Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12623
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Joao Pedro Barradas Novais
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
Alexandra GOMEZ BRUINEWOUD (Uruguay/The Netherlands), member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
Joao Pedro Barradas Novais, Portugal
Represented by Duarte Costa
RESPONDENT:
Al Bataeh, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Omar Hassan Binhanifa
Page 2
REF. FPSD-12623
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 July 2022, the Portuguese player Joao Pedro Barradas Novais (hereinafter, the Claimant or the
Player) and the Emirati club Al Bataeh (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract valid until 30 June 2023.
2.
According to the Player, in the beginning of May 2023 the Club informed him about its interest in
renewing the employment relationship, and the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to
as the Parties) started conversations.
3.
On 4 May 2023, the Club’s Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter, the CEO or Mr Emad) and the
Claimant’s legal representative (hereinafter, Mr Leitao) had a WhatsApp conversation in which Mr
Leitao requested to make some changes in a draft of a contract sent by the Club.
4.
In the following hours, the Parties exchanged several WhatsApp messages regarding the draft sent
by the Club.
5.
According to the Player, on 5 May 2023 the Club sent him a final draft of the contract for his revision
(hereinafter, the Draft).
6.
According to Clause 5 of the Draft, the Club and the Player, agreed upon the following financial
benefits:
During the first contractual year 2023/2024
The player deserves a contract provider of 140,000 dollars as follows:
- A contract advance payable on 1-7-2023 at a value of $50,000.
- Contract provider payable 1-10-2023 in the amount of $45,000.
- Contract provider payable 1-1-2024 in the amount of $45,000.
- A monthly salary of 55,000 thousand dollars, paid at the end of each Gregorian month, from
1-7-2023 to 30-06-2024.
During the second contractual year 2024/2025
The player is entitled to a contract provider of 120 dollars as follows:
- A contract advance payable on 01-07-2024 at a value of 40,000 US dollars.
- Contract advance payable 1-10-2024 in the amount of 40,000 USD.
- A contract advance payable on 1-1-2025 at a value of 40000 American dollar.
- A monthly salary of $65,000, paid at the end of each Gregorian month, from 01-07-2024 to
30-06-2025.
Page 3
REF. FPSD-12623
7.
As per Clause 6 of the Draft, the Club also undertook to provide the Player with the following:
Non-Financial Benefits Traveling tickets 4 economy class tickets, round trip to and from his
country of residence each year and during the contract period.
A House
The second party is entitled to a housing allowance of 120,000 dirhams, one hundred and
twenty thousand dirhams, divided by the salary during the contractual year.
8.
In accordance with Clause 8 of the Draft,
Additional Provisions
1.- This contract comes into effect being signed by both parties, and the Committee and
federation.
16.- The contract is considered null by itself in the event that the team is relegated to the first
division, and negotiations and contracts are made on new terms and negotiations between the
two parties.
17/1.- If the first party wishes to terminate the contract during the sports season, he must pay
the second party two months' salary or the remainder of the contract period, whichever is less.
17/2.- If the second party wishes to terminate the contract during the sports season, 2,000,000
US dollars are only two million US dollars, provided that the written consent of the first party
is obtained for termination.
9.
On 6 May 2023, the Parties exchanged, inter alia, the following WhatsApp messages:
[Mr Leitao] “Good morning Director – we will be there. Shall I take the contracts printed? Or will you have
them printed? All ok with the agent contract?”.
[Mr Emad]: “Good morning dear. The contracts will be printed with me and agent contract is good”.
10. According to the Player, also on 6 May 2023 he signed the Draft.
11. On 10 May 2023, the Parties exchanged the following messages:
[Mr Leitao] “Director just a reminder that we need a copy of the signed contracts before the game – that
will also help with the motivation. Tomorrow would be ideal. But you can send by email/whatsapp”.
[Mr Emad]: “I will try my best about that”.
Page 4
REF. FPSD-12623
12. On 11 May 2023, Mr Leitao sent the following message to Mr Emad:
[Mr Leitao] “I am sorry to push but at least the contracts for Joao and Miguel we need to have signed
before the match tomorrow – we have promised this to Joao. If there is anyone else I can talk this so I
don’t bother you today let me know. But please get me the contracts signed. Ideally until tomorrow lunch”.
13. On 12 May 2023, the Parties exchanged the following messages:
[Mr Leitao] “Director good morning. I do hope you wife is feeling better. Please update on the contracts.
You can even send a scan or photo. I once again highlight that it is essential to get these before the match.
All the best for the match tonight”.
[Mr Emad]: “Please my friend, don’t press on us because of the match. We can’t do it before the match
because all conditions”.
[Mr Leitao] “I am not – I’m wishing you all the best and good luck! We talk after. Hope your wife is better”.
[Mr Emad]: “It is the important to stay in the league. And your contract is available”.
14. On 21 May 2023, the Parties exchanged the following messages:
[Mr Leitao] “Hi Emad, any news?”.
[Mr Emad]: “So sorry the club not interested in the player”.
15. On 11 July 2023, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Turkish club Alanyaspor,
valid until 30 June 2025.
16. According to this new contract, the Player is entitled to EUR 1,050,000 for the entire duration of the
contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 13 November 2023, 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
18. The Claimant stated that after the negotiations between the Parties, the Claimant “signed the
Contract with the respondent club in the hotel Pullman Sharjah facilities”.
Page 5
REF. FPSD-12623
19. The Claimant acknowledged the lack of signature of the Respondent, however, he stated that neither
FIFA nor the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) deemed the signature an essential element of the
employment contract, but a “surrounding or concluding formality”.
20. In the Claimant’s view, the Respondent's agreement to enter into a contract could be implied
through alternative indications, such as
i)
The Respondent being the one to compose it on their own letterhead,
ii)
ii) forward the Contract to the Claimant for its review, and
iii)
iii) the fact that the Respondent failed to react after several messages from the Claimant and his
representative requesting to be provided a signed copy of the agreement.
21. The Claimant sustained that “the Respondent's absence of reply following numerous messages from the
Claimant and their representatives seeking a signed copy of the agreement, should be seen as a form of
implied consent”.
22. The Claimant underlined that the Draft contained the following essentialia negotii:
• The duration of the Draft: the term of the Draft is provided in Article No. 4 “Start and End of the
Contract”, in which it clearly follows that duration is from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2025;
• The subordination of the employee to the employer: This element is provided for in the contract by
the use of the terms “professional football player” and “Club”, and by the inherent hierarchy of the
Parties;
• The personal performance: This is indirectly laid down in the contract, as a “football player’s” job is
to play football or at least to offer to play football. In addition, the Parties agreed to remuneration in
exchange for the players’ obligation to play.
• The wages: This is provided in Article No. 5 – Financial Conditions of the Contract –.
23. Having established the above, the Claimant deemed that on 21 May 2023, the Respondent
repudiated the Draft and that “this action is tantamount to unilateral termination by the club” and,
therefore, he is entitled to compensation for breach of contract.
24. The Claimant deemed that art. 17 of the Draft shall not be applied since there is a “clear and
unequivocal imbalance and disproportion between the rights and duties of both contractual Parties which
undoubtedly lead to the invalidity of the clause, which, therefore, shall be considered valid”.
25. The Claimant claimed for a net compensation of USD 1.700.000 USD, equal to the residual value of
the Draft. Moreover, the Claimant also claimed the amount of three salaries, totalling USD 180.000
as additional compensation.
Page 6
REF. FPSD-12623
26. The Player requested the following relief:
On account of all the foregoing, the Claimant respectfully requests the Chamber of the FIFA Football
Tribunal to issue a decision ruling that:
i) The “Contract of a non-national professional football player” signed on 6 May 2023 between claimant
player and respondent club, is valid and binding.
ii) The respondent club unilaterally terminated the employment contract, without just cause.
iii) The respondent club must pay to the claimant player for breach of contract the amount of $1.700.000
USD as the residual value of the contract, plus interest of 5% as of 22 May 2023 until the date of
effective payment.
iv) The respondent club must pay the to the claimant player the amount of $180.000 USD as additional
compensation as per article 17.1 i) and ii) FIFA RSTP;
In all cases:
v) Payments shall be made on a net basis, free of any taxation, the Respondent being responsible for the
filling and payment of all taxes relating to this payment due to the Claimant.
b. Position of the Respondent
27. The Respondent stated that the conversations between the Parties “confirm beyond doubt that the
players and their representatives are the ones pressuring the club to comply. He fulfilled his desires by
trying to pressure the club to sign the contract, which he confirmed. Mr. Elmekkawy said that the club is
studying the position and situation regarding whether or not to renew the player and asked Mr. Leitão
not to put pressure on the club at this critical time”.
28. The Respondent stated that the conversations show that the two Parties exchanged messages and
conversations, but they did not result in any negotiations and binding contract with emphasis on
the lack of a signature by the Club and the Player.
29. The Respondent underlined that Mr Emad warned the Player and his agent several times that he
did not have the authority within the Club to conclude the Draft himself and he was not able to sign
or stamp it, and the Draft would be submitted to the Board of Directors to find out their opinion
about it.
30. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant “signed a release of liability and clearance with the
club dated June 30, 2023 upon receipt of the last cheque, which indicates that Mr. Leitão has recently
terminated the contract and that he is aware that his contract will not be renewed”.
Page 7
REF. FPSD-12623
31. The Respondent drew the attention to the fact that on 8 November 2023, Mr Duarte, the lawyer of
the Player, sent messages to Mr Emad, requesting him to be a witness in a case, and later
“threatening, inciting, and setting up an intrigue between him and the club, and trying to dissuade him
from testifying”.
32. The Respondent underlined that “Mr Duarte admitted that he understood the position of the Club and
Mr Emad through answering him ("I understand" – "I'm aware of that") when Mr Emad told him that no
contract was made and he had no authorization to sign any contract and it's merely communications,
this leave us with fact that no contract is signed and it was just merely communication and ended without
further negotiations”.
33. The Club requested the following relief:
1. To announce the acceptance of the Respondent’s request.
2. To nullify the case because there was no evidence to support the claim.
3. To obligate Mr. Joao Pedro Barradas Novais to pay all costs of these procedures and attorney’s fees.
c.
Replica of the Claimant
34. The Claimant sustained that the Club’s CEO consistently exhibited full authority powers to negotiate
and conclude contracts, and the club never conveyed that he lacked the authority to do so.
Moreover, the Club's claimed that the alleged lack of authority of Mr Emad to negotiate and sign
contracts is contradicted by his actions and the contracts signed by other players.
35. The Claimant considered that it was false that the Parties had failed to reach an agreement, as all
the essential elements of the employment relationship were agreed upon and the Draft was signed
by the Player.
36. Regarding the conversation between the Player's lawyer and Mr Emad, the Player argued that it is
irrelevant and does not contribute to the underlying issue.
37. According to the Claimant, the Club's argument that the negotiations only reached the "contracting
stage" and did not result in a binding contract is refuted by the evidence of the negotiations,
agreements, and the signing of the Draft.
38. The Claimant insisted that there is no greater evidence to confirm the consent of the Parties than a
message verifying that the Club’s CEO said that “the contract is available”.
39. The Claimant referred to the alleged release of liability and stated that those are solely bank cheques
and the Player only requested payment for the overdue months of the previous contract.
Page 8
REF. FPSD-12623
40. The Claimant concluded stating that the Club's behaviour violates the principle of venire contra
factum proprium, as the Club’s CEO consistently acted as if he had the authority to negotiate and
sign contracts, creating a legitimate expectation for the Player that a valid employment relationship
existed.
41. The Claimant reiterated his previous requests for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
42. The Respondent insisted that the contractual relationship between the parties ended on 30 June
2023 and the Claimant received all his dues.
43. The Respondent argued that there was no contractual relationship beyond the previous contract,
but rather communications and discussions with a person who is not authorized to enter into a
contractual relationship, Mr Emad.
44. The Respondent sustained that Mr Leitao was the one who drafted the contracts and made
amendments to the Draft, indicating that he was responsible for the contractual process, not Mr
Emad.
45. The Respondent reiterated that the Claimant made veiled threats stating that the Player would not
play in a decisive match if the Draft was not provided.
46. The Respondent also sustained that during the contractual negotiation the responsibility lies with
the Player's representatives to be aware of the Club's policies and authorized personnel to conclude
contracts.
47. The Club disputed the Claimant's allegations of lying and abusive behaviour, stating that there was
no evidence to support these accusations. The Club also mentioned a previous case (FDD-16043)
where the Claimant's lawyer filed a malicious lawsuit against the Club, but the Club provided
evidence to refute the claims.
48. The Respondent filed the following requests:
a. Announcing the acceptance of the Respondent’s request that there is no contract with the Mr. Joao
Barradas Novais with Al Bataeh Club, and this cancelling the case.
b. The Claimant, player Joao Pedro Barradas Novais, must bear the fees of the lawyer assigned to the
case by the Respondents, which is the Al Bataeh Football Club Company.
c. The Claimant shall fully bear the costs of the proceedings, if any.
d. Proving the right of Al Bataeh Football Company to respond legally to the Claimant’s lawyer and his
false accusations.
Page 9
REF. FPSD-12623
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
49. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber) 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 13 November 2023 and submitted for decision on 15 May 2024. Taking into
account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
50. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (February 2024 edition), it is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Portuguese player and an Emirati club.
51. 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 (February 2024 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 13 November 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter, the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
52. 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 TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
53. 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 abovementioned 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
54. The above having been established, the Chamber took note of the fact that this is a dispute of a
player against a club concerning the termination of a contract allegedly entered into by the Parties.
Page 10
REF. FPSD-12623
55. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that, prior to establishing any potential breach of contract
and its consequences, it first had to be assessed whether the Draft could be considered a valid and
binding employment contract between the Parties.
56. The Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for
an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the
employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract,
such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and
the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
57. In this respect, the Chamber firstly noted that the Draft was not signed by the Respondent. In this
regard, and as asserted by the Player, the Chamber wished to underline that the signature is nothing
else than the most usual proof of consent. The consent of a party to enter into a contract, however,
can be interfered from other means.
58. Bearing the above in mind, the Chamber went to analyse whether there existed any other
indications from which it could be established that the Respondent had, indeed, consented on the
conclusion of the Draft.
59. Firstly, the Chamber took note of the fact that it was the Club who prepared the Draft in its own
letterheaded paper and sent it to the Player for his review. In view of the majority of the Chamber,
this was one clear indication that the Respondent was clearly interested in the continuing of the
employment relationship.
60. The majority of the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Club’s intention could also be established
from the large correspondence and messages exchanged between the Parties during the
negotiations of the Draft, by means of which, in the majority of the Chamber’s opinion, the
Respondent clearly and expressly manifested to the Claimant its intention to conclude a further
employment agreement for two additional seasons.
61. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, on 12 May 2023, Mr Emad sent a WhatsApp message to
Mr Leitao informing that “the contract is available” which, for the majority of the Chamber, was the
clear indication that the Club was willing to conclude such contract with the Player.
62. On top of that, the Chamber noted that the Draft was not simply an offer, but a document that had
the form of a contract and included all the provisions that are typically found in football employment
contracts. In other words, the Draft did not only include the essentialia negotii, but all the
agreements, pacts and provisions that would govern the employment relationship.
63. Against this background, the Chamber, by majority, considered that it was clear that the Club was
initially interested in maintaining and/or extending its employment relationship with the Player. At
some point, however, the Club lost interest in the Claimant’s services. In this respect, the Chamber,
by majority, concluded that the conduct of the Respondent is contrary to the principle of estoppel or
venire contra factum proprium. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
Page 11
REF. FPSD-12623
(CAS), to which the Chamber adhered, “where the conduct of and/or assurances given by one party has
induced legitimate expectations in another party, the first party is estopped from suddenly changing its
course of action and to act contrary to such assurances to the detriment of the second party. Such doctrine
amounts to a prohibition of inconsistent behaviour” (cf. CAS 2008/A/1699, CAS 2017/O/5264, 5265 &
5266).
64. Based on the above considerations, the Chamber, by majority, deemed that the Player indeed
demonstrated that the Parties did mutually agree upon the conclusion of an extension to the
employment relationship, and that the Respondent cannot benefit from its position of failing to
provide a signed copy of the Draft to the Player.
65. The above having been established, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent argued that its
CEO, Mr Emad, lacked the power to represent and conclude the Draft on behalf of the Club.
66. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance wit its well-established jurisprudence, the
internal proxy rule of one of the parties to a contract cannot have any legal effect on the validity of
the contract itself, unless the contracting party has been duly informed of such internal rules.
67. In the case at hand, the Chamber noted that it was undisputed between the Parties that Mr Emad
was the CEO of the Club, i.e, Mr Emad hold the highest position in the Club. Additionally, and based
on the allegations and evidence provided by the Parties, the Chamber concluded that the Club did
not demonstrate that it indeed had informed the Player as to the alleged lack of power of its CEO.
68. Consequently, the majority of Chamber was of the opinion that the developments of the case
demonstrate that the Player could assume in good faith that Mr Emad, who acted in its position of
CEO of the Club, was indeed duly authorized to act on the Club’s behalf.
69. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber, by majority concluded that the Draft shall be
considered a valid and binding contract between the Parties and the contractual basis of the claim
at hand.
70. The above having been established, the Chamber then turned its attention to the assessment as to
whether the contractual relationship was terminated without just cause by the Club, as argued by
the Player.
71. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recalled the content of art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which “A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind
(either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”.
72. The Chamber also recalled it is a longstanding and well-established jurisprudence that only a breach
or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract, i.e., only when
there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if
there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the
Page 12
REF. FPSD-12623
employee’s fulfilment of his contractual obligations, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only
be an ultima ratio measure.
73. Bearing the above in mind, the Chamber noted that the Claimant sustained that on 21 May 2023 the
Respondent repudiated the Contract when it informed him that “so sorry the club not interested with
the player”, and that this constituted the termination of the employment relationship without just
cause.
74. Taking all the above into consideration, together with what has been established in the sense that
the Club had clearly shown its interest in the continuation of the employment relationship with the
Player, the majority of the Chamber was of the opinion that, with the above message, the Player
could consider, with an adequate degree of certainty, that the Respondent had decided to terminate
the employment relationship with the Player.
75. In this context, the Chamber, by majority, determined that the Respondent had no valid justification
to do so, neither provided the Player with any justification and, consequently, the Chamber, by
majority, concluded that the Club terminated the contract without just cause, and shall
consequently bear the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
76. 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 Respondent.
77. In this respect, the Chamber initially took note of the fact that there were no outstanding amounts
due to the Player as per the Draft.
78. The above having been established, 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, 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.
79. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify 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.
Page 13
REF. FPSD-12623
80. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of Clause 17 of the Offer, which established
the following:
17/1. If the first party [the Club] withes to terminate the contract during the sports season, he
must pay the second party [the Player] two months’ salary or the remainder of the contract
period, whichever is less.
17/2. If the second party [the Player] wishes to terminate the contract during the sports
season, 2,000,0000 US dollars are only two million US dollars, provided that the written
consent of the first party [the Club] is obtained for termination.
81. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it did not
fulfil the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, and therefore could not be taken into account for establishing the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant.
82. In particular, the Chamber noted that a clause that would permit the Club to terminate the contract
against payment of two monthly instalments while, at the same time, the Player would have to pay
the Club USD 2,000,000 if it was him who decided to terminate the contract could not be deemed
proportionate at all.
83. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Claimant to the Respondent 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
84. 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 until its term.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 1,700,000 (i.e., residual value) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
85. In continuation, the Chamber verified 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 Chamber 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.
86. Indeed, the Player found new employment with the Turkish club Alanyaspor. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player is entitled to a remuneration of EUR 1,050,000 for its
entire duration, which coincides with the duration of the Draft (i.e., until June 2025). Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 1,050,000,
which, at the time of termination, corresponded to USD 1,134,525.
Page 14
REF. FPSD-12623
87. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the
case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of USD 565,475 to the Player
(i.e. USD 1,700,000 minus USD 1,134,525), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
88. On top of that, the Chamber also noted that, according to the Offer,
“The second party is entitled to a housing allowance of 120,000 dirhams, one hundred and
twenty thousand dirhams, divided by the salary during the contractual year”.
89. On account of the foregoing, and based on the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided that the Club shall also be liable to pay to the Player the sum of AED 240,000.
90. 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 21 May 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
91. 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.
92. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
93. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber 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 creditor, 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 Club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4 and 7 of the
Regulations.
94. 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.
95. The Chamber 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 15
REF. FPSD-12623
d. Costs
96. 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.
97. Furthermore, 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.
98. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the Parties.
Page 16
REF. FPSD-12623
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joao Pedro Barradas Novais, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Bateah, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
USD 565,475 and AED 240,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5% interest p.a. as from 21 May 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art.
24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF. FPSD-12623
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