Márkó Futács v. Yeni Mersin Idman Yurdu A.S., Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Márkó Futács (Hungarian professional football player) v. Yeni Mersin Idmanyurdu Futbol A.S. (Türkiye) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/10204

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition); FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), with Swiss law applying additionally

Appealed decision

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal of 18 October 2023 (ref. FPSD-11343), grounds notified 20 November 2023

Tribunal

Hendrik Willem Kesler (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; player settlement agreement; sporting succession

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (24 February 2025). The FIFA DRC decision was set aside. Instalments due before 14 August 2021 are time-barred, later instalments are admissible, and the case was remitted to the FIFA DRC to decide on sporting succession.

Amount

Claimed: EUR 330,000 plus 5% interest under the Settlement Agreement; alternatively EUR 265,000 for instalments due from 14 August 2021. Awarded: no amount. The case was remitted to the FIFA DRC. The Alleged Successor Club sought CHF 20,000 towards its legal fees. The published award does not show the costs ruling (operative paragraphs 4 and 5 are redacted).

The dispute

After a FIFA DRC decision of 17 August 2017 in the player's favour and FIFA disciplinary sanctions, the player and his former club, Mersin Idman Yurdu Spor Kulübü (the Original Debtor), concluded a Settlement Agreement on 18 September 2018. Under it the club undertook to pay EUR 330,000 in instalments, the first due on 31 January 2019. The Original Debtor paid nothing and was dissolved on 30 June 2019 through a merger into what is now Yeni Mersin Idmanyurdu Futbol A.S. On 14 August 2023 the player claimed the full amount from that club before the FIFA DRC as the sporting successor of the Original Debtor. The DRC declared the whole claim inadmissible under the two-year time limit of Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP, counting the time limit from the date the alleged successor was constituted. On appeal the club and FIFA defended that ruling. The club also denied that it was the sporting successor and argued that it lacked standing to be sued.

Key holdings

1. The player's request to bifurcate the proceedings was dismissed. Bifurcation would not have been procedurally efficient because the admissibility of the claims for individual instalments and the club's standing were interrelated. The request for a preliminary award "on jurisdiction" was also misconceived, since CAS jurisdiction was undisputed. ¶¶ 59–61
2. There was no conflict of interest between counsel for the Alleged Successor Club and FIFA. The player did not show that Juan Crespo Ruiz-Huerta, an independent integrity expert for FIFA, had any involvement in the case. Any defect would in any event be cured by the de novo nature of the CAS appeal. ¶¶ 64–66
3. The two-year time limit of Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP applies, not the five-year limit of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. FIFA may set different limits for vertical and horizontal disputes. An agreement between the player and the club cannot extend the jurisdiction of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. ¶¶ 68–72
4. The time limit runs separately for each instalment from the date it fell due, not from a formal notice. Amounts due before 14 August 2021 are therefore in principle time-barred. Neither exception applied: there was no acknowledgment of debt and no unequivocal refusal to pay future instalments. Article 133 SCO does not apply, because all instalments are equal and there is no principal claim. ¶¶ 76–87
5. Sporting succession can move the "event giving rise to the dispute" to a date after instalments have fallen due, but never to a date before they fall due. For ongoing contracts paid in instalments, the time limit starts on the later of the instalment's due date or the date of sporting succession. Future instalments therefore need not be claimed within two years of the succession. ¶¶ 90–94
6. If there was a sporting succession, it took place when the Original Debtor merged into the Alleged Successor Club. That was more than two years before the claim was filed, so the alleged succession does not save the instalments due before 14 August 2021. The club's change of name on 4 August 2022 is immaterial. The player's new argument that he learned of the successor only then was not made in good faith. ¶¶ 101–105
7. Sporting succession, and with it the club's standing to be sued, is remitted to the FIFA DRC under Article R57 CAS Code. The DRC can investigate, including with the Turkish Football Federation, and CAS lacks such tools. FIFA Disciplinary Committee decisions on succession (FDD-14109, FDD-15539) have no erga omnes effect. The DRC is bound by the Sole Arbitrator's ruling on admissibility. ¶¶ 108–114; operative part

Procedural history

1. 17 August 2017FIFA DRC orders the Original Debtor to pay the player EUR 200,004 in outstanding remuneration and EUR 133,336 as compensation for breach of contract, both plus interest.
2. 18 September 2018The player and the Original Debtor conclude the Settlement Agreement for EUR 330,000 in instalments. The FIFA disciplinary proceedings are closed on 8 October 2018.
3. 30 June 2019The Original Debtor is dissolved after merging into the Alleged Successor Club. The Turkish Football Federation approves the merger on 13 July 2019.
4. 14 August 2023The player files a claim against the Alleged Successor Club before the FIFA DRC.
5. 18 October 2023The FIFA DRC declares the claim inadmissible as time-barred. Its grounds are notified on 20 November 2023.
6. 8 December 2023The player files a Statement of Appeal with CAS.
7. 19 January 2024Sole Arbitrator Hendrik Willem Kesler appointed and the tribunal constituted.
8. 12 April 2024Hearing by video-conference. The request for bifurcation is dismissed at the outset.
9. 24 February 2025Award: appeal partially upheld, DRC decision set aside, case remitted to the FIFA DRC.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Hendrik Willem Kesler Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Kristóf Wenczel · Mihály Kovács

For the respondent

FIFA · Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez · Umur Varat

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• sporting succession
• statute of limitations
• Article 23(3) FIFA RSTP
• event giving rise to the dispute
• dies a quo
• settlement agreement
• instalments
• time-barred
• admissibility
• bifurcation
• conflict of interest
• remittal to FIFA DRC
• Article R57 CAS Code
• erga omnes
• acknowledgment of debt
• Mersin Idman Yurdu
• Turkish football
• Article 133 Swiss Code of Obligations

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.