Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16700
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Angel Yesid Torres Quinones
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Angel Yesid Torres Quinones, Colombia
Represented by Eleven & Law
RESPONDENT:
Gaziantep Futbol Kulubu A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Gürkan Özocak
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16700
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Colombian player, Angel Yesid Torres Quinones (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
•
the Turkish club, Gaziantep Futbol Kulübü A.Ş. (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), affiliated to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF).
On 6 June 2024, the Club sent a signed offer letter (hereinafter: the Offer Letter 1) to the
Player with the following terms, quoted verbatim:
“We are offering a two plus one-year (2+1 year) employment contract to [the Player]
[…]
For Seasons 2024/2025, 2025/2026 and 2026/2027
The Club offers the Football Player,
• NET 30.000,00-EUR Advance payment,
• 27.000 X 10 Months = NET 270.000,00-EUR Salary (from August to May),
Bonus for each season,
• If the club qualifies for European competitions in the season, the club will pay the
player a bonus of NET 30.000,00-EUR,
• If the club wins the Turkish Cup in the season, the club will pay the player a bonus of
NET 10.000,00-EUR,
• If the player scores 10 goals in Turkish Super League matches during the season, the
Club will pay a bonus of NET 30.000,00-EUR,
• If the player makes 10 assists in Turkish Super League matches during the season, the
Club will pay a bonus of NET 30.000,00-EUR,
If the Club wishes to extend the contract, it will automatically extend the contract
for 1 (one) year until 30.06.2026 by unilaterally notifying the player under the
above conditions.
Please note that this offer is valid until June 13, 2024. The club's board reserves the right
to extend the validity period and modify the terms and conditions of the offer before or
after this date. The offer is subject to your completion of a health examination and
submission of a favorable medical report.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16700
We look forward to having you as a part of our team and witnessing your performance
contribute to our success during the 2024/2025 season. If you have any questions or
additional requests, please don't hesitate to let us know.’’
3.
On 8 June 2024, the Respondent sent a new offer letter (hereinafter: the Offer Letter 2),
signed by the Respondent, to the Claimant with the following terms (the other language
before and after remained the same):
‘’For Seasons 2024/2025, 2025/2026 and 2026/2027
The Club offers the Football Player,
• NET 50.000,00-EUR Advance payment,
• 30.000 X 10 Months = NET 300.000,00-EUR Salary (from August to May),
ln the event that the player plays 30 (thirty) Turkish Super League matches in the
2024/2025 season, payments for the 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 seasons will be paid
as follows
• NET 50.000,00-EUR Advance payment,
• 40.000 X 10 Months = NET 400.000,00-EUR Salary (from August to May),
• In addition, the club will allocate a car for the player to use during the contract period.
Bonus for each season,
• If the club qualifies for European competitions in the season, the club will pay the
player a bonus of NET 50.000,00-EUR,
If the club wins the Turkish Cup in the season, the dub will pay the player a bonus of NET
20.000,00-EUR,
If the player scores 10 goals in Turkish Super League matches during the season, the Club
will pay a bonus of NET 30.000,00-EUR,
If the player makes 10 assists in Turkish Super League matches during the season, the
Club will pay a bonus of NET 30.000,00-EUR,
In case the player takes part in the first eleven in 25 matches in the Turkish Super League,
the Club shall pay 25.000,00-EUR to the player.
In case the football player transfers to another club, 5% (five percent) of the transfer
income will be paid to the football player.’’
4.
The parties agreed on the terms detailed in Offer Letter 2, with an amendment that the
advance payments should be EUR 75,000, payable upon the signing of the definitive
employment contract, and EUR 50,000 on 30 July 2024.
5.
On 10 June 2024, the Respondent sent an initial draft of the employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract Draft 1) to the Claimant.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16700
6.
Thereafter, the Claimant returned a responsive second draft of the employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract Draft 2) to the Respondent.
7.
In the Contract Draft 2, the remuneration was detailed as follows, quoted verbatim:
"SEASON 2024 / 2025
FULLY GUARANTEED PAYMENT
425.000,00 EUROS NET PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS
The Club shall pay 75.000,00-EUR (Seventy-five thousand Euros) NET on the signing date
of the contract as advance payment.
The Club shall pay 50.000,00-EUR (Fifty thousand Euros) NET on 30.07.2024 as advance
payment.
The Club shall also pay a total of 300.000,00 (three hundred thousand) EUROS NET to the
Player for the 2024/2025 football season in the following periods:
30.08.2024
30.09.2024
30.10.2024
30.11.2024
30.12.2024
30.000,00-EUR
30.01.2025
30.000,00-EUR
30.000,00-EUR
28.02.2025
30.000,00-EUR
30.000,00-EUR
30.03.2025
30.000,00-EUR
30.000,00-EUR
30.04.2025
30.000,00-EUR
30.000,00-EUR
30.05.2025
30.000,00-EUR
TOTAL 300.000,00-EUR NET
[...]
SEASON 2025 / 2026
FULLY GUARANTEED PAYMENT
450.000,00 EUROS NET PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS
(If the Player played in at least 30 Super League games in the previous season)
The Club shall pay 50.000,00-EUR (Fifty thousand Euros) NET on 01.08.2025 as advance
payment.
The Club shall also pay a total of 400.000,00 (fourty hundred thousand) EUROS NET to
the Player for the 2025/2026 football season in the following periods:
30.08.2025
30.09.2025
30.10.2025
30.11.2025
30.12.2025
40.000,00-EUR
30.01.2026
40.000,00-EUR
40.000,00-EUR
28.02.2026
40.000,00-EUR
40.000,00-EUR
30.03.2026
40.000,00-EUR
40.000,00-EUR
30.04.2026
40.000,00-EUR
40.000,00-EUR
30.05.2026
40.000,00-EUR
TOTAL 400.000,00-EUR NET
[...]
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16700
SEASON 2026 / 2027
FULLY GUARANTEED PAYMENT
500.000,00 EUROS NET PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS
(If the Player played in at least 30 Super League games in the previous season)
The Club shall pay 100.000,00-EUR (One hundred thousand Euros) NET on 01.08.2026
as advance payment.
The Club shall also pay a total of 400.000,00 (forty hundred thousand) EUROS NET to
the Player for the 2026/2027 football season in the following periods:
30.08.2026
40.000,00-EUR
30.01.2027
40.000,00-EUR
30.09.2026
40.000,00-EUR
28.02.2027
40.000,00-EUR
30.10.2026
40.000,00-EUR
30.03.2027
40.000,00-EUR
30.11.2026
40.000,00-EUR
30.04.2027
40.000,00-EUR
30.12.2026
40.000,00-EUR
30.05.2027
40.000,00-EUR
TOTAL 400.000,00-EUR NET
8.
The Contract Draft 2 further showed the below deletion by the Claimant within “Special
Terms and Conditions”:
“The Player accepts, declares, undertakes and GUARANTEES that he does not have a
lawsuit/case in the local jurisdictions of the countries where he is citizen and/or in which
he has previously played football, or in international jurisdictions (FIFA, UEFA, OFC,
CONACAF etc.) that would prevent him from playing football in the future AND/OR that
there will be no decision from these judicial authorities that will prevent him from playing
football or cause a penalty to Gaziantep FK due to this transfer. Accordingly, IF the Player
is punished by a local court for ANY CRIME and the punishment becomes final AND/OR if
the Player is subject to a sporting/financial sanction by a national and/or international
federation that prevents him from playing football AND/OR if Gaziantep FK is sanctioned
by any judicial authority due to a lawsuit against the Player; the Player accepts, declares
and undertakes that this Contract may be terminated unilaterally and for just cause by
Gaziantep FK, and that he will not claim the termination by Club is unfair termination,
that he will not file a lawsuit against Gaziantep FK before FIFA, CAS or any other judicial
authority, and that he will compensate Gaziantep FK immediately and in cash for any
direct or indirect damage it may suffer due to such a situation. The Parties agree that
any amount to be paid in such a case will not be exorbitant, that the Player signed the
Contract knowing and undertaking these issues, that the imposition of these conditions
is the Player's request, and that the provision of this Contract reflects the Parties’
common and free will.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16700
9.
At an unspecified time, but early in the parties’ contractual negotiations, the Claimant
informed the Respondent that criminal proceedings were opened against the Claimant in
Australia and scheduled to be heard 5 July 2024.
10. On 21 August 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, citing the
following contractual obligation:
-
EUR 75,000 net as first advance payment due upon signing the contract;
EUR 50,000 net as second advance payment due on 30 July 2024;
EUR 300,000 net as annual salary, payable in ten instalments from August 2024 until
May 2025.
11. The Claimant wrote in said notice that the Respondent failed to pay EUR 125,000 for the
first and second advance payment and provided the Respondent with 15 days to pay the
aforesaid amount and to provide the Claimant with a signed copy of the definitive contract.
12. On 25 August 2024, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s letter stating that indeed a
draft contract had been prepared and shared with the Claimant on 11 June 2024 but that
the Respondent had required the Claimant to travel to Türkiye to sign the agreement
following the 5 July criminal proceedings as well as to undergo medical testing prior to
executing the contract. The Respondent emphasized that there existed no signed contract
and recalled that the criminal proceeding was postponed until 16 August which as of such
date remained unchanged, as in the Player’s ban to leave Australia had not been lifted.
13. On 29 August 2024, the Claimant wrote a letter to the Respondent disputing that no signed
contract existed, and cited a letter allegedly sent by the Club to the Australian embassy that
mentioned, inter alia, the following:
‘’A Professional Football Player’s Contract (employment contract) dated 10.06.2024 was
signed between our Club and the professional football player named Angel Yesid Torres
Quinones, who is a Colombian citizen and has passport number […], played for Central
Coast Marines (the Australian football club) last year. Please find the employment
contract attached (Annex-2)’’.
14. The Claimant explained to the Respondent that this letter directly contradicted the
Respondent’s position that no contract was formed. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that
the Respondent did not challenge the signed copy of the Contract Draft 2, which the
Claimant had returned to it, solidifying the fact that the contract had been signed
electronically at a distance.
15. The Club replied on the same day, reiterating its position that no signed contract existed,
and acknowledging that while the terms were agreed upon with the Player, it had not been
signed mutually.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16700
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 22 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
17. The Claimant argued that a valid and binding contract existed between the parties, which
the Respondent terminated without just cause.
18. According to the Claimant, he was transparent with the Respondent about his existing legal
proceedings in Australia and provided text message excerpts where in the Claimant’s
representative informed the Respondent’s purported representative of the Australian
criminal proceedings, which he anticipated would be resolved.
19. The Claimant alleged that after the preliminary drafts of the contract were exchanged, the
parties reached the following final contractual term, and the Respondent provided the
Claimant with the final contract version to be signed which the Claimant signed and
returned to the Respondent on 14 June 2024.
20. The Claimant argued that the Club countersigned the contract but did not return it to the
Claimant.
21. In support, the Claimant submitted a letter allegedly sent by the Respondent to the
Australian embassy in Türkiye on 21 June 2024 requesting the necessary permissions for
the Player to join the Club.
22. In addition, the Claimant submitted a transcript of a purported WhatsApp group chat
between the Claimant and the Respondent’s representatives, wherein it was discussed,
inter alia, on 15 June 2024, that the Club was working to quickly resolve the Claimant’s
“situation in Australia, lawyers, embassy”.
23. The Claimant argued that in the provided messages the Respondent’s representatives
explicitly confirmed that the Player was a player of the Club. For instance, one purported
Club representative wrote on 16 June 2024, “Welcome angel [the Claimant], everything will be
done for you my friend, relax [...] We will all do the best for [the Claimant] under the same roof.”
24. Further, the transcript included the following:
- a statement by the Respondent’s representative on 20 June 2024 that “we will notify the
embassy that we will sign the contract with the player, so he has to come to Turkey”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16700
- On 21 June 2024, the Respondent’s representative wrote: “Currently, a mutual contract
has not been signed yet, so we cannot offer a signed contract to Embassy. Therefore, we will
send a letter stating that signing of the employment contract has been agreed and that the
player must come to Turkey to sign the contract [...] the player himself must sign [...] So,
although we can try to help, player has to come to Turkey to sign the contract”.
- On 24 June 2024, the Respondent’s representative wrote that it received a response from
the Australian consulate, stating that the embassy is unable to intervene in criminal
matters before courts in Australia.
- The Club’s representative expressed optimism that the Player would be free to play
following his 5 July 2024 trial but on said date, the Player’s representative infirmed the
chat that the matter was adjourned to 16 August. The Club’s representatives asked
whether this meant the Player would need to remain in Australia until then. The parties
agreed to conduct a conference call.
- On 19 July 2024, the Claimant’s representative asked if the Club intended to continue
with the agreement and commitment made or wanted to wait for the player to be totally
exonerated. The representative noted that if the latter, they will need to “stop here”. The
Club informed that a lawyer would respond, followed by the lawyer’s message that “we
will talk and then response your message asap”.
- On 25 July 2024, the Claimant’s representative wrote: “Allow me to speak on behalf of Angel
and everyone here in Portugal including our lawyers, we have said ok to all your requests but
we have no answers, this uncertainty leads us to have to change scenarios and look for some
other option, I hope once again in your understanding”.
- On 26 July 2024, the Respondent’s representative wrote: “We welcome you with
understanding as always, we would like you to know that angel torres is a player of gaziantep
fk club, we would like to inform you that his trial will be over in August and that we are waiting
for the player with love. We are committed to and comply with all the conditions in our contract.
We would like to inform you with pleasure that all conditions will be met when the player steps
into Turkey, and we have done everything official for the player so far and will continue to do
so.”
- On the same day, the Claimant’s representative wrote: “We need to understand if club are
available now to pay the advance payment of 75.000€, Which would be paid on the date of
signature, 10/06/2024, like we sign the contract.”
- The Club’s representative replied on the same date: “All the conditions written in our
contract are valid and as we have stated before, we would like to inform you that the player
has everything ready and his money is ready when he comes to Antepe, everything is ready on
our side. I would like to ask you a short question, Mr. Yasin Turan. Why haven't you answered
the question of how much money the player will be released? And why do you insist on money
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16700
before the player even comes to the antepe? You will appreciate that Gaziantep FK is doing
everything it can and continues to do so. I would like to state again that we are looking forward
to seeing the player, Angel Torresi.”
- On 27 July the Claimant’s representative expressed that they had some problems with
the deal and wished to speak about it.
- The Respondent’s representative wrote that the coach was leaving the spot open for him,
and they were waiting for good news for the Player, noting he was a player of the Club,
and all conditions offered in the contract will be met when the player comes to Turkey,
and further wrote “It is valid and will start.”
- On 9 August 2024, the Club’s representative wrote “We are looking forward to officially
finalizing the agreement. We are looking forward to the good news from Torres with
excitement. [...] I spoke with our president, I told him also 5 days later he’ll fix everything.”
25. The Claimant noted that he rejected offers from other clubs in order to join the
Respondent.
26. The Claimant argued that the Respondent required the Player to sign the contract and then
signed the same but refused to return it to the Claimant. The Claimant stated that following
the exchange of drafts, by sending the final version accepting the Claimant’s conditions
could only reasonably be interpreted as the Respondent’s final and unequivocal
acceptance of the contractual terms, awaiting the Player’s signature to finalize the deal.
27. The Claimant argued that the contract did not require any conditions of formalities such as
medical examination or the Player’s physical presence in Türkiye for it to be valid.
28. The Claimant argued that such violation triggered damages under art. 17 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
29. The requests for relief of the Claimant, as amended, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1. Declare that the Contract was terminated without just cause by the Club on 10 June
2024;
2. Order the Club to pay the Player the net amount EUR 875,000, plus interest at 5% per
annum from 11 June 2024, as compensation for breach of contract;
In the alternative
3. Order the Club to pay the Player the net amount EUR 875,000, plus interest at 5% per
annum from 11 June 2024, based on the principle of culpa in contrahendo;
In the further alternative
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16700
4. Order the Club to pay the Player the net amount of EUR 425,000, plus interest at 5%
per annum from 11 June 2024, based on the principle of culpa in contrahendo;
In any event
5. Order the Club to provide the Player with the relevant certificate confirming the tax
payments on the awarded amounts;
6. Ban the Club from registering new players nationally or internationally.”
b. Position of the Respondent
30. On 6 December 2024, the Respondent submitted its response to the claim of the Claimant
and disputed his position that a valid contract existed between the parties.
31. The Respondent did not deny that any of the correspondences by Gurkan Ozocak and
Cemil Cansiz between the parties submitted by the Claimant had taken place and explicitly
acknowledge that they were Club officials. However, with respect to Ergun Teber, the
Respondent claimed that the individual was not an official, employee, or representative of
the Club but concedes that the individual was included in the WhatsApp group chat. The
Respondent argued that said individual was in fact the Claimant’s contact in Türkiye who
was working with the Claimant’s agents, not on behalf of the Club nor representing the
Club in the transfer process.
32. The Respondent argued that the validity of the contract required the Claimant to be
physically present in Türkiye and sign.
33. The Respondent argued that the Claimant had initially informed the Respondent that the
criminal proceedings would end on 5 July 2024. However, by August 2024, this was not the
case.
34. The Respondent highlighted the correspondence in the WhatsApp group text, noting that
on multiple occasions, the Club’s representatives indicated that the agreement had not
been finalized or signed, and that the player must come to Turkey to do so.
35. The Respondent further argued that, in addition to not containing the Respondent’s
signature, the contract did not contain the essentialia negotii of a valid and binding
agreement because the requirements of “subordination of the employee” and the
“personal performance” were not met.
36. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the letter to the embassy was a draft which had
been prepared at the request of the Claimant which had later been changed because the
contract had not been signed with wet signature. Following the revisions, the Respondent
said it submitted it to the embassy. In support thereof, the Respondent submitted the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16700
letters dated 10 June 2024 with the outgoing email to the embassy in Turkey as well as 21
June 2024 with the incoming response of the embassy in Turkey. As well, the Respondent
submitted the outgoing email on 21 June 2024 to the Claimant with a draft that stated the
contract had not been signed.
37. The Respondent stated that the Claimant was in receipt of the “real” embassy letter but
failed to submit said evidence and instead relied on the previous unsigned draft version to
support his claim.
38. The requests for relief of the Respondent, as amended, were the following, quoted
verbatim:
a. to REJECT of the unfair, unlawful and malicious claims and requests of the
Claimant Angel Yesid Torres Quinones claims and request,
b. to IMPOSE A FINE ON PLAYER due to his unfair and malicious application,
c. that the costs of the arbitration procedure be paid by the Claimant Player.”
c. Information received from the Turkish Football Federation (TFF)
39. At the request of the FIFA general secretariat regarding the Claimant’s registration with the
Respondent, the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) confirmed: “There is no record of [the
Claimant] with [the Respondent].”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 22 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 20 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
41. 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 competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Colombian player and a Turkish club.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16700
42. 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 its art. 29,
the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
43. 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
44. 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
45. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
both parties agree that they negotiated the terms of the employment agreement,
exchanging several drafts, which included, inter alia, changes in the economic terms such
as the revised advance payment.
46. However, the DRC also noted that the parties strongly dispute whether a valid contract was
ultimately concluded between them and, if so, the circumstances of the termination and
the consequences thereof.
47. The Chamber therefore acknowledged that its task was to first determine whether the
parties had entered into an employment relationship.
48. In the context of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled that:
-
The Chamber possesses only the player-signed draft of the alleged contract which
was unsigned by the Respondent. Moreover, the Claimant did not provide any
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16700
support, such as an alleged email, for his assertion that the Respondent instructed
the Claimant to sign, and return said draft of the contract.
-
The last-provided draft included the Respondent’s reinsertion of the clause (28)
speaking to the Claimant’s lawsuits and cases in his local jurisdiction, which the
Claimant had previously suggested omitting. This reflected at least a shared
understanding that the Respondent contemplated the Claimant’s legal situation and
was not committed to fulfil all contractual obligations in the event that the Player
was unable to play football for the Club.
-
The WhatsApp exchange submitted by the Claimant regarding the ongoing
negotiations show that the Respondent indeed, on a number of occasions,
highlighted the requirement that the Claimant must be physically present in Türkiye
for the execution of the contract.
-
The letters to the embassy of Australia do not appear to support the Claimant’s
assertion that the Club confirmed the signing of the contract, as the Claimant had
clearly submitted a draft document (which is evidenced by the highlighted parts and
ellipses, as well as the signature and name being blank). Furthermore, the
Respondent submitted another draft alongside correspondences between the
parties which both suggest that the Respondent did not in fact commit to the
language in the letter that a contract had been signed.
-
Furthermore, the Claimant does not deny that following the August 2024 criminal
proceedings, he was not in a position to travel to Türkiye to begin performance on
the contract.
49. Based on the evidence submitted by both parties, the Chamber was of the opinion that the
negotiations between the parties demonstrated that the execution and the validity of the
contract was premised on the Player’s presence in Türkiye, which in turn rested at least in
part on the outcome of his criminal proceedings in Australia.
50. The Chamber did not interpret the Club’s expressions of support for the Player’s resolution
of the criminal proceedings and their attempts to assist with the correspondence to the
embassies to constitute a commitment that the contractual term will go into effect in any
case, even if the outcome of the criminal proceedings were to turn out unfavourably for
the Player.
51. Furthermore, the DRC considered that the Club appeared to follow the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, which requires clubs to exercise their due diligence
as it pertains to administrative requirements and medical clearances before executing an
employment contract. As such the Chamber did not now hold such diligence against the
Club.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16700
52. In the present case and with due regard to its chronology, the Chamber found that the
parties intended to conclude a contract with the understanding that the Player would be
able to report to Türkiye which, as time went on, it turned out he could not.
53. Consequently, the Chamber was not persuaded that a contract was ultimately executed,
and considered therefore, that breach of contract, let alone unlawful termination, occurred.
The DRC then decided that the Player’s claim in this respect should be dismissed.
•
Alternatively, the culpa in contrahendo
54. In the alternative, the Chamber wished to outline that the decision that the Parties did not
enter into an employment relationship was without prejudice to the Player’s claim for
compensation on the basis of the principle of culpa in contrahendo.
55. In this respect, the DRC referred to the understandings in CAS 2016/A/4489, to which the
Chamber adhered:
“As a preliminary contract is a contract under the law of obligations that creates the
obligation to conclude a main contract at a later point in time, a party to the
preliminary contract is not entirely free to exclude itself from the negotiations in
relation to the conclusion of a final agreement. Instead, the parties must
negotiate in good faith and should not abandon the negotiations without
compelling reason for doing so. The duty to act in good faith already exists at the
time of contractual negotiations and is known as culpa in contrahendo. Under
Swiss Law culpa in contrahendo means the negligent/intentional breach of precontractual duties. A finding of culpa in contrahendo requires the existence of
contractual negotiations, trust that merited protection, a breach of a duty, harm,
a causal connection, and fault. The breach of a duty in particular derives from the
principle of good faith. At the contractual negotiation stage it includes – regardless of
whether a contract is concluded later on – certain duties of care, considerateness, good
faith, and of providing information, including the duty to negotiate seriously and in a fair
manner. It essentially constitutes an independent basis of liability, somewhere between
a contract and a tort. According to Swiss legal doctrine, it is a special form of liability for
breaches of trust” (emphasis added by the DRC).
56. Applying the above to the present case, the DRC had no doubt that the Parties had entered
into advanced negotiations.
57. Nevertheless, the DRC also emphasized that a finding of culpa in contrahendo would still
require evidence of bad faith / harm / fault on the part of the other party (i.e., the Club) and
evidence of the damage suffered by the party claiming such a compensation (i.e., the
Player).
58. The DRC was not persuaded that the Player had succeeded in proving the above.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16700
59. In particular, although the Chamber accepted that the Player has proved that the parties
have entered into negotiations and exchanged copies of a permanent contract, the DRC
was not been able to find conclusive evidence of the Club’s fault. In this regard, the
Chamber again considered it essential that the Player failed to prove that the decision to
withdraw from the negotiations was solely the Club’s and not a reasonable consequence
of the ongoing criminal proceedings and the Player’s impossibility to be physically present
in Türkiye.
60. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Player’s claim for damages on the basis of culpa in
contrahendo also be rejected.
d. Costs
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16700
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Angel Yesid Torres Quinones, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16700
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. 18