Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17898
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Aloisio De Souza Genezio
BY:
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico)
CLAIMANT:
Aloisio De Souza Genezio, Brazil
Represented by Debora Trombeta de Mattos Cesario
RESPONDENT:
CFEA Club Football Estrela, Portugal
Represented by 14 Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17898
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 July 2024, the Brazilian player, Aloisio De Souza Genesio (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Portuguese club, CFEA Club Football Estrela (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) entered into a termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination
Agreement) to end their employment relationship.
2.
In accordance with Clause 2 and 3 the Termination Agreement, the Respondent undertook
to pay to the Claimant (hereinafter: jointly referred to as the Parties) inter alia a fixed net
amount of EUR 5,000 as well as a EUR 5,131.29 amount as a performance bonus for the
Club ‘s promotion payable in 10 instalments as follows:
‘’The first installment of €500.00 (five hundred euros) on the present date;
Subsequent installments of €500.00 each on the 5th of every month from 05/08/2024 to
05/04/2025.
The final installment of €661.29 (six hundred sixty-one euros and twenty-nine cents) on
05/05/2025.’’
3.
In addition, Clause 7 par. 3) of the Termination Agreement stated, quoted verbatim:
‘’For the interpretation of this Agreement or resolution of any disputes arising from its
application or execution, the PARTIES expressly agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Court of the Lisbon District, waiving any other jurisdiction, however privileged it may be.’’
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 22 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
5.
The Claimant mentions that the Respondent has failed to pay the amount of EUR 3,500, as
of 22 January 2025, contrary to its obligations under the Termination Agreement.
6.
The Claimant mentions that FIFA has jurisdiction over the present dispute despite of Clause
7 par. 3) of the Termination Agreement, because that clause was unilaterally imposed by
the Respondent in the termination agreement, which he says ‘’does not reflect [his] consent.’’
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17898
7.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
‘’a) Accept this claim and declare the Respondent in breach of its contractual obligations.
b) Order the Respondent to pay the total outstanding amount of EUR 3,500.00 (three
thousand and five hundred euros) as of 24 January 2025 without delay.
c) Declare the early maturity of all future installments and order the immediate payment of
the remaining installments, amounting to EUR 1,631.29 (one thousand and six hundred thirtyone euros and twenty-nine cents), or alternatively, confirm that these amounts will become
due on their respective dates without the need for further legal action.
d) Impose interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the original due dates until full payment
is made.’’
b. Reply of the Respondent
8.
In its reply, the Respondent opposes the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal stating that
the Termination Agreement contains ‘’an unambiguous and mutually agreed contractual
provision’’ that grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Labor Court of the Lisbon District
(Tribunal do Trabalho da Comarca de Lisboa).
9.
The Respondent mentions that the clause aligns with the Commentary on the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 edition), and the Football Tribunal’s
jurisprudence.
10. In addition, the Respondent mentions that Clause 7 par. 3) of the Termination Agreement
contains also a waiver of jurisdiction preventing any tribunal other than Labor Court of the
Lisbon District, to hear the dispute.
11. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
‘’In light of all of the above, CFEA respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the
FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) Determine that FIFA does not have competence to rule on the present dispute and reject
the Claim summarily in its entirety.’’
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17898
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. 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 22 January 2025 and submitted for
decision on 19 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.
13. 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 Single Judge is, in principle, 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.
14. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of
FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the Labor Court of the Lisbon District (Tribunal do
Trabalho da Comarca de Lisboa), alleging that the latter is competent to deal with any
dispute arising from the Termination Agreement between the Parties in accordance with
Clause 7 par. 3).
15. In this context, the Single Judge first recalled that, pursuant to art. 22 caput of the
Regulations, FIFA has jurisdiction over employment-related disputes between a player and
a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player […] or club
to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
16. The Single Judge then emphasized that art. 22, caput of the Regulations provides for a clear
hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy, which has been consistently confirmed by the
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (cf., Commentary on the
Regulations, p. 446 et seq.).
17. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that its task was to establish whether the
Parties had indeed agreed on a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the
Labor Court of the Lisbon District (Portugal) and, if so, whether any of the grounds put
forward by the Player could undermine this agreement.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17898
18. The Single Judge recalled the wording of Clause 7 par. 3) of the Termination Agreement
that states:
‘’For the interpretation of this Agreement or resolution of any disputes arising from its
application or execution, the PARTIES expressly agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Court of the Lisbon District, waiving any other jurisdiction, however privileged it may be.’’
19. The Single Judge considered this clause to be clear and as granting exclusive jurisdiction to
the Labor Court of the Lisbon District.
20. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant disputes the validity of
Clause 7 par. 3) of the Termination Agreement mentioning that it does not reflect his
consent, and that the clause was imposed on him by the Respondent
21. Despite this objection from the Claimant to the jurisdiction clause included in the
Termination Agreement, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant did not provide evidence
supporting that his consent was vitiated when signing the Termination Agreement.
Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant failed to discharge his burden
of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules that he did not consent to the
jurisdiction clause included at Clause 7 par. 3) of the Termination Agreement at the time of
signature, or that his consent was vitiated at the time of his signature.
22. As noted above, the Single Judge recalled that parties are free to confer jurisdiction on a
civil court, and that clause 7 art. 3) of the Termination Agreement was a clear and exclusive
clause in favour of the Labor Court of the Lisbon District, with an expressed waiver of any
other jurisdiction.
23. In conclusion, and taking into account all of the above considerations, the Single Judge
decided that the Claimant’s position could not succeed and that the Football Tribunal did
not have jurisdiction to hear this case.
b. Costs
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17898
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Aloisio
De Souza Genezio.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17898
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. 8