Av. Taner Ünlü



The Dispute Resolution Board, which was established with Article 12 / A of Law No. 3813, and which is responsible for resolving the club footballer disputes arising from the contract, has been made totally dysfunctional with the change of status in the general meeting held on 29.06.2011 in Turkey Football Federation.

The authorities resulting from this law of the Dispute Settlement Board, which is solely responsible for resolving the disputes arising out of the contract in Article 12 / A of Law No. 3813, were first removed when the Law No. 5894 entered into force, and served only on the basis of the order issued by the TFF. Finally, amendments to Articles 55 and subsequent provisions of the Dispute Settlement Board of the TFF Statute have been amended and the Dispute Settlement Board has been removed from the parties to make the application obligatory. Accordingly, in order for the Dispute Resolution Board to remove the disputes, the soccer player and the club must apply to the Dispute Resolution Board together and the Dispute Resolution Board must request the settlement of the dispute together.

As a reason for the amendment made under the TFF status, amendment made in Article 59 of the Constitution on 17.03.2011 with the Law No. 6214 has been shown. With the amendment made in Article 59 of the Constitution, the following provision entered into force.

"The decisions of the sport federations concerning the management and discipline of sporting activities can only be resorted to for compulsory arbitration. Decisions of the arbitration board are final and no judicial authority can be resorted to. "

This amendment to Article 59 of the Constitution does not prevent the need for the disputes arising from the contracts to be brought before the Dispute Resolution Board or similar arbitrators or arbitration boards. Moreover, it is not obligatory for the disputes arising from the contracts to be brought to the judicial judiciary. Nevertheless, it has been shown that the main legal reason for the amendment of the statute is that the article of Law No. 6214, which contains the amendment of the Constitution, contains expressions that are inconsistent with the content of the Constitution and that the disputes arising from the contract are brought to the judiciary. Therefore, there is contradiction of the reason of the law of the law with the text of the law.

In our jurisdiction, it is necessary to determine what reason the law of origin of the laws of origin of the law is related to. It is not possible to determine how the text of the law should be interpreted through the reasons of the article. Otherwise, our Constitution gives the legislative power given by the Turkish Grand National Assembly to the authority of making legislative interpretations, which means that our Constitution does not give authority to the legislative interpretation of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Interpretation of the laws is a duty of the judge and can not go to the interpretation of the laws through the reasons of the article. For this reason, the reasons for the substance of the laws do not bind any judicial authority or persons working in areas where the law is applicable. There is no legal justification for the change in the status of the article 6214, which amended in the 59th article of the Constitution, on the grounds that the article is not related to the TFF.


When we consider the work of the Dispute Resolution Board over the past four years, 90% of the average of 1.300 applications made to the Dispute Resolution Board per year is football club dispute, 90% of which is in favor of football player. The duration of the dispute shall not exceed four months according to the Dispute Resolution Board Instruction. Therefore, the application which has to be made to the Dispute Resolution Board when the basis of the disagreements is taken into account or when the dispute settlement period is taken into consideration, has proved to be a deterrent jurisdiction in terms of the clubs that do not pay their receivables. As a matter of fact, in the first year when the Dispute Settlement Board started referencing, there were a considerable decrease in the number of applications within the next three years when three applications were submitted. The reason for this is that the decisions of the Dispute Settlement Board in a short period of time make it easier for the players to collect their receivables and start to be more precise about paying the clubs' receivables.

After the last statutory amendment, it is not possible for the clubs to agree to go to the Dispute Resolution Board for the reasons we have explained above in the dispute arising out of the contract. Because the dispute is not taken to the Dispute Resolution Board, the club will have to resort to the judiciary forbidden by the club. This means that the dispute will result much longer than the workload of the judicial courts. The Law on Civil Procedure, which regulates the judicial procedure of the judicial prosecution, does not envisage a period of four months as provided for by the Dispute Resolution Board in order to resolve such disputes. Therefore, according to the workload of the court, the dispute will be resolved between two and three years, if the way of the Court of Cassation is considered. With the establishment of the District Court of Justice in the coming months, an application for appeal is brought before the Court of Cassation. In this case, it may take more than three years to resolve the disputes in the judicial proceedings. He will have to wait three years to get a player who can not collect his money from his club and he will not be able to make a living in that period. Even if similar incidences are reflected to the judiciary from contracts to be made with other clubs during this period, the footballer will be free from economic freedom for at least three years.


If the conflict of the clubs originating from the contract before the settlement of the Dispute Resolution Board has been concluded in the local courts through the receipt case, the Supreme Court of Appeals 13. Firstly the execution of the appeal was made and if the appeal was filed as an appeal against appeal, the appeal was taken to the 12th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. After the establishment of the Dispute Resolution Board, all of these files have been resolved without going to the Court of Cassation, and finally the way to appeal to the TFF Arbitration Board was foreseen. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Board rescued the Supreme Court from an average of three hundred thousand files a year. However, with the amendment in the TFF status, it is now inevitable for the disputes to be brought to the local courts, so an average of 1.300 files per year will come to the Court of Cassation by appeal. Even the long duration of judging and the difficulty of collecting the receivables of footballers will prevent the Conflict Resolution Council from being too rigorous in paying debts as much as in the period when the Dispute Resolution Board is in charge and in charge, and thus a significant increase in the number of disputes will occur.