Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12576
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 January 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Yannick Stark
BY:
Clifford HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Angela COLLINS (Australia), member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Yannick Stark, Germany
Represented by Arda Vural
RESPONDENT:
Manisa Futbol Kulubu, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12576
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 August 2022, the German player Yannick Stark (hereinafter the Claimant or the
Player) and the Turkish club Manisa Futbol Kulubu (hereinafter the Respondent or the Club)
concluded employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement) as well as an
additional protocol (hereinafter the Additional Protocol), both valid until 31 May 2024.
2.
In accordance with Clause 3 of the Employment Agreement, the Claimant and the
Respondent (jointly referred to as the Parties) agreed upon, inter alia, the following financial
benefits:
3.
−
Season 2022/2023: EUR 10,000, payable in 10 monthly salaries.
−
Season 2023/2024: EUR 11,000, payable in 10 monthly salaries.
Furthermore, Clause 4 of the Additional Protocol established that the Claimant is entitled
to, inter alia, the following payments:
−
Season 2022/2023: total amount of EUR 140,800, payable as follows:
−
Season 2023/2024: total amount of EUR 185,020, payable as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12576
4.
The same clause further entitled the Claimant to “house and a car”.
5.
Both the Employment Agreement and the Additional Protocol foresaw a jurisdiction clause
to FIFA.
6.
In support of his claim, the Player deemed important to recall the following provisions of
the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), i.e. TFF 1st League Competition Rules and Regulations:
“ARTICLE 1- SÜPER LİG FOOTBALL PLAYER ELIGIBILITY
The clubs may sign and register contracts with foreign football players, provided that they
have a maximum of 8 players who are not eligible to play in the Turkey National
Football A Team in the A Team List. If 8 foreign football players who are not eligible to
play in Turkey National Football A Team are put on the A Team List of the clubs, at least 1
of these football players must have been born on 01.01.1999 and later.
TFF 1st League Clubs which contracted with more than 8 foreign football players
cannot have foreign football players who are not on the A Team List in A Team
matches play.”
“ARTICLE 3- SUBMISSION OF A TEAM LIST TO TFF
(1) The clubs must submit the A Team List to TFF up to 24 hours before their first official
match.
(2) The A Team List may be revised by clubs 24 hours before the club's official matches
within the first transfer and registration period.
(3) The A Team List must be submitted to the TFF within three days following the end
of the first transfer and registration period, valid until the second transfer and
registration period.”
7.
By a letter dated 10 July 2023, the Player requested the amount of EUR 22,000,
corresponding to two monthly salaries and EUR 12,600 net, corresponding to rent costs.
The Player granted the Club 15-days to comply with its contractual obligations.
8.
On 14 July 2023, the Player sent another letter to the Club, and, in addition to the
outstanding amounts as requested above, the Player alleged that he was excluded from
the training and a summer camp and requested to be re-integrated with the 1st team within
the next 7-days.
9.
On 20 July 2023, the Club replied to the Player and invited him to the summer camp:
“In your notice dated 14.07.2023, you stated that you gave Yannick Starck 7 days to attend the
summer camp. The summer camp of the Club will start on 21.07.2023 at Bolu Koru Hotel
(address is given below) and we would like to inform you that we invite Yannick Stark to the
summer camp tomorrow.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12576
10. On 24 July 2023, the Club referred to Player’s letter of 10 July 2023, the Club rejected the
Player’s claim for housing costs as “the Player found a house without even consulting the Club”
and that a monthly support of TRY 10,000 is granted to other players.
11. On 8 August 2023, the Player sent another notice to the Respondent, requesting his
automobile which had been allegedly taken from him on 26 July 2023.
12. In accordance with the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the registration period in Türkiye
ended on 15 September 2023 (inclusive).
13. Upon request by the FIFA Administration, the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) informed
the Football Tribunal that the Player was indeed registered for the season 2022/2023 on
15 September 2023:
“I would like to kindly inform you that, as you can see in the document attached, the player
Yannick Stark registered to our affiliated club Manisa Futbol Kulübü, on 25.08.2022.
On 15.09.2023, the player registered (anually for 2023-2024 football season), until the
unilateral termination of the player, dated 28.09.2023.”
14. In accordance with the Player, 18 September 2023, was “the last day of submitting the final
A team list to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF).”
15. On 22 September 2023, the TFF published the A teams’ list of each football club. The Player
was not mentioned on Respondent’s A team list.
16. In view of the above, on 27 September 2023, the Player sent a letter to the Club, inquiring
about his current situation. In particular, the Player requested to be registered within the
next 24-hours.
17. On 28 September 2023, the Player sent a termination notice (hereinafter the Termination
Notice) to the Club. Therein, the Player argued that since his correspondence on
27 September 2023 remained unanswered, and he remained unregistered. The Player also
reserved his right “to request overdue and unpaid amounts, remaining amounts of the
Employment Agreement, compensation for early termination of the contract and additional
compensation for estimated sportive and financial damages.”
18. The Claimant informed the FIFA Administration that he remained unemployed.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12576
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 8 November 2023, 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
20. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
− “to accept the claims of the Player Yannick Stark.
− to accept the Respondent has not registered the Player for the 2023/24 football season,
because it already used up its entire quota of foreign players and wanted to register
other foreign players, as in fact it did.
− to accept the Claimant has a legit just cause to terminate the Contract with the
Club based on the fact not being registered by the Club.
− to condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant the total unpaid and
overdue remuneration Net 41.423,13.-EUR along with the interest rate of 5% p.a.
starting from --- until the date of effective payment;
− to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant Net 180.870.-EUR
(remaining part of the remuneration), as compensation for the breach of contract along
with its interest of 5 % p.a. starting from the date of the present claim, in accordance
with article 17 para. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and FIFA’s
commentary on the Regulations.
− to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant an additional
compensation, in the amount of Net 42.150.-EUR (three monthly salaries)
corresponding to the Claimant’s estimated sporting and financial damages, in
accordance with article 17 para. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players and FIFA’s commentary on the Regulations.
− to establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent.”
21. The Claimant based its claim on art. 14 of the Regulations as he argued that:
“i. According to the Employment Contract, the Claimant has fulfilled its obligations
towards the Respondent.
ii. The Claimant was initially part of the A team upon his transfer and was attending the
first team training and camps. The Player played in nineteen matches for the Club last
season, totalling on 1018 minutes.
iii. The Respondent repeatedly failed to pay the Player's wages on time and neglected to
reimburse the house rent as stipulated in the contract.
iv. The Claimant was unjustly excluded from the summer camp and first-team trainings.
v. The Club's representatives seized the Player's automobile, withholding it without
justification.
vi. The Claimant was suddenly left out of the A team list to accommodate the registration
of new foreign players.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12576
vii. The Respondent chose to remain silent and did not provide any official communication
to the Claimant regarding his de-registration, likely as a means to protect themselves from
the consequences of their actions.
viii. The Claimant issued a Warning & Inquiry letter to emphasize the importance of the
Respondent's obligation to respect the terms of the contract, but regrettably, the
Respondent never acknowledged.
ix. Given the Respondent's lack of response, the Player had no viable option but to proceed
with the termination of the contract. The Respondent's failure to meet its obligations as
an employer is evident, as the Claimant's exclusion from the A team list effectively deprived
him of the opportunity to engage in professional football for a minimum duration of half
a season.”
22. Based on the above, the Claimant asserted that the breaches were “severe and wholly
unacceptable violation of the terms of the contract and professional standards.”
23. In particular, by referring to various case law, the Claimant argued that the Respondent
signed more foreign players, “deliberately exceeding the relevant quota during the transfer
season” which “is contrary to good faith and to the principle of pacta sunt servanda” and that
such “Club's refusal to register the Player to the A team list, effectively preventing him from
participating in official matches for an extended period is a clear and undeniable breach of
contract on the Club's end.”
24. Basing its arguments on substantial case law, the Claimant added that “the Club's failure to
register the Player to the A team list, which directly infringes upon his fundamental rights as a
football player, serves as the foundation of this dispute and unequivocally justifies the Player's
decision to terminate the contract with immediate effect.”
25. The Claimant provided the following break-down:
Outstanding: total of EUR 41,423.13
“overdue and unpaid salary which is 21.310.-EUR and 1.100.-EUR, both due
on 15.09.2023”;
“The Player has paid in a total amount of 12.600.- EUR (1.800.-EUR monthly) for
seven months between December 2022 and June 2023. For this rent fee, the Club has only
paid 70.000.-Turkish Lira after receiving the Player’s termination warning letter dated
10.07.2023. On the payment date of 24.07.2023, one Euro lira equals to 29.9 Turkish lira.
For this reason, the Club has only paid 2.340.-EUR, which is less than the Player’s rent
expense. In other words, the Player’s overdue and unpaid rent expense is 10.260.-EUR”;
As from July 2023 “rent fees for three months (5.400.-EUR) are also overdue and
unpaid.”;
“A total of 96.518,82 Turkish Liras (TRY) as renting fees have been paid by the
Player alone”, i.e. EUR 3,353.13;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12576
Compensation: EUR 180,870 plus additional compensation of EUR 42,150
“Total receivables borne from the Protocol and Employment Agreement is
196.020.-EUR, but the Player’s salaries in August have been paid by the Club, which is in a
total amount of 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR = 15.150.-EUR
For this reason, remaining part of 2023/24 football season is 196.020.-EUR – 15.150.-EUR
= 180.870.-EUR”
Three monthly salaries as additional compensation, i.e. EUR 42,150.
b. Position of the Respondent
26. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent requested the following:
“7.1. To reject Player's extra request of 1.100.-EUR regarding his salary.
7.2. To reject Player's extra request of 10.260.-EUR should be reject regarding his rent coast
between December 2022- June 2023
7.3. To reject Player's any extra request more than 20.000.-TL regarding his rent coast for
July, August and September 2023.
7.4. To reject Player's request for car rental, if not to reject any extra request more than
30.000.TL.
7.5. To decide that the termination is an unjust termination and reject the termination
compensation and additional compensation all.
7.6. If the termination is determined to be justified, to reject the Player's claim regarding
the compensation which is more than 128.460.-EUR total.”
27. The Respondent argued “at the date of termination, the player had a total outstanding
receivable of 21.310.-EUR in relation to salary payments, which was only 13 days overdue.” The
Club rejected the claim for EUR 1,100 and provided a proof of payment.
28. The Respondent further rejected the claim regarding accommodation costs. The
Respondent argued that the costs of the Player were not appropriate and that the average
cost correspond to TRY 10,000, which the Club duly paid. Nonetheless, the Respondent
recognized that July and August rents were not paid, but it argued that “the rent for
September has not yet become due on the date of termination of the Player. For this reason, the
Player may only request a total of 20.000.-TL only for the months of July and August, any excess
must be rejected.”
29. Concerning the car costs, the Respondent thought that the requested amount is excessive
and any claim of “more than 30.000- TL should be rejected.”
30. Regarding the termination, the Respondent was of the opinion that the Player was indeed
registered for the 2023/2024 season and that he “was only not included in the A team list for
temporarily”, i.e. until 11 January 2024.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12576
31. In view of the above, the Respondent argued that the Player terminated the contract
without just cause.
32. In any event, in the case the DRC would decide otherwise, the Respondent provided for a
different calculation of the compensation:
“The rest value of the contract is 128.460 EUR, contrary to Claimant's request. Although
we do not understand how Claimant arrived at the amount in question, we would like to
present the calculation in question:
15.10.2023: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
15.11.2023: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
15.12.2023: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
15.01.2024: 1.100.-EUR + 21.310.-EUR
15.02.2024: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
15.03.2024: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
15.04.2024: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
15.05.2024: 1.100.-EUR + 14.050.-EUR
In conclusion, because the rest value of the contract is 128.460.-EUR.
The compensation may not exceed this value. Therefore, even if the termination is
determined to be justified, the Player's claim regarding the termination compensation of
52.410.-EUR and additional compensation should be rejected.”
c. Comments of the Claimant
33. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent requested the following: The Claimant was
requested to comment on the alleged payment of EUR 1,100.
34. In this regard, the Claimant acknowledged the receipt of said sum.
35. Finally, the Claimant provided for his rent contract, stipulating that the rental for 6 months
corresponds to EUR 11,150 and an annual rental of EUR 22,300.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. 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 8 November 2023 and
submitted for decision on 25 January 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12576
(hereinafter the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
37. 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, May 2023 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 German player
and a Turkish club.
38. 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 (May 2023 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 November 2023, the May 2023 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
39. 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
40. 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
41. 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 a
termination of the employment relationship.
42. The Chamber recalled the arguments of the Claimant that he terminated the contract with
just cause on 28 September 2023 due to the lack of his registration. On the other hand,
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12576
Chamber duly noted that the Respondent argued that such termination by the Player was
without just cause as the latter was merely temporary de-registered until 11 January 2024,
i.e. “it is beyond explanation that the Claimant's termination without giving any notice for a
short-term event, when there is no "deregistration" situation, is termination without just cause.
For this reason, all of the Player's compensation claims must be rejected.”
43. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine if the Player had
just cause to terminate the Employment Agreement.
44. First of all, the DRC recalled the content of art. 14 of the Regulations, which provides that
“a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment
of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”. In this respect,
the definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance
with the merits of each particular case.
45. The Chamber further recalled is a longstanding and well-established jurisprudence that
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract, i.e. only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to
expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may
be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken
in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, and
vice versa, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio
measure.
46. In this respect, the DRC posed a question if the Player was registered for the season
2023/2024. Based on the information provided by the TFF as well as the Respondent, the
DRC observed that the Player was indeed registered for the season 2023/2024. On the
other hand, the Chamber noted that it was confirmed by the Respondent in its reply, that
the Player was not included in the A-team list until 11 January 2024, i.e. for the period of
approximately four months.
47. The DRC further highlighted that the Respondent did not provide for any explanation
regarding the non-inclusion of the Player in the A-team list. Furthermore, the members of
the Chamber noted that the Player indeed participated with the A-team the previous
season.
48. The Chamber finally observed that the Respondent failed to provide for any explanations
as for the non-inclusion in the A-list and the consequent ineligibility of the Player until, at
least, 11 January 2024. In this respect, the DRC took note that there was no evidence
provided by the Respondent that the Player would have the opportunity to play in any
official matches before said date.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12576
49. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the non-inclusion of the Player in the
A-Team in the matter at hand equals deregistration and, consequently, constitutes a severe
breach of the contract (art. 14 of the Regulations), justifying the termination of the
Employment Agreement by the Player.
ii. Consequences
50. 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.
51. 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 one monthly
salary of September 2023 under the contract, amounting to EUR 21,310. The DRC noted
that the additional salary of EUR 1,100 was acknowledged as received by the Claimant.
52. The DRC then turned its attention to Claimant’s requests for accommodation costs
amounting to EUR 15,660 and corresponding to the rents of December 2022 until
September 2023 minus TRY 70,000 (acknowledged as paid). The DRC observed that the
Claimant based its claim on Clause 4 of the Additional Protocol and provided for his rental
agreement.
53. In this regard, the Chamber duly noted that the Parties never agreed on the rental costs as
per the provided rental agreement and, consequently, the DRC decided that it will grant
the Claimant only the amount of TRY 20,000, acknowledged as debt by the Respondent.
54. Finally, the DRC analysed if the Claimant is entitled to the incurred car costs based on
Clause 4 of the Additional Protocol. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the initially
provided car was taken away from the Player and the latter incurred the expenses due the
fact that he no longer had a car at his disposal. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the
Claimant should have his expenses reimbursed.
55. In this regard, after a careful evaluation of the evidence on file, the DRC took note that one
invoice for TRY 63.14 is dated 7 October 2023, i.e. after the termination of the contract, and
decided to deduct this amount. In conclusion, the DRC awarded TRY 96,455.68 to the Player
linked to the incurred car costs.
56. 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 21,310 (salary), TRY 20,000 (accommodation) and TRY 96,455.68 (car costs).
57. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12576
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 8 November 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
58. 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, 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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 158,460 (i.e. EUR 149,660 plus EUR 8,800) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
62. 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.
63. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12576
64. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
65. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 158,460 as the residual value of the contract.
66. 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 8 November 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. 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
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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12576
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. 15
REF. FPSD-12576
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yannick Stark, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Manisa Futbol Kulubu, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 21,310 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
8 November 2023 until the date of effective payment;
- TRY 20,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
8 November 2023 until the date of effective payment;
- TRY 96,455.68 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
8 November 2023 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 158,460 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 8 November 2023 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-12576
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