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 12 June 2020
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 June 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Saso FORNEZZI
BY:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
SASO FORNEZZI, Slovenia
Represented by Mr. Sami Dinc
RESPONDENT:
ANTALYASPOR, Turkey
Represented by Mr. Ismet Bumin Kapulluoglu
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 8 July 2013, the Slovenian player, Sasa Fornezzi (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the Turkish
club, Antalyaspor (hereinafter: Respondent or club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter:
contract) valid for the football seasons 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.
2. On 7 July 2015, the parties signed an ”Amended version”, prolonging the employment relationship
for the seasons 2015-2016.
3. On 20 May 2016, the parties signed another “Amended version” (hereinafter: Amendment),
amending the financial conditions for the seasons 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
4. The Amendment stipulated the following financial conditions:
5. On 20 December 2019, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent and requested payment of the
amount of Turkish Lira (TRY) 130,500 based on the amendment, setting a time limit of 10 days in
order to remedy the default.
6. On 26 December 2019, the Respondent answered that it has “no outstanding debts towards the
player”.
7. On 3 January 2020 the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting
payment of TRY 130,500, corresponding to bonuses due to him for the matches played on 8 April
2018 (TRY 45,000), 16 April 2018 (TRY 15,000) and 7 May 2018 (TRY 70,500). Furthermore, the
Claimant requested 9% interest p.a. “as from the due dates”.
8. In his claim, the player maintained that during the summer transfer window 2017/2018, the
Respondent hired a Belgian goalkeeper, Mr Ruud Jorge Boffin. Consequently, the Claimant did not
have a place in the first team for the matches on 7 April 2018, 15 April 2018 and 6 May 2018.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent made bonus payments for these matches in the total
amount of TRY 130,500, but failed to remit said bonus to him, even though he is entitled in
accordance with the contract.
9. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent requested to reject the claim since no outstanding debt being
due to the Claimant was due.
10. In this regard, the Respondent deemed that the evidence provided by the Claimant, i.e. bonus
schemes, as to the bonuses allegedly distributed to the team for 2 out of the 3 aforementioned
relevant matches were not approved by the Respondent’s Executive Board and as such, not paid.
Furthermore, the Respondent held that the head coach had no authority to determine bonus amounts
and to contract a debt on behalf of the Respondent.
11. Moreover, the Respondent referred to the bonus schemes as provided by the Claimant and held that
only one list had been duly signed by its “General Director” and “Team Agent” which effectively
incurred a debt to the Respondent. As such, the Respondent provided an alleged payment proof
amounting to TRY 14,250 to the Claimant dated 6 July 2018.
12. Upon being requested by FIFA to comment on the alleged proof of payment, the Claimant confirmed
having received the amount of TL 14,250 corresponding to the aforementioned bonus scheme as
announced by the Respondent. In addition, despite having not been requested to do so, the Claimant
contested the Respondent’s allegations and sustained that the coach is responsible and has the power
to set such bonuses which, in comparison to the aforementioned bonus paid corresponded to two
away wins which were crucial at the end of the 2017/1018 season for the club’s stay in the league.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred to as DRC judge) analysed
whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 January 2020 and submitted for decision on 12 June 2020.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 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, DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 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 January 2020), he is competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Slovenian player and a Turkish club.
3. Furthermore, the DRC judge 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 Player (edition June 2020), and considering that the present claim was
lodged on 3 January 2020, the January 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC
judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
submitted by the parties.
5. First of all, the members of the DRC judge recalled that, on 8 July 2013, the parties concluded a
contract, which was extended on 16 May 2016 by means of the amendment, valid for the seasons
2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
6. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent
maintaining that he was entitled to bonuses in accordance with the amendment. Consequently, the
Claimant asks to be awarded his outstanding dues of the employment contract.
7. The Respondent, for its part, rejected the claim and held that no debt remained outstanding after its
payment of TRY 14,250 on 6 July 2018.
8. Moreover, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the payment of TRY
14,250 on 6 July 2018.
9. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that the central issue in the matter at stake was to
determine as to whether the player was entitled to the additional bonus or not.
10. With the above in mind, the DRC judge proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding
the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an
allged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
11. The DRC started to analyse the content of point 5 of the Amendment, which defines the player’s
entitlement to the bonus and which remained uncontested by the Respondent. In this regard, the
DRC concluded that the player would be entitled to match bonuses, even if he is not in the squad, if
bonuses were paid.
12. In this regard, the DRC examined the documents on file and noted that the player submitted a bonus
scheme signed by the coach, which shows that bonuses were paid for the matches in question. The
DRC judge had to reject the Respondent’s argument that the approval of the club’s board was needed
for that, since the Respondent did not support its allegation with any documentary evidence in this
regard.
13. On account of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the player was entitled to receive bonuses
in the amounts of TRY 15,000, TL 45,000 as well as TRY 70,500. Taking into account the
acknowledged partial payment of TRY 14,250, the Claimant remains entitled to the amount of TRY
116,250.
14. In this context, the DRC judge considered that the arguments raised by the Respondent cannot be
considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant, in other words,
the reasons brought forward by the Respondent in its defence do not exempt the Respondent from
its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant.
15. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total
amount of TRY 116,250.
16. In addition, the DRC judge rejected the Claimant’s request for interest of 9% p.a. due to the lack of
contractual basis.
17. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, and the DRC’s long-standing jurisprudence, the
DRC judge decided to award the Claimant 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- on the amount of TRY 45,000 as from 8 April 2018 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of TRY 750 as from 16 April 2018 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of TRY 70,500 as from 7 May 2018 until the date of effective payment.
18. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.
19. 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.
20. In this regard, the DRC judge established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has
competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that,
against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban 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.
21. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge decided that, in the event that the Respondent
does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the
Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details
to the Respondent, 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 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
22. Finally, the DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction 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.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Saso Fornezzi, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Antalyaspor, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of TRY 116,250, plus interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
- on the amount of TRY 45,000 as from 8 April 2018 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of TRY 750 as from 16 April 2018 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of TRY 70,500 as from 7 May 2018 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claim by the Claimant is rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the email
address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account
to which the Respondent must pay the amount plus interest mentioned under point 2. above.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount plus interest 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 amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by
the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details
to the Respondent, the Respondent 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).
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.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777