Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4239
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luiz Ricardo
Alves
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Laurel Vaurasi (Fiji), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Luiz Ricardo Alves, Brazil
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Maritimo da Madeira, Portugal
Represented by Gonçalo Almeida
Page 2
REF FPSD-4239
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 January 2021, the Brazilian club Cruzeiro EC and the Portuguese club, Maritimo de
Madeira (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an agreement (hereinafter: loan
agreement) regarding the loan transfer of the Brazilian player, Luiz Ricardo Alves
(hereinafter: Claimant or player) for the period between 29 January 2021 and 31 December
2021.
2.
Art. 3.1.1. of the loan agreement reads as follows: “Although this temporary assignment is
free of charge, MARITIMO acknowledges that it owes to the PLAYER the net amount of EUR $
90,000.000 (ninety thousand euros), referring to the part of overdue and unpaid wage
commitments related to the employment contract between CRUZEIRO and the PLAYER, to be
paid in six equal, monthly and consecutive installments of EUR $ 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand
euros), starting the payment of 02/05/2021 and the other installments on the same days of the
subsequent months”.
3.
Art. 4 of the loan agreement states:
- “During the term of this instrument, Maritimo must pay directly to the player the net
amount of EUR 7,500, in addition to prizes and / or other charges related to Maritimo’s
employment contract”.
- “Cruzeiro will remain responsible for the payment of the wage difference found
between the amount actually received by the player paid by Maritimo and the salary
described in the employment contract between Cruzeiro and the athlete in effect until
31/12/2021.”
4.
Art. 11.2 of the loan agreement establishes: “Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out
of or in connection with this Agreement (or arising out of or in connection with the relationship
between the parties which is created by this Agreement), including any question regarding its
existence, validity or termination, may be addressed and finally resolved by the competent FIFA
deciding bodies and ultimately the Lausanne Arbitration Court for Sport (e.g. CAS-TAS). The
decision to be rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal of Sport will be final and enforceable, so that
the parties will no longer appeal to the Swiss Federal Court.”
5.
On 29 January 2021, the player and the club concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: contract) valid as from 29 January 2021 until 31 December 2021.
6.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly
salary of EUR 7,500, payable in twelve instalments between 5 February 2021 and 5 January
2022.
7.
Art. 5 of the contract establishes: “In the event of culpable or negligent breach of this contract
by the Player, he undertakes to pay MARÍTIMO SAD, as penal clause, the value of € 4.000.000,00
(four million euros), without prejudice to the civil responsibility terms of the other damages
caused to MARÍTIMO SAD.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-4239
8.
Art. 15 of the contract reads as follows: “For resolution of any dispute arising from this
contract, the Parties consider the Madeira Court the competent forum, with the express
renunciation of any other.”
9.
On 16 April 2021, Cruzeiro EC, the club and the player concluded an addendum to the
loan agreement, according to which the content of art. 3.1.1. of the loan agreement was
modified as follows:
“Cruzeiro, with regards to clause 3.1.1. specifically to the payment in the amount of € 90.000,00
(ninety thousand euros), to be paid in 6 (six) equal, monthly and consecutive instalments of €
15.000,00 (fifteen thousand euros), authorizes that these payments shall be made directly to
the player Luiz Ricardo Alves, to his bank account IBAN PT50 0018 0003 5331 8093 02030.”
10. On 23 April 2021, the player and club signed a document titled “Agreement to suspend the
sportive employment contract” (hereinafter: suspension agreement), which defined that the
contract shall be suspended as from 23 April 2021 until 30 June 2021.
11. The suspension agreement reads as follows:
[…]
“2. This suspension is made at the express Player’s request, since he pretends to go to
Brazil in order for him to undergo a surgery and to continue medical treatment / recovery
that are deemed necessary, with a medical staff of his confidence.
3. The athlete undertakes to maintain informed the Cruzeiro Esporte Clube Medical
Department and the Marítimo da Madeira Futebol, SAD, Medical Department, to whom
he shall report immediately every and any update with regards to his health, sending,
designated but not exclusively, the reports, medical exams, discharge notes that you have,
among others.
4. The athlete will assume integrally, without the possibility to be reimbursed by Marítimo
SAD, all the costs with the surgical intervention that he will undergo, as well as all the costs
incurred with the treatment, complementary diagnostic, exams, medication,
physiotherapy and any other health care provision that may be necessary, not being able
to impute any of these costs, directly or indirectly, to Marítimo SAD, since it is at the Player's
express and unilateral request that he wishes to be operated on and treated in Brazil, with
a medical staff of his trust that belongs to his club of origin, Cruzeiro Esporte Clube (as he
is temporarily loaned to Marítimo SAD) even though Marítimo SAD has reported to the
insurance company, activating the respective Labor Accidents Insurance.
Clause Second
1. During the suspension of the employment contract, the rights, duties, and guarantees
of the parties that do not presuppose the effective provision of work are maintained.
2. It is hereby established between the parties that, during the entire period of suspension
of the sportive employment contract, Marítimo is integrally relieved to pay the athlete’s
monthly remuneration, who accepts and gives his approval freely and clearly, without
being allowed to claim to any sum or compensation, be it as it may, related to the period
that the contract was suspended.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4239
3. This suspension of the employment contract does not have the effect on the term of
expiration, nor does it prevent either party from terminating the contract under the
general terms.
4. When the suspension period ends, the rights, duties, and guarantees of the parties to the
effective provision of work are restored.”
12. On 24 April 2021, after suffering a serious knee injury and after the suspension of the
contract, the player left Portugal in order to treat his injury in Brazil.
13. On 3 May 2021, the player underwent a medical examination, which showed a more
severe injury than expected (complicated ACL injury).
14. On 18 June 2021, the player contacted the club and requested information about his
missing salaries and when the insurance would pay.
15. On 29 June 2021, the club replied to the player and stated:
“The athlete returned to Brazil, as was his pretention, so there he could analyze his situation
and, if it was the case, recover. Thereunder, the athlete expressly requested Marítimo to
suspend his employment contract.
His behavior outside of the field was not the best, presenting an overweight higher than what
would be desirable for an athlete of high performance.
Due to the low performance during the season of 2020/2021 and also the fact of his
inadaptability and instability and also due to the fact that the athlete did not show interest in
continuing with Marítimo and at the Autonomous Region of Madeira, for the season of
2021/2022, we request that he would stay in Brazil, giving continuity to his career with Cruzeiro,
thus, terminating the loan agreement, immediately.”
16. On 12 July 2021, the player put the club in default and requested payment of the
instalments due from the loan agreement (5x EUR 15,000).
17. On 5 August 2021, Cruzeiro EC notified the club that it had no intention to prematurely
terminate the loan agreement and that the player will return to Portugal as soon as he is
able to do so considering his injury.
18. On 11 August 2021, the player notified the club that he was “medically cleared” and that
he is now able to return to the club. The player requested the club to issue the flight
tickets.
19. Between 13 August 2021 and 4 September 2021, the player’s agent sent several WhatsApp
messages to the club’s president requesting the club to issue the player’s flight tickets.
20. On 31 August 2021, the club notified the player of a disciplinary proceeding opened
against him due to his unjustified absence as of 1 July 2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4239
21. On 10 September 2021, the player put the club in default and requested payment of EUR
90,000, corresponding to 6 instalments of EUR 15,000, until 27 September 2021.
22. On 14 September 2021, the player sent a letter to the club rejecting the arguments for
opening a disciplinary procedure against him.
23. On 20 September 2021, the club issued its decision regarding the disciplinary proceeding
and terminated the contract with just cause, based on his absence.
24. On 27 September 2021, the club replied to the player’s default rejecting the player’s claim
for outstanding remuneration.
25. On 27 September 2021, the club lodged a claim against the player in front of the “Judicial
district court of Madeira – Labour Court” requesting payment of EUR 134,641.66 as
compensation from the player (Reference number: 4255/21.9T8FNC).
26. On 21 October 2021, a preliminary hearing was planned to be held in this procedure,
which had to be rescheduled to 10 March 2022, since the player failed to show up.
27. On 24 February 2022, the Brazilian Superior Court notified the player of the claim against
him in Portugal.
28. On 28 April 2022, Brazilian Superior Court declared that “whether or not to grant the
exequatur to Madeira’s national courts’ rogatory letter” was still under consideration.
29. According to the information in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player has not
found a new club until 31 December 2021.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 8 November 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
31. In his claim, the player requested payment of the following monies:
- EUR 75,000 as outstanding remuneration resulting from the instalments
agreed upon in the loan agreement (5x EUR 15,000, due between 5 March
2021 and 5 July 2021),
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration resulting from art. 4 of the loan
agreement and/or the contract (2x EUR 7,500, due on 5 August 2021 and 5
September 2021);
Page 6
REF FPSD-4239
-
EUR 30,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the loan agreement and the contract.
The player requested interest of 5% p.a. as of the due dates.
32. Alternatively, in case the Chamber deems only to be competent for the loan agreement,
the player claims the same amounts as mentioned above, based on the loan agreement
(as the salary was established therein as well).
33. As to FIFA’s jurisdiction, the player pointed out that the main document at the base of the
dispute is the loan agreement, which was agreed between Cruzeiro, the club and the
player, also including the essentialia negotii for the player’s contractual relationship with
the club.
34. In this framework, the player argued that the jurisdiction clause in the contract is in direct
contradiction to the jurisdiction clause in the loan agreement, which is why FIFA shall
declare itself competent.
35. The player held that the club had no just case to terminate the contract on 20 September
2021.
36. He repeatedly offered his services, which was ignored by the club, which at the time was
looking for a way to “get rid of the player”, while failing to honour its financial obligations
towards him.
37. As to the suspension, the player denies having been the one requesting it. According to
him, he was pressured by the club to sign such document.
38. The player pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings against him were based on “false
and unfounded allegations” and the termination was issued without previous warning.
39. Taking into account the above, the player held being entitled to his outstanding dues as
well as compensation for breach of contract.
40. In this context, the player held that the loan agreement defined that he is entitled to EUR
90,000, payable in 6 instalments of EUR 15,000, plus the monthly remuneration of EUR
7,500.
b. Position of the Respondent / Alternative counterclaim
41. In its reply, the club argued that FIFA is not competent due to the jurisdiction clause in
art. 15 of the contract.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4239
42. Further it pointed to the fact that it has already lodged a claim in front of the local court
in Madeira on 27 September 2021, before the present claim was lodged.
43. Alternatively, in case the DRC declares itself competent to decide the matter at hand, the
club argued that it had just cause to terminate the contract with the player on 20
September 2021 and therefore requested that the player’s claim was rejected, while
requesting payment of the following monies:
- EUR 4,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract, in accordance with the
penalty clause established in
- EUR 15,000 as a “result of the frustration of the loan agreement”
- EUR 90,000 as compensation
- EUR 24,065.76 as “expenses” incurred (insurances etc).
44. The club argued that the player failed to resume work after the suspension of the
contract, which was requested by the player, on 1 July 2021.
45. The Respondent further maintained that it acted in accordance with its regulations and
opened disciplinary proceedings against the player, which requested the club to organise
flight tickets in order to return.
46. According to the club, it was the player’s responsibility to organise the flight tickets in
order to resume work.
47. Further, the club denied that it prevented him to return to work by not issuing a certain
form regarding the entry requirements to Portugal (due to COVID-19).
48. The club held that he was absent from work for 54 days, as of 1 July 2021, and that it
therefore had just cause to terminate the contract with the player on 20 September 2021,
and that it is entitled to compensation for breach of contract.
c. Position of the player to the alternative counterclaim
49. The player rejected the club’s counterclaim and reiterated his position.
50. He insisted that FIFA is competent on the basis that the loan agreement was the main
document concluded between the parties and that the employment relationship derives
from this document rather than the contract, which was only issued for internal purposes
in Portugal.
51. The player held that the club acted in bad faith when it lodged a claim in front of a national
court on the last day of its deadline to comply with its financial obligations.
Page 8
REF FPSD-4239
52. More important, the player held that he was only made aware of the club’s claim against
him on 24 February 2022, when he was notified by the Brazilian Superior Court. Therefore,
when lodging the present claim he was not aware of a claim against him in Portugal. At
present, such proceeding is on hold.
53. As to the substance, the player pointed out that the loan agreement was not suspended
and that the club failed to comply with its financial obligations.
54. The player pointed out that he needed more time to recover from his injury than
expected, which is why he could not return to the club on 1 July 2021.
55. Further, the player held that the club had the intention of terminating the contractual
relationship with the player, which is shown by its request to Cruzeiro on 29 June 2021.
Therefore, the club did not have interest in his services anymore.
56. Moreover, the club failed to react to any of his requests and never requested him to
return to work.
57. As to the player’s remuneration, the player contested that the EUR 90,000 were indeed a
loan fee, but insisted that it was remuneration.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 2021 and
submitted for decision on 13 October 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the June 2022 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.
2.
Subsequently, the members of 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 lit.
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Brazilian player and a Portuguese club.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4239
3.
However, the members of the Chamber took notice that the Respondent contested FIFA’s
competence due to the alleged exclusive jurisdiction of the local court in Madeira in
connection with art. 15 of the contract. Further, apparently, on 27 September 2021, the
club held that it lodged a claim against the player in front of the local court in Madeira.
4.
In this context, the DRC started to analyse the content of the different agreements
between the parties on file and it noted that the loan agreement refers to dispute
Resolution through FIFA in its art. 11.2.
5.
As to the contradicting jurisdiction clauses in the loan agreement as well as the contract,
the DRC concluded that the parties agreed to submit disputes arising from the loan
agreement to FIFA and disputes arising from the contract to the local courts of Madeira.
6.
When analysing the content of the loan agreement, to which the player was a party as
well, it appears that the essentialia negotii for the employment relationship between the
club and the player were determined (salary, function and duration) and therefore, the
DRC declared itself competent to decide upon the claim based on the loan agreement.
7.
As to the litis pendens argument of the club, the Chamber duly noted that such claim in
Portugal appears to exist, since certain docuements were submitted by the club.
However, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the club did not submit the
actual claim and therefore it was not possible to assess the exact basis of such claim in
Portugal and therefore no identity of object can be established.
8.
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. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 November 2021, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
9.
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).
Page 10
REF FPSD-4239
c. Merits of the dispute
10. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
11. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute if the club had just
cause to terminate the contract on 20 September 2021, or not.
12. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse the circumstances
of said contract termination and to decide on the consequences arising thereof.
13. In this framework, the DRC noted that this matter contains a claim for breach of contract
by a player against a club, with a counterclaim of the club against the player.
14. The Chamber acknowledged the parties arguments, mainly that the club alleged that it
terminated the contract with just cause due to an absence of the player as of 1 July 2021,
whereby the player held that the club failed to remit a substantial part of his
remuneration and that he was offering his services after having recovered from his severe
injury.
15. The DRC started to analyse the circumstances of the termination. In doing so, the
Chamber noticed that the club opened a disciplinary proceeding against the player and
came to the conclusion to terminate the contract on 20 September 2021 due to his
absence. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to point out that the club
did not request the player to resume work before opening such proceeding. Moreover, it
declared to Cruzeiro that it was not interested in the player’s services anymore.
16. The player on the other side recovered from his severe injury and offered his services
various times, but to no avail. Moreover, the debt of the club towards the player was
substantial at this point.
17. In this scenario, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria
which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment
relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if
Page 11
REF FPSD-4239
there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure
the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
18. With the above in mind and after having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the
DRC concluded that a relative short absence under the circumstances of the present case,
namely the injury and recovery which was known by the club, cannot be deemed as a
substantial breach of an employment contract, capable of triggering the consequences of
an unlawful termination.
19. Therefore, and also due to the lack of any request to the player to return, the Chamber
concluded that the Respondent did not have just cause to terminate the contract on 20
September 2020.
20. In this regard, the DRC rejected the counterclaim of the club.
ii. Consequences
21. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
club.
22. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amount to the following:
- EUR 75,000 as outstanding remuneration resulting from the instalments agreed upon
in the loan agreement (5x EUR 15,000, due between 5 March 2021 and 5 July 2021);
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration resulting from art. 4 of the loan agreement
(2x EUR 7,500, salaries for July and August 2021).
23. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination,
i.e. EUR 90,000.
24. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until
the date of effective payment.
25. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
Page 12
REF FPSD-4239
the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law
of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including
in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
26. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by
the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
27. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
28. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 30,000 (i.e. the 4x EUR 7,500, as per art. 4 of the loan
agreement) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
29. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
30. In this specific constellation, after the termination of the club, the player must have
resumed his contract with Cruzeiro, as he was on loan with the club. However, the
Chamber analysed the content of art. 4 of the loan agreement, which also established
that Cruzeiro would have to pay the “wage difference” and therefore did not pay the player
a salary as such. Therefore, the player did not mitigate his damages.
Page 13
REF FPSD-4239
31. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 30,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
32. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 8 November 2021 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
33. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
34. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
35. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent
in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
36. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
37. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
Page 14
REF FPSD-4239
d. Costs
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4239
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Luiz Ricardo Alves, is partially accepted
insofar it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Maritimo da Madeira, has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, the following amount(s):
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 April 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 June 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 July 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 7,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 7,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 30,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 08
November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
Page 16
REF FPSD-4239
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-4239
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 18