FIFA - Decisión disputa Georgiadis 25102023

REF. FPSD-11495

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 25 October 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Georgios Georgiadis BY: Jorge Gutierrez (Costa Rica), Single Judge of the DRC

CLAIMANT:

Georgios Georgiadis, Greece Represented by Paraskevas Atlamazoglou

RESPONDENT:

Elazigspor, Türkiye Represented by Ercan Sevdimbaş pg. 2

REF. FPSD-11495

I. Facts of the case

1. On 31 January 2019, the Greek player, Georgios Georgiadis (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the Turkish club, Elazigspor (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 31 January 2019 until 31 May

2020.

2. On 21 February 2020, the DRC decided a dispute between the parties and awarded the player EUR 60,000 (plus interest) as outstanding remuneration and EUR 130,000 (plus interest) as compensation for breach of contract (note: decision no 19-01755/dri is on file).

3. On 14 January 2022, the parties concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: settlement agreement), according to which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following amounts: - EUR 25,000 upon signature of the settlement agreement - EUR 165,000 until 30 January 2023.

4. Furthermore, the settlement agreement established in its art. 2: “Penalty clause: The above-mentioned payment of EUR 25,000 will not be calculated in the total amount owed by the club to the football player in case the remaining credit balance

[190,000 – 25,000 = 165,000, plus interest rate] of the football player as defined in FIFA’s

decision will not be paid in total by Elazigspor till 30.01.2023”.

5. On 21 January 2022, the Respondent remitted a payment of EUR 25,000, corresponding to the first instalment of the settlement agreement.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

6. On 25 August 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Position of the Claimant

7. In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of the following monies: - EUR 165,000 plus interest; - EUR 25,000 plus interest.

8. Furthermore, the player argued that the Respondent failed to comply with the settlement agreement and that he is therefore entitled to claim EUR 25,000 as penalty. pg. 3

REF. FPSD-11495

b. Position of the Respondent

9. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged a debt to the player in the amount of EUR 99,703.52, but held that it remitted the following payments, while submitting certain receipts: - EUR 25,000 on 21 January 2022; - EUR 65,296.48 on 21 January 2022.

10. Furthermore, it argued that it has financial difficulties due to the economic situation in Turkey, the consequences of COVID-19 and due to the earthquake occurred.

c. Reaction of the Claimant to the alleged payments

11. In his reaction to the alleged payments, the player pointed out that he did not receive the payment of EUR 65,296.48 on 21 January 2022 and that the other payment was not part of his claim.

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

12. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as 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 25 August 2023 and submitted for decision on 25 October 2023. 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. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (May 2023), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Greek 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 (May 2023 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 August 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. pg. 4

REF. FPSD-11495

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 Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it 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. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

17. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties dispute the remittance of certain payments following a settlement agreement.

18. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if the player is entitled to payments resulting from a settlement agreement, including the claimed penalty.

19. In this framework, the Single Judge noted that according to the player, the club failed to remit the payment due on 30 January 2023 from the settlement agreement.

20. On the other hand, the Single Judge took notice of the Respondent’s argumentation that it remitted 2 payments. The Single Judge noted that the first payment was not part of the claim since it was already acknowledged by the player, but the payment of EUR 65,296.48 on 21 January 2022 is disputed. Having analysed the payment receipt, which refers to a different bank account than the first payment and which does not contain the name of the player or his representative and due to the fact that the player denied having received it, the Single Judge decided not to take into account the second payment. pg. 5

REF. FPSD-11495

21. It has to be noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.

Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the Respondent does not prove beyond doubt the partial payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant. Moreover, the

reasons given by the Respondent for the non-compliance with the financial obligations cannot be accepted.

22. As to the penalty agreed upon between the parties in the settlement agreement (art. 2): In this regard, the Single Judge wished to recall the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal that penalty clauses, in principle, may be freely entered into by the contractual parties and may be considered acceptable, in the event that the pertinent written clause meets certain criteria such as proportionality and reasonableness. Accordingly, it shall be added that in order to determine as to whether a penalty clause is to be considered acceptable, the specific circumstances of the relevant case brought before the deciding body shall also be taken into consideration.

23. In the specific case at hand, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the penalty of EUR 25,000 in view of the total debt of EUR 190,000 is reasonable, proportionate and stays in line with the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence. ii. Consequences

24. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 165,000 resulting from the settlement agreement as well as the penalty fee of EUR

25,000.

25. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 165,000 as from 1 February 2023 until the date of effective payment.

26. In accordance with the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence, no interest applies to penalty fees. iii. Compliance with monetary decisions

27. 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. pg. 6

REF. FPSD-11495

28. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

29. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.

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.

31. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the Regulations.

d. Costs

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties. pg. 7

REF. FPSD-11495

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Georgios Georgiadis, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Elazigspor, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s): - EUR 165,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2023 until the date of effective payment; - EUR 25,000 as contractual penalty.

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. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment

(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

7. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero Chief Legal & Compliance Officer pg. 8

REF. FPSD-11495

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 FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 pg. 9