Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16874
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Tatiana Gleyce Da Silva Melo
BY:
Bruinewoud Alexandra GOMEZ (Uruguay & the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Tatiana Gleyce Da Silva Melo, Brazil
Represented by Mr Thiago Coelho
RESPONDENT:
Football Club Ramat Hasharon, Israel
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16874
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2023, the Brazilian player Tatiana Gleyce da Silva Melo (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Israeli club Football Club Ramat Hasharon (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: Contract) valid as from the date of signature
until 22 May 2024.
2.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a gross monthly
salary of NIS 7,600 as well as to provide the Claimant with suitable accommodation.
3.
On 14 January 2024, the Claimant was allegedly informed through a teammate that she should
not attend training as her formal dismissal was being prepared by the Respondent.
4.
On the same day, the Claimant allegedly attended a meeting with the director of the
Respondent, the head coach, and a teammate acting as a translator, in which the director
declared inter alia that the Claimant would “no longer player in our group”, “the club want to give
her the money December and all January and today I give her a flight and she can go Brazil or where
she wants” and “she’s out now from the group”.
5.
Between 14 January 2024 and 18 January 2024, the Claimant was allegedly precluded from
training with the rest of the squad.
6.
On 17 January 2024, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, indicating that in the
aforementioned meeting (allegedly on 14 January 2024), she was informed that her services
were no longer needed, and that she had a choice of accepting the salaries for December 2023
and January 2024 and returning to Brazil, or staying in Israel, receiving a salary, however, not
being allowed to train or play in matches. The Claimant, in this letter, indicated that she
intended to continue honouring the obligations under the Contract and not to depart
prematurely.
7.
On the same day, the Claimant once again sent a WhatsApp message to the director,
requesting an explanation as to why she could not train. The director of the Respondent
replied thereto indicating that the Claimant was no longer part of the team, that she was not
covered by insurance in order to play, but that she was welcome to join for a team dinner.
8.
On the same day still, the Respondent sent the Claimant, through her teammate, a ticket to
return to Brazil.
9.
On 18 January 2024, the Claimant received a message from the Respondent via WhatsApp,
indicating that it was “surprised” about the Claimant’s behaviour, that she allegedly informed
the club that she preferred to leave, and after receiving a flight ticket, she wanted to continue
to perform the Contract. Thus, the Respondent stated in said message that it urged the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16874
Claimant to return to training and that the cost of the ticket would be deducted from her next
salary.
10. On the same day, the Claimant was allegedly invited to a meeting with the Respondent once
again, where she was presented with a mutual termination agreement. The Claimant argues
that she signed no such agreement.
11. On the same day still, the Claimant sent a further email to the Respondent, stating that she
felt left out of the team and excluded from the WhatsApp group and training facilities. She
further explained that she was presented on several occasions with mutual termination
agreements or solutions to terminate the Contract prematurely, which she has steadfast
rejected. The Claimant requested a letter of termination, should the Respondent intend to get
rid of her, so that she could put the difficulties to an end and stop feeling harassed.
12. On 20 January, the Respondent sent the Claimant a WhatsApp message, informing her that,
due to her absence from training, she would be subjected to internal disciplinary proceedings.
13. On the same day, the Claimant sent a formal email to the Respondent, indicating that she was
wrongfully accused of missing training, that her intention is to stay, in as far as she is desired
at the club, and that if the club no longer requires her services, that she receives all of her
salaries – especially since she was only paid one salary since the beginning of the Contract. The
Claimant reiterated her request no longer to be harassed or pressured into signing a mutual
termination agreement, and that she would report to the next training session as well as the
disciplinary meeting which was opened against her.
14. On 16 February 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent via email and post.
In said default notice, the Claimant requested “all salaries between October 2023 and May
2024” – in total NIS 60,800, within 15 days, failing which she will unilaterally terminate the
Contract.
15. On 19 March 2024, the Claimant left Israel to return home.
16. On 21 March 2024, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16874
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 1 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
18. In her claim, the player argued that she was not only owed several salaries, but abusively
treated by the Respondent, who attempted to pressure her into signing an early
termination agreement and excluded her from training.
19. The Claimant indicated that she consistently informed the Respondent of her intention not
to leave, and manifested the attempts of the Respondent to exclude her from the squad in
writing.
20. The Claimant insisted that she had a just cause to terminate the Contract, as she was only
paid the salary of September 2023 (i.e., the first salary due under the Contract), and further
due to the club’s abusive behaviour.
21. Consequently, the following request for relief was formulated:
-
-
NIS 60,800 (“salaries due between October 2023 and May 2024 – i.e., the end of the
Contract);
NIS 45,600 additional compensation due to egregious circumstances;
NIS 2,164.44 interest between the respective due dates of the outstanding salaries and
compensation until 31 October 2024 (i.e., the date before the present claim was
lodged);
EUR 923.08 flight ticket reimbursement.
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. The Respondent, despite having been invited to do so, failed to reply.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16874
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. First of all, the Single Judge of Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 1 November 2024 and submitted
for decision on 25 March 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.
24. 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations)
(January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Brazilian player and an Israeli club.
25. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
26. 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 she 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
27. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16874
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
28. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the basis of the present dispute was the lawfulness of the premature contractual
termination by the Claimant and the compliance of the Respondent with the financial terms
of the Contract.
29. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
Claimant had a just cause to terminate the Contract prematurely due to overdue payables,
and what the consequences thereof may be.
30. Prior to entering into her legal analysis, the Single Judge revisited the facts of the case. On
one hand, the Claimant argued that she terminated the contract with just cause due to
outstanding remuneration and abusive behaviour.
31. The Respondent, on the other hand, failed to reply to the claim.
32. Having set out the above, the Single Judge proceeded with her analysis, in particular
recalling the contents of art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations, pursuant to which a party
may prematurely terminate the Contract where there is just cause to do so, in particular,
but not limited to cases where the club has failed to pay the player at least two monthly
salaries and the player has put the club in default in writing, granting a deadline of at least
15 days to remedy the breach, to no avail.
33. In the case at hand, the Claimant claims not having received her remuneration as from
October 2023. Furthermore, the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the
Respondent in default on 16 February 2024, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the contract on 21 March 2024.
34. It has to be 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 Respondent failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the
payment of the disputed amounts took place.
35. What is more, we recall that the Respondent was accused of having excluded the Claimant
abusively from training and attempted to force her to sign a mutual termination
agreement. In this respect, the Claimant manifested these abusive attempts by the
Respondent in several written warnings, which remained basically unanswered (the
Respondent’s replies ignore these allegations).
36. Thus, the Single Judge comfortably concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to
terminate the Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16874
ii. Consequences
37. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
38. 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 six salaries
under the Contract between October 2023 and March 2024, amounting to NIS 45,600.
39. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge 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.
NIS 45,600.
40. What is more, the Claimant adequately corroborated that she had incurred the costs of
EUR 923.08 for the flight tickets to return home. In accordance with the jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal, such amount shall be awarded to the Claimant as a reimbursement.
41. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
42. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
43. As a consequence, the members of the Single Judge 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.
44. 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 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 NIS 15,200 (i.e. the residual value of the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16874
Contract, or two monthly salaries between April 2024 and May 2024) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
45. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
46. In the case at hand, the Claimant confirmed having remained unemployed following the
contractual termination. Thus, she is taken to have failed to mitigate her damages, resulting
also in on additional compensation being payable.
47. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
NIS 15,200 to the Claimant (i.e. the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
48. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request for relief, the Single Judge awarded
interest in the amount of NIS 2,164.44. The Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant,
would, in theory, have been entitled to more (i.e., until the date of effective payment of the
amounts in dispute), however, given that the Claimant limited her request for relief to
NIS 2,164.44, in accordance with the general legal principle of ne iudex eat ultra petita
partium, the Claimant was limited to receiving the amount indicated in the petitum.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16874
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 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
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16874
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Tatiana Gleyce Da Silva Melo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Football Club Ramat Hasharon, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- NIS 45,600 plus EUR 923.08 as outstanding remuneration;
- NIS 15,200 as compensation for breach of contract;
- NIS 2,164.44 as late payment interest.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16874
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. 12