Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19070
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Carlos Alberto da Silva Lomba
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Carlos Alberto da Silva Lomba, Portugal
Represented by Fábio Rego & Gonçalo de Castro
RESPONDENT:
Sporting Club Bengaluru, India
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19070
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 November 2024, the Portuguese player Carlos Alberto da Silva Lomba (hereinafter,
the Player or the Claimant) and the Indian club Sporting Club Bengaluru (hereinafter, the
Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid
as from 4 November 2024 until 31 May 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 1 of Schedule I of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of USD 3,333,
payable on the 10th day of the following month.
3.
According to Clause 7 of the Schedule I of the Contract:
“The Player shall be entitled to paid leave of up to 2 (two) weeks per 9 (nine) month period,
where the period of paid leave must be informed to the Club in advance and must be taken
outside the period when the Competition is being played, and where at least 1 (one) week of
the leave is taken consecutively, unless mutually agreed otherwise between the Parties”.
4.
On 25 March 2025, the Player put the Club in default, requesting the payment of
USD 13,332, corresponding to his remuneration for December 2024 and from January to
March 2025 (i.e., USD 3,333 each). The Player granted the Club a deadline of 15 days to
comply with its financial obligations.
5.
On 18 April 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 29 April 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Player argued that he had a just cause to terminate the Contract based on
the Club’s non-payment of his remuneration and after having put it in default, to no avail.
8.
Based on the above, the Player claimed to be entitled to the outstanding remuneration that
remained unpaid at the time of termination, as well as to compensation for breach of
contract, in the total amount of USD 24,330.90.
9.
The Player requested the following relief:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19070
“The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall:
a) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the overdue amount of USD $
9.999,00 gross corresponding to the:
- USD $ 3.333,00 gross for January´s monthly salary; (due on 10 February 2025)
- USD $ 3.333,00 gross for February´s monthly salary; (due on 10 March 2025)
- USD $ 3.333,00 gross for March´s monthly salary; (due on 10 April 2025)
b) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the following amounts as
compensation:
- USD $ 3.333,00 gross (between 09/04/2025 and 31/05/2025);
- USD $ 999,90 gross for 9 unpaid holiday days;
c) Condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant the following amount as Additional
Compensation - subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue
payables:
- USD $ 9.999,00 gross (which is based on multiplying monthly salary by three).
d) In the global amount of USD $ 24.330,90 gross;
e) Plus interest at 5% rate since the overdue dates until effective payment.
f) All according to the “PLAYER AGREEMENT”, signed by the parties, the FIFA Statutes and
regulations, as well as the specificity of sport.
g) Impose to the Respondent Club sportive and disciplinary sanctions”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. On 5 May 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the claim to the Club, granting it a
deadline until 26 May 2025 to provide its position on the claim.
11. On 2 June 2025, it was confirmed that a technical issue affected the proper notification of
the claim to the Club. As a consequence, and after having resolved this technical issue, the
Club was granted a new deadline until 23 June 2025 to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19070
12. On 27 June 2025, and in the absence of a reply from the Club, the FIFA general secretariat
notified the Parties about the closure of the submission phase of the proceeding and the
submission of the case to the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber for a formal
decision.
13. On 2 July 2025, the Club informed that a “technical glitch” had prevented it from receiving
the correspondences notified via the Legal Portal and requested to be granted an
extension of 21 days to reply to the claim.
14. On 3 July 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Club that all correspondence as
of 2 June 2025 relating to this case was correctly notified via the Legal Portal to the Club,
with no further technical issues having been confirmed.
15. In light of the above, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Club that its request for an
extension of the deadline could not be granted.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 29 April 2025 and submitted
for decision on 3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
17. 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 July
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese player
and an Indian club.
18. 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. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19070
b. Burden of proof
19. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
20. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it
concerned a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract based on the alleged
non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club as per the Contract, in accordance
with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
22. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
23. The Single Judge 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).
24. The Single Judge noted that the Player claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the months of January, February and March 2025. Furthermore, the
Single Judge noted that the Player provided written evidence of having put the Club in
default on 25 March 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract
on 18 April 2025.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19070
25. The Single Judge also noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the
Parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that Club failed to reply to the claim despite
being invited to do so, and therefore no proof of compliance with the aforementioned
financial terms was submitted.
26. In light of the above, and considering that the Club failed to pay the Player the monthly
salaries of January and February 2025 on their due dates (i.e., 10 February and 10 March
2025, respectively), the Single Judge concluded that the Player had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract after having put the Club in default, to no avail, based
on art. 14bis of the Regulations. Consequently, the Club is held liable for the legal
consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
27. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the legal consequences
arising from the breach of contract committed by the Club.
28. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to 4 salaries under
the Contract, amounting to EUR 13,332 for the months from January to April 2025
(i.e., USD 3,333 x 4).
29. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD 13,332 as
detailed ut supra.
30. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following their
respective due dates until the date of effective payment, except for the April 2025 salary,
which was awarded as from the date of termination, as follows:
o January 2025 salary in the amount of USD 3,333 as from 11 February 2025;
o February 2025 salary in the amount of USD 3,333 as from 11 March 2025;
o March 2025 salary in the amount of USD 3,333 as from 11 April 2025; and
o April 2025 salary in the amount of USD 3,333 as from 18 April 2025.
31. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge firstly
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19070
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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
32. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the Contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in the event of
breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
33. 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 parameters set out in art.
17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall be equal to the residual
value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the Player signed a new
contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
34. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, 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. Consequently, the
Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 3,333 (i.e., the month of May 2025) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
35. The Single Judge further noted that the Player requested to be awarded an additional
amount of USD 999,90 as compensation, representing 9 unpaid holiday days.
36. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that Clause 7 of Schedule I of the Contract did not
provide for an additional sum to be paid by the Club as annual paid leave, but rather that
the Player would be entitled to annual paid leave as defined therein. In other words, the
Player was not entitled to any additional remuneration beyond the value of the Contract.
37. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided that this amount should not be taken into
account for the calculation of compensation for breach of contract due by the Club to the
Player.
38. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. 8
REF. FPSD-19070
39. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
termination of the Contract.
40. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of
USD 3,333 to the Player as the residual value of the Contract, which was considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at
stake.
41. At this point, the Single Judge took note of the Player’s request to be awarded additional
compensation. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i.) and ii.) of the
Regulations, and underscored that the compensation granted is equivalent to the residual
value of the Contract, and that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract.
42. Accordingly, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s request for additional compensation.
43. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of 18 April 2025 (i.e., the date of
termination) until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19070
47. 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.
48. 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
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19070
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Carlos Alberto da Silva Lomba, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sporting Club Bengaluru, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 13,332 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,333 as from 11 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,333 as from 11 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,333 as from 11 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,333 as from 18 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
- USD 3,333 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as from
18 April 2025 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. 11
REF. FPSD-19070
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19070
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. 13