Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18658
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kevin Varga
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kevin Varga, Hungary
Represented by Talat Emre Kocak
RESPONDENT:
MKE Ankaragucu SK, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18658
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 September 2024, the Hungarian player, Kevin Varga (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Turkish club, MKE Ankaragucu SK (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the aforementioned date until 30 June 2026.
2.
Thereafter, on 26 February 2025, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a mutual
termination agreement (hereinafter: the Mutual Termination Agreement), whereby the
parties mutually terminated the Contract and the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant as follows:
“1. MKE Ankaragücü ("Club") and Kevin Varga, born on 30.03.1996 ("Player") hereby mutually
terminate the Employment Contract covering the seasons of 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 football
seasons in return for a total compensation of 475,000.- EURO that shall be paid by the Club to
the Player on the below given dates:
Until 15.03.2025 - 237,500.-EURO
Until 20.04.2025 - 237,500.-EURO
[…]
4. The amounts stated herein are all net and the Club obliges and undertakes to pay all taxes
stemming from the total amount. In case the Player would be in a position to pay any tax from
the paid amounts, the Player shall inform the Club immediately and it shall be paid by the Club.
In the event the Player pays the tax, the Club shall reimburse the paid amount to the Player.”
3.
Furthermore, the parties agreed to a penalty clause as follows:
“3. Parties accept and covenant that in case one of the payments stated above is not paid until
the due date, the Club obliges and undertakes to pay an additional %20 penalty from the
amount stated therein. In other words, in the event the Club fails to make the payment of any
installment on time, the Club shall pay a contractual penalty of %20 (twenty percent) in addition
to the written installment.”
4.
Finally, the parties included the following language in the Mutual Termination Agreement:
“5. The parties of this contract hereby expressly declare, they waive the right to apply to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as the appeal body of any decision of FIFA.”
5.
On 17 March 2025, the Claimant allegedly put the Respondent in default of payment of the
first instalment under the Mutual Termination Agreement in the amount of EUR 237,500
and reserved his right to claim the penalty.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18658
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 19 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to comply with the terms of the
Mutual Termination Agreement, which entitled him to the overdue first instalment and the
20% penalty fee.
8.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“7. Request for Relief
a. The Claimant would like to request you to make a decision that the Respondent has to pay
the amount of 237,500.00 EUR with its interest from 16.03.2025 stemming in the Contract.
b. The Claimant hereby also requests 47,500.00 EUR as penalty clearly stated in Mutual
Termination Agreement which is 20% of the unpaid instalment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
In its reply, the Respondent submitted that all necessary payments had been made to the
Claimant and the Claimant had waived all his financial receivables according to the Mutual
Termination Agreement.
10. Furthermore, the Respondent sustained that FIFA was not competent to decide this
dispute, and quoted art. 5 of the Mutual Termination Agreement.
11. Therefore, the Respondent requested that the claim be rejected.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18658
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. 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 19 March 2025 and submitted for a decision
on 22 May 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 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.
13. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is – in principle – competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Hungarian player and a Turkish club.
14. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent objected to the DRC’s competence
based on art. 5 of the Mutual Termination Agreement, which stipulated the following:
“5. The parties of this contract hereby expressly declare, they waive the right to apply to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as the appeal body of any decision of FIFA.”
15. Upon careful review and consideration of said clause, the Chamber was satisfied that the
scope and extent of the clause was for the parties to apparently waive the right to file an
appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against any decision rendered by
FIFA. In this sense, the Chamber concluded that this clause was not tantamount to a clear
waiver or exclusion of FIFA’s jurisdiction. Hence, based on all the foregoing considerations,
the Chamber affirmed that it was competent to decide this dispute.
16. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18658
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
18. 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
19. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for outstanding remuneration brought by a player against the club.
20. In doing so, the Chamber noted that the parties do not dispute the existence and validity
of the Mutual Termination Agreement; rather, the parties dispute whether the first
instalment of said agreement remains due and, implicitly, whether the penalty clause is
also due.
21. To that end, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent, as the debtor in the present case,
bears the burden of proving that it fulfilled its financial obligations towards the Claimant.
However, the Chamber found that the Club had not provided evidence in support of its
position and had therefore failed to discharge its burden of proof.
22. As a result, and by virtue of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that
the Claimant was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 237,500. In addition, and both in
line with the established practice of the Football Tribunal and the Claimant’s specific
request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall pay interest on the amount
awarded of 5% p.a. as from 16 March 2025 until the date of effective payment.
23. Concerning the contractual penalty, the Chamber noted that the Mutual Termination
Agreement does not specify any other condition for the penalty being triggered, save for
the Respondent’s failure to pay any of the amounts stipulated “until the due date.” As such,
and once again supported by the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber concluded
that the Claimant was entitled to a 20% penalty over the amount of the first instalment, i.e.,
EUR 47,500.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18658
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
d. Costs
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18658
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Kevin Varga.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Kevin Varga, is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, MKE Ankaragucu SK, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 237,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 March 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 47,500 as contractual penalty.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18658
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 9