Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16484
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Pedro Luis De Camargo
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT:
Pedro Luis De Camargo, Brazil
Represented by Wallace Joacir Alves de Oliveira
RESPONDENT:
Centro Rec.Cult.Quinta Lombos, Portugal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16484
I. Facts of the case
1.
According to the Brazilian futsal player Pedro Luis De Camargo (hereinafter, the Claimant
or the Player), on 22 July 2024 he and the Portuguese club Club Centro. Rec. Cult. Quinta
Lombos (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded an employment contract valid
for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 seasons, i.e., until June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to the alleged contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player the following
amounts:
a) 2024/2025 season:
- Monthly remuneration of EUR 800 from August 2024 to June 2025 (i.e., total of EUR
8,800);
- EUR 600 as travel expenses, payable at the end of August 2024;
- EUR 600 as travel expenses, payable at the end of June 2025; and
- EUR 200 per month as meal allowance (i.e., total of EUR 2,200).
b) 2025/2026 season:
- Monthly remuneration of EUR 1,000 from August 2025 to June 2026 (i.e., total of EUR
11,000);
- EUR 600 as travel expenses, payable at the end of August 2025;
- EUR 600 as travel expenses, payable at the end of June 2026; and
- EUR 200 per month as meal allowance (i.e., total of EUR 2,200).
3.
On 23 July 2024, the Club announced the hiring of the Player on his official Instagram and
Facebook accounts, as well as on its website.
4.
On 20 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default, requesting, inter alia, the
following:
“We are writing to remind you of the importance of complying with the terms of the fixedterm contract signed, between [the Player] and [the Club]. This contract clearly outlines the
rights and duties of the player and the club.
In accordance with FIFA regulations, we request that any breach of contractual obligations
be remedied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notification. Failure to comply
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16484
with these terms may result in legal actions in accordance with national and international
football regulations.
We expect your adherence to the contractual obligations, including provisions regarding
remuneration, bonuses, housing, transportation, and the commission for the player”.
5.
On 24 September 2024, the Player sent an email to the Club requesting a signed copy of
the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 8 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
According to the Player, shortly after the start of the 2024/2025 futsal season, the Club
informed him that the contract could not be concluded, arguing that no valid employment
contract had been concluded.
8.
The Player sustained that the signature should not be taken as the sole element in order
for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding. In this respect, the
Player argued that “In spite the fact that no signed specimen of the contract was provided, the
club undertook all the necessary steps to hire the player, including: presenting him with an offer,
receiving him in its premises, allowing him to train with the rest of the team and procuring an
employment contract (draft) and, finally, publicly announcing the player as one of the new
signings of the club”.
9.
Accordingly, the Player sustained that a valid and binding employment contract existed
between the parties, which was ultimately terminated by the Club without just cause in
September 2024 by failing to comply with its contractual obligations.
10. The Player acknowledged that he received EUR 800, corresponding to the first month of
the Contract, i.e., August 2024, upon the alleged termination of the contract by the Club.
11. Based on the above, the Player claimed being entitled to compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 25,600, corresponding to the residual value of the contract,
including (i) the monthly salary, (ii) the meal allowances and (iii) the travel allowances.
12. The Player requested the following relief:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16484
“In view of all the above factual and legal arguments, [the Player] hereby requests the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal to:
a) Establish that the Respondent has unlawfully breached the parties’ employment
contract during the Protected Period.
b) Establish that the Claimant has unilaterally terminated the employment contract with
just cause;
c) Order the Respondent pay to the Claimant the contract at the amount of € 25.600,00
(twenty-five thousand and six hundred euros) for all his sporting and financial damages,
particularly if taken into consideration that such contractual breaches occurred during
the Protected Period, as listed below:
- Season 2024/2025: an annual net salary in the amount of € 8.000,00 to be paid in
10 equal monthly instalments; Food allowance of €2.000,00 to be paid in 11
monthly and successive instalments of €200.00; Travel fee of €1.200 (€ 600 to be
paid at the end of the 1st month and €600 to be paid at the end of the last month);
- Season 2025/2026: an annual net salary in the amount of €11.000,00 to be paid in
11 equal monthly instalments; Food allowance of €2.200,00 to be paid in 11
monthly and successive instalments of €200.00; Travel allowance of €1.200 (€600
to be paid at the end of the 1st month and €600 to be paid at the end of the last
month);
d) Order the Respondent to pay an additional compensation corresponding to three times
the monthly salary of the Player € 2.400,00 (two thousand and four hundred euros - 3
x € 800) in case a mitigation of the compensation occurs;
e) Impose a sporting sanction on [the Club] consisting on a ban from registering any new
players, either nationality or internationality, for 3 (three) registration periods, as a
consequence of having unlawfully breached the parties’ employment contract during
the Protected Period in the matter at hand;
f) Order the Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 5% per year since the moment the
due amount became outstanding”.
b. Position of the Respondent
13. The Club failed to reply to the claim despite having been invited to do so.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16484
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. 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 8 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 20 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 of the January 2025 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.
15. 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 art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC 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 Portuguese club.
16. 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. 29 of the
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
18. 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 Chamber 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16484
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club regarding the validity of an alleged employment contract,
its alleged breach and the consequences deriving thereof.
20. In this respect, the DRC noted that, according to the Player, he concluded a valid and
binding employment contract with the Club, which was ultimately terminated by the latter
when it allegedly informed the Player that the contract could not be concluded, arguing
that no valid employment contract had been entered into.
21. The DRC also noted that the claim remained uncontested by the Club, and therefore
underscored that the decision will be made based on the arguments and evidence on file
(cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
22. In this context, the Chamber considered that before addressing any potential breach of
contract and its consequences, it first had to analyse whether the document submitted by
the Player indeed constituted a valid and binding employment contract between the
parties. Accordingly, the Chamber acknowledge that it had to analyse the following
questions:
I.
Did the parties enter into a valid and binding employment contract?
II.
In such a case, did the Club unilaterally terminate the employment contract?
III. In any event, what are the consequences?
***
I.
Did the parties enter into a valid and binding employment contract?
23. The DRC started with the assessment of this first question by recalling the longstanding
and well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that dictates that in order for an
employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the consent of both
the employer and the employee (which is usually manifested by the signature to the
relevant agreement), 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.
24. In addition, the DRC further recalled that it is also a well-established jurisprudence of the
Chamber that the actual signature of the contract is not the sole element to determine
whether there was an existing contractual relationship between the parties. Instead, the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16484
validity and the enforcement of the contract should be established on the basis of a
comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions taken by the parties within the
context of their relationship. Put differently, the signature requirement is essentially the
easiest way that a party has to prove their counterparty has entered into a contract.
However, the Chamber determined that, in line with the jurisprudence of both the DRC and
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an employment agreement can be materialized
with the wish to be executed, and the signature can be understood as a requirement to
prove the club’s acceptance, but it is not the only evidence.
25. With the above, in mind, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
and underscored that it was for the Player to prove the existence of a valid and binding
employment contract from which he now claims compensation for its alleged breach.
26. The DRC then proceeded to analyse the evidence submitted by the Player in this regard.
27. After a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber observed that the
purported contract submitted by the Player included all the aforementioned essential
elements, except for the Club’s signature. In particular, the DRC noted that it contained the
Parties and their role, the duration of the employment relationship (which could be
inferred from the monthly salaries payable to the Player, i.e., a monthly remuneration from
August 2024 to June 2026) and the remuneration.
28. As to the consent of the parties, the Player’s is obvious and does not need further analysis.
With regard to the Club’s consent, the DRC considered that even though the contract was
not signed by it, it could be inferred from the other evidence submitted by the Player, which
consisted of the presentation of the Player as a new member of the Club on its Instagram
and Facebook official accounts, as well as on its website. Moreover, the Player also
acknowledged having received EUR 800 in September 2024 for August 2024, which
confirms the monthly salary for the 2024/2025 per the contract.
29. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that even though the contract at stake did not include
the Club’s signature, its consent could be clearly inferred from the evidence presented by
the Player.
30. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the Player sufficiently proved the
existence of a valid and binding employment agreement between the parties. As such, the
DRC decided that the document presented by the Player constitutes a valid and binding
employment contract which shall be considered, in the case at stake, as the contractual
basis of the present dispute.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16484
II. Did the Club unilaterally terminate the employment contract?
31. The foregoing having been established, the DRC then turned its attention to the next issue
to be tackled, namely, whether, as argued by the Player, the Club unilaterally terminated
the contract.
32. In this regard, the Chamber initially noted that, according to the Player, in September 2024,
and shortly after the start of the 2024/2025 futsal season, the Club informed him that the
contract could not be concluded, arguing that no valid employment contract had been
concluded. According to the Player, the foregoing constituted a unilateral termination
without just cause.
33. Nonetheless, the DRC noted that the Player (i) did not establish on which day the purported
unilateral termination took place and (ii) failed to submit any evidence regarding the Club’s
alleged communication informing the Player that the contract was not or could not be
concluded.
34. In fact, the Chamber noted that, on 20 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default
granting it fifteen days to adhere to its contractual obligations, “including provisions
regarding remuneration, bonuses, housing, transportation, and the commission for the player”,
i.e., until 9 October 2024. Moreover, the DRC also noted that, on 24 September 2024, the
Player requested the Club via email a signed copy of the contract.
35. Accordingly, the Chamber underscored that in his communications with the Club, at no
time did the Player denounce that any unilateral termination had occurred, but only
requested the Club to fulfil its contractual obligations.
36. Moreover, the DRC also noted that the Player acknowledged having received EUR 800 upon
the alleged termination of the contract, in September 2024. Nonetheless, the Chamber
underscored that the Player limited to argue that this payment corresponded to his salary
for August 2024, without establishing either when was this payment made.
37. Based on the above, and referring to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
considered that the Player did not present sufficiently convincing evidence in support of
his allegations, and therefore concluded that he failed to meet his burden of proof, as
stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, in demonstrating that the Club
unilaterally terminated the contract in September 2024.
38. Consequently, the Chamber determined that it was the Player who unilaterally terminated
the contract on 8 October 2024, by lodging the present claim before FIFA.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16484
III. What are the consequences?
39. Having established that the Player unilaterally terminated the contract on 8 October 2024,
the DRC proceeded to analyse if he had a just cause for doing so, only scenario that would
entitle him to the compensation claimed.
40. In doing so, the Chamber underscored that in accordance with the long-standing and well
established jurisprudence of the Chamber, only a breach or misconduct which is of a
certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. 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 there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employee to
assure the employer’s fulfilment of its contractual duties, and vice versa, such measures
must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an
employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure.
41. With the above in mind, and after having carefully analysed the aforementioned sequence
of events and the submissions of the Player, the DRC considered that the Player’s decision
to unilaterally terminate the contract appeared to be abrupt and disproportionate in light
of the breach of the Club, consisting in having failed to remit the September 2024 salary
(for which no default notice was sent) and to provide the Player with a signed copy of the
contract.
42. In other words, the Chamber considered that the Player departed from the principle of
ultima ratio, according to which the termination of a contract should be a last resort after
all other possibilities have been explored. Consequently, the DRC determined that the
Player did not have a just cause to terminate the contract, and therefore the Chamber
decided to reject his claim for compensation.
43. The Chamber further underscored that the foregoing is without prejudice to the Player’s
entitlement to any outstanding remuneration that he might be entitled to up to the
termination of the employment relationship.
44. In this regard, the DRC noted that, according to the Player, the Club only paid his monthly
remuneration for August 2024. Therefore, the full salary of September and the pro rata
amount until 8 October 2024 (date of termination) remained outstanding. Likewise, the
travel expenses which were payable at the end of August 2024, as well as the meal
allowances for August and September 2024, and the pro rata amount for October 2024,
also remained outstanding at the time of termination.
45. The Chamber again recalled that the claim remained undisputed by the Club and,
therefore, no proof of compliance regarding the payment of the aforementioned amounts
and concepts was submitted.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16484
46. Based on the above, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the
amounts that were outstanding at the time of termination, totalling EUR 2,058.06 as
detailed below:
- EUR 600 as travel expenses, payable at the end of August 2024;
- EUR 200 as meal allowance for August 2024;
- EUR 800 as monthly remuneration for September 2024;
- EUR 200 as meal allowance for September 2024;
- EUR 206.45 as monthly remuneration for October 2024 (pro rata); and
- EUR 51.61 as meal allowance for October 2024 (pro rata).
47. At this point, the DRC noted that the Player requested that the amounts be awarded net.
Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the contract did not provide that the amounts
payable by the Club to the Player would be paid as net. As a consequence, and in the
absence of a contractual basis, the Chamber decided to reject this particular claim of the
Player.
48. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the DRC decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the outstanding amounts as from their relevant due dates until the date of
effective payment, as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 800 as from 1 September 2024 (i.e., travel
expenses and meal allowance for August 2024);
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 October 2024 (i.e., monthly
remuneration and meal allowance for September 2024); and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 258.06 as from 8 October 2024 (i.e., pro rata
calculation of the monthly remuneration and meal allowance for October 2024).
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
49. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16484
50. 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.
51. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
d. Costs
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16484
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Pedro Luis De Camargo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Centro Rec.Cult.Quinta Lombos, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
EUR 2,058.06 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 800 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 258.06 as from 8 October 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16484
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16484
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. 15