Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16337
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 November 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Arber Zeneli
BY:
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Arber Zeneli, Sweden
Represented by Didem Sunna
RESPONDENT:
Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Umur Varat
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16337
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 September 2023, the Swedish player, Arber Zeneli (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Turkish club, Adana Demirspor A.S. (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the date of the signature until 30 June 2026.
2.
On 18 January 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract and filed a claim
against the Club before FIFA.
3.
On 20 March 2024, the parties agreed to settle their dispute and concluded a settlement
agreement (hereinafter: Agreement) in this regard.
4.
Clause 3 of the Agreement stipulated the following (quoted verbatim):
“3) FINANCIAL TERMS
Within the scope of this Settlement Agreement Club shall pay totally NET 650.000 Euro to
the Player as following;
- 50.000 Euro on 15 May 2024
-100.000 Euro on 30 June 2024,
-100.000 Euro on 30 July 2024,
-100.000 Euro on 30 August 2024,
-100.000 Euro on 30 September 2024,
-100.000 Euro on 30 October 2024,
-100.000 Euro on 30 November 2024.
All payments indicated in the Settlement Agreement are to be considered as "net”
payments. Any tax or fee obligation or stamp duties that may arise (in the region of
Turkey) from the payments stipulated in this Agreement shall be borne by the Club. (…)
In case one or any of the installments stated above are not paid in full and on time, 5%
interest p.a. will be added and calculated as from the respective due dates until the date
of effective payment.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 1 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
6.
According to the Claimant, the Club failed to comply with the payment of the fifth
instalment of the Agreement. Therefore, he requested payment of EUR 100,000 net.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16337
7.
Additionally, the Player stated that this is not the first claim that he has made regarding the
Agreement, as he previously filed claim FPSD-15715 requesting payment of the first three
instalments and claim FPSD-15859 requesting payment of the fourth instalment.
8.
The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following (quoted verbatim):
“By reserving our every legal right to claim the remaining installments and for the facts
and legal arguments that were developed above, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is
respectfully requested:
1. To accept the claims of Arber Zeneli,
2. To condemn Club Adana Demirspor Sportif Yatirimlar ve Tic. A.Ç. to pay in favour of
the Claimant the unpaid and overdue payment of Net EUR100.000.- along with the
interest rate of 5% p.a. starting from 30 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
3. To establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent.”
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
According to the Respondent, the Player failed to send a notice of default regarding the
payment of the fifth instalment and, therefore, attempted to take advantage of the Club.
10. Furthermore, the Club stated that the Player signed a new contract with another club on
21 March 2024, and argued that he has been unjustly enriched, as he is receiving incomes
from both the new club and the Respondent. In this context, the Club requested a reduction
of the payments stipulated in the Agreement.
11. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“1. To REJECT all the claims of Claimant.
2. The Respondent requests a proportional reduction of the payments stipulated in the
Settlement Agreement in line with his IF Elfsborg Employment Contract earnings.
3. The Respondent requests the Football Tribunal to consolidate three cases into single
proceeding under the Settlement Agreement.
4. To order to pay Claimant to pay legal expenses, judicial cost and attorney fee to the
Respondent.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16337
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was
competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present
matter was presented to FIFA on 1 October 2024 and submitted for decision on 6
November 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.
13. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 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 Swedish player
and a Turkish club.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 October 2024, the June 2024 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
16. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16337
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration, arising from a
settlement agreement.
18. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay
him EUR 100,000 net, which corresponds to the fifth instalment of the Agreement.
Conversely, the Respondent argued that the Player did not send a notice of default
regarding this instalment. Additionally, the Club stated that the Player signed a new
contract with another club and, to avoid unjust enrichment, the payments stipulated in the
Agreement should be reduced.
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent.
20. The Single Judge pointed out that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Agreement. Nonetheless,
the Club failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that it complied with the payment.
21. Based on the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent failed to pay the fifth
instalment of the Agreement.
22. Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge highlighted that, while it is true
that, based on the evidence on file, the Player did not send any notice of default to the
Club, this does not imply that the Club does not owe a debt to the Player. The only
consequence of the absence of a notice of default is that the outstanding remuneration
cannot be considered as overdue payables in the sense of art. 12bis of the Regulations and,
therefore, the Club cannot be sanctioned based on that article. However, the Club shall
bear the consequences stipulated in the Agreement, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda.
23. Moreover, the Single Judge mentioned that the fact that the Player signed a new contract
with another club does not affect the Agreement, as this document does not contain any
stipulation regarding such circumstances. Thus, the Single Judge considered that there are
no grounds to deviate from the terms established by the parties in the Agreement and that
there is no legal basis to make any reduction.
24. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge stated that the Respondent is held liable to pay
the Claimant the claimed amount. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided to award
the Player EUR 100,000 net, with the corresponding interest.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16337
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
25. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time. In this regard, he highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
principle, of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amounts are paid.
26. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where
the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
27. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on date 23 September 2024 and notified on 4 November 2024, a transfer ban has
been imposed on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in
the case FPSD-14997.
28. Accordingly, the Single Judge established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
29. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
30. 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.
d. Costs
31. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16337
32. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
33. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16337
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Arber Zeneli, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Adana Demirspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant EUR 100,000 net as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2024 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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16337
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. 10