Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding a dispute concerning
the player A
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Club A, Country A
Represented by Lawyer A
RESPONDENT:
Player A, Country B
Represented by Dusan Lazic
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 August 2023, the Country A club, Club A (hereinafter: the Club or the Claimant), and
the Country B player, Player A (hereinafter: the Player or the Respondent) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player, inter
alia, the following remuneration (quoted verbatim):
“Player is entitled to receive the total amount of 100.000 (one hundred thousand) Euro
for 2023- 2024 season, as given below. (Monthly minimum wage included)
The Player shall be paid Euro 34.000 (thirty four thousand) between 15.08.202331.08.2023
The Player shall be paid Euro 33.000 (thirty three thousand) between 15.01.202431.01.2024
The Player shall be paid Euro 33.000 (thirty three thousand) between 15.06.202430.06.2024”
3.
Further pursuant to the Employment Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“The Club also undertakes to provide a car to the Player during the period of his
employment contract. Traffic fines, gasoline expenses all other expenses will be paid by
the Player, except insurance expenses.”
4.
On 14 August 2023, the parties concluded a document entitled “Letter of undertaking of
vehicle” (hereinafter: Vehicle Addendum) which provided, inter alia, as follows:
“If there is a technical fault, deterioration or lube oil, fuel leaks and loosening defective
places in the vehicle, it must be checked and notified immediately to the related
authorities.
(…)
Starting from the delivery date of the car, the player accepts and agrees that the
responsibility of the vehicle belongs to him. He confirms that he is responsible for obeying
the traffic rules, signs and the Highways Traffic Law. In case of failure to comply the rules,
he undertakes full responsibility of any sort of material damages that may arise.
(…)
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
Even if the player’s contract is terminated, the player himself will be responsible for all
debts that occurred and may occur during the period that the car is under his
responsibility.
(…)
If the player does not comply with the rules mentioned in his agreement, the player is
responsible to cover all kinds of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that may occur.
If the club pays for any expenses on behalf of the player the club (…) will keep the right
to reclaim it from football player.”
5.
On 25 January 2024, a transfer agreement was concluded between the Club and Club B
(hereinafter: Club B), whereby the services of the Player were transferred to Club B in
exchange for the Club receiving EUR 150,000 by 6 May 2024.
6.
Also on 25 January 2024, the parties signed a document entitled “Vehicle Accident
Settlement Agreement” (hereinafter: the VASA), which provided, inter alia, that the Player
was involved in an accident with the company vehicle without notifying the Club and
brought the vehicle to an unauthorized mechanic without prior agreement, causing
additional need for repair. The VASA further stated that due to the Player not providing the
official accident report or details concerning the accident, the insurance coverage for the
repair of the vehicle cannot be utilised.
7.
The VASA further provided:
“This Agreement is signed on 25.01.2024 by and between;
Club A whose registered office is at *********/ ("Club")
And
Player A, a professional football Player with Country B nationality, born on **.**.**
(hereinafter referred to as "Player")
And as a Joint and Several Guarantor, Person A (T.C. No: *****)” (…)
the Player further acknowledges and commits, in advance, to paying the total amount of
damages/compensation to the Club.
(…)
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
Any dispute arising out of the interpretation, non-performance or enforcement of this
Agreement (…) shall be decided by FIFA in English with the right of appeal to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland.
(…)
In case of any disputes arising between the Club and the Joint and Several Guarantor, the
competent jurisdiction will be the City A Courts and Enforcement Offices, and the disputes
will be resolved in accordance with Country A Law.”
8.
Further in accordance with the VASA, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant EUR
25,000 “until 15th February 2024, excluding amounts related to the termination agreement.”
9.
On 26 January 2024, the parties signed a document entitled “Mutual Termination
Agreement” (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement), whereby the parties agreed to
terminate the Contract. The Termination Agreement provided:
“The parties hereby terminate all relations and disputes that may exist between them
until the Termination Date due to the early termination of the [Employment Contract]
and its annexes at the request of the Player by any means whatsoever as of the effective
date of the mutual agreement and expressly declare that they will not make any claim
against the other.
(…)
2. All due receivables of the Player until the termination date have been paid and as of
the signing date of this Protocol the Player does not have any due and unpaid
entitlement. As of the Termination Date, it has been observed that the Player's total
entitlement pursuant to the Country A Football Association Agreement signed between
the Parties is only 53.012 Euro in accordance with the prorata principle. EUR 34.000 of
the above- mentioned due amount has been paid to the Player and 19.012 Euro remains
unpaid. However by reason of this mutual termination agreement has been concluded
upon the request of the Player, the Player hereby irrevocably agree, accept and
undertakes to pay 19.012 Euro to the Club as the early termination compensation. The
Player hereby irrevocably agree and accept that the 19.012 Euro part of the abovementioned early termination compensation will be paid by the Player by waiving from
the Player's above-mentioned unpaid total amount and aforementioned amounts will
be offset against each other upon the request of the Player.”
10. On an unspecified date, according to the Club, it undertook to collect the alleged payment
of EUR 25,000 arising out of the VASA from the Player in the Country A courts.
11. On 27 October 2024, the Country A court halted the proceedings in accordance with the
Player’s objection, inter alia, to the jurisdiction based on the dispute resolution clause
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
included in the VASA, which stipulated that disputes arising from it should be decided by
FIFA, and the Country A court’s own determination.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 8 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
13. The Claimant first argued that the Respondent has an outstanding debt to the Club of EUR
25,000 arising from the VASA.
14. In this respect, the Club stated that when the Player objected to the jurisdiction of the
Country A courts over the dispute, he essentially acknowledged that FIFA had jurisdiction
over the claim.
15. Specifically, the Club contended that had the Club decided not to provide the Player with a
car as stipulated in the Employment Contract, then such a dispute could have been heard
by the FIFA DRC. Therefore, the Club concluded that the DRC should similarly have
jurisdiction to resolve a dispute arising out of damage caused by use of the vehicle.
16. The Club recalled the language and occurrences from the VASA and stated that the Player
has not yet paid the amount due.
17. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“24. In accordance with the above-mentioned facts; -with reserving our rights for the
upcoming installment- we hereby request:
- 25.000,00 -Euro (Twenty-Five Thousand Euro) as the unpaid amount, with its interest to
be accrued from 15.02.2024 until the effective date of payment (due date of the
installment)
- Judicial costs (if any)”
b. Position of the Respondent
18. In his reply, the Player argued that the second instalment of the Employment Contract was
about to fall due between the 15th and 31st of January 2024 and therefore the Club
pressured him to sign the Termination Agreement in which the parties agreed not to make
any claim against one another.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
19. The Player further disputed FIFA’s competence in the present matter, arguing that it was
an insurance-related claim, that the breach relates to traffic regulations and repairing the
car without obtaining an accident report.
20. The Player argued that the alleged misconduct was not related to his sporting activity or
the services he was supposed to render to the Club under the Employment Contract.
21. The Player noted that, should the DRC find itself competent to decide the present matter,
then the waiver of claims expressed in the Termination Agreement, which was signed after
the VASA, effectively nullified the Club’s right to claim the entitlement from the VASA.
22. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“[ . . . T]he FIFA DRC to rule as follows:
1. The claim of [the Club] is rejected
or, in the alternative,
The claim of [the Club] is inadmissible due to lack of jurisdiction;”
c. Replica of the Claimant
23. In its replica, the Club pointed out that the vehicle’s repair costs were intended to be
deducted from the Player’s receivables under the assumption that the Player would remain
with the Club through the end of the season, i.e. the full contractual term.
24. The Club argued that since the Player wanted to be transferred to the new Club, the parties
agreed to the Termination Agreement wherein the Player offset a portion of the
termination fee with the remuneration of the Employment Contract. The Club argued that
the vehicle repair cost was calculated separately from this arrangement as provided in the
VASA.
25. The Club argued that the matter at hand was not an insurance dispute but rather pertained
to a vehicle allocated to the Player due to the sporting services he was obligated to provide
under the Employment Contract.
26. The Club reiterated its arguments from the original claim and re-stated the same request
of relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
27. In his duplica, the Player argued that the VASA was signed 25 January 2024 and the
Termination Agreement on 26 January 2024, the latter being clearly intended to mutually
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
waive any claims against one another, and the Club cannot now claim amounts previously
waived.
28. The Player also highlighted that the Termination Agreement was drafted by the Club and
this any ambiguity should be interpreted against it.
29. The Player maintained however that the waiver in the Termination Agreement was clear
and questioned why the Club would not have included the reserved claim from the VASA
in the Termination Agreement or a statement that the VASA amount would be excluded
from the waiver.
30. The Player argued that the Club faces two options regarding the two agreements
(Termination Agreement and VASA): either the documents cannot be treated separately,
which would mean that the Termination agreement superseded the VASA and nullified the
prior claims, or they were entirely separate in which case the DRC lacks jurisdiction over
the dispute.
31. The Player therefore requested that the DRC either reject the claim or declare it
inadmissible on account of lack of jurisdiction.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 8 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.
33. 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 employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension.
34. In this regard, while the Chamber acknowledged that the matter at stake involves a dispute
between a County A club and a Country B player, it also noted that the Player argued that
the matter is not related to his sporting activity or to the services he was supposed to
render to the Club under the Employment Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
35. At this point, the Chamber proceeded to analyse whether this dispute was indeed an
employment-related dispute.
36. First, the Chamber reviewed the various contracts signed by the parties, and found that
indeed, there were no direct references made to the Employment Contract in the VASA, or
even to the parties’ employment relationship.
37. Specifically, the Chamber noted that the VASA was actually related to the Player’s
unauthorised conduct in connection with the method of repairing the vehicle and his
failure to provide details or reports regarding an accident involving the vehicle. From the
evidence, it seemed clear to the Chamber that this agreement was entirely separate from
the other agreements signed between the parties, which were in connection to the
Employment Contract or the termination thereof.
38. The Chamber pointed out that, in a similar vein, the Employment Contract merely
stipulated that the Club would provide a car to the Player during the contractual term and
that the Player was responsible for “Traffic fines, gasoline expenses all other expenses (…),
except insurance expenses”. Nonetheless, the Chamber underlined that the Employment
Contact made no reference to the Vehicle Addendum (or vice versa), the Player’s duty to
repair the vehicle, or any disclosures relating to accidents or the general use of the car.
39. In continuation and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber made reference to the
VASA and took note that it establishes inter alia that “Any dispute arising out of the
interpretation, non-performance or enforcement of this Agreement (…) shall be decided by FIFA
in English with the right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with its seat in
Lausanne, Switzerland’.
40. In this respect, the DRC considered relevant to highlight that even though the parties, in
application of the principle pacta sunt servanda, are free to choose FIFA as a forum for
settling their disputes, the jurisdiction of the FIFA Football Tribunal stems from the FIFA
Statutes and the Regulations. In other words, the parties’ exercise of their contractual
freedom does not form the obligation upon FIFA to hear disputes which it does not have
jurisdiction on the basis of its own rules.
41. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the matter at hand does not concern an
employment-related dispute and that, therefore, the Football Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant since it falls outside the scope of art. 22 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
b. Costs
42. 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,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Club A.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
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. 12