F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 20 May 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 May 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Jerome Perlemuter (France), member

Angela Collins (Australia), member

on the matter between the player,

Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, Portugal,

represented by Mr Pedro Macieirinha

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

and the club,

Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, Turkey,

represented by Mr Levent Polat

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Hatayspor, Turkey

as Intervening Party

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 18 July 2017, the Portuguese player, Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa (hereinafter: the player), and the Turkish club, Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü (hereinafter: Akhisar), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the first contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2018.

2. In accordance with art. 3 of the first contract, the player was entitled to receive from Akhisar the total amount of EUR 300,000 for the 2017-2018 sporting season (i.e. ten instalments of EUR 30,000 each for the months of August 2017 to May 2018, payable on the 25th of each month.

3. On 6 July 2018, the aforementioned parties signed a second employment contract (hereinafter: the second contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020.

4. In accordance with art. 3 of the second contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to receive the following remuneration from Akhisar:

a. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2018-2019 sporting season, broken down as follows:

i. EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2018;

ii. ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2018 to May 2019, payable on the 25th of each month;

iii. a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 2018-2019 season”;

b. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2019-2020 sporting season, broken down as follows:

i. EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2019;

ii. ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2019 to May 2020, payable on the 25th of each month;

iii. a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 2019-2020 season”;

iv. a bonus of EUR 25,000 “if the player had played in starting eleven at 25 Super League matches in 2018-2019 season”.

5. On 29 May 2019, the player put Akhisar in default of payment via regular post of the total amount of TRY (Turkish Lira) 205,355 and EUR 52,500, broken down as follows:

a. “80 355,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract;

b. 125 000,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the sports season 2018/2019;

c. 17 500,00 EUR as half salary due on 25.04.2019;

d. 35 000,00 EUR for the due salary of 25.05.2019”.

Furthermore, the player granted Akhisar a deadline of 15 days to comply with its financial obligations.

6. On 3 July 2019, the player unilaterally terminated in writing the contract with Akhisar. In particular, the player held that the club failed to pay him the following amounts:

a. “80 355,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract;

b. 145 000,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the sports season 2018/2019;

c. The amount of EUR 10 000 as bonus for the final of the Turkish cup;

d. 17 500,00 EUR as half salary due on 25.04.2019;

e. 35 000,00 EUR for the due salary of 25.05.2019”.

7. On 5 July 2020, Akhisar responded to the player’s termination letter, holding that it never received the default letter dated 29 May 2019. In particular, Akhisar stated that “even if that letter was sent on 29.05.2019, it was sent by post and if this letter was sent by post it was not delivered to our club” and that “the delivery of the post and notifications to the legal persons (such as our club) is subject to the rules and regulations stated in Turkish Notification Law and this posts and notifications must be delivered to the person who is entitled to represent the legal person”. Furthermore, Akhisar explained in its letter that the parties had been holding negotiations in view of a possible mutual termination of the contract but that “the player delayed the signature of the termination agreement”. Akhisar further stated that, in any case, “the total amount of unpaid receivables of [the player] is less than his two monthly salaries and the unilateral termination you have made is also unjust for this reason”.

8. On the same day, the player replied to Akhisar in writing, reiterating that he had just cause to terminate the contract and that sending a default letter via regular post is not against any regulations. In this context, the player maintained that in its letter, Akhisar never denied having received the default letter dated 29 May 2019. In addition, the player stated that he was “open to negotiate with the club the value of the due labour credits and compensation in order to achieve an amicable solution for this case”.

9. On 31 July 2019, the player lodged a claim against Akhisar in front of FIFA maintaining that he had just cause to terminate the contract and requesting to be awarded the following amounts, plus “interests since the dates of the missing payments until full payment”:

a. a total amount of TRY 225,355 and EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration, , broken down as follows:

i. TRY 80,355 “for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract”;

ii. TRY 145,000 “for overdue bonus payable for the season 2018-2019”;

iii. EUR 10,000 as “bonus for the final of the Turkish cup”;

iv. EUR 17,500 as “half salary due on 25.04.2019”;

v. EUR 35,000 “for the due salary of 25.05.2019”;

b. the amount of EUR 400,000 as compensation for breach of contract.

10. The player further requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on Akhisar.

11. In his claim, the player firstly argued that Akhisar failed to pay him TRY 80,355, corresponding to his “overdue bonus payable for the previous written contract”.

12. In continuation, the player held that Akhisar failed to pay him TRY 145,000 “as bonus for the sport season 2018/2019” and EUR 10,000 “for the final of the Turkish cup”.

13. Moreover, the player stated that Akhisar owed him outstanding salaries in the total amount of EUR 52,500, corresponding to half of his salary for April 2019 (EUR 17,500) and his salary for May 2019 (EUR 35,000).

14. In this context, the player referred to his default notice sent on 29 May 2019 and argued that he had a just cause to terminate the contract on 3 July 2019 based on art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

15. Furthermore, the player referred to Akhisar’s correspondence dated 5 July 2019 and held that his default letter was duly sent and received by the club. In addition, the player declared that no agreement regarding the mutual termination of the contract was ever reached between the parties.

16. With regard to his request for compensation for breach of contract, the player deemed being entitled to the residual value of the contract, which according to his calculations, amounts to EUR 400,000.

17. In its reply, Akhisar rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against the player for breach of contract.

18. In this regard, Akhisar affirmed that the player’s default notice was only sent by regular post and not directly notified to the club’s legal representatives. Furthermore, Akhisar stated that “the amount of the unpaid receivables of the player did not give him the right to unilaterally terminate his contract with just cause according to FIFA Regulations”.

19. More in particular, Akhisar submitted to the file a copy of the first contract and affirmed that it “did not owe any bonus and/or any other amount to the player in respect to the first contract” and underlined that the player “did not even submit his first contract to the file” nor did he evidence his allegations in this regard. Akhisar further stated that the player’s request for alleged outstanding bonuses deriving from the first contract is “groundless” since “there is no article/clause in the first contract which gave the right to the player to request bonuses”.

20. Furthermore, Akhisar affirmed that it “did not owe any bonus to the player in respect to the second contract” and further declared that “there is nothing in the second contract regarding any bonus payment except for the EUR 10,000 bonus for playing in Tukish cup final” Consequently, Akhisar also rejected the player’ claim for alleged outstanding bonuses for the 2018-2019 season and considered that such claim is “groundless”.

21. Moreover, Akhisar affirmed that “the total amount of the unpaid receivables of the player as of the date of termination is only EUR 62,500” and deemed that “in order for the player to terminate his contract with just cause because of unpaid salaries, the amount of his delayed payments must be at least EUR 70,000”, i.e. the amount of at least two monthly salaries. In this context, Akhisar argued that the unilateral termination of the contract by the player is “clearly against the FIFA Regulatons and therefore it is unjust”.

22. Consequently, Akhisar rejected the claim of the player in its entirety and lodged a counterclaim against the player and requested compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 350,000, which corresponds, according to Akhisar, to the residual value of the contract.

23. The player informed FIFA that he signed a contract with the Turkish club, Hatayspor (hereinafter: Hatayspor), valid as from 5 August 2019 until 31 May 2020, providing for i) an “advance and warranty payment” of EUR 75,000, payable at the date of signature of the contract and ii) for a monthly salary of EUR 22,500, payable “on the last of each month”.

24. Despite having been invited to do so by the FIFA Administration, Hatayspor did not provide any comments on the present dispute.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. 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 submitted to FIFA on 31 July 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition March 2020), 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 Portuguese player and a Turkish club.

3. Furthermore, 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 (edition March 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 July 2019, the June 2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and documentation on file. However, the DRC 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.

5. First, the Chamber noted that the player and Akhisar entered into a first employment contract valid as from 18 July 2017 until 31 May 2018, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 300,000 for the 2017-2018 sporting season.

6. In continuation, the DRC observed that, following the expiry of the first contract, the aforementioned parties entered into a second employment contract valid as from 6 July 2018 until 31 May 2020, which entitled the player to receive the following remuneration:

a. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2018-2019 sporting season, broken down as follows:

i. EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2018;

ii. ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2018 to May 2019, payable on the 25th of each month;

iii. a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 2018-2019 season”;

b. The total amount of EUR 400,000 for the 2019-2020 sporting season, broken down as follows:

i. EUR 50,000, payable on 15 July 2019;

ii. ten instalments of EUR 35,000 each, for the months of August 2019 to May 2020, payable on the 25th of each month;

iii. a bonus of EUR 10,000 “if the club plays final at Turkish Cup in 2019-2020 season”;

iv. a bonus of EUR 25,000 “if the player had played in starting eleven at 25 Super League matches in 2018-2019 season”.

7. Furthermore, the DRC deemed essential to emphasise that the following factual circumstances remained undisputed by the parties:

a) On 29 May 2019, the player put Akhisar in default of payment via regular post of the total amount of TRY 205,355 and EUR 52,500, broken down as follows:

a. “80 355,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract;

b. 125 000,00 Turkish lira for overdue bonus payable for the sports season 2018/2019;

c. 17 500,00 EUR as half salary due on 25.04.2019;

d. 35 000,00 EUR for the due salary of 25.05.2019”.

In particular, the Chamber noted that the player granted Akhisar a deadline of 15 days to comply with its financial obligations;

b) On 3 July 2019, the player terminated in writing the contract with Akhisar due to alleged outstanding remuneration and referred in his letter to art. 14bis of the Regulations.

8. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim against Akhisar in front of FIFA and requested to be awarded the following amounts, plus “interests since the dates of the missing payments until full payment”:

a. a total amount of TRY 225,355 and EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:

i. TRY 80,355 “for overdue bonus payable for the previous contract”;

ii. TRY 145,000 “for overdue bonus payable for the season 2018-2019”;

iii. EUR 10,000 as “bonus for the final of the Turkish cup”;

iv. EUR 17,500 as “half salary due on 25.04.2019”;

v. EUR 35,000 “for the due salary of 25.05.2019”;

b. the amount of EUR 400,000 as compensation for breach of contract.

9. After having taken note of the above, the DRC also took note of the position of the parties in the present matter. In this respect, the player argued that he terminated the contract with just cause in view of his outstanding salaries and requested outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from Akhisar.

10. In particular, the player referred to his default notice sent on 29 May 2019 and argued that he had a just cause to terminate the contract on 3 July 2019 on the basis of art. 14bis of the Regulations.

11. Equally, the Chamber took note that Akhisar argued that the player terminated the contract without just cause and lodged a counterclaim against the latter, requesting compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 350,000. In particular, the Chamber observed that Akhisar alleged that the player’s default notice was not served to it properly as it was only sent by regular post and not directly notified to the club’s legal representatives.

12. Furthermore, the DRC noted that Akhisar held that the player did not have a just cause to terminate the contract on the basis of art. 14bis of the Regulations and that “the total amount of the unpaid receivables of the player as of the date of termination is only EUR 62,500” and deemed that “in order for the player to terminate his contract with just cause because of unpaid salaries, the amount of his delayed payments must be at least EUR 70,000”, i.e. the amount of at least two monthly salaries.

13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the player and the counter-claim of Akhisar, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player, as well as to decide on the consequences thereof.

14. Notwithstanding, the members of the Chamber, before entering in detail into the substance of the matter, wished to recall the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right in regards to a fact shall bear the respective burden of proof.

15. In this respect, the Chamber firstly referred to the player’s allegations that Akhisar allegedly owed him TRY 80,355, corresponding to “overdue bonus payable for the previous written contract”. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the player did not corroborate his allegations and did not provide any evidence regarding his alleged entitlements pertaining to his first contract, which expired on 31 May 2018. To that extent, the Chamber also pointed out that the first contract did not contain a clause stipulating that the player would be entitled to receive such bonuses.

16. The members of the DRC equally considered that, in any case, the player could not invoke alleged overdue payables derived from his first contract as grounds for termination of his second contract, which constitutes the legal basis for the case at hand, particularly considering that the player, knowingly and willingly, agreed to conclude a new contract with Akhisar after the first contract had expired. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the player’s allegations had to be rejected on this point.

17. With regard to the player’s allegations that Akhisar failed to pay him TRY 145,000 “as bonus for the sport season 2018/2019”, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and observed that the player failed to provide any evidence regarding his alleged bonuses for the 2018-2019 sporting season. In this regard, the Chamber also duly noted that the second contract does not contain any clause entitling the player to receive bonuses, except the bonus of EUR 10,000 “for the final of the Turkish cup”, which was acknowledged by Akhisar.

18. In continuation, and with regard to the player’s claim related to the bonus of EUR 10,000 “for the final of the Turkish cup”, the Chamber unanimously concurred that, although Akhisar acknowledged in its reply owing said bonus to the player, at the time the player had put the club in default on 29 May 2019, said bonus was not yet due. In this regard, the Chamber was of the opinion that in the absence of any indication in the contract, said bonus was presumably payable at the end of the relevant sporting season, i.e. 31 May 2019.

19. With the above in mind, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’ submissions, it could be noted that the Respondent had admitted that “the total amount of the unpaid receivables of the player as of the date of termination is only EUR 62,500” and deemed that “in order for the player to terminate his contract with just cause because of unpaid salaries, the amount of his delayed payments must be at least EUR 70,000”, i.e. the amount of at least two monthly salaries.

20. In this context, the DRC referred to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, stipulates that, in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).

21. On account of the above, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that at the time the player had put Akhisar in default of payment on 29 May 2019, only one and a half monthly salaries were to be considered outstanding. Consequently, the members of the DRC concluded that the conditions outlined in art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations were evidently not fulfilled.

22. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, 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 assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an ultima ratio.

23. In light of the foregoing considerations, the DRC concluded that the termination of the contract by the player in the present case cannot be considered as an ultima ratio measure.

24. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the player did not have a just cause to terminate the contract on 3 July 2019 and that he is to be held liable for such contractual termination.

25. In light of the foregoing, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to Akhisar.

26. Before turning its attention on the consequences of such a breach of contract, the DRC first of all established that it remained undisputed that Akhisar failed to pay half of the player’s salary for April 2019 (EUR 17,500), the player’s salary for May 2019 (EUR 35,000) as well as a bonus for reaching the final of the Turkish cup amounting to EUR 10,000. Therefore, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the player is entitled to the total amount of EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration. As such, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s claim and Akhisar must pay the amount of EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration in the case at hand.

27. In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that Akhisar must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. as follows:

- on the amount of EUR 17,500 as from 26 April 2019 until the date of effective payment;

- on the amount of EUR 35,000 as from 26 May 2019 until the date of effective payment;

- on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment.

28. Having stated the above, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to Akhisar. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly reiterated 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(s), the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period.

29. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by either contractual party in the event of breach of contract. Upon careful examination of said contract, the members of the Chamber assured themselves that this was not the case in the matter at stake.

30. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable in the case at stake 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 and that the broad scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber stated beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.

31. Consequently, in order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant in the present case, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the financial terms of the player’s former contract and the new contract, the value of which constitutes an essential criterion in the calculation of the amount of compensation in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this context, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the DRC to take into consideration both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation, thus enabling the Chamber to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by both his former and his new club.

32. In this regard, the DRC established, on the one hand, that the total value of the contract signed by the player with Akhisar, for the remaining contractual period, amounted to EUR 400,000. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber established that the value of the new contract concluded by the player with his new club, i.e. the intervening party, for the same period, was EUR 300,000.

33. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that bearing in mind art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, after having duly taken into account the specificities of the present case, the compensation considering the player’s both existing contract and any new contract(s) amounts to EUR 350,000, which is the average between the amounts the player is entitled to both under the contract and new employment agreement, a sum the Chamber found to be fair and proportionate.

34. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the amount of EUR 350,000 to Akhisar as compensation for breach of contract.

35. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject Akhisar’s request relating to legal expenses.

36. In addition, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. Hatayspor, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the intervening party is independent from the question as to whether the new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

37. Finally, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.

38. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against players, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from playing in official matches, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of six months.

39. Additionally, 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the player does not pay the amounts due to Akhisar within 45 days as from the moment in which Akhisar, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the player, a ban from playing in official matches, for the maximum duration of six months shall become effective on the player in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

41. Likewise, the DRC decided that, in the event that Hatayspor does not pay the amounts due to Akhisar within 45 days as from the moment in which Akhisar, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to Hatayspor, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on Hatayspor in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

42. Equally, the DRC decided that, in the event that Akhisar does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to Akhisar, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on Akhisar in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

43. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 62,500, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:

- on the amount of EUR 17,500 as from 26 April 2019 until the date of effective payment;

- on the amount of EUR 35,000 as from 26 May 2019 until the date of effective payment;

- on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

4. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amounts mentioned under point 2. above.

5. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

8. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

9. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Akhisar Belediyespor Kulübü, is partially accepted.

10. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Helder Jorge Leal Rodrigues Barbosa, has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 350,000.

11. The Intervening Party, Hatayspor, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount mentioned under point 10. above.

12. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

13. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which remittance is to be made in accordance with point 10. above.

14. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 10. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

15. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 10. above is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be restricted on playing in official matches up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of six months (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

16. The ban mentioned in point 15. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

17. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the restriction on playing in official matches for six months, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

18. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 10. above is not paid by the Intervening Party within 45 days as from the notification by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Intervening Party, the Intervening Party shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

19. The ban mentioned in point 18. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

20. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with the Code of sports-related arbitration. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS.

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

______________________________________

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer