Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18296
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Joao Victor Dias Trevenzoli
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Joao Victor Dias Trevenzoli, Brazil
Represented by António Vicente
RESPONDENT:
Arabi SC, Kuwait
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18296
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 October 2024, the Brazilian player Joao Victor Dias Trevenzoli (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Kuwaiti club Arabi SC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from until the
end of the 2025 season.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly
salary of USD 2,500 net.
3.
In addition, the Contract stipulated that the Claimant is entitled to a round-trip economy
flight ticket to and from his hometown.
4.
Lastly, article 5.1 of the Contract read as follows:
“Any party can terminate this contract by mutual consent, provided paying amount of 1000 KD
net (Only one thousand Kuwaiti dinars) to the other party.”
5.
On 21 January 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 15 days of his monthly salaries from October 2024 to December 2024 in the amount
of USD 7,500 net.
6.
On 26 January 2025, the Respondent remitted KWD 750 to the Claimant.
7.
On 27 January 2025, the Claimant sent a second default notice to the Respondent and
requested payment of USD 5,000 by no later than 5 February 2025.
8.
On 12 February 2025, the Respondent provided the Claimant with a proposed agreement
to terminate the Contract by mutual consent, which stipulated the payment of KWD 2,250
to the Claimant.
9.
On the same day, i.e. 12 February 2025, the Claimant rejected the proposed agreement by
the Respondent to terminate the Contract by mutual consent.
10. The Player confirmed that he remained unemployed until today.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18296
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 19 February 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
12. In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause pursuant to
art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
13. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. Establish that the Respondent has seriously breached the Contract;
2. Establish that the Claimant has terminated the Contract with just cause, in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the Articles 14, 14bis and 17 of the FIFA RSTP;
3. Condemn the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the outstanding salaries for November and
December 2024, as well as January 2025, in the net amount of USD 7.500,00 (seven thousand,
five hundred US Dollars), plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned sums,
accruing from 1 December 2024, 1 January 2025, and 1 February 2025, respectively, until the
date of full payment;
4. Condemn the Respondent to pay to the Claimant a compensation for breaching the Contract
during the protected period, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract that was
prematurely terminated, in the minimum net amount of USD 10.000,00 (ten thousand US
Dollars), plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned sums, accruing from 6
February 2025 until the date of full payment, in accordance with Article 17, Par. 1, lit i) of the
RSTP.
5. Condemn the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant in the amount of USD 1.213,93 (one
thousand, two hundred and thirteen US Dollars and ninety-three Cents), pursuant to Article 2
Par. 4 of the Contract, representing the cost of the Claimant’s return flight ticket from Kuwait
City to Belo Horizonte, Brazil, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned sums,
accruing from 14 February 2025, until the date of full payment.
6. In any case, sanction the Respondent in accordance with Article 17, Par. 4 of the FIFA
RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18296
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 19 February 2025 and submitted
for decision on 16 April 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.
16. 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 (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 Kuwaiti club.
17. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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
18. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18296
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of the Player against the Club for the termination of their employment
relationship, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club
as per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
22. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
23. In the present matter, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant claimed not having received
his remuneration corresponding to the monthly salaries from October 2024 to December
2024 in the amount of USD 7,500 net. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the
Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 21
January 2025, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 6 February
2025.
24. The Single Judge also 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 Single Judge recalled that the Respondent failed to provide
any evidence to prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
25. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
26. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge highlighted that, regardless of the fact that
the Player has acknowledged that the Club paid him KWD 750 following the first default
notice dated 21 January 2025, art. 14bis of the Regulations was applicable as the Club did
not fully comply with its financial obligations by 5 February 2025.
ii. Consequences
27. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of the Contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18296
28. The Single Judge first observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination of the Contract, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are
equivalent to the monthly salaries from November 2024 until January 2025.
29. 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 its termination, i.e. USD 7,500
net (i.e. USD 2,500 net x 3 months).
30. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the first day following
the month in which the Claimant’s services were performed until the date of effective
payment.
31. 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of
each case and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
32. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that 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 the compensation clause included in the Contract, i.e. in its article 5.1, does
not apply to the present matter, as the employment relationship between the parties was
unilaterally terminated by the Claimant rather than with the mutual consent of the parties.
33. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations.
34. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the 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 USD 10,000 net (i.e. the monthly salaries from
February 2025 until May 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for the breach of the Contract.
35. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18296
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations,
such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
36. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract, hence did not mitigate his damages.
37. The Single Judge then referred to art. 17 par .1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which,
in case a player did not sign any new contract following the termination of their previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
38. 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
USD 10,000 net to the Claimant (i.e. USD 2,500 net x 4 months), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for the breach of the Contract in the
present matter.
39. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the
Claimant interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 6 February 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
40. Lastly, the Single Judge considered the Claimant’s request for reimbursement of his flight
ticket to return to his hometown and decided to award him, based on the evidence on file
and the wording of the Contract, the amount of BRL 6,966, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14
February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. 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.
42. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18296
43. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
44. 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.
45. 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
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18296
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joao Victor Dias Trevenzoli, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Arabi SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 7,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,500 net as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,500 net as from 1 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,500 net as from 1 February 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
- BRL 6,966 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 February
2025 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 10,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
14 February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18296
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18296
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