Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-10899
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 January 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Kevin Varga
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Kevin Varga, Hungary
Represented by Talat Emre Kocak
RESPONDENT:
Kasimpasa SK, Türkiye
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-10899
I. Facts of the case
1. On 2 September 2023, the Hungarian player Kevin Varga (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player)
and the Turkish club Kasimpasa SK (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
2. Article 2 of the Contract reads as follows:
The Contract signed on 02-09-2020 expires on 30/06/2023 or any later date on which an official
match is played in the respective football season. The contract may be extended for one (1) year
subject to the conditions set forth in article 12 below.
3. Article 4 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
4.1.1 The Club's financial obligations towards the Player are as set out hereunder:
For The 2020/21 Season:
Gross amount of 94.647,97 EUR advance payment shall be paid on 20 / 09I 2020.
Gross amount of 856.832,55 EUR divided into 9 monthly equal installments and paid from
September 2020 until May 2021 , due on the 10 of every following month.
For The 2021/22 Season:
Gross amount of 94.647,97 EUR advance payment shall be paid on 20 / 08/ 2021 .
Gross amount of 856.693,25 EUR divided into 10 monthly equal installments and paid from August
2021 until May 2022, due on the 10 of every following month.
For The 2022/23 Season:
Gross amount of 94.647,97 EUR advance payment shall be paid on 20 / 08/ 2022.
Gross amount of 857.422,47 EUR (Eight hundred fifty seven thousand and four hundred twenty two
EU ROS forty seven CENT) divided into 10 monthly equal installments and paid from August 2022
until May 2023, due on the 10 of every following month.
4. Article 10 of the Contract reads as follows:
10.1 Any dispute arising from or related to the present contract shall be submitted exclusively to
the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, and resolved definitively in accordance with the FIFA General
Procedural Rules. The parties can appeal before the CAS such decision.
10.2 FIFA shall decide the dispute applying the various FIFA statutes, rules and regulations.
10.3 FIFA shall be solely responsible for the interpretation of the contractual clauses stipulated in
this contract.
5. Article 12 of the Contract reads as follows:
The Player hereby explicitly grants to the Club a right of option to extend this Contract with one (1)
year up to 30 June 2024. Such right may be exercised via email, fax or courier to the Player's address
provided in this Contract, by 30 April 2023. Confirmation of receipt is not required.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-10899
In such case, the Player is obliged to instantly sign a new TFF Standard Employment Contract with
the Club for registration purposes.
12.1.1 In such event, the Parties hereby mutually agree that the Player shall receive:
For The 2023/24 Season:
Gross amount of 118.908,04 EUR advance payment shall be paid on 20 / 08 / 2023.
Gross amount of 1.071.219,02 EUR divided into 10 monthly equal installments and paid from
August 2023 until May 2024, due on the 10th of every following month.
6. On an unspecified date, the Claimant filed an application at the execution office (hereinafter: the
Execution Office) under the reference 2022/761 requesting EUR 287,511.74.
7. On 10 May 2022, the Execution Office passed a decision cancelling the prosecution against the
club.
8. On 2 June 2022, the Claimant filed a second application requesting TRY 5,082,985.93, the
equivalent in TRY of EUR 288,151.13.
9. On 15 June 2022, the Court decided in an interim basis to stop the prosecution.
10. On 16 June 2022, the Claimant sent a default notice requesting EUR 288,151.13 and granted a
deadline of 15 days to comply, to no avail.
11. On 6 July 2022, the Claimant terminated the contract adducing just cause.
12. On 27 April 2023, the Claimant was transferred EUR 166,745.03 which had been deposited at the
court by the Respondent.
13. On 28 July 2022, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Turkish club Hatayspor.
14. On 14 February 2023, the Claimant and Hatayspor concluded a “mutual termination agreement”
terminating their contractual relationship.
15. On 15 February 2023, the Claimant concluded an employment contract with the Hungarian club
Debrecen.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 12 July 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-10899
a. Position of the Claimant
17. The Claimant states that “due to non-payment of 287.511,74-EUR, the Claimant initiated a claim on
13. Execution Office, at Nr. 2022/14273.”
18. The Claimant further states that based on Turkish law, all the processes must be made in Turkish
Lira and consequently in the claim he made (Nr. 2022/158712) the Player requested to be paid in
TRY.
19. According to the Claimant, “the Court and Office paid no money due to the application of the Club for
blockage for 2021-2022 football season. In other words, as presented by the Player, the Club always
acted in bad faith and paid no money to the Player on the agreed times. The Court found the Claimant,
the Player, right but paid the money in Turkish Liras which lost a big part of his value between
16.06.2022 and 27.04.2023”
20. The Claimant argues that he terminated the Contract with just cause after having put the
Respondent in default and thus, he is entitled to compensation.
21. The Claimant requests the amount EUR 952,070.45 as remuneration for the season 2022/2023.
22. The Claimant also requests EUR 1,189,528.98 as remuneration due for the option year (season
2023/2024).
23. The Claimant further requests EUR 321,500.28 as additional compensation.
24. Lastly, the Claimant requests the amount of EUR 121,406.10 as the “value loss” between Euro and
Turkish Lira for the amount he was transferred by the Execution Office.
25. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:
The Claimant would like to request you to make a decision that the Respondent has to pay the
compensation amounting 952.070,45- EUR with its interest for 2022/2023 season stemming in the
Contract.
Pursuant to the Vicente Del Bosque Gonzales - Beşiktaş AŞ (Ref Nr. CAS 2006/O/1055) award of the
CAS in Lausanne, the Club must pay for 2023/2024 football season total salaries as compensation
amounting 1.189.528,98- EUR for this year (2023/2024) with its interest from 07.07.2022 until the
actual payment date.
The Club also owes 3-monthly salary as stated 17/1/ii as “Additional Compensation” (107.166,76EUR as stated in the Contract for 2023/2024 season as monthly salary x 3) compensation
amounting 321.500,28-EUR with its interest from the date the Claimant opens this case.
The Club had to pay 288.151,13-EUR on 16.06.2022 but paid to the account of the Court in Turkish
Liras not to the account of Player in Euros. It has been transferred as 166.745,03-EUR on
27.04.2023 to the Player’s bank account. As it is known that Turkish Lira lost its value, the Player
demands the difference of 121.406,10-EUR with its interest starting from 16.06.2022.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-10899
In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file the case herein, we
would like to request your honorable tribunal to make a decision that the attorney-ship fees (as
%10 of the total decision) that the Claimant is faced and shall be paid to his legal counsel due to
this case.
b. Additional submission of the Claimant
26. On 13 July 2023, FIFA general secretariat sent a letter informing the Claimant that based on the
information provided the matter appears to have been submitted before a national court and
advised about the closure of the case.
27. On 17 July 2023, the Claimant filed and additional submission in the following terms.
28. The Claimant states that “This case is just aimed for 2022/2023- 2023/2024 seasons.”
29. The Claimant concludes that:
“the Player has never initiated any claim in front of Turkish courts and asks completely different
claims herein. Thus, the Player asks FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay the amounts stated in
the Statement of Claim and also requests to continue the case”.
c. Position of the Respondent
30. On 15 August 2023, FIFA general secretariat closed the submission phase of the proceeding
without having received a reply from the Respondent.
31. On 18 August 2023, the Respondent filed a power of attorney.
32. On 21 August 2023, the Respondent informed that it had not received any email from FIFA
regarding the claim.
33. On 28 August 2023, the Respondent filed a submission requesting the re-opening of the
submission phase.
d. Production of documents
34. On 4 September 2023, FIFA general secretariat requested the Claimant to produce the entire case
file (with the relevant translations) of any and all claims filed by the Claimant against the
Respondent at the Turkish courts.
35. On 11 September 2023, the Claimant filed a submission providing the alleged requested
documents and stated that he “has never initiated in this regard and was a Defendant in this case as
submitted”. Moreover, the Claimant states that “as stated previously as well, these amounts belong
to the amounts (namely 2021- 2022 football season) and the Claimant is not claiming any amount for
that season (2021-2022 football season). The Respondent (Kasımpaşa AŞ) of this case applied to the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-10899
Court to block the monies written in the employment contract and did not take part in the hearing. It
shall be added that the Claimant (Kevin Varga) claimed other years in this case and the Player did not
lodge a claim at the court against the Respondent (Kasımpaşa AŞ)”.
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 15 February 2023 and submitted for decision on 11
January 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.
37. The Chamber assessed the evidence on file and noted that other claims, based on the same
employment contract binding the parties, were previously lodged before other deciding bodies,
namely execution offices of Türkiye (hereinafter: “the Turkish Courts”).
38. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that it would have to analyse whether it is in
fact competent to deal with the present matter as to the substance.
39. In this respect, the Chamber observed from the evidence submitted by the Claimant himself is
that he claimed the outstanding remuneration under the Contract at the Turkish Courts, in clear
contrast to what the parties agreed in art. 10 of the Contract.
40. The Chamber noted the argumentation of the Claimant who argues that the claim is admissible
because he has not claimed compensation at any other court and only outstanding amounts had
been requested at a different forum. However, the DRC underscored that in order to assess if the
Claimant is entitled to any compensation it shall entered into the substance of the matter and
adjudicate if the Claimant had just cause to terminate Contract based on outstanding amounts,
outstanding amounts which have been claimed at a different forum (i.e. Turkish Courts).
41. Furthermore, the DRC noted from the documents provided by the Claimant that the Turkish
Courts have adjudicated on the matter since have recognised the Claimant the right to receive
EUR 166,745.03 which were transferred to the Claimant.
42. The DRC was convinced that if it were to entertain the claim for compensation, it should have to
rely on the decision passed by the local authorities recognizing the Claimant’s right to outstanding
amounts.
43. In essence, the Chamber was conformed in the conclusion that Claimant is herein bifurcating
claims and although the reliefs requested may not be the same in the different proceedings, both
claims at different forums have the same causa pedendi.
44. In addition, the DRC observed that the argument of the Claimant that he is requesting different
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-10899
concepts is not entirely true, since the Claimant is even requesting certain amounts based on the
loss of value of the TRY, the difference between the amount recognised by the Turkish Courts and
the amount agreed in the Contract.
45. At this point, it is important to underline that in the spirit of the applicable regulations, a player –
or a club – who actively decides to bring forward a dispute before a local deciding body, rather
than making use of the alternative dispute resolution process proposed within the legal
framework of FIFA, must demonstrate consistency in relation to the choice of the course of action.
We ought not to condone the attitude of a party who at first decides to submit a labour dispute
to a competent, specific, local deciding body, and subsequently decides to submit a dispute
(between the same parties, based on the same legal framework) to FIFA. A party who chooses a
certain course of legal remedy may not then decide to change the legal forum of the dispute, as
this would jeopardise the credibility of the sporting dispute resolution system.
46. In conclusion, the Chamber referred to the principle of Electa una via, non datur recursus ad alteram
and understood that in the present case the Claimant elaborated and developed an inconsistent
procedural strategy, known as Forum Shopping, by lodging several claims before different
competent deciding bodies with a view to obtain the most advantageous possible outcome.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s claim in front of FIFA is inadmissible.
b. Costs
47. 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.
48. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-10899
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kevin Varga, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-10899
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. 10