22.12.2025 19:25
The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) Arbitration Board rejected the appeals of 29 football players who received bans ranging from 45 days to 12 months due to betting activities.
The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) Appeals Committee upheld the penalties of 29 football players who appealed their sanctions due to betting actions.
The statement made by TFF is as follows:
1. E. 2025/1056 – K. 2025/1033
The appeal of football player Ahmet Buğrahan Tuncay against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1520 - K. 2025-2026/1613 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Ahmet Buğrahan Tuncay with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
2. E. 2025/1057 – K. 2025/1034
The appeal of football player Ahmet Eren Özcelep against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1293 - K. 2025-2026/1386 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Ahmet Eren Özcelep with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
3. E. 2025/1058 – K. 2025/1035
The appeal of football player Atakan Gündüz against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1216 - K. 2025-2026/1309 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Atakan Gündüz with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
4. E. 2025/1059 – K. 2025/1036
The appeal of football player Berat Değirmenci against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1154 - K. 2025-2026/1247 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Berat Değirmenci with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
5. E. 2025/1060 – K. 2025/1037
The appeal of football player Berkay Çakır against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1152 - K. 2025-2026/1245 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Berkay Çakır with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
6. E. 2025/1061 – K. 2025/1038
The appeal of football player Berkehan Biçer against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1313 - K. 2025-2026/1406 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Berkehan Biçer with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
7. E. 2025/1062 – K. 2025/1039
The appeal of football player Buğra Şahiner against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1435 - K. 2025-2026/1528 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Buğra Şahiner with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
8. E. 2025/1063 - K. 2025/1040
The appeal of football player Burak Efe Arslan against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1263 - K. 2025-2026/1356 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Burak Efe Arslan with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
9. E. 2025/1064 – K. 2025/1041
The appeal of football player Ethem Balcı against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1264 - K. 2025-2026/1357 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Ethem Balcı with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
10. E. 2025/1065 – K. 2025/1042
The appeal of football player Hakan Olkan against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1658 - K. 2025-2026/1751 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Hakan Olkan with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
11. E. 2025/1066 – K. 2025/1043
The appeal of football player Harun Kaya against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1406 - K. 2025-2026/1499 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Harun Kaya with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
12. E. 2025/1067 – K. 2025/1044
The appeal of football player Hıdır Aytekin against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1405 - K. 2025-2026/1498 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player Hıdır Aytekin with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
13. E. 2025/1068 – K. 2025/1045
The appeal of football player İshak Kurt against the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, and numbered E. 2025-2026/1137 - K. 2025-2026/1230 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to sanction football player İshak Kurt with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty under articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT due to betting actions, thus the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously.
14.
E. 2025/1069 – K. 2025/1046
The appeal of football player İsmail Karakaş regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1267 - K. 2025-2026/1360 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player İsmail Karakaş with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
15. E. 2025/1070 – K. 2025/1047
The appeal of football player Kaan Onaran regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1318 - K. 2025-2026/1411 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Kaan Onaran with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
16. E. 2025/1071 – K. 2025/1048
The appeal of football player Kadir Mert Örentepe regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1419 - K. 2025-2026/1512 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Kadir Mert Örentepe with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
17. E. 2025/1072 – K. 2025/1049
The appeal of football player Kerem Hayta regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1112 - K. 2025-2026/1205 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Kerem Hayta with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
18. E. 2025/1073 – K. 2025/1050
The appeal of football player Kuban Altunbudak regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1495 - K. 2025-2026/1588 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Kuban Altunbudak with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
19. E. 2025/1074 – K. 2025/1051
The appeal of football player Mehmet Tosun regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1270 - K. 2025-2026/1363 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Mehmet Tosun with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
20. E. 2025/1075 – K. 2025/1052
The appeal of football player Muhammed Baltacı regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1150 - K. 2025-2026/1243 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Muhammed Baltacı with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
21. E. 2025/1076 – K. 2025/1053
The appeal of football player Muharrem Tunay Meral regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1407 - K. 2025-2026/1500 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Muharrem Tunay Meral with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
22. E. 2025/1077 – K. 2025/1054
The appeal of football player Murat Can Bölükbaşı regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1314 - K. 2025-2026/1407 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Murat Can Bölükbaşı with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
23. E. 2025/1078 – K. 2025/1055
The appeal of football player Ramazan Övüç regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1594 - K. 2025-2026/1687 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Ramazan Övüç with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
24. E. 2025/1079 – K. 2025/1056
The appeal of football player Rüştü Hanlı regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1593 - K. 2025-2026/1686 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Rüştü Hanlı with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
25. E. 2025/1080 – K. 2025/1057
The appeal of football player Tanju Çolak regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1439 - K. 2025-2026/1532 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Tanju Çolak with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
26. E. 2025/1081 – K. 2025/1058
The appeal of football player Ufuk Özcan regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1145 - K. 2025-2026/1238 was examined. As a result of the discussion;
- It was understood that there was no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to punish football player Ufuk Özcan with a 45-day deprivation of rights penalty due to betting actions in accordance with articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application was rejected and the decision was upheld, unanimously,
27. E. 2025/1082 – K. 2025/1059
The appeal of football player Yasin Davuş regarding the decision of the PFDK dated 20. 11. 2025 and numbered E. 2025-2026/1153 - K.
The appeal regarding the decision numbered 2025-2026/1246 was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It has been understood that there is no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to impose a 45-day suspension on football player Yasin Davuş due to betting actions in accordance with Articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application is rejected and the decision is upheld, unanimously,
28. E. 2025/1083 – K. 2025/1060
The appeal regarding the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, numbered E. 2025-2026/1157 - K. 2025-2026/1250 concerning football player Yunus Emre Kefeli was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It has been understood that there is no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to impose a 45-day suspension on football player Yunus Emre Kefeli due to betting actions in accordance with Articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application is rejected and the decision is upheld, unanimously,
29. E. 2025/1084 – K. 2025/1061
The appeal regarding the decision of the PFDK dated November 20, 2025, numbered E. 2025-2026/1656 - K. 2025-2026/1749 concerning football player Yusuf Emre Alyaprak was examined. As a result of the discussions;
- It has been understood that there is no error in terms of evidence, legal qualification, and determination of the penalty in the decision to impose a 45-day suspension on football player Yusuf Emre Alyaprak due to betting actions in accordance with Articles 57/2 and 13 of the FDT, therefore, the application is rejected and the decision is upheld, unanimously,
A decision has been made.