Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15822
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 November 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Vinicius Gonçalves Boff
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Vinicius Gonçalves Boff, Brazil
Represented by Jorge Luis Gonçalves dos Santos
RESPONDENT:
Alsahil FC, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15822
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2024, the Brazilian player Vinicius Gonçalves Boff (hereinafter, the Claimant
or the Player), the Brazilian club Cuiabá Esporte Clube and the Saudi club Al Sahil FC
(hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded a loan agreement pursuant to which
the Player was loaned to the Respondent until 30 April 2024.
2.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), also on 1
January 2024 the Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the
Parties) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 1
January 2024 until 30 April 2024.
3.
Pursuant to Clause 5.1 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Player a
monthly remuneration of USD 7,000 net, payable by the last day of each month.
4.
Furthermore, as per Clause 5.3 of the Contract the Respondent also undertook to pay the
Player a bonus of USD 3,000 net “if the player make assist 10 goals (sic)”, “payable within thirty
days of the satisfaction by the Player of the respective condition”.
5.
On 6 April 2024, the Parties concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter, the
Termination Agreement), in accordance with which:
“I acknowledge that all my financial rights to the club have been settled and received from the
provider of a contract, monthly wages, bonuses and all financial rights for my contract, which
began on 01/01/2024 AD and ends on 30/04/2024, which I terminated early by mutual consent
between the parties, and I have no further financial rights or claims with the club, which has
terminated its liability to me to pay all my rights. This is an acknowledgement by me to receive
all my financial debts of the club and the club has no financial claims or debts to me, as of
27/09/1445 AH corresponding to 06/04/2024 AD”.
6.
On 5 August 2024, the Player put the Respondent in default requesting payment of USD
6,500 within fifteen days.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15822
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 29 August 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
According to the Player, the Club only paid his accommodation expenses in a hotel until 30
March 2024, but refused to bore the costs of the Player’s accommodation in April 2024,
and thus he was charged for these costs.
9.
The Claimant argued that the President of the Club suggested the mutual termination of
the Contract offering half of a month in exchange, to which he opposed.
10. According to the Player, on 6 April 2024 he left his hotel to buy some food, and when he
came back, he was prohibited to enter in for the lack of payment. The Player sustained that
as no one in the Club answered his phone calls, he was forced to sign the Termination
Agreement. The Player further argued that the Club sent him a driver to take him to the
Club headquarters to sign the Termination Agreement and, when he came back to the
hotel, all his stuff was left at the reception in rubbish bags, and he was not even allowed to
inspect the room in case any of his belongings were left behind.
11. According to the Player, the Parties agreed to mutually terminate the Contract in exchange
of USD 10,500, allegedly corresponding to a month and a half of his salaries, as well as USD
3,000 per the bonus agreed in Clause 5.3 of the Contract.
12. The Player sustained that the Club only paid USD 7,000 and, consequently, claimed being
entitled to USD 6,500 “regarding to the remaining payment of his agreement of the last two
salaries and the USD 3,000 bonus should have been paid in due time”. In this respect, the
Player argued having accomplished more than ten goals and/or assists.
13. The Player requested the following relief:
“a) That the Respondent be formally summoned and present their defense.
b) That the Respondent be condemned to pay the amount of USD 6.500,00 that are overdue to
the Claimant with interests and currency correction.
c) That the Respondent be condemned to pay the lawyer’s fees up to 10% of the amount paid to
the Claimant.
d) That a Transfer Ban be applied to the Respondent in case of non-payment”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15822
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 29 August 2024 and submitted for decision
on 14 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.
16. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with the art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
October 2024 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter,
the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Brazilian player and a Saudi club.
17. 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 (October 2024 edition), and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 29 August 2024, the June 2024 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15822
c. Merits of the dispute
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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 DRC emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the
facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for assessing
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim for outstanding amounts allegedly arising from a termination
agreement concluded between the Parties.
21. In this respect, the DRC observed that the Player argued having been forced by the Club to
sign the Termination Agreement, in accordance with which the Parties mutually terminated
the Contract and the Player acknowledged not having any further financial rights or claims
with the Club. Furthermore, the Chamber also noted that, according to the Player, the
Parties reached an agreement pursuant to which the Club would pay him USD 10,500,
corresponding to a month and a half of his remuneration, for the early termination of the
Contract. Lastly, the Chamber observed that, based on this purported agreement, the
Player claimed being entitled to USD 6,500 after the Club had only remitted USD 7,000.
22. The Chamber also observed that the claim remained uncontested by the Respondent, and
thus concluded that, in accordance with art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, a decision
will be made on the file.
23. In view of the above, the Chamber acknowledge that its task was to assess whether the
Player was entitled to any of the amounts claimed.
24. In doing so, the DRC initially noted that the Player did not advance any evidence as to the
allegations of duress in the conclusion of the Termination Agreement. In particular, the
Chamber deemed that the videos submitted by the Player do not confirm his allegations of
duress, and thus decided to reject the Player’s claim in this regard.
25. Likewise, the Chamber also found that, contrary to the Player’s allegations, the Termination
Agreement did not foresee that the Club undertook the obligation to pay the Player
USD 10,500 nor any other amounts. Instead, the DRC observed that the Player
acknowledged having received all his financial rights, as well as that he did not have any
further claims with the Club.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15822
26. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player failed to meet his burden of proof
as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, and thus decided that his claim shall
be rejected.
27. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC did not overlook
the evidence submitted by the Player consisting of videos filmed by himself while going to
the Club’s headquarters. In particular, the Chamber observed that, in one of the videos, the
Player explained that he had agreed to the termination of the employment relationship in
exchange for a month and a half of his remuneration as well as that, when arriving back in
his hotel, he was expulsed, and his personal belongings were in bags.
28. Nonetheless, the Chamber deemed that the videos submitted by the Player do not confirm
the Player’s allegations with respect to the alleged payment agreement either. On this note,
the Chamber further considered that there was an absolute lack of explanations in the
claim as to why the Player agreed to sign the Termination Agreement acknowledging that
he had received all his remuneration if he had decided to accept the termination of the
Contract in exchange for a month and a half, and after having received only one monthly
salary.
29. Lastly, the DRC deemed that the same conclusion shall apply in relation to the bonuses
claimed, as (i) the Player acknowledged having received all his dues in the Termination
Agreement and, in any event, (ii) he did not advance any evidence as to the alleged goals
and assists.
30. On account of the foregoing allegations, and referring to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, the Chamber concluded that the claim of the Player shall be rejected.
d. Costs
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15822
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Vinicius Gonçalves Boff, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15822
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. 9