Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16282
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 November 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Paulo Vyctor
Bento Do Vale
BY:
Stefano SARTORI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Paulo Vyctor Bento Do Vale, Brazil
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT:
Gozo F.A. - Xaghra United, Malta
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16282
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 July 2024, the Brazilian player Paulo Vyctor Bento Do Vale (hereinafter: “Claimant” or
“Player”) and the Maltese club Gozo F.A. - Xaghra United (hereinafter: “Club” or “Respondent”)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “Contract”) valid as from “the first official
training session of the Player with the Club” until “the last competitive match of the season 20242025.”
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia the following remuneration:
-
3.
EUR 1,000 gross per month as salary, payable at the end of each month
EUR 300 per month as food allowance, payable at the end of each month
The Contract further provided that
“2.4 The Club will provide the Player FREE accommodation during the duration of the contract.
The club will pay for the Player up to €50 (fifty euro) every month for his share for Water and
Electricity bill. If the Player’s share will be more than €50 (fifty euro) per month, then the
difference has to be paid by the Player. If the Player does not pay it, the Club will have the right
to deduct it from his salary. A member of the Club’s committee has the right to occasionally visit
the apartment to ensure that all the items in the apartment are kept in their original condition
[ . . . . ]”
4.
Between 30 August 2024 and 2 September 2024, the following WhatsApp message
exchange took place between the Claimant and Victor Sultana, who the Claimant describes
as the Club’s Director:
“[Victor Sultana] Hi Paolo, following a review by the club’s technical staff, we regret to inform
you that we will not be offering you a permanent contract for the upcoming season. We kindly
ask that you vacate the apartment respectfully by September 10th. We are sending this message
in writing due to communication challenges. If you require any assistance from our end, please
feel free to reach out. Additionally, please inform us one day in advance before vacating the
property.”
[Claimant] Hi Victor, as you guys terminated my contract, do I still need to go to the training
session?
[Viktor Sultana] Hi Paulo, you are not contracted with the club, so you don’t need to attend
training sessions. Do you have an idea when you will vacate the property, please?
[Claimant] About my contract, if you believe we don’t have a contract, it’s up to you and the club.
About the time, I will be able to leave-I’m looking to arrange the money for my ticket as you guys
don’t want to pay. So you provided me until the 10th.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16282
5.
On 2 September 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting
overdue payables in the amount of EUR 1,677, broken down as follows:
-
EUR 290 for 9 days’ July 2024 salary
EUR 1,000 for August 2024 salary
EUR 87 for 9 days’ July 2024 food allowance
EUR 300 for August 2024 food allowance
6.
In said default notice, the Claimant further requested the continuation of and adherence
to the employment contract through its original expiration date, and stated that “If no
response is received, it will be understood that the Respondent wishes to continue [the
Claimant]’s services under the existing contract terms. Should the Respondent fail to formally
respond and continue with the intent to terminate the contract while requesting [the Claimant]
to vacate his accommodation, it will be considered an unjustified termination by the
Respondent.”
7.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Player
remained unemployed following the termination of the Contract.
8.
The Player confirmed that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 27 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA for breach of
contract. A summary of the parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. According to the Claimant, the Club violated the Contract on a number of occasions, by
failing to pay the Player, by terminating the Contract, and by failing to remedy the default
or the termination following the Player’s notice.
11. The Claimant argued that in addition to the contractual provisions, the Respondent agreed
to cover the cost of the Claimant’s air ticket.
12. The Claimant further argued that he gave the Respondent multiple opportunities to
remedy its breach, but the Club remained unresponsive. The Claimant noted that a sixminute voice call took place between himself and the Club on 4 September wherein the
Claimant stated the Respondent offered him EUR 1,000 to withdraw his claim and leave the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16282
Club. The Claimant stated that he rejected the offer and referred the Respondent back to
his formal notice. The Claimant states that no further action was taken afterward.
The Claimant requested inter alia the following:
“VII. Prayer for Relief
In light of the substantive breaches committed by the Respondent, as set forth in this submission,
and the significant harm caused to the Claimant, the Claimant respectfully seeks the following
redress from this Tribunal:
1. Declaration of Breach:
The Tribunal is requested to issue a formal declaration that the Respondent has materially
breached the terms of the employment contract. This breach is demonstrated by the
Respondent’s failure to fulfill critical contractual obligations, particularly the failure to pay salary
and food allowance, amounting to EURO 1,677. The Claimant has adhered to his professional
duties up until the wrongful termination of the contract on August 31, 2024, and the
Respondent’s non-compliance has caused considerable detriment.
2. Compensatory Damages:
The Claimant seeks compensatory damages in the amount of EURO 13,000, reflecting the
remaining balance of the contract, which the Respondent is obligated to pay as a result of its
breach. This compensation is sought in accordance with the provisions of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as the applicable Swiss law, particularly the Swiss
Code of Obligations, which governs remedies for breaches of contract
3. Total Relief Sought:
The Claimant respectfully requests that the Tribunal issue an order compelling the Respondent
to pay a total of EURO 14,677, composed of the following:
o EURO 1,677 for the unpaid salary and food allowance due before the wrongful termination of
the contract.
o EURO 13,000 as compensation for the breach of the remaining contractual obligations,
ensuring the Claimant is made whole for the financial losses suffered due to the Respondent’s
failure to meet its contractual commitments.
This relief is sought to ensure that the Claimant receives full compensation for the financial harm
endured and that the Respondent is held accountable for its breach of contract.
4. Other Relief as Deemed Appropriate:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16282
The Tribunal is further requested to grant any additional relief it deems just and equitable, based
on the totality of the facts and evidence presented throughout these proceedings. This may
include any ancillary relief necessary to fully address the Claimant’s grievances and to secure a
fair and just resolution of the matter.
The Claimant’s request for this relief underscores the need for a comprehensive adjudication to
rectify the breaches and ensure adherence to contractual and regulatory standards within the
football industry. The Tribunal’s intervention is critical in upholding the principles of justice and
accountability in the enforcement of employment contracts.
VIII. The Requirements - On Merit
The merit of this case hinges upon a thorough juridical analysis of the binding contractual
obligations mutually undertaken by the parties, the Claimant’s unequivocal adherence to said
obligations, and the Respondent’s manifest failure to meet its legal duties under the employment
contract. This legal analysis demonstrates a stark contrast between the Claimant’s scrupulous
compliance and the Respondent’s deliberate and recurrent breaches of the agreement.
1. Establishment of Contractual Breaches:
Central to this case is the Respondent’s gross non-compliance with its contractual commitments,
notably its failure to pay the Claimant’s salary as agreed, and its subsequent unlawful
termination of the employment agreement without just cause. The evidentiary record-including
correspondences exchanged between the parties and the termination executed on August 31,
2024- unequivocally highlights the Respondent’s persistent dereliction of its obligations. Despite
multiple attempts by the Claimant to rectify these discrepancies through amicable settlement
efforts, the Respondent failed to remedy its contractual defaults, evidencing a blatant disregard
for the principles of contractual fidelity and good faith.
2. Bad Faith and Lack of Fair Dealing:
The Respondent’s conduct throughout these proceedings reveals an entrenched pattern of bad
faith. The Respondent offered an employment agreement to the Claimant, only to terminate it
without just cause in less than two months. This capricious conduct, devoid of any legitimate
legal justification, flagrantly contravenes the principles of good faith and fair dealing that are
that are enshrined in FIFA’s regulatory framework and expected in all contractual relationships.
The Respondent’s actions subvert the integrity of contractual engagements within the
professional football industry and warrant strict judicial scrutiny and redress.
3. Relief Sought from the Tribunal:
Based on the established facts, the Claimant respectfully requests that this Tribunal grant the
following remedies:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16282
o Monetary Judgment:
The Claimant seeks a formal order requiring the Respondent to remit a total amount of EURO
14,677, reflecting the unpaid salaries and compensation for breach of contract. This sum
encompasses the financial damages incurred by the Claimant as a direct result of the
Respondent's egregious breaches and unlawful termination of the employment contract.
o Imposition of Interest:
In furtherance of justice, the Claimant petitions for the imposition of an annual interest rate of
5% on all outstanding amounts, commencing from August 31, 2024 (the date of the wrongful
termination). This interest serves to redress the financial detriment suffered by the Claimant as
a consequence of the Respondent’s delayed payments and failure to meet its financial
obligations under the contract.
o Disciplinary Sanctions:
Given the Respondent's flagrant violation of multiple provisions of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, coupled with its demonstrable bad faith, the Tribunal is urged to
impose appropriate disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent. These sanctions are essential to
preserve the sanctity of contractual obligations and to deter similarly egregious conduct by other
entities within the sport.
o Release of Decision for Jurisprudential Purposes:
Finally, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Tribunal authorize the release of its decision
for jurisprudential purposes. Such release would contribute to the development of case law,
enhance legal clarity, and ensure transparency in the adjudication of employment related
disputes within football.
The Claimant’s prayer for relief is firmly grounded in substantial legal evidence and seeks to
rectify the Respondent’s multiple breaches of contract. The requested remedies not only serve to
compensate the Claimant for the financial and professional damage suffered but also reinforce
the importance of contractual integrity and adherence to the regulatory framework governing
the sport.”
b. Position of the Respondent
13. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim within the
provided time limits.
c. Unsolicited Correspondence of the Respondent
14. On 1 November 2024, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that the submission
phase of the matter was closed and no further submissions from the parties would be
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16282
admitted to the file (cf., art. 23, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal (hereinafter: “Procedural Rules”)).
15. On 8 November 2024, following the close of the submission phase, the Respondent
submitted an unsolicited correspondence.
16. On 14 November 2024, the FIFA general secretariat recalled that the parties may not
supplement or amend their submissions or requests for relief or produce new evidence
after notification of the closure of the submission phase. Therefore, the FIFA general
secretariat advised the parties that the Respondent’s correspondence would be
disregarded.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16282
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the “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 27 September 2024 and
submitted for decision on 22 November 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.
18. Furthermore, 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 (October 2024 edition), the Single Judge
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 Maltese club.
19. 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 (October 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 September 2024, the June 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
20. 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
21. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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 assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16282
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Claimant argued that the Respondent breached the Contract between the parties.
23. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Respondent indeed committed a breach of said Contract and should be held liable for its
termination.
24. Preliminarily, the Single Judge noted that considering the Respondent failed to reply to the
claim, he would base his analysis on the evidence submitted by the Claimant (cf., art. 21,
par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
25. The Single Judge recalled that the Claimant argued that, due to the Respondent’s serious
breach of the contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to the overdue payables as well
as the residual value of the Contract as compensation.
26. The Single Judge took note that the Claimant provided a copy of the Contract signed by the
Player as well as the Club President and Secretary. The Single Judge further took note of
the purported exchanges between the Player and the Club which were provided by the
Player. Considering the claim of the Claimant remained unanswered, the Single Judge
concluded that it has remained uncontested that a valid contractual relationship had
existed between the parties, wherein the Club undertook to pay to the Player the salaries
and allowances claimed.
27. With respect to the alleged termination, the Chamber observed that the Claimant had
provided WhatsApp messages and explained that the sender was the Club’s Director Victor
Sultana, which remained uncontested by the Respondent.
28. Further to the above, the Single Judge recalled that (1) the Respondent had failed to provide
a proof of payment for the outstanding amounts, (2) the message history between the
Claimant and the sender related to the Claimant’s time with the Club as well as the
contractual dates, and (3) the aforesaid message history indeed showed the Club sought
to part ways with the Player on 31 August 2024.
29. Therefore, the Single Judge was satisfied that the sender in the messages provided was
indeed the Club’s representative as identified by the Claimant, and that in addition to failing
to pay outstanding remuneration to the Player, the Club intended to, and in fact did,
terminate the parties’ relationship following the execution of the Contract without just
cause and should therefore be held liable for the breach of said Contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16282
ii. Consequences
30. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
31. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
considering the amounts established in the Contract and considering the specific requests
for relief of the player, are equivalent to EUR 1,677, corresponding to the following
contractual payments:
-
EUR 290 for 9 days’ July 2024 salary, that fell due on 31 July 2024;
EUR 1,000 for August 2024 salary, that fell due on 31 August 2024;
EUR 87 for 9 days’ July 2024 food allowance, that fell due on 31 July 2024; and
EUR 300 for August 2024 food allowance, that fell due on 31 August 2024.
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge 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
1,677.
33. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
34. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 termin. In this regard, the Single Judge established that
no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract for termination
without just cause.
35. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision provides
for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16282
36. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge 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.
37. The Single Judge recalled that the Claimant argued he should receive compensation of EUR
13,000 representing the residual value of the Contract, which presumably was calculated
by taking EUR 1,300 for salary and housing allowance multiplied by 10 months. However,
the Single Judge took note that based on the TMS information and by the Claimant’s own
filings, the Contract was set to expire 8 June 2025.
38. Therefore, per the Single Judge’s calculations, as from the 31 August 2024, the termination
date, the remaining period of the contract corresponded to 9 months (EUR 1,300 x 9 = EUR
11,700) and 8 days (EUR 1,300 / 30 x 8 = EUR 346.67).
39. As such, the Single Judge determined the residual value to be EUR 12,046.67.
40. In continuation, the Single Judge 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.
41. The Single Judge further noted that the Player was not able to mitigate his damages.
Because awarding any additional compensation would exceed the residual value of the
Contract, the Single Judge held that the amount awarded for compensation should be
limited to such residual value only (see art. 17(ii): “The overall compensation may never exceed
the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.”).
42. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 12,046.67 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
43. The Single Judge observed that the Claimant requested an ”annual interest rate of 5% on all
outstanding amounts” to be applied as from the termination date of 31 August 2024. As a
consequence, the Single Judge awarded the interest as requested, as from 31 August 2024,
until the date of effective payment.
44. For clarity, the Single Judge understood the request for “5% interest on all outstanding
amounts” to extend to the claimed compensation for breach of contract. Therefore, the
Single Judge likewise awarded the interest as requested, as from 31 August 2024, until the
date of effective payment,
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16282
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
45. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
46. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
47. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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.
48. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
49. The Single Judge 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.
d. Costs
50. 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.
51. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16282
52. Lastly the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16282
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Paulo Vyctor Bento Do Vale, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Gozo F.A. - Xaghra United, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 1,677 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 August 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 12,046.67 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31
August 2024 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16282
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 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. 16