Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by Lawyer A
RESPONDENT:
Cub A (formerly Club A), Country B
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 August 2023, the Cuntry A Player A (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the
Country B Club A., (formerly Club A) (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) concluded a
document entitled “pre-agreement” (hereinafter: the Pre-Agreement) valid for the
2023/2024 and the 2024/2025 seasons.
2.
The Claimant and the Respondent are jointly referred as the parties.
3.
According to the Pre-Agreement, the parties agreed signing an employment agreement for
the 2023/2024 season with the following conditions:
-
Duration: 2-year contract.
-
Remuneration:
-
o
EUR 100,000 net for 2023/2024 football season (EUR 20,000 as advance payment
on the signing date of the employment contract and EUR 80,000 as total salary).
o
EUR 110,000 net for 2024/2025 football season (EUR 20,000 as advance payment
on 1 August 2024 and EUR 90,000 as total salary).
o
Automobile and furnished house.
The Pre-Agreement established that the president of the Club would decide on bonuses
and other benefits.
4.
According to the Player, he travelled to Country B on 14 August 2023, but was
subsequently informed by the Club that they would no longer retain his services.
5.
On 17 August 2023, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Country A Club
B valid as from 1 September 2023 until 30 June 2024, including a monthly salary of EUR
2,000.
6.
On 14 October 2024, the player signed an employment contract with the Country C Club C
valid as from the date of the signature until 31 December 2024, including a monthly
salary of ALL 200,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 5 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
a. Claim of the Claimant
8.
In his claim, the Claimant refers to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) and argues that the Pre-Agreement concluded between the parties contained all the
essential elements (essentialia negotii) of an employment contract.
9.
The Claimant argues that he travelled to Country B on 14 August 2023. However, he
stated that after being informed by the Respondent that the employment contract was
not going to be concluded, he signed a contract with Club B on 18 August 2023.
10. In support of his position, the Claimant provides (i) a picture of himself allegedly at the
airport when allegedly he travelled to City A (Country B); (ii) a flight ticket in his name, with
a departure date on 14 August 2023 but with no departure city or arrival destination; and
(iii) media news reporting that his transfer to Country B had failed and he ended up
signing with Club B.
11. Therefore, the Claimant claims that he is entitled to compensation for breach of contract
by the Respondent, bearing in mind the following considerations:
-
The total value of the Pre-Agreement is EUR 210,000 net.
-
The total value of the contract with Club B is EUR 20,000.
-
The total value of the contract with Club C is EUR 16,184,80. Here, the Claimant
explained that his monthly salary was Currency of Country C 200,000 which according
to the Claimant is equal to EUR 2,026 net, which he then multiplied for the overlapping
period.
12. In light of the above, the Claimant states that he is entitled to receive the amount of EUR
173,815.32 net (i.e., 210,000 – 20,000 - 16,184.80).
13. Additionally, the Claimant claims he is entitled to receive an additional compensation of
EUR 24,000, corresponding to three monthly salaries of EUR 8,000 per the Pre-Agreement
(i.e., EUR 80,000/10x3).
14. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following (quoted verbatim):
Reserving all our legal rights/the other receivables and on the basis of the facts, legal arguments
that set out above, we respectfully request the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Accept the claims of Player A,
2. Order Club A (Club A) to pay in favour of the Claimant the total compensation of net EUR
197.815,52. along with the interest rate of 5% p.a. from the following due dates until the date
of effective payment;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
- EUR 173.815,52- along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 14 August 2024 until the date
of effective payment,
Net EUR 24.000.- along with its interest of 5% p.a. starting from 14 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment,
3. To establish that the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
15. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide its response to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 3 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
17. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Country A player and a Country B club.
18. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
19. The Chamber 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
20. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
21. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Claimant argues that the Pre-Agreement concluded between the parties was a valid
employment contract that was subsequently terminated by the Respondent without just
cause.
22. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine a) whether the
Pre-Agreement was indeed a valid and binding employment contract, and, subsequently,
b) whether the Respondent breached its supposed contractual obligations.
23. Since the Club did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber considered that its
decision should be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
a) Was the Pre-Agreement a valid and binding contract?
24. The Chamber first recalled that the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered valid and binding, in
addition to the consent of the employer and the employee, it must contain the essential
elements (essentialia negotii) of an employment contract, i.e., the parties to the contract
and their function, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration to
be paid by the employer to the employee.
25. In this sense, the Chamber observed that the Pre-Agreement clearly indicates that:
-
The Claimant would be employed as a footballer on a 2-year contract, starting in the
2023/2024 season;
-
The remuneration package included an advance payment, a total salary for each
season, an automobile and a furnished house;
-
The Pre-Agreement was signed by both parties.
26. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Pre-Agreement had all the essential elements
required for it to be considered a valid and binding employment contract.
b) Did the Club breach its supposed contractual obligations?
27. The Chamber then moved on to analyse whether there was a breach by the Club of its
contractual obligations.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
28. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that on 14 August 2023, he
travelled to Country B but, after being informed by the Club that the employment
contract was not going to be concluded, he signed with Club B on 18 August 2023.
29. Nevertheless, the DRC was not persuaded by the Player’s position, as follows.
30. Firstly, the Chamber pointed out that the Player failed to prove any communication with
the Respondent in relation to the alleged termination.
31. Secondly, the Chamber also observed that, although the Player provided a flight ticket
dated 14 August 2023, but it also noted that the evidence contained no information
regarding the departure location or arrival destination. Consequently, the Chamber was of
the opinion that it could not establish a connection between this evidence and the alleged
employment relationship.
32. Thirdly, despite the local media reporting that the termination occurred at the Club’s
initiative, the Player did not provide any convincing evidence to corroborate this allegation,
which is therefore of limited probative value.
33. Fourthly and finally, the Chamber emphasized that, based on the evidence on file, the
Player concluded a new contract with Club B on 17 August 2023, just five days after the
Pre-Agreement had been concluded and before any official correspondence had been
exchanged with the Respondent.
34. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that although the Pre-Agreement was valid
and binding on the parties, the Claimant could not prove the breach of contract by the Club
in a way of triggering the severe consequences of a premature termination.
35. Instead, on the basis of the (lack of) documentation on file, the DRC concluded that both
parties lost interest in pursuing their employment relationship and, therefore, that there
was a mutual departure from the moment that the Player signed with Club B.
36. Following this rationale, the Chamber determined that the Player was not entitled to any
outstanding salary, as he did not provide services to the Club, nor to compensation, as
there was no unilateral termination by the Club but rather a mutual departure.
d. Costs
37. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
38. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
39. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11