Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Sent to:
Mozies Lucas da Silva Evangelista
c/o Emad Yacoub Hanayneh
[email protected]
Date: 2 June 2022
Al Hussein
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
NOTIFICATION OF THE GROUNDS OF THE DECISION
EMPLOYMENT-RELATED DISPUTE CONCERNING THE PLAYER
Mozies Lucas da Silva Evangelista
Ref. Nr. FPSD-5240
Dear Sirs,
Please find attached the grounds of the decision passed in the aforementioned matter.
We kindly invite you to take note of this decision.
We remain at your disposal.
Yours faithfully,
FIFA
Erika Montemor Ferreira
Head of Players’ Status
Copy for information:
- JFA - Jordan Football Association
- AFC - Asian Football Confederation
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
Tel: +41 43/222 7777 [email protected]
REF FPSD-5240
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 May 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Mozies Lucas da Silva Evangelista
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa)
CLAIMANT:
Mozies Lucas da Silva Evangelista, Brazil
Represented by Emad Yacoub Hanayneh
RESPONDENT:
Al Hussein, Jordan
Page 2
REF FPSD-5240
I.
Facts of the case
1.
Allegedly, on 7 February 2021, the Jordanian club Al Hussein (hereinafter the club or the
Respondent) sent the Brazilian player Mozies Lucas da Silva Evangelista (hereinafter the player or
the Claimant) an offer (hereinafter the Offer) regarding the potential employment agreement.
2.
The Offer was signed by Mr Laith Abu Obaid, the Respondent’s alleged “Sports Activity Manager”,
and contained the following conditions:
"Mr Moizes Lucas Do Silva Evangelista
Al Hussein Sports Club wishes to contract with you to play in the team of the 2021 football
season, and the club offers you the following
1- The value of the entire contract with the Down payment is 45000 USD for one season.
2- One-time round travel tickets.
3- Furnished apartment for living.
If approved, please signed below to complete the deal”
3.
Allegedly on 7 February 2021 and 8 February 2021, several WhatsApp messages have been
exchanged between the Claimant’s “friend Mr Khaldoon Al Khawaldeh” and the Respondent’s
alleged “Sports Activity Manager”, concerning the transfer of the Claimant.
4.
On 8 February 2021, the Claimant mutually terminated his contract with the Brazilian club,
Tombense Futebol Clube.
5.
On 14 November 2022, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, stipulating, inter alia, the
following:
“As the club did not abide by and complete the contracting procedures with the player,
knowing that the player had terminated his contract with his former club in Brazil (Tombense
Football Club) in order to come to Jordan and join Al-Hussein Club, but the club did not fulfil its
duty to complete the procedures for the player's attendance, which constitutes a violation of
the FIFA 's regulations.
Accordingly, the player asks Al-Hussein Club to pay the full compensation of the offer in the
amount of 45000 dollars and pay it to his bank account below within ten days: (…)”
(emphasis added)
6.
On 23 November 2022, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, stipulating, inter alia, the
following:
“(…) Club does not admit what was included in this notification as it violates international and
national rules and regulations. Since the above-mentioned player has no dully concluded
contract with the club and registered an authenticated on the JF A and documented on the club
records; and while there are no letters and correspondences between the club and the player
via the official notification means for the club, which is the official e-mail
Page 3
REF FPSD-5240
([email protected]) as such, Al-Hussein Sport Club considers what was included in the
notification as a sports fraud violating sports laws at all measures.”
7.
On 26 May 2021, the player signed a new employment agreement (hereinafter the New
Employment Agreement) with Tombense Futebol Clube valid until 30 November 2021.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 23 February 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
In his claim, the Claimant requested the amount of USD 45,000 corresponding to the “total value
of the offer” as well as the “legal interest at rate of 5% p.a.” until the day of the effective payment.
10. The Claimant was of the opinion that “letter [i.e. the Offer] can be considered a contract if it
contains the essentialia negotii of contract, such as a reference to the identity of the parties, the
mutual acceptance of the terms and conditions. the performance of each party, the amount of
remuneration and the terms of the contractual relationship.”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant as it argued that it never entered into a
contractual relationship with the Claimant.
12. Furthermore, the Respondent contested the respective document (i.e. the Offer) as it argued that
the official documents of the club look differently. Equally, the Respondent objected the veracity
of the WhatsApp messages.
13. Finally, the Respondent referred to its email of 23 November 2021 (cf. I./6.), where it previously
clarified the current matter.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 23 February 2022 and submitted
for decision on 18 May 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021
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.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5240
15. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), he 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 Jordanian club.
16. Finally, 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 Player (March 2022 edition) and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 23 February 2022, the August 2021 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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
18. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the
matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter
and took note that the parties’ first fundamental disagreement is whether the document allegedly
concluded between the parties can be considered a valid and binding employment contract.
20. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge started by recalling the well-established jurisprudence
which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered valid and binding, apart
from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their alleged
representatives role, capacities and authority, the duration of the employment relationship and
the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5240
21. After thoroughly analysing the documentation on file, the Single Judge firstly noted that there is
lack of clarity regarding veracity of the Offer, in particular, the identity of the parties exchanging
the WhatsApp messages regarding the alleged negotiations.
22. In this respect, the Single Judge turned its attention to the factual framework involving the
negotiations between the parties and, specifically, to the correspondence exchanged in the
context of the acceptance of the employment proposal.
23. Based on the above, the Single Judge established that the WhatsApp messages cannot be, with
comfortable satisfaction, linked to the Respondent. The Single Judge highlighted that with the lack
of identity of the parties, true consensus can never be reached and, consequently, neither a valid
contract.
24. Furthermore, the Single Judge was equally of the opinion that in accordance with the
documentation provided by the player, the latter failed to provide sufficient evidence that he in
fact accepted of the Offer.
25. Referring to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and the principle of the burden of proof, the
Single Judge concluded that the Claimant did not meet his burden of proof in order to
demonstrate that he duly accepted the alleged club’s Offer.
26. What is more, the Single Judge pointed to the fact that the player neither reported for duty and/or
demanded specific performance in terms of the alleged contract concluded between
8 February 2021 and 14 November 2021. In fact, no documentation whatsoever was made
available by the player to support his argument in this respect.
ii. Consequences
27. Based on the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claim of the Claimant due to its lack of
a contractual basis.
d. Costs
28. 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, he decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
29. 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.
30. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5240
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mozies Lucas da Silva Evangelista, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7
REF FPSD-5240
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 8