DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16155
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 October 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Benjamin Stambouli
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Benjamin Stambouli, France
Represented by Mr Guy San Bartolome Sarrey
RESPONDENT:
Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Mr Umur Varat and Ms Aygin Kuruloğlu
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16155
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2023, the French player Benjamin Stambouli (hereinafter: Claimant) and the
Turkish club Yukatel Adana Demirspor (hereinafter: Respondent) concluded a mutual
termination agreement (hereinafter: the Settlement) by way of which they mutually and
amicably terminated the previously existing employment relationship.
2.
According to the Settlement, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total sum of
EUR 288,000 net, payable as follows:
-
EUR 50,000 net on 30 March 2024;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 April 2024;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 May 2024;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 June 2024;
EUR 88,000 net on 30 July 2024.
3.
On 20 August 2024, the Claimant formally requested payment from the Respondent of
EUR 288,000 net within 11 days.
4.
On 4 September 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment once again,
requesting the amount of EUR 288,000 net by no later than 15 September 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 20 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
The Claimant requested overdue payables of EUR 288,000 net plus interest of 5% per
annum as from the respective due dates of the unpaid instalments.
7.
In its claim, the Claimant held that the Respondent, despite a formal warning, failed to remit
the due amounts under the Settlement.
8.
The Claimant outlined that the amounts corresponded to the following instalments under
the Settlement:
-
EUR 50,000 net on 30 March 2024;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 April 2024;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 May 2024;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 June 2024;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16155
9.
EUR 88,000 net on 30 July 2024.
The Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda to base his claim.
b. Position of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged the non-payment, and outlined in this respect
that it was unable to make the payments due to financial difficulties caused by the
depreciation of the local currency.
11. The Respondent emphasised that its revenue is in Turkish Lira, which is rapidly
depreciating against the Euro – the currency in which the previous employment contract
and the Settlement are in. The Respondent stressed that the non-payment was not in bad
faith.
12. Consequently, the Respondent requested the claim to be rejected, and, on a subsidiary
basis, that art. 12bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should not
apply.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16155
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 20 September 2024 and
submitted for decision on 24 October 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.
14. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), she is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a French player and a Turkish club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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 September 2024, the June 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. the Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she 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
17. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16155
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the Respondent’s compliance with certain financial obligations
under the Settlement.
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether,
based on the evidence on file, the amounts in dispute remained unpaid for a valid reason,
particularly since the Respondent acknowledged the non-payment.
20. The Single Judge began her analysis by recalling the parties’ submissions, with the Claimant
on one hand arguing that the Respondent, despite having been put in default, failed to
remit the amount of EUR 288,000 net which was stipulated under the Settlement.
21. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent acknowledged not having made the
payment, arguing that due to the depreciation of the Turkish Lira, the payment was simply
not possible, and not made in bad faith.
22. The Single Judge at this stage wished to refer to the principle of the burden of proof,
enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, whereby it is stipulated that a party that
asserts a certain fact also bears the burden of proving its veracity with adequate
corroborating evidence.
23. In the case at hand, the Single Judge referred to the Respondent’s justification for nonpayment and observed that the line of reasoning itself, as well as the documentation
provided does not constitute a valid justification of the non-payment.
24. In particular, the Respondent failed to further explain or duly corroborate how the financial
difficulties it faced led to a situation in which it was unable to comply with the terms of the
Settlement which it agreed to shortly prior.
25. What is more, the Single Judge referred to the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the
Football Tribunal’s longstanding jurisprudence to establish that parties must comply with
the obligations they undertake contractually.
26. In conclusion, the Single Judge was not satisfied that the Respondent discharged its burden
of proving that it was unable to comply with the financial terms of the agreement
concluded with the Claimant.
27. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant EUR 288,000 net as an outstanding amount.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16155
28. Furthermore, and in line with both her own jurisprudence and the request for relief of the
Claimant, the Single Judge decided that interest on the above amount shall be awarded at
an annual rate of 5% as from the following dates:
-
On the amount of EUR 50,000 net, as from 31 March 2024 until the date of payment;
On the amount of EUR 50,000 net, as from 1 May 2024 until the date of payment;
On the amount of EUR 50,000 net, as from 31 May 2024 until the date of payment;
On the amount of EUR 50,000 net, as from 1 July 2024 until the date of payment;
On the amount of EUR 88,000 net, as from 31 July 2024 until the date of payment.
ii. Application of art. 12bis RSTP
29. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
30. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the player put the club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, most of which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and
granted the club a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
31. Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations was met in the case at hand.
32. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
she has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing
in mind that this was the 11th offense by the club within the last two years related to
overdue payables, the Single Judge decided to impose a fine on the club in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
33. In this connection, the Single Judge highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
34. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16155
35. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
36. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with
art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded
where the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
37. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Single Judge established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in
case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further
ban from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the
Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the
enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
38. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
39. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all appliable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which
is available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
d. Costs
40. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
41. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
42. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16155
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Benjamin Stambouli, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 288,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 31 March 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 1 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 31 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 net as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 88,000 net as from 31 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A fine in the amount of USD 100,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-16155:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16155
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16155
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 – 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. 11