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 5 May 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed by way of circular, on 5 May 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Michele Colucci (Italy), member

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Billal Sebaihi, France & Algeria

represented by Mr Selçuk Demir

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Boluspor Kulübü, Turkey

represented by Mr Oytun Sullu

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 August 2018, the French player, Billal Sebaihi (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Turkish club, Boluspor Kulubu (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020.

2. According to clause 3 of the contract, the player was inter alia entitled to the following remuneration:

a) For the season 2018/2019:

 Turkish Lyra (TL) 385,000 as total minimum legal wage, payable in 10 equal instalments of TL 38,500 each, on the last day of the month, from 31 August 2018 to 31 May 2019;

 Flight tickets for a round trip Turkey-France, for the player, his wife and child, for the winter breach and at the end of the season

b) For the season 2019/2020;

 TL 676,500 as total minimum legal wage, payable in 10 equal instalments of TL 41,250 each, on the last day of the month, from 31 August 2019 to 31 May 2020, plus a lump sum of TL 264,000 payable on 1 July 2019.

3. The contract also stipulates that: “During his contract period, in the case of early cancellation of the contract unilaterally be the side of the player, he shall bring and pay 150.000,0 EUR NETTO to the official bank account of the club”.

4. The contract further stipulates that: “All the guarantee payments in this contract are payments to the player, if the player plays throughout whole season until the end of each football season. Therefore, in the cases, the contract is terminated without or with just cause by the player or the club or mutual termination of the contract of the player is not capable of playing due to a sickness/injury of the player get deprivation of rights or the player is banned to play football or retire from playing; The player has to refund the guarantee payments pro-rata received for the time not being served”.

5. In addition, the contract establishes that: “If the club fails to pay and of the amounts referred in this employment contract for more than 90 day, the action will be taken according to TFF Football Player’s Status and Transfers, article 28. In order to exercise the option, the player shall make a written official notification to the Club about his earnings to be paid in 30 days. The regulations and rules of TFF Football Player’s Status and Transfers will be obeyed in case of contract termination”.

6. The contract also stipulates in its art. 10 that “the player is liable to apply all his efforts and dedication for the duration of his contract actual period, agreeing on playing in every match he is called for, as well as showing up at every reasonable place with the aim of being coached according to the instructions provided by and official duty authorized by the club, making use under any of these occasions solely of the spot equipment provided by the club. Except those, he needs to carry out the duties mentioned by the TFF Professional Player’s Status and Transfers Regulations.”

7. Art.11 provided that “the player has to join to every kind of training determined by the club, and is obligated to be ready to participate on any kind of official and friendly matches”.

8. Art. 15 of the contract further provided that “the player, without the written permission or information of the club, can not received any kind of medical treatment except from the medical staff of the club. Any warrants taken from a healthcare organization except the permission of the club will be invalid, and he will be treated by the medical staff of the club, or the hospital mentioned by the club. Even if the player takes a report from any other healthcare organization, by the meanwhile period the player will be treated by the medical staff or the hospital mentioned by the club. In any kind of improper behaviour, the club can fine the player according to the disciplinary regulations, also the club can terminate the contract rightfully and unilaterally. Also if the player gets any treatment, examination or operation without the permission of the club or without the report of the medical staff, the club will no be responsible for the treatment costs, and the player can’t request the costs from the club.”

9. Art. 16 of the contract provided the following: “the player has to follow all the instructions of the medical staff of the club about the usage of pulls, medicines and other similar materials. Also the player has to notify in written the medical staff about the usage of any king of medicine in his free days, holidays or his private life.”

10. In accordance with art. 22 of the contract, “in case of having an injury or medical problem except football activities which will prevent the player from playing football, the club’s right to give disciplinary fine to the player remains hidden, and the club has the right to freeze the payments until the player is back and physically ready to play in an official match”.

11. On 9 July 2019, the player put the club in default of payment of the amount of TL 495,000, claiming that the club had not made any payments since the beginning of the contract, and giving it 7 days in order to remedy the default.

12. On 4 October 2019, the club informed the player that it had terminated his contract on 26 September 2019 and that he no longer needed to join the squad. The club further states that the player should make any further requests in front of FIFA, since he is a foreign player. The termination letter of 26 September 2019, attached to the letter of 4 October 2019, states that the player breached art. 10 and 11 of the contract, as he was absent from 3 July 2019 until 30 August 2019, missing the pre-season camp, the 1st match of the club and the training sessions, negatively affecting the performance of his peers. The club further claims that the player breached clauses 15 and 16 of the contract, since his health report and the one of his father’s death cannot be verified by the club. Based on the foregoing, the club terminated the contract with the player, due to his unauthorized absence for 2 months allegedly without the knowledge of the club.

13. On 28 October 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club for breach of contract without just cause, requesting the payment of the following amounts:

- TL 385,000 corresponding to his total remuneration for the 2018/2019 season;

- TL 676,500 corresponding to his total remuneration for the 2019/2020 season;

- EUR 300,000 as sporting and moral damages;

- Interest of 5% p.a. over all the amounts, in case they are not paid in the 30 days following the decision;

- Sporting sanctions “.

14. In his claim, the player claims that he never received any remuneration from the club since the beginning of the contract, without any valid reason.

15. He claims the club was aware of his absence during July and August 2019, due to health problems of his own as well as of his father, which eventually passed away. In this respect, he provided the following documentation:

- A medical certificated dated 3 July 2019, according to which he should rest for the following 6 days, issued by a doctor in France;

- A medical certificated dated 23 July 2019, according to which he should rest until 31 July 2019, issued by a doctor in France;

- A medical certificated dated 1 August 2019, according to which he should rest until 16 August 2019, issued by a doctor in France;

- A “warrant” issued by the club on 20 July 2019, authorizing his absence from 20 to 23 July 2019;

- A “warrant” issued by the club on 8 July 2019, authorizing his absence from 9 to 19 July 2019;

- A death statement for the father of the player, stating that he passed away on 22 August 2019 in France.

16. The player finally claims only having been informed of the termination by the club, effective as from 26 September 2019, via the club’s letter of 4 October 2019. The player also claims no further payment or reaction was received from the club since his default notice of 9 July 2019. Thus, the player claims that the club terminated the contract without just cause.

17. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against him on 16 January 2020, requesting compensation in the amount of EUR 300,000.

18. The club deemed that the player breached the contract, in particular, art. 10 and 11, by not appearing at the training ground as follows:

- Wednesday 3 July 2019 at 18:30;

- Thursday 4 July 2019 at 17:30;

- Friday 5 July 2019 at 17:30;

- Saturday 6 July 2019 at 10:00;

- Saturday 6 July 2019 at 17:30;

- Monday 8 July 2019 at 17:30;

- Wednesday 24 July 2019 at 10:00;

- Wednesday 24 July 2019 at 17:30;

- Thursday 25 July 2019 at 17:30;

- Friday 26 July 2019 at 10:00;

- Friday 26 July 2019 at 17:30

19. According to the club, the player was asked twice, on unspecified dates, to explain his absence by E-mail and Fax, however, the player did not reply.

20. In addition, the club argued that such behaviour of a player could not be tolerated and that it had a negative effect on the whole team.

21. Moreover, the club stressed that the player also breached art. 15 and 16 of the contract, as the player received unauthorized medical treatment abroad, whereas the player was obliged to have such treatment by a medical staff determined by the club.

22. In this regard, the club highlighted that the medical reports provided by the player not only are missing the medical issue, but are also silent on the treatment of the player.

23. Furthermore, the clubs stressed that there are no outstanding salaries due to the player, as the club has paid everything.

24. According to the club, it made the following payments:

25. The player entirely rejects the club’s counterclaim and confirms the argumentation put forward in his claim.

26. The player rejected as a whole the receipts presented by the club, but provides some comments in particular to some of them. In this respect, the player acknowledges that the club paid him the amount of TL 86,450 during the contract. He also acknowledges having received the amount of TL 25,000 but claims it corresponds to win bonuses due as per the contract. He equally acknowledges having received the amounts of TL 88,000 and TL 55,000 on 19 June 2018, but claims these payments should also not be deducted from the amounts owed to him since they were made before the contract entered into force on 1 August 2018.

27. As to his absence during the months of July and August 2019, the player claims he was always in contact with the club and was authorized to be absent, due to health problems of himself and of his father. Thus, the club did not have a just cause to terminate the contract on 26 September 2019, especially not after his default notice claiming unpaid remuneration of 9 July 2019 and after 2 months after he had rejoined the club in August 2019. Thus, he confirms the content of his claim.

28. On 1 March 2020, the player signed a new employment contract with the Kazakhstani club, FC Caspiy, valid as from the date of signature until 30 November 2020, as per which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of Kazakhstani Tenge (KZT) 2,090,000 (approx. TL 30,000).

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on 28 October 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (edition 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Turkish club.

3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2020) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 October 2019, the 2019 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 August 2018 until 31 May 2020.

6. The DRC recalled that in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled inter alia to the total remuneration of TL 385,000 for the season 2018/2019 and TL 676,500 for the season 2019/2020.

7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed that on 26 September 2019, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract for missing 2 months of training (between 3 July and 30 August 2019), including the preseason camp and the 1st match of the season.

8. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player, who requested TL 385,000 for the season 2018/2019, TL 676,500 for the season 2019/2020, EUR 300,000 as sporting and moral damages, as well as 5% interest on the aforementioned in case of no payment following 30 days after the notification of the decision.

9. Moreover, the DRC took note that the club lodged a counterclaim against the player, requesting the total amount of EUR 300,000 as compensation for breach of contract by the player.

10. In its counterclaim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had breached the contract by being absent on several occasions during July 2019 and that the player had received unauthorized medical treatment abroad, breaching the contract. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deemed to have no outstanding due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and provided some evidence of payments.

11. The Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in reply to the counterclaim, and in particular noted that the player rejected the counterclaim and the proof of payment provided by the club. He held that since the beginning of the contract he received TL 86,450 as salary, TL 25,000 as bonuses and that prior to the signature of the contract he received on 19 June 2018 TL 88,000 and TL 55,000. Regarding the absences, he deemed that those were known by the club as he had health issues and his father died during that summer.

12. In view of the foregoing and of the diverging opinions of the parties, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was of the opinion that the issue at stake, considering the claim and counterclaim lodged respectively by the parties against each other, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the club on 26 September 2019, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.

13. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract on 26 September 2019 due to absences of the player between 16 July 2019 and 30 August 2019. It further held that the player underwent medical treatment without any authorization of the club, breaching art. 15 and 16 of the contract.

14. In this context, the DRC observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not deny his absences but provided documentation to justify his absences. Namely, the player provided the following:

- 3 July 2019 to 9 July 2019 (medical certificated dated 3 July 2019);

- 9 July 2019 to 19 July 2019 (“warrant” issued by the club on 8 July 2019, authorizing his absence);

- 20 July 2019 to 23 July 2019 (“warrant” issued by the club on 20 July 2019, authorizing his absence);

- 23 July 2019 to 31 July 2019 (medical certificated dated 23 July 2019);

- 1 August 2019 to 16 August 2019 (medical certificated dated 1 August 2019);

- 22 August 2019 (player’s father passed away);

- 30 August 2019 (player returned to Turkey).

15. In this regard, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof, in that sense, the DRC considered the documentation provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and concluded that the player had remained in contact with the club during his absences and that said absences were at least partially covered by the authorizations of the club. Moreover, for the part not covered by the authorizations of the club, i.e. from 16 August 2019 to 30 August 2019, the DRC was of the opinion that considering the death of his father, confirmed by evidence, that part was also justified.

16. Moreover, the Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant according to which it had requested multiple explanation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as to his absences to no avail. But the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence to substantiate his allegations.

17. At the same time, the Chamber observed that on 9 July 2019, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for outstanding remuneration. And that in his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested outstanding remuneration claiming, after amending his claim, that out of TL 690,250 that should have been paid to him by the date of termination, TL 86,450 had been paid to him as salaries.

18. Remembering the content of the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in this regard, and the evidence provided by it to substantiate its allegation that no outstanding was due to the player, the DRC recalled the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof, in that sense, the DRC considered the proof of payments provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and took note that the proof of payments were in Turkish. In this regard, the DRC reiterated the content of art. 9 par.1 e) of the Procedural Rules in accordance with which petitions should be submitted with the relevant documents to the dispute in the original language and if applicable, translated into one of the official language of FIFA. In this respect, the chamber took note that the proof of payments submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in Turkish had not been translated into one of the official language of FIFA.

19. Moreover, the Chamber noted that with regard to the alleged payments, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent acknowledged receiving during the course of the contract TL 86,450 as salaries, and TL 25,000 as bonuses. Again recalling the principle of the burden of proof, the Chamber took note that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided documentation attesting of the entitlement to bonuses, while the evidence submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant could not be assessed in the absence of a translation in one of the official FIFA language. As such, the DRC was of the opinion that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations that the amount of TL 25,000 corresponded to bonuses and not to salaries.

20. As to the allegation that TL 55,000 and TL 88,000 had been paid to him on 19 June 2018, the DRC recognized that the contract having entered into force as of 1 August 2018, those amounts could not be attached to the entitlements under the employment contract and consequently were not salaries under the contract.

21. With all of the above in mind, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not discharge his burden of proof in the sense that it had not sufficiently substantiate that all the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the date of termination had been duly paid to him.

22. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that at the time of termination, i.e. 26 September 2019, TL 690,250 should have been paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and that since the Claimant acknowledged receiving TL 86,450 as salaries, leaving TL 603,800 as outstanding.

23. In this regard, the Chamber noted that consequently, at the time of termination by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was already in breach of the contract.

24. In continuation, 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.

25. In view of the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the absences of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent which were either authorized by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant or justified by the death of the father of the player, could not constitute in itself a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract, especially since the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not put in default the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in this regard.

26. Taking into account all of the above, and especially the fact that at the time of termination, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was in breach of the contract, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the club had terminated the contract on 26 September 2019, without just cause.

27. Having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

28. Taking into account that the contract was terminated on 26 September 2019, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of TL 603,800, corresponding to the residual part of the salaries that should have been paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent since the beginning of the contract until the date of termination, plus 5% interest as the date of claim, considering that the request for interest of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not specified.

29. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated 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, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

30. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that the contract did not contained such a provision regarding the termination by the club of the contract without just cause.

31. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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.

32. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until 31 May 2020, taking into account that the player’s remuneration up to 26 September 2019 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. point II. 28 above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of TL 371,250 (i.e. salaries of September 2019 to May 2020) serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

33. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

34. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed on 1 March 2020 an employment contract with the Kazakhstani club, FC Capiy, valid as from the date of signature until 30 November 2020, by means of which he was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of the equivalent of TL 30,000. The DRC noted that for the overlapping period, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had been able to mitigate his damages in the amount of TL 90,000.

35. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of TL 281,250 as mitigated compensation to the player.

36. Moreover, taking into account the facts of the case and especially the chronology of the case, the Chamber found it important to highlight that on 4 July 2019, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had put in default the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for outstanding remuneration and that at the time of termination of the contract without just cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 26 September 2019, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would himself have had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract since at that date, the equivalent of more than a dozen monthly salaries were outstanding.

37. With this in mind and taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the Chamber decided that on top of the mitigated compensation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent an additional compensation equivalent of 3 monthly salaries of the player. However, taking into account art. 17 par. 1 (ii), the Chamber reduced the overall compensation due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.

38. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of TL 371,250 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

39. 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 the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the total amount of compensation, i.e. 371,250 as of 28 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

40. As to the request for a compensation for sporting and moral damages in the amount of EUR 300,000, the DRC rejected this request in the absence of any contractual or legal basis.

41. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the DRC judge 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.

42. In this regard, the DRC pointed out 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.

43. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-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 effective on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

44. Finally, 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. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

45. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. Equally and considering that the club was, overall, found to be in breach of contract, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Billal Sebaihi, is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Boluspor Kulübü, is rejected.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of Turkish Lira (TRY) 603,800 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 28 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation in the amount of Turkish Lira (TRY) 371,250 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 28 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

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

6. 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 must pay the amounts mentioned under points 3 and 4 above.

7. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with points 3 and 4 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).

8. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with points 3 and 4 above is 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 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).

9. The ban mentioned in point 8 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

10. 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.

*****

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 appeal procedure:

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 point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. 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 (cf. point 4 of the directives).

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

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne, Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org / www.tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer