Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17123
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Victor Felipe De Souza Lisboa
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Victor Felipe De Souza Lisboa, Brazil
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
Sri Pahang Football Club, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17123
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 October 2022, the Brazilian player Victor Felipe De Souza Lisboa (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Malaysian club Sri Pahang Football Club (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the Club) concluded a pre-contract (hereinafter: the Pre-Contract).
2.
The Pre-Contract read as follows:
“[…] WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO CONTRACT
Sir,
PLAYER'S NAME: VICTOR FELIPE DE SOUZA LISBOA
[…]
Further to the discussion had between us, we understand that you are the representative of the
abovenamed Player. As discussed, we would like to invite the said Player to attend training
session with our team for the period of seven days only to be assessed by us. Should we receive
favourable advice from the coaching and technical team, we are prepared to enter into
negotiation regarding the definitive acquisition of the registration rights of the Player on the
following terms: Proposed salary USD 12,000.00
Proposed duration 1 YEAR WITH OPTION FOR ANOTHER YEAR
Sign-on fee (proposed) USD 30,000.00
Proposed benefits: House/ Accommodation Allowance (tbd)
Car Allowance (tbd)
Flight tickets 1 economy return tickets for the Player and spouse/partner.
Contract execution date Upon successful medical test including MRI and other test as may be
required.
Please let us have your response on the aforesaid.
In the meantime, we wish to reiterate that under no circumstances that the above proposed
terms be regarded as an offer on behalf of the Club to the Player and/or his representative.
We look forward to your reply. […]”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17123
3.
On 19 October 2022, the Respondent sent a signed copy of the Pre-Contract to the
Claimant.
4.
On the same day, i.e. 19 October 2022, the Claimant returned a signed copy of the PreContract to the Respondent.
5.
On 3 November 2024, the Claimant sent a correspondence to the Respondent, noting that
it had failed to comply with its contractual obligations, namely to provide flight tickets to
present itself in Malaysia and begin the employment relationship. Therefore, the Claimant
requested payment of USD 174,000 as compensation for the termination of the
employment relationship without just cause.
6.
On 8 November 2024, the Respondent answered the correspondence of the Claimant as
follows:
“[…] We have instruction to state that there was never a concluded contract between our Client
and your Client. The letter dated 19.10.2022 was an invitation to attend training session for the
period of 7 days only to be assessed by the coaching and technical team, which was not
responded to accordingly. Annex A (email correspondences between parties) demonstrates clear
intention of the parties as captured by contemporaneous document. Hence, the invitation
lapsed in itself inter alia, due to excessive and inordinate delay and since your Client never
attended the training session, plus his silence. There was simply no contact or communication
and hence, nothing can be implied.
Further, your Client will definitely note that based on the clear wording of the said letter dated
19.10.2022, only when a favourable advice is obtained from the coaching and technical team, a
negotiation will then be entered on the proposed terms. At that point onwards, the absence of
your Client from that invitation made it impossible for a negotiation, let alone a contract to be
conducted for the purpose of definitive acquisition.
At all material time, there was no offer to begin with since our Client had made it clear that
under no circumstances that the proposed terms contained in the said letter dated 19.10.2022
(in terms of proposed salary, proposed duration, proposed sign-on fee and proposed benefits)
be regarded as an offer on behalf of our Client.
Therefore, your Client's purported claim is baseless, unfounded and devoid of any possible legal
merits and is procedurally flawed. Such a demand is tainted with bad motive. Our Client will
resist any claim lodged in this respect and reserves all their rights and remedies available. […]”
7.
On 11 November 2024, the Claimant replied to the latest correspondence from the
Respondent and reiterated his initial request in his correspondence dated 3 November
2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17123
8.
On 13 November 2024, the Respondent answered the correspondence of the Claimant and
noted that his claims are false and that it will strenuously defend any action taken in this
regard.
9.
On 14 November 2024, the Claimant sent an additional correspondence to the Respondent
and granted an additional time limit of two days to comply with its financial and contractual
obligations, namely, to proceed with the payment of USD 174,000 as compensation for the
termination of the employment relationship without just cause, plus 5% interest rate since
the overdue date until the date of effective payment.
10. Since the alleged termination of the employment relationship by the Respondent, the
Claimant has signed employment contracts with the Brazilian club Marcílio Dias - SC, the
Kuwaiti club Khitan SC and the Kuwaiti club Sahel SC.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 18 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. According to the Claimant, the Pre-Contract contains the essentialia negotii of a valid and
biding employment contract and that the Club acted in bad faith and contravened the legal
principle pacta sunt servanda.
13. In addition, the Player argued that the Club acted in an abusive way as he waited until 19
November 2022 for the Club to comply with the Pre-Contract.
14. Taking into consideration the foregoing, the Claimant requested USD 174,000 as
compensation for the termination of the employment relationship without just cause, plus
5% interest since 19 November 2022 until the date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
15. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17123
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 18 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 13 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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 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 (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 a Malaysian club.
18. 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, the January 2025 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
19. 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
20. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17123
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted, that based on the
evidence on file, the parties’ disagreement as to whether the Pre-Contract can be
considered as a valid and binding employment contract.
22. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
parties concluded a valid and binding employment contract and, if so, whether the Club
terminated it without just cause, as claimed by the Player.
23. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled its well-established jurisprudence which
dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding,
apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the
essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the name of the parties to the
contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee.
24. In continuation, the Chamber recalled art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which a party claiming a right based on an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of
proof. On this note, the Chamber deemed that the Player had the burden of proof to
demonstrate that the employment relationship on which he claims compensation for
breach of contract from the Club, did in fact exist.
25. In the case at hand, the Chamber pointed out that the Pre-Contract concluded between
the parties indeed (i) contained the proper identification of the parties; (ii) provided for the
duration of the employment relationship and the payable remuneration to the Player; and
(iii) referred to the Player as being employed as a footballer with the Club.
26. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that despite the Player signing the Pre-Contract, the
document did not include a designated space for the Player to insert his signature. In
addition, the Chamber considered that the Pre-Contract was not meant to be a bilateral
document (i.e. an employment contract), but solely a unilateral offer to the Player in order
to enable his participation in a trial period. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the
explicit wording of the Pre-Contract, which corroborates that the Player was only
undergoing a trial period.
27. In fact, the Chamber highlighted that the Pre-Contract stipulates the following:
“[…] As discussed, we would like to invite the said Player to attend training session with our team
for the period of seven days only to be assessed by us. Should we receive favourable advice from
the coaching and technical team, we are prepared to enter into negotiation regarding the
definitive acquisition of the registration rights of the Player […] In the meantime, we wish to
reiterate that under no circumstances that the above proposed terms be regarded as an offer
of the Club to the Player […]”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17123
28. Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber took note of the evidence
provided by the Claimant regarding how he received the Pre-Contract from the
Respondent. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the PDF document is named “Trial
Letter”, which corroborates that the Player was only undergoing a trial period.
29. Lastly, by looking closely at the behaviour of the parties and by duly weighing the evidence
on file, it appeared to the Chamber that neither of the parties can be held responsible for
the non-continuation of the contractual relationship as neither of them showed interest
therein. In fact, the evidence on file revealed to the Chamber that there was no
communication between the parties between the Player’s signing of the Pre-Contract on
19 October 2022 and the Player’s correspondence dated 3 November 2024. In this regard,
the Chamber understood that the Player sent the said correspondence to the Club when
he had already signed three new employment contracts.
30. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not
meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that an employment relationship was ever
initiated with the Club and therefore his claim lacked any contractual basis whatsoever and
must be entirely rejected.
d. Costs
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17123
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Victor Felipe De Souza Lisboa, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17123
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules 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. 10