Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17290
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Helder Jose
Castro Ferreira
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT:
Helder Jose Castro Ferreira, Portugal
Represented by Frederico Barreira
RESPONDENT:
Anorthosis Famagusta, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17290
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 June 2022, the Portuguese player, Helder Jose Castro Ferreira (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Cypriot club, Anorthosis Famagusta (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 31 May 2024.
2.
Clause 1.3 and 1.4 of the Contract read as follows:
“1.3. The Player's remuneration shall be as follows:
1.3.1. From 31/08/2022 until 31/05/2023, a monthly gross salary of €11’498.78, a total annual
of €114’987.78 (€10’000.00 net monthly, a total annual of €100'000,00 net).
1.3.2. From 31/08/2023 until 31/05/2024, a monthly gross salary of €11*498.78, a total annual
of €114'987.78 (€10’000.00 net monthly, a total annual of €100’000.00 net).
1.4. All taxes that are payable to the Tax Department, as per the applicable Cypriot legislation,
shall be paid by the Club.”
3.
Clause 2 of the Contract read as follows:
“2.1. The present Contract is regulated by the provisions of the Standard Employment Contract,
as these have been agreed between the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the Cyprus
Footballers' Union (PASP) and as these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of the CFA
Registration and Transfer of Players Regulations.
2.2. The terms of the Standard Employment Contract constitute an integral par of the present
Contract having full and direct implementation.
2.3. The Club's Internal Regulations, as agreed between the Club and the team's captains
constitute an integral part of the present Contract, regarding matters of disciplinary procedures.
2.4. In case of conflict, the terms of the Standard Employment Contract shall take precedence
over the terms of the present Contract.
2.5. This Contract is signed by the Parties hereto in triplicate (at least) so that each signed one
constitutes an original. One of them shall be submitted by the Club to the CFA, on the Club's
expenses and each Party shall keep one original in its possession.”
4.
Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract (referred in clause 2.2 of the Contract)
read as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17290
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA.”
5.
On 30 June 2022, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a supplementary agreement
(hereinafter: the Supplementary Agreement)
6.
The Supplementary Agreement read inter alia as follows:
“WHEREAS
A.The Club Is an affiliated member of the Cyprus Football Association and
B.The player is a professional football player and
C.The parties have entered into an agreement for the employment of the Player by Anorthosis
Famagusta for the period 28/06/2022 until 31/05/2024 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Employment Agreement")
The parties wish to enter into the present private agreement.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1.The Club will pay to the Player, for the period starting 31/08/2022 and ending 31/05/2023 the
additional amount of €120.000 (one hundred and twenty thousand euro) net in stages and
subject to the terms of the present agreement, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments of €12.000
(twelve thousand euro) net.
2.The Club will pay to the Player, for the period starting 31/08/2023 and ending 31/05/2024 the
additional amount of €120.000 (one hundred and twenty thousand euro) net in stages and
subject to the terms of the present agreement, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments of €12.000
(twelve thousand euro) net.
3.Additionally, the Player will receive an annual amount of €10.000 (ten thousand euro) for
season 2022-23, on or before 10/8/2022, in order to cover his personal expenses like housing
and car rental
4.Additionally, the Player will receive an annual amount of €10.000 (ten thousand euro) for
season 2023-24 in 10 (ten) instalments of €1.000 (one thousand euro), in order to cover his
personal expenses like housing and car rental.
5.The Club will provide to the Player 2 (two) round-trips airline tickets to be used twice a year,
Cyprus-Portugal-Cyprus, booked via the Club's official travel agent.
[…]
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17290
8. Goal Scoring/Assist Bonus: The Player will receive an extra bonus (maximum €15.000) for
scoring goals or giving assists that result to goals, as follows:
8.1.1. €500 (five hundred euro) for every goal he scores or assists he gives that results to goal.
8.1.2. €5.000 (five thousand euro) for scoring or giving assists that resulted to 10 (ten) goals.
8.1.3. €5.000 (five thousand euro) extra for scoring or giving assists that resulted to 15 (fifteen)
goals
8.1.4. €5.000 (five thousand euro) for scoring or giving assists that resulted to 20 (twenty)
goals.
[…]
TERMINATION
13. It is explicitly agreed that the present contract will expire without any other formality on the
date set at paragraph/clause "1" of the employment Agreement or by mutual consent
documented and dully signed by both Parties at any time.
[…]
OTHER CLAUSES
14. All and every disputes the Parties explicitly and irrevocably agree that will be introduced
exclusively ("exclusive agreed jurisdiction") before the competent authority and/or committee
and/or body of the Cyprus FA. Any decision of the competent committee and/or authority and/or
body of the Cyprus FA might be appealed only before Court of Arbitration of Sporty based In
Lausanne, Switzerland by a Panel consisting of one (1) member and using the English language.
The Regulations of FIFA and Cyprus FA and the legislation of Republic of Cyprus will be used by
the hearing committees at all stages […]”
7.
On 20 June 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default requesting payment of EUR
66,000 net corresponding to the salaries of March, April and May 2023 according to the
Contract and Supplementary Agreement and granted the Respondent a 15-day deadline.
8.
On 2 July 2023, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a Payment Plan Agreement
(hereinafter: the Payment Plan). The Payment Plan read inter alia as follows:
“3. The amount due to the Player shall be settled and paid by the Club as follows:
3.1. € 22.000 (twenty-two thousand euro) or before 3/7/2023.
3.2. € 22.200 (twenty-two thousand euro) or before 14/7/2023.
3.3. € 22.000 (twenty-two thousand euro) or before 31/7/2023.
3.4. € 10.000 (twenty-two thousand euro) or before 15/8/2023.
3.4. If the Club fails to make any of the above payments by the due date, an immediate one time
penalty of €25.000,00 (twenty-five thousand euros) will apply on the day following the due date
and the Club recognize the Player the right to terminate the employment agreement with only a
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17290
written communication from the Player.
[…]
5. Disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the FIFA DRC, as the competent first-instance
body with regard to disputes of an internation dimension, pursuant to the relevant provisions of
the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.”
9.
On 3 July 2023, the Club paid the Player EUR 22,000.
10. On 7 August 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, requesting payment of EUR
79,000 net. This amount corresponded to: (i) EUR 22,000 in outstanding salaries in
accordance with the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement; (ii) EUR 54,000 as the
2nd, 3rd, and 4th instalments as per the Payment Plan; and (iii) a penalty of EUR 25,000 as
per the Payment Plan. The Claimant granted the Respondent a deadline of 15 days.
11. On an unspecified date, the Club paid the Player EUR 22,000.
12. On 3 April 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default requesting payment of EUR
139,000 net. This amount corresponded to (i) EUR 32,000 net as the 3rd and 4th installments
of the Payment Plan ; (ii) a penalty of EUR 25,000 as per the Payment Plan; and (iii) EUR
82,000 net “13.000€/net (part of December 2023) [sic]; 23.000€/net (January 2023) [sic];
23.000€/net (February 2023) [sic]; 23.000€/net (March 2023) [sic]”. The Claimant granted the
Respondent a deadline of 15 days.
13. On 23 April 2024, the Claimant sent a termination notice to the Respondent mentioning
that the amounts claimed in his default remained unpaid.
14. On 15 May 2024, the Claimant sent a correspondence to the Respondent mentioning that
he would wait until 30 May 2024 for the payment or a proposal from the Respondent to
avoid any dispute.
15. On 17 June 2024 (i.e., after the expiry of the Contract), the Claimant and the Armenian club,
Noah Football Club concluded an employment contract, valid as from 22 June 2024 to the
end of the 2025/2026 season.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17290
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 29 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
17. The Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract and requested
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
18. As to competence, the Claimant indicated that “being a dispute between a player and a club
with an international dimension, Hélder has the right to request the FIFA Tribunal to recognize
that Hélder terminated the employment agreement with Anorthosis with just cause just cause
for outstanding salaries”.
19. The Claimant requested the following request for relief:
“In these terms, the present proceeding shall be decided as proven and well founded and
consequently, we request the FIFA Tribunal:
a) to recognize that Hélder terminated the employment agreement dated from 28th June 2022
for two sports seasons (2022/2023 and 2023/2024) with Anorthosis with just cause just cause
for outstanding salaries;
b) consequently, condemn Anorthosis to pay Hélder the total net amount of €185.000,00 (one
hundred, eighty-five thousand euros) as following:
Sport season 2022/2023:
•
€22.000,00 (twenty-two thousand euros) - 3rd installment of the Paymente Plan
Agreement (clause 3.3 exhibit 4) due on 31.07.2023;
•
€10.000,00 (ten thousand euros) – 4th installment of the Paymente Plan Agreement
(clause 3.4 exhibit 4) due on 15.08.2023);
•
€25.000,00 (twenty-five thousand euros) - penalty clause of the Paymente Plan
Agreement (clause 3.4 (3.5) exhibit 4) due in the day after of failure payments, in case,
15.07.2023.
Sport season 2023/2024:
•
€13.000,00 (thirteen thousand euros) - part of December 2023 salary;
•
€23.000,00 (twenty-three thousand euros) - January 2024 salary;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17290
•
€23.000,00 (twenty-three thousand euros) - February 2024 salary;
•
€23.000,00 (twenty-three thousand euros) - March 2024 salary;
•
€23.000,00 (twenty-three thousand euros) - April 2024 salary;
•
€23.000,00 (twenty-three thousand euros) - May 2024 salary;
c) to determine that the present proceeding is free of charges of costs.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
20. In its reply, the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction, and mentioned that the Standard
Employment Contract granted the Dispute Resolution Chamber of Cyprus (hereinafter:
Cypriot NDRC) exclusive competence. The Respondent further added that the CFA NDRC is
impartial and independent and referred to some CAS awards (CAS 2012/A/2983, CAS
2014/A/3656, CAS 2016/A/4846). The Respondent indicated that :
“the DRC must examine the following:
a. Whether there exists an explicit and clear arbitration clause in favour of the NDRC, excluding
the FIFA DRC.
b. Whether it respects the principle of parity (equal representation)
c. Whether it respects the right to an independent and impartial tribunal
d. Whether it respects the principle of a fair hearing
e. Whether it respects the principle of contentious proceedings
f. Whether it respects the principle of equal treatment
g. Whether it imposes any financial barriers detrimentally affecting a party’s right to access
justice.”
21. As to the merits, it indicated the following:
“The Player never informed the club that he was no longer willing to wait until 30/01/2025 or
that he wanted to proceed with a claim to FIFA.
For this reason, the Player is not entitled to any penalty and this claim of him must also be
rejected.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17290
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 29 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 15 May 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 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.
23. 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is -in principle - competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Portuguese player and a Cypriot club.
24. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Club challenged the
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter.
25. More specifically, the Club alleged that the Cypriot NDRC was competent to deal with the
present matter, by virtue of clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract, and that said
deciding body was an equitably represented, independent, national arbitration tribunal as
required by the Regulations. Therefore, as the Club mentioned that the Contract included
an exclusive clause, it stated that FIFA did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
26. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber first recalled that art. 26 par. 1 lit c) of the
Regulations (February, June and October 2024, and January 2025 editions) establishes that
“Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January
2025. Any other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”. As a result, the
Chamber decided that it had to assess this part of the claim using the October 2024 edition
of the Regulations, as this claim was brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
27. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the
Regulations (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employmentrelated dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension. Nevertheless,
the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an independent
arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement, and which must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Any
such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable on the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17290
28. Additionally, the Chamber referred to the Circular no. 1010, which establishes the
minimum principles that decision-making bodies must adhere to.
29. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the parties concluded three different
agreements: the Contract, the Supplementary Agreement and the Payment Plan.
Regarding the Supplementary Agreement, the Chamber noted that it contains inter alia the
same date of payment as the salaries established in the Contract, it granted the Player
bonuses for his performance in the Club’s matches and observed that it was clearly linked
to the Contract (cf. whereas section and clause 13 of the Supplementary Agreement).
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Supplementary Agreement indeed forms
part of the Contract. With regard to the Payment Plan, the Chamber stated that it was
concluded as a result of the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement and therefore,
directly linked to them. Consequently, the Chamber conclude that the three agreements
(the Contract, Supplementary Agreement and the Payment) are employment-related
agreements.
30. Having stated the above, the Chamber pointed out that it should, first and foremost,
analyse whether the provision contained in clause 13 of the Standard Employment
Contract constituted a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Cypriot NDRC.
The Chamber hereby recalled the wording thereof, which stipulated:
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA.”
31. Having analysed the wording of the abovementioned clause, the Chamber noted that clear
reference was made to the Cypriot NDRC, and no reference was made to any other tribunal.
However, the Chamber also observed that the Payment Plan contained a clause in favor of
FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, showing that two different forums were elected by the
parties for the same employment relationship, and thus the Chamber stressed that it
cannot be concluded that an exclusive tribunal was chosen by the parties.
32. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide any documentary
evidence which could prove that the national arbitration bodies of the Football Federation
of meets the requirements established in art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, detailed in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par.
1 of the NDRC Regulations.
33. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection
towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and FIFA
is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17290
34. 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, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
35. 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
36. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that is a claim of a player against a club for breach of
contract, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the Contract, Supplementary Agreement and the Payment Plan, in
accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
39. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17290
40. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the 3rd instalment and the 4th instalment of the Payment Plan and his
salaries stipulated in the Contract and Supplementary Agreement from December 2023 to
May 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written
evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 3 April 2024, i.e. at least 15 days before
unilaterally terminating the contract on 20 April 2024.
41. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber found that the Respondent only mentioned that the
Player did not wait until 30 January 2025 to be paid and did not provide any documentation
showing that it paid the amounts requested.
42. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
43. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
44. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player are the following:
As per the Contract and Supplementary Agreement:
- EUR 13,000 as balance of December 2023
- EUR 23.000 as January 2024
- EUR 23,000 as February 2024
- EUR 23,000 as March 2024
- EUR 23,000 as April 2024
As per the Payment Plan:
- EUR 22,000 as per the 3rd instalment
- EUR 10,000 as per the 4th instalment
45. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
137,000.
46. In addition, the Chamber stated that the Claimant is in principle entitled to interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from due dates until the date of effective
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17290
payment. However, the Chamber observed that the Claimant did not request it and in
accordance with the principle ne ultra petita it did not award it.
47. The Chamber then observed that the Claimant requested the payment of the penalty of
EUR 25,000 in accordance with clause 3.4 of the Payment plan. In this respect, the Chamber
observed such clause was triggered and therefore, it should be awarded insofar as it is
contractually based, reasonable and proportionate in line with the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal. Notwithstanding, by recalling the principle of ne bis in idem, the Chamber
established that no interest should be applicable over the penalty.
48. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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 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.
49. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
50. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations.
51. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 23,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
52. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17290
53. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract. The Chamber observed that the Player only found a
new employment after the expiration of the Contract.
54. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the Contract that
was prematurely terminated.
55. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 23,000, as the residual value of the contract.
56. Lastly, the Chamber stated that the Claimant is in principle entitled to interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from due dates until the date of effective
payment. However, the Chamber observed that the Claimant did not request it and in
accordance with the principle ne ultra petita it did not award it.
iii. Consequences of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
57. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
58. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
59. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 5 April 1997 and the
relevant contract with the Club was concluded on 28 June 2022. Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that the Player terminated the contract with just cause on 23 April 2024. The breach
of contract by the Club had therefore occurred within the protected period.
60. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had already been held liable for breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions; in particular, in
cases FPSD-14478, FPSD-14602 and FPSD-14612.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17290
61. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. 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.
63. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequences 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.
64. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
65. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
66. In view of the above, the DRC decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
67. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all appliable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which
is available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17290
d. Costs
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17290
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Helder Jose Castro
Ferreira.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Helder Jose Castro Ferreira, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Anorthosis Famagusta, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 137,000 as outstanding remuneration.
- EUR 25,000 as contractual penalty.
- EUR 23,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
7.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17290
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 18