Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5750
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player João William
Alves de Jesus
BY:
Daan DE JONG (The Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
João William Alves de Jesus, Brazil
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
FC Rukh, Belarus
Page 2
REF FPSD-5750
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Brazilian player, João William Alves de Jesus (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant) and the Belarusian club, FC Rukh (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract). The contract
is unclear as to its term, as it reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
I. The [Respondent] shall enter into contract Joao William Alves de Jesus to work as a
sportsman-instructor according to the system “2 + 1”:
for 2 (two) years from (nil) 2020 till (nil) 2022 inclusive;
for 1 (one) year from (nil) 2022 (nil) 2023.
by an additional agreement of the parties, which is subject to signing at least 1 (one) month
before the expiration of the second year of the contract“
2.
According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the contract was valid as from 12 March
2020 until 11 March 2022.
3.
Annex 1 of the contract provides for a salary of USD 2,325.58 payable to the player in local
currency, as well as paid accommodation for the player in the city of Brest.
4.
On 30 November 2021, the player issued a letter in Portuguese and Belarusian to the
club, which stated as follows: “Please, dismiss me on 30.11.2021 by agreement of the parties”.
The translation provided by the Claimant reads as follows: “Please, terminate on 30.11.2021
by agreement of the parties”.
5.
On 30 November 2021, the club sent a letter to the player stating as follows:
“Warrant Letter
The Company of Limited Responsibility "Football Club RUKH" confirms the existence of a debt
towards the athlete - instructor of football Joao William Alves De Jesus and undertakes to
comply with the reimbursement conditions of the debt no later than 31.12.2021.”
6.
On 15 March 2022, the player put the club in default of payment of USD 20,700, alleging
that the club had promised to pay such debt by 31 December 2021 per its warranty letter
of 31 November 2021. The player further requested 5% interest p.a. on such amount as
from 31 December 2021. He granted the club 10 days to pay the amount due, to no avail.
7.
According to TMS, the player and the Ukrainian club, FC Ingulets, signed a contract valid
as from 24 January 2022 until 24 January 2024. In the relevant transfer instruction, the
player was engaged as “out of contract.” The section “proof of last contract end date”
contains a document signed by both the player and the club, which reads as follows
(hereinafter: the termination agreement):
Page 3
REF FPSD-5750
“RUH Football Club Limited Liability Company, represented by Director Sergey A. Vorobyov,
acting on the basis of the Charter on the basis of the Charter (hereinafter - the Employer) and
a citizen – Alvis Republic of Brazil, Alvis Di Jesus Joao William (hereinafter - the "Employee"), in
in accordance with acts of the legislation of the Republic of Belarus in force have concluded
the present Agreement as follows:
1. The Parties to this Agreement, as well as to the Contract No. 34 of 12.03.2020, have mutually
agreed to terminate employment relations 30.11.2021.
2. The parties hereby certify that each party to the employment relationship have fulfilled in
full the obligations which they have undertaken, arising from provisions of the Contract No. 34
of 12.03.2020 and ensures absence of any claims to the other party of improper fulfilment of
the assumed obligations.
3. The Parties agree that from the date of termination of Contract №34 of 12.03.2020 they do
not have the right to disclose the commercial secrets and confidential information, which has
become known to them in connection with performance of their duties under the contract, as
well as to disseminate information and
other information that can cause damage to the other party.
4. By signing this agreement, the employee witnesses and warrants guarantees the deletion of
all information (documents, draft documents , other confidential information) which is stored
in the personal e – mails e-mails, personal electronic media and messengers received as a
result of as a result of work activity in the RUH Soccer Club Ltd.
5. The present agreement to the contract No.34 of 12.03.2020 is drawn up in 2 (two) copies,
one of which is kept by the Employee, the other by the Employer.
6. This Agreement to Contract No. 34 of 12.03.2020 shall enter into force on force and effect
from 30.11.2021 and is an integral part thereof”.
8.
On 13 April 2022, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding remuneration
only, seeking payment of USD 20,700, alleging that the Respondent had promised to pay
such debt by 31 December 2021 per its warranty letter of 31 November 2021. The player
further requested 5% interest p.a. on such amount as from 31 December 2021.
9.
Upon express request of FIFA for the Claimant to provide a detailed breakdown of the
amount in dispute, the player clarified the following:
“(…) the total amount of the contract signed between the parties is 55.813,92 USD, plus the
expenses for accommodation of the Claimant;
- The parties agreed to terminate the contract signed between them, as provided in the Exhibit
2, after having reached an agreement to be paid to the Claimant the amount of 20.700 USD;
- Therefore, the Respondent signed in favor of the Claimant the Debt statement, provided in
the Exhibit 3;
Page 4
REF FPSD-5750
- And the reason to not been enounced the amount of 20.700 USD, agreed between the parties
to terminate the contract, is unrelated to the Claimant;
- And can only be justified by the motivation of the Respondent, to not proceed with the
payment of such amount, by taking leverage of the lack of understanding from the Claimant
related to the Language of the country of the Respondent and the lack of legal support for the
conclusion of the contract termination;
- The Claimant doesn’t have any receipt of the amounts paid to him by the Respondent;
And the amount of 20.700 USD is due to the Claimant because it was the amount agreed
between the parties, to be paid until 31.12.2021 as provided in the Exhibit 3.”
10. In his claim, the player makes no reference to the termination agreement.
11. The Respondent, for its part, failed to reply to the claim.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 13 April 2022
and submitted for decision on 8 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the October 2021 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.
13. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 (March 2022 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 Brazilian player
and a Belarusian club.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 13 April 2022, the same edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5750
b. Burden of proof
15. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
16. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
17. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the Claimant seeks payment of outstanding
remuneration on the basis of an alleged agreement with the Respondent – and not
particularly on the basis of the contract.
18. With the above in mind, the Single Judge highlighted that the Respondent, for its part,
failed to present its response, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the
Single Judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus
accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
19. Against this background, the Single Judge found that as highlighted, under art. 13 par. 5
of the Procedural Rules a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry
the respective burden of proof. With this in mind, he deemed that it was up to the player
to prove the existence of the “agreement” on the basis of which he USD 20,700 from the
club.
20. In this context, the Single Judge turned his attention to the documentation brought
forward by the Claimant and acknowledged that the termination agreement extracted
from TMS, the warranty letter, and the letter from the player to the club, all from 30
November 2021, make no mention of the amount claimed by the player (i.e. USD 20,700).
Equally, the Single Judge underlined that the player is not claiming these monies as late
salaries, nor that the waiver included in the termination agreement (which he failed to
mention) is not valid, but that he had engaged in the narrative that he had “reached an
agreement” with the club.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5750
21. In light of the above, the Single Judge understood that the player did not meet his burden
of proof in order to demonstrate that the “agreement” was indeed concluded with the
club. In particular, the Single Judge deemed that the player could not establish based on
substantial evidence that a valid agreement by means of which the club undertook to pay
him USD 20,700 had been concluded. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the
player’s claim had no contractual basis.
22. As a last remark, the Single Judge noted that after filing the claim, the Claimant was invited
by the FIFA general secretariat to provide clarification on the amounts sought, and that
then and there the player insisted in his narrative, without filing the relevant supporting
documentation.
23. As a consequence, the Single Judge had no option but to reject the claim in its entirety.
d. Costs
24. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
25. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5750
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, João William Alves de Jesus, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-5750
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 9