Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14372
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Renyer Luan
de Oliveira Damasceno
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Renyer Luan de Oliveira Damasceno, Brazil
Represented by Nilo Effori
RESPONDENT:
CFEA Club Football Estrela Sad,
Represented by 14 Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14372
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 February 2024, the Brazilian player Renyer Luan de Oliveira Damasceno (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Portuguese club CFEA Club Football Estrela SAD
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into a Promise of Employment Contract
(hereinafter: the Pre-Contract) and, on 15 February 2024, a definitive employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 15 February 2024 until 30 June 2026.
2.
Pursuant to Clause Three of the Contract, the Player was entitled to receive:
−
−
−
3.
EUR 30,000 net for the 2023/2024 season, payable in 5 equal and successive
instalments of EUR 6,000 net.
EUR 72,000 net for the 2024/2025 season, payable in 12 equal and successive
instalments of EUR 6,000 net.
EUR 84,000 net for the 2025/2026 season, payable in 12 equal and successive
instalments of EUR 7,000 each.
Par. 3 of Clause Three of the Contract further stated:
“3. Sendo a primeira prestação nos valores proporcionais ao salário acima referidos à data de
início de contrato a ser liquidada até ao dia 05 (cinco) de março de 2024, e as demais prestações
até ao dia 5 dos meses subsequentes a que disseram respeito.”
Freely translated into English:
“3. The first instalment, in the amounts proportional to the salary mentioned above, is to be paid
by March 5, 2024, based on the contract start date, and the remaining instalments are to be
paid by the 5th of the subsequent months to which they correspond.”
4.
Par. 4 of Clause Three of the Contract foresaw an increase in the Player’s net monthly salary
depending on match participation as well as bonuses for goals and assists:
−
−
−
5.
EUR 10,000 net per month if he participated in 3 matches for at least 45
minutes each;
EUR 12,000 net per month if he participated in 10 matches for at least 45
minutes each;
EUR 7,500 bonus if he achieved 10 goals/assists.
Furthermore, Clause Seven of the Contract stipulated, in relevant part, as follows:
“[…]
2. Sem prejuízo do disposto no número anterior da presente cláusula e para que não exista
qualquer dúvida, fica estabelecido que na eventualidade de alguma das partes rescindir
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14372
unilateralmente, sem justa causa reconhecida, ficará constituída na obrigação de indenizar
a contratante pelos prejuízos causados pela conduta ilícita, fixando-se, desde já, a título de
cláusula penal, o montante indenizatório a pagar, e que será o seguinte:
a) Na eventualidade do ESTRELA SAD rescindir ilicitamente o presente contrato, fica
obrigado a pagar ao JOGADOR uma indenização correspondente ao valor das
remunerações vincendas até final do contrato.
b) Na eventualidade de ser o JOGADOR a rescindir ilicitamente fica obrigado, no
âmbito jurídico-laboral, a pagar à ESTRELA SAD uma indenização correspondente ao
valor das remunerações que haveria de receber até final do presente contrato,
ficando à sua inscrição por parte de um terceiro Clube dependente do pagamento
jurídico-desportivo, do pagamento da indemnização no montante de € 12.000.000
(doze milhões euros). Entende-se por justa causa desportiva para efeitos da aplicação
desta cláusula penal os motivos previstos na lei e regulamentos desportivos
do JOGADOR feita pela entidade competente.”
Freely translated into English:
“[…]
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of the previous paragraph of this clause and for
the avoidance of any doubt, it is hereby established that in the event that any of the parties
unilaterally terminates, without recognized just cause, it will be constituted in the
obligation to indemnify the counterparty for the damages caused by the unlawful
conduct, and the amount of compensation to be paid shall be fixed as a penalty clause,
and which will be as follows:
a. In the event that ESTRELA SAD unlawfully terminates this contract, it is
obliged to pay the PLAYER an indemnity corresponding to the value of the
remuneration due until the end of the contract.
b. In the event that the PLAYER terminates unlawfully, he/she is obliged, in the legallabor field, to pay ESTRELA SAD an indemnity corresponding to the value of the
remuneration that he/she would receive until the end of the terminated contract,
and his/her registration by a third Club will be dependent, in the legal-sporting
scope, on the payment of the amount of € 12,000,000.00 (twelve million euros),
corresponding to the valuation of the PLAYER's sports participation rights made by
the parties to this contract.”
6.
According to Clause Twelve of the Contract:
“Os casos omissos no presente contrato regem-se pelo regime jurídico do praticante
desportivo e pelo CCT outorgado entre o Sindicato de Jogadores Profissionais de Futebol e a
Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional e pela Lei n. 54/2017 de 14 de julho,
independientemente da sindicalização ou não do JOGADOR.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14372
Freely translated into English:
“The cases omitted in this contract are governed by the legal regime of the sports
practitioner
and by the CCT granted between the Union of Professional Football Players and the
Portuguese
Professional Football League and by Law No. 54/2017 of July 14, regardless of whether or
not
the PLAYER is unionized.”
7.
Furthermore, Clause Fourteen of the Contract stated inter alia the following:
“1. O JOGADOR deverá, no prazo de 5 (cinco) dias a partir do momento em que lhe for
comunicado o resultado do exame médico e da avaliação física realizados pelo ESTRELA SAD,
apresentar defesa escrita, juntando os elementos de prova que entenda pertinentes. Estes
podem incluir testes de avaliação funcional e outros exames que deverão ser realizados
individualmente nas instalações do ESTRELA SAD, designadamente o JOGADOR manifestando
a sua total concordância e aceitação. Se o JOGADOR não apresentar defesa ou se esta for
considerada insatisfatória pelo ESTRELA SAD (presumindo-se a temporaridade da mesma no
qual deve ser justificada por um médico designado pela entidade patronal), será rescindido
o contrato. A partir do referido o JOGADOR colocará-se-á à disposição da ESTRELA SAD e
oferecer-lhe-á todas as informações necessárias para permitir a eficácia das referidas
tarefas.
2. Ambas as partes aceitam submeter qualquer litígio ao abrigo do art.º 42 do CCT outorgado
entre o Sindicato de Jogadores Profissionais de Futebol e a Liga Portuguesa de Futebol
Profissional que será causa válida de rescisão deste contrato, sem prejuízo dos direitos das
partes, desde que o exame médico seja realizado por um especialista indicado que deve ser
comunicado no prazo de 2 (dois) dias após a sua realização, entendendo-se que o referido
exame não é considerado como forma satisfatória, caso a ESTRELA SAD não comunique o
resultado no prazo máximo de 2 (dois) dias.
3. As partes acordam em conformidade com cada caso o JOGADOR bem como recuse a
treinar ou nos jogos oficiais sob orientação dos treinadores ou serviços técnicos do ESTRELA
SAD, estando em situação de não se enquadrar nos critérios dos serviços médicos
competentes para desempenhar as respetivas funções na ESTRELA SAD, cuja permanência é
aceite pelo JOGADOR reconhece aceitar esse facto sem reservas nem condições adicionais até
ao final da época em causa em que esse será parte integrante das normas previstas no
Código Coletivo de Atividade Profissional Futebolística para com o jogador em questão.
O presente acordo é válido por tempo indeterminado até à data limite prevista neste contrato
sendo renovável automaticamente por igual período na hipótese da liberdade contratual das
partes envolvidas salvo denúncia expressa feita pela parte interessada com antecedência
mínima prevista na legislação aplicável.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14372
[…]”
Freely translated into English:
“1. The PLAYER must, within 5 (five) days from the moment they are informed of the results of
the medical examination and physical evaluation conducted by ESTRELA SAD, submit a
written defense, including any evidence they deem relevant. This may include functional
assessment tests and other exams, which must be individually conducted at the facilities
of ESTRELA SAD, with the PLAYER expressing full agreement and acceptance. If
the PLAYER does not submit a defense or if it is deemed unsatisfactory by ESTRELA SAD (with
the temporary nature of the condition presumed and required to be justified by a doctor
appointed by the employer), the contract will be terminated. From that point on,
the PLAYER shall make themselves available to ESTRELA SAD and provide all necessary
information to ensure the effectiveness of the aforementioned tasks.
2. Both parties agree to submit any dispute under Article 42 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CCT) signed between the Professional Football Players' Union and the Portuguese
Professional Football League, which shall be a valid cause for termination of this contract,
without prejudice to the rights of the parties, provided that the medical examination is
conducted by a designated specialist who must be communicated within 2 (two) days after it
is performed. It is understood that the examination will not be considered satisfactory
if ESTRELA SAD does not communicate the result within a maximum of 2 (two) days.
3. The parties agree that in each case, if the PLAYER refuses to train or participate in official
matches under the guidance of the coaches or technical staff of ESTRELA SAD, and is deemed
unfit by the competent medical services to perform their duties at ESTRELA SAD,
the PLAYER accepts this fact without reservations or additional conditions until the end of the
relevant season. This will be an integral part of the rules set out in the Collective Code of
Professional
Football
Activity
applicable
to
the
player
in
question.
This agreement is valid for an indefinite period until the final date specified in this contract
and will be automatically renewed for an equal period, unless expressly terminated by either
party with the minimum notice required by applicable legislation.
[…]”
8.
Finally, according to Clause Eighteen of the Contract:
“1. Para dirimir todas as questões relacionadas com a Interpretação do presente contrato,
com a sua execução, validade ou força, ou relativas a qualquer das suas cláusulas, e para
todas as demais questões dele emergentes, as partes acordam em submeter a respetiva
apreciação à Comissão Arbitral constituída nos termos da Lei 54/2017 de 14 de Julho para
os Profissionais de Futebol.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14372
2. No caso de ausência de decisão nos termos da cláusula anterior, as partes acordam em
submeter a respetiva apreciação ao Tribunal de Trabalho de Lisboa, com expressa renúncia
a qualquer outro.”
Freely translated into English:
“1. In order to settle all issues related to the Interpretation of this contract, its execution,
validity or force, or related to any of its clauses, and for all other issues arising therefrom,
the parties agree to submit their respective assessment to the Arbitration Committee
constituted under the terms of Law 54/2017 of 14 July for Football Professionals.
2. In the event of the absence of a decision under the terms of the previous clause, the
parties agree to submit the respective assessment to the Labour Court of Lisbon, with
express waiver of any other.”
9.
Between 20 and 24 February 2024, the Club submitted the Player to a medical exam. In
accordance with the Clinical Report, it was concluded that “the athlete does not possess the
health conditions required for the club, and therefore, in the team club doctor’s opinion, he is
unfit for the practice of professional football.”
10. The Player sent a notice dated 28 February 2024 (hereinafter: the First Notice) to the Club,
whereby he referenced a call between him/his representation and Mr. Paulo Lopo, the
Club’s President, in which the Club President stated that the Player had a problem in his
knees and the Club wished to terminate the Contract. In this sense, the Player highlighted
that the Club was aware that he had had 2 knee surgeries and had also played an entire
season after recovering from such operation. Furthermore, the Player manifested in this
First Notice that he was prevented from attending a training session and was asked to
remove his belongings from the Club. The Player additionally cited art. 18 par. 4 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the FIFA Commentary on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players with respect to clubs’ obligations to
perform medical examinations before signing a contract with a player, and requested that
the Club register the Player and allow him to fulfill the Contract immediately.
11. The Player sent a second notice (hereinafter: the Second Notice) to the Club dated 29
February 2024, reiterating that the Player was still being prevented from joining the training
sessions and once again requesting that he be registered and allowed to participate. The
Player, inter alia, indicated that if he did not receive an answer from the Club by 2 March
2024 at 18h (Lisbon), he would consider the Contract as having been terminated by the
Club without just cause and would seek redress before the FIFA Football Tribunal.
12. On 6 March 2024, the Club President sent an email to Mr. Leonardo Dias, the Player’s
representative, indicating that, in accordance with the Contract and the Portuguese Sports
Law, the Player had to be fit to play football. The Club President reiterated that the Player
was deemed unfit to play and failed the medical exams that were administered. The Club
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14372
President indicated that the decision for the Player not to stay was not his but was related
to the fact that he had failed his medical exam, also noting that he had learned that the
Player had failed his medical tests at another club. Finally, the Club President stated that
the Club would publish the fact that the Player failed his medical exams the following day.
13. The Player sent a final notice to the Club (hereinafter: the Final Notice) dated 14 March 2024,
whereby he expressed his regret that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause
and that the Club could expect a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber as a
result, in addition to declaring that he would immediately start looking for a new club.
14. On 14 March 2024, the Player’s representative, Mr. Leonardo Dias, sent another email to
the Club’s President whereby he confirmed that the Player was moving on to search for a
new professional opportunity, expressing gratitude and indicating they were “aware of the
necessary formalities for the termination of the contract, and are willing to fully cooperate to
ensure a transparent and smooth process.”
15. On 15 March 2024, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Brazilian club,
Guarani Futebol Clube, valid from the aforementioned date until 30 April 2026 (hereinafter:
the Guarani Contract). Under said contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of
BRL 14,000.
16. However, according to the information retrieved on TMS, the Player and Guarani mutually
terminated their contract on 22 July 2024.
17. Thereafter, on 19 February 2025, the Player signed a contract with the Polish club Pogon
Szczecin, valid from 24 February 2025 through 30 June 2028 (hereinafter: the Pogon
Contract). Pursuant to this contract, the Player is entitled to a gross remuneration of EUR
25,200 for the 2024/2025 season (24 February 2024 to 30 June 2025), and EUR 144,000 for
the 2025/2026 season (1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 12 April 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
19. The Player contended that he was owed compensation for breach of contract.
20. Specifically, the Player argued that it was well-established in the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players and the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence that (1) clubs must
conduct their due diligence before entering into an employment contract with a player,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14372
which included the obligation to conduct a medical examination prior to signing and
assuming the consequences if they do not, and (2) clauses making a contract’s effects
contingent upon a successful medical examination are invalid. As the Club terminated the
Contract solely based on a failed medical exam after the Contract was signed, the Club
terminated the Contract without just cause.
21. As to the compensation, the Player posited several alternative considerations:
−
To begin, Clause Seven of the Contract contained a liquidated damages clause
whereby the parties agreed that, in case the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause, the Club would be obligated to pay the Player an amount
equal to the value of the remuneration that he would have received until the
end of the terminated contract. As such the Player sustained that he would
have been entitled to a salary increase under Clause Three par. 4 of the
Contract after playing in 3 matches for at least 45 minutes each (salary
increase to EUR 10,000 monthly). Therefore, he reasoned that he was entitled
to EUR 283,000, with no mitigation.
−
In the alternative, if the salary increase were not taken into account, he would
be entitled to the remaining value of the Contract, equal to EUR 186,000, with
no mitigation.
−
Alternatively, if it was sustained that the Player had to mitigate his
compensation (quod non), such compensation would be mitigated by the
value of the Guarani contract. If the starting point were the higher remaining
value of the Contract due to the salary increase (EUR 283,000), then the
mitigated compensation would equal EUR 227,808. If, however, the starting
point were the lower remaining value of the Contract (EUR 186,000), then the
mitigated compensation would equal EUR 127,808.
22. The Player’s requests for relief were, therefore, as follows:
“The Player respectfully requests FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
(i)Decided that the termination of the employment contract by the Club was without just
cause;
(ii)Order the Club to pay the amount corresponding to EUR 283,000as compensation for
the termination of the contract without just cause.
Alternatively, and only if the above is rule out.
(iii)Order the Club to pay the amount corresponding to EUR 186,000as compensation for
the termination of the contract without just cause.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14372
Alternatively, and only if the above is rule out.
(iv)Order the Club to pay the amount corresponding to EUR 227,808 as compensation for
the termination of the contract without just cause.
Alternatively, and only if the above is rule out.
(v)Order the Club to pay the amount corresponding to EUR 127,808 as compensation for
the termination of the contract without just cause.
(vi)Grant the Claimant in conformity with the Swiss law and longstanding practice of the
Players’ Status Committee, interest on the outstanding compensation amount at a rate of
5% (five per cent) per annum until the date of the effective payment;”
b. Reply of the Respondent
23. In its reply, the Club first raised an objection to FIFA’s jurisdiction on the basis of Clause
Eighteen of the Contract.
24. According to the Club, the foregoing clause established a clear and exclusive choice of
forum, whereby the parties irrevocably waived the jurisdiction of any courts other than (1)
the Arbitration Commission constituted under the terms of Law 54/2017 of 14 July for
Football Professionals, and (2) the Labour Courts of Lisbon. This was further reinforced by
the fact that Contract stipulated in its Clause Twelve that the Portuguese national law was
the only law that would govern the Contract, with no reference whatsoever to the FIFA
regulatory framework. The parties clearly intended for their disputes to first be presented
before the Arbitration Commission and, in the event that it was not competent to decide
such a dispute, the parties were then bound to resolve their disputes before the Labour
Courts of Lisbon. This second consideration is in line with art. 22 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, which expressly establish that FIFA’s competence to hear
certain types of disputes is without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek
redress before a civil court for employment-related matters.
25. Subsidiarily, the Club highlighted the sequence of events leading up to the Contract signing,
emphasising that the Player abruptly interrupted the negotiations with the Club and had
attempted to sign with another club, only to return to the Club and resume negotiations
within a short timeframe.
26. The Club provided an affidavit from a Mr. Luis Augusto de Carvalho, who had contacted the
Club on 19 February 2024 to inform them that his company had a valid and exclusive
representation contract with the Player and had represented him in negotiations with the
Emirati club Ittihad Kalba, where the Player had failed his medical exam with Ittihad Kalba
and therefore the Player did not sign with that club. The Club alleged that this was the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14372
reason why the Player abruptly returned to the negotiations with the Club, all the while
purposely hiding his medical condition.
27. The Club alleged extreme pressure and an evident sense of urgency to sign the Player, in
particular in light of his previous behaviour and the registration deadlines that were fast
approaching. According to the Club, this is why they did not submit the Player to a medical
exam prior to signing the Pre-Contract and the Contract.
28. The Club finally administered a medical exam on 20 February 2024 and, upon discovering
the Player’s “extreme weariness in his right knee,” on 23 February 2024 it informed the
Player’s representative that, in accordance with Portuguese Law, combined with Clause
Fourteen par. 1 of the Contract, it would not be possible to continue the employment
relationship. The Club alleged that, at first, the Player’s representative understood the
situation and agree that the parties should part amicably, but later changed his position
with the First and Second Notices.
29. The Club submitted that the Player, in bad faith, hid the fact of his failed medical exam and
his inability to exercise the duties of a professional football player due to the poor
conditions of his right knee. Had the Club been made aware of the Player’s physical
condition, the Club would have never signed the Contract in the first place.
30. As such, and considering the decisions in CAS 2008/A/1589 and CAS 2013/A/3261, the
Player’s bad faith actions during the negotiations with the sole aim of securing the Contract
meant the Club could legitimately terminate the Contract after undertaking the necessary
medical examinations and discovering the Player’s lack of fitness. As such, no
compensation shall be awarded to the Player.
31. Subsidiarily, any compensation awarded shall be substantially reduced. Firstly, Clause
Seven of the Contract cannot be understood as a liquidated damages clause. If any
compensation is to be awarded, it shall be awarded on the basis of art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In this respect, the starting point shall
be the residual value of the Contract, equal to EUR 186,000. Furthermore, the value of the
new contract with Guarani should be assessed at BRL 476,000, comprised of BRL 14,000 as
monthly salary plus BRL 3,000 as a monthly housing allowance, over the course of 28
months (the time remaining on the Contract). Using the conversion rate proposed by the
Player, the value of the new contract with Guarani shall be EUR 87,883.88, and therefore,
the final and maximum compensation the Player could be awarded shall not exceed EUR
98,116.12.
32. Hence, the Club rejected the Player’s calculations concerning the compensation owed to
him.
33. Finally, the Club presented a request for evidentiary measures for the Player to provide any
image rights agreement with Guarani, alleging that there was a high probability that the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14372
Player and Guarani signed one. In doing so, the Club indicated that it is common practice
for players in Brazil to sign both an employment agreement and an image rights
agreement, both of which comprise the total remuneration owed to the Player. Therefore,
the Club asked the Football Tribunal to request the Player to provide a copy of any image
rights agreement so that it may be considered in the calculation of any compensation owed
to the Player.
34. The Respondent’s requests for relief, as amended, were the following:
“138. In light of all of the above, Estrela SAD respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) Determine that FIFA does not have jurisdiction to solve the present dispute, and, therefore,
that the claim submitted by Mr. Damasceno is inadmissible;
Or, in the alternative, in case FIFA decides that it is competent to deal with the present dispute,
to:
(ii) Determine that the claim submitted by Mr. Damasceno is unfounded and shall therefore be
rejected in its entirety;
Or, in the alternative, in case FIFA decides that the Respondent shall be liable for compensating
the Claimant, to:
(iii) Determine that the amounts to be paid by Estrela SAD to Mr. Damasceno shall not exceed
the amount of €98,116.12 (Ninety-Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixteen Euros and Twelve
Cents) as “Mitigated Compensation”, in accordance with Article 17 (1) of the FIFA RSTP.
139. As a final remark, Respondent reserves its right to amend its request for relief during
present proceedings whereupon evidence requested for evidentiary measures contained in
section VII above has been produced.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
35. In his replica, the Player submitted that the Contract did not grant exclusive jurisdiction to
the Portuguese arbitration bodies, thus allowing for FIFA to accept jurisdiction.
36. The Player went on to state that the Contract did not establish any provisions ensuring
independence and impartiality of the dispute resolution body concerned, nor are there any
assurances of equal representation.
37. The Player further stated that he did not act in bad faith and did not deliberately conceal
the results of a failed medical examination.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14372
38. The Player highlighted that it was public knowledge that he had previously undergone knee
surgery.
39. Moreover, the Player alleged that he had since been on active duty playing with Guarani,
thus directly contradicting the determination that the Player was unfit to play.
Furthermore, the Player highlighted that the Club’s allegations of the failed medical exam
in with the Emirati club were entirely unsubstantiated, and in fact the issue that arose was
that the club sought to reduce the salary that had been proposed to the Player. The Club’s
allegations concerning a failed medical exam in the UAE were based solely on hearsay and
lack concrete documentary proof, in addition to being entirely unrelated to his negotiations
and relationship with the Club.
40. Once more, the Player recalled art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players and the Club’s duty to conduct a medical exam prior to signing a contract.
41. Finally, the Player requested that the Chamber rule as per the request stated in his Claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
42. In its duplica, the Club reiterated that Clause Eighteen of the Contract conferred jurisdiction
primarily upon the Arbitration Commission and, subsidiarily, on the Labour Courts of
Lisbon, with an express waiver of any other jurisdiction. The Player’s allegations that the
aforementioned bodies would not ensure transparency, fair play, independence and
impartiality were entirely unfounded.
43. The Club also reiterated the Player’s bad faith, as a failed medical exam prior to signing the
Contract was wholly material and relevant to the negotiations with the Club. The Club cited
CAS jurisprudence to sustain that, where the Player’s attitude during the negotiations is
clouded by bad faith, an unsuccessful medical test can empower the employer to rescind
the contract if it turns out that the Player’s medical status was so essential to the
employment relationship that it could not be expected that the employer execute the
contract and it is clear that, had the employer known about the situation prior to signing,
it would have never signed the contract.
44. The Club also pointed out that the Player’s deliberate concealment of the failed medical
exam and his injury are duly established with the affidavit from Mr. Carvalho and the
medical reports.
45. Finally, the Club confirmed its requests for relief as stated in its reply, as well as the
evidentiary request.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14372
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. 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 12 April 2024 and submitted for decision on
8 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.
47. Thereafter, the Chamber noted that the parties strongly disputed the Football Tribunal’s
jurisdiction in this matter. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, while the Player averred
that the Chamber was competent to decide this dispute, the Club challenged FIFA’s
jurisdiction in view of Clause Eighteen of the Contract, which provided as follows:
“1. In order to settle all issues related to the Interpretation of this contract, its execution,
validity or force, or related to any of its clauses, and for all other issues arising therefrom, the
parties agree to submit their respective assessment to the Arbitration Committee constituted
under the terms of Law 54/2017 of 14 July for Football Professionals.
2. In the event of the absence of a decision under the terms of the previous clause, the
parties agree to submit the respective assessment to the Labour Court of Lisbon, with
express waiver of any other.”
48. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 26 par. 1 lit c) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players 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, and recalling the October 2024, June 2024, and February
2024 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the matter of FIFA’s competence
shall be assessed using the May 2023 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players, as this claim was brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
49. Thus, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (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. Any such arbitration clause must be
included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable
on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally,
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14372
the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA NDRC Standard Regulations,
which came into force on 1 January 2008.
50. In this context, the Chamber considered it had to, first and foremost, analyse whether the
provision contained in Clause Eighteen of the Contract constituted a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of a national independent arbitration tribunal.
51. Here, by virtue of the fact that there is a subsidiary forum and indeed a hierarchy of forums
established within the clause (first the Portuguese Arbitration Commission and,
subsidiarily, the Labour Courts of Lisbon), the Chamber found that the aforementioned
clause is not exclusive to the Portuguese Arbitration Commission. In the Chamber’s view,
there was, thus, no need to delve further into whether the other requirements set out in
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023
edition) are met.
52. Furthermore, while parties shall always have the right to seek redress before a civil court
for employment related disputes pursuant to art. 22 par. 1, the Chamber noted that in this
case the reference to the Labour Courts of Lisbon was introduced as a subsidiary or
alternative forum in Clause Eighteen, thus lacking exclusivity as well.
53. In view of the foregoing, 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 (May 2023 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 a Portuguese club.
54. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), the
aforementioned edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
55. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14372
56. 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
57. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the dispute concerns a claim by a player for compensation for breach of contract against a
club.
58. In view of the parties’ submissions, the Chamber highlighted that it was not in dispute that
the parties executed a valid and binding Contract, that the Club did not conduct a medical
exam on the Player prior to signing him, and that the Club subsequently sought to
terminate the employment relationship upon receiving inter alia a medical report from the
club doctor indicating that the Player was unfit for the practice of football.
59. However, the parties strongly disputed the existence of just cause to terminate the
Contract as well as the Player’s right to receive compensation in light of the Club’s decision
to end the employment relationship.
60. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
termination occurred with or without just cause, and the consequences deriving therefrom.
61. In this respect, the Chamber began by recalling the clear and explicit wording of art. 18 par.
4 of the Regulations, according to which the validity of an employment contract cannot be
made subject to a successful medical examination and/or the grant of a work permit.
Referring also to the obligation of the parties to maintain contractual stability, the Chamber
also recalled that the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence consistently underlines that a club
willing to engage a specific player should perform any medical examination prior to
concluding any employment contract with the player. Any contractual provision contrary
to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations shall be considered as invalid.
62. The Chamber further recalled that the Club’s arguments in this respect were premised on
the Player’s obligation to be fit to perform the Contract, and the Club contended that, by
deliberately concealing a medical condition which affected his fitness for duty and a
previously failed medical exam with another club, the Club was entitled to rescind the
agreement and shall not be liable for paying any compensation.
63. In the Chamber’s view, and much in the same vein as the invalidity of clauses which purport
to create a condition precedent to a contract based on a successful medical exam, neither
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14372
the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence nor the Regulations allow for such conditions to
constitute a proper justification for a club to terminate an employment contract, as this
would also be contrary to the basic principles of respect of contract and contractual
stability enshrined in the Regulations.
64. Having concluded the above, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 14 of the Regulations,
according to which, "[a] contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of
any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is
just cause. In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be
reasonably expected in good faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship".
65. Generally, as stated in art. 14 of the Regulations, a premature termination may be issued
only in circumstances in which it can no longer, reasonably and in good faith, be expected
from the party issuing the termination to continue the respective contractual relationship.
In line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the termination of a
contract should always be an action of last resort, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken
in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of its contractual duties, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. In other words, as
consistently held by this Chamber, a premature termination of an employment contract
can only be an ultima ratio measure.
66. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing provisions and considerations, as well as the facts and
evidence in the file - namely (i) the Club’s express manifestations and overt acts confirming
that they sought to end the employment relationship in view of their discovery of the
Player’s lack of fitness after signing the Contract (i.e., since 24 February 2024), and (ii) the
Player’s subsequent requests to be reinstated, which the Club appeared to not have
responded to, the Chamber considered that the Club effectively terminated the Contract
without just cause.
67. In doing so, the Chamber underscored that, while the circumstances surrounding the
negotiation of the Contract and the sequence of events ultimately leading to a finding that
the Player had a medical issue inevitably raised questions, the Chamber considered that it
was indeed incumbent upon the Club to administer the medical exam prior to signing the
Player and it failed to do so, and that the Player’s termination as a consequence of the
medical exam results could not be understood as an ultima ratio measure.
68. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Chamber found that the Club terminated the
Contract without just cause. Furthermore, the Chamber understood that such termination
took place on 3 March 2024, i.e., once the deadline provided by the Player in his Second
Notice expired without the Club providing any kind of response.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-14372
ii. Consequences
69. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club, recalling that
the present claim concerns a request for compensation for breach of contract only.
70. In doing so, the Chamber observed that there were no outstanding salaries at the time of
termination.
71. A such, 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, 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. In this respect, the Chamber
emphasized that, according to the principle of positive interest, the claiming party must be
put in the position it would find itself in, had the breach of the contract not occurred and
had the contract been duly performed.
72. 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 the Contract indeed contained such a clause.
73. In particular, the Chamber took note of the wording of Clause Seven of the Contract, which
stipulated the following:
“Without prejudice to the provisions of the previous paragraph of this clause and for the
avoidance of any doubt, it is hereby established that in the event that any of the parties
unilaterally terminates, without recognized just cause, it will be constituted in the
obligation to indemnify the counterparty for the damages caused by the unlawful
conduct, and the amount of compensation to be paid shall be fixed as a penalty clause,
and which will be as follows:
a. In the event that ESTRELA SAD unlawfully terminates this contract, it is
obliged to pay the PLAYER an indemnity corresponding to the value of the
remuneration due until the end of the contract.
b. In the event that the PLAYER terminates unlawfully, he/she is obliged, in the legallabor field, to pay ESTRELA SAD an indemnity corresponding to the value of the
remuneration that he/she would receive until the end of the terminated contract,
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-14372
and his/her registration by a third Club will be dependent, in the legal-sporting
scope, on the payment of the amount of € 12,000,000.00 (twelve million euros),
corresponding to the valuation of the PLAYER's sports participation rights made by
the parties to this contract.”
74. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it
fulfilled the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and therefore was to be applied in the case at hand
to determine the amount of compensation payable by the Club to the Player.
75. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled its well-established line of reasoning
– one that has also been confirmed by CAS – finding that a compensation clause that
provides that the compensation payable will amount to the remaining value of the contract
is generally to be deemed proportionate.
76. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Player is entitled to receive the residual value
of the Contract, which amounted to EUR 186,000 (i.e., EUR 30,000 for the 2023/2024 season
plus EUR 72,000 for the 2024/2025 season plus EUR 84,000 for the 2025/2026 season).
77. In this respect, the Chamber found that the Player’s allegations concerning the salary
increase to be taken into account were not sufficiently substantiated, and found that such
a compensation clause did not allow for any mitigation, contrary to the Club’s allegations.
As such, the Chamber decided to reject the foregoing.
78. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 April 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
79. 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.
80. 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.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-14372
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief as well
as evidentiary requests made by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-14372
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Renyer Luan de
Oliveira Damasceno.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, CFEA Club Football Estrela Sad, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 186,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12
April 2024 until the date of effective payment.
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.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-14372
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. 22