debt of in the
total amount of Net EUR 18,000 which corresponded to:
EUR 9.000.- as April 2022 salary,
EUR 9.000.- as May 2022 salary,
11. The Claimant considers that the remaining value of the Contract is Net EUR 157,500.- for
the 2022/2023 Season (EUR 45.000.- as advance payment and EUR 112.500.- as salary).
12. The Claimant further requests the amount of EUR 33,750 (EUR 11,250 x 3) as additional
compensation.
13. The Claimant filed the following request for relief:
To accept the claims of Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak,
Page 5
REF FPSD-6950
To condemn Club Denizlispor to pay in favour of the Claimant tl1e total unpaid and overdue
payment of Net EUR 18,000.- along with the interest rate of 5% p.a. starting from the below
due dates until the date of effective payment;
Net EUR 9,000.- along with its interest of 5% p .a. starting from 30 April 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
Net EUR 9,000.- along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 31 May 2022 w1til the date of
effective payment
To condemn Club Denizlispor to pay in favor of the Claimant the total compensation of EUR
191,250.-along with the interest rates specified starting from the below due dates until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 157,500.- along with its interest of 5% p.a. s tarting from 7 July 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
Net EUR 33,750.- along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 7 July 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
b. Position of the Respondent
14. According to the Respondent, the Claimant did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract.
15. The Respondent provides payment receipts for the payments made to the player and
sustains that based on the said payments the player terminated his contract without just
cause.
16. The Respondent further states that the Claimant “behaved particularly inappropriately after
Denizlispor's match against Samsunspor (dated 20 February 2022). Indeed, after the match in
question, Mr Stackowiack insulted the assistant coach of the Denizlispor club. This attitude led
to a disciplinary procedure of the Club and to a financial fine.”
17. The Respondent sustains that the Head Coach requested to open a disciplinary
proceeding against the Claimant and the Claimant failed “to provide any response in the
context of this disciplinary procedure.”
18. According to the Respondent, “the fine that has been imposed on the player more than covers
the amount that is supposed to have been paid in wages. Under these circumstances, the club
DENIZLISPOR does not owe Mr. Stackowiack the wages in question”.
19. The Respondent filed the following requests
Page 6
REF FPSD-6950
Given all the foregoing and respect with the right for surplus, the respondent kindly requests
the DRC to reject all the claims of the player.
c. Final comments of the Claimant
20. The Claimant was invited to file his position regarding the Respondents allegations and
the proofs of payment provided. However, the Claimant failed to provide his final
comments to FIFA.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 5 August 2022 and submitted
for decision on 10 November 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June
2022 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.
22. 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 (July 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Polish player and
a Turkish club.
23. 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 (July 2022 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 5 August 2022, the same edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
24. 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
Page 7
REF FPSD-6950
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
25. 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
26. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early
termination of the contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain
financial obligations by the Respondent as per the Contract and the Protocol, in
accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
27. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of
the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
28. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly
salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate
his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s).
29. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the months of April and May 2022. Furthermore, the Chamber noted
that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default
on 20 June 2022, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 7 July
2022.
30. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded
between the parties. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the last proof of payment
provided by the Respondent corresponded to 8 April 2022, when the amounts claimed
herein had not fallen due yet. Thus, the Chamber underlined that the evidence provided
Page 8
REF FPSD-6950
by the Respondent does not prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding
by the Claimant.
31. Having established the above, the Chamber turned to the alleged disciplinary procedure
against the Claimant. The Chamber observed that the evidence submitted by the
Respondent appear to show that the Head Coach requested a disciplinary procedure to
be opened against the Claimant on 21 February 2022. However, the Chamber further
observed that no evidence has been submitted in support of the fact that a disciplinary
procedure was carried out or if a decision was taken against the Claimant (if any).
32. Thus, the Chamber emphasised that the allegations of the Respondent that “the fine that
has been imposed on the player more than covers the amount that is supposed to have been
paid in wages” is not substantiated and the alleged fine is in any event not specified. Thus,
the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and decided that the
Respondent has not discharged its burden of proof to this end.
33. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant
had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract, based on art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
ii. Consequences
34. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
35. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to two salaries
under the Contract and the Protocol, amounting to EUR 18,000.
36. 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 which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination,
i.e. EUR 18,000 (i.e. 2 times EUR 9,000).
37. 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 respective due dates until
the date of effective payment.
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
Page 9
REF FPSD-6950
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 player 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.
39. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of 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.
40. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
41. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 157,000 (i.e. the residual value) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
42. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
43. In this regard, the DRC observed that the Claimant remained unemployed.
44. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 157,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
Page 10
REF FPSD-6950
45. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim (i.e. 5 August 2022) until the
date of effective payment.
iii. Sporting sanctions
46. The Chamber noted that the Respondent had also on several occasions in the recent past
been held liable by the Football Tribunal for the early termination of the employment
contracts without just cause, namely in the following cases:
FPSD-2486. DRC decision of 8 October 2021
FPSD-2825. DRC decision of 3 November 2021
FPSD-6119. DRC decision of 31 August 2022
47. Under article 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, in addition to the obligation to pay
compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of
contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the protected period.
48. As to the protected period, this is defined in the Regulations as “a period of three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract,
where such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire
seasons or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
49. In the present case, the player was born on 18 December 1986 and signed the contract
with the Respondent club on 11 August 2021, the protected period would last 2 entire
seasons or 2 years (whichever came first), considering that the contract was signed after
the 28th birthday of the player.
50. Accordingly, considering that the breach in the case at hand occurred on 7 July 2022 and
that -at that moment in time- neither 2 entire seasons nor 2 years had elapsed since the
date on which the contractual relationship started, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall be banned from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and
consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision.
51. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with article 24
par. 3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in
due time may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 17 in the same case. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that
the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due time envisaged by art. 24 of
the Regulations were excluded in the present matter, and that should the Respondent fail
Page 11
REF FPSD-6950
to timely comply with this decision, it would be for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to
adopt the necessary measures in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
d. Costs
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 12
REF FPSD-6950
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Denizlispor Kulubu, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 18,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
On EUR 9,000 from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective payment.
On EUR 9,000 from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 157,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. from 5 August 2022 until 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee:
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13
REF FPSD-6950
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).
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 14