Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16994
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Wanderson Henrique do Nascimento Silva
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Wanderson Henrique do Nascimento Silva, Brazil
Represented by Filipe Orsolini Pinto de Souza
RESPONDENT:
FC Dinamo Batumi, Georgia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16994
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2024, the Brazilian player Wanderson Henrique do Nascimento Silva
(hereinafter, the Claimant or the Player) and the Georgian club FC Dinamo Batumi
(hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter,
the Contract) valid as from 1 January 2024 until 10 December 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the equivalent in Georgian Lari of USD 7,000 net per
month.
3.
In accordance with Clause 6 of the Appendix 1 of the Contract:
“[The Club] ensures [the Player] two round trip flight ticket for Brazil year during the term of
the Contract”.
4.
On 20 October 2024, the Player put the Club in default granting it a deadline of 15 days to
proceed with the payment of USD 27,500.66 net, corresponding to his partial remuneration
for March until September 2024 as follows:
- USD 3,500 net for March 2024;
- USD 4,666.67 net for April 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net May 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net June 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net July 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net August 2024; and
- USD 5,334 for net September 2024;
5.
On 5 November 2024, the Player terminated the Contract based on art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
6.
On 14 November 2024, the Player flew back to Brazil with his family, incurring in a total
cost of BRL 20,621 for the flight tickets.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 7 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16994
a. Position of the Player
8.
According to the Player, during the term of the Contract the Club failed to remit more than
two monthly salaries in their due dates. Consequently, the Player claimed having just cause
to terminate the Contract on 5 November 2024 after having put the Club in default, to no
avail, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter, the Regulations).
9.
In particular, the Player sustained that the following amounts and concepts, which
amounted to USD 34,500,66 net, remained unpaid at the time of termination:
- USD 3,500 net for March 2024;
- USD 4,666.67 net for April 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net May 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net June 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net July 2024;
- USD 3,500 for net August 2024;
- USD 5,334 for net September 2024; and
- USD 7,000 for net October 2024.
10. Furthermore, the Player also claimed being entitled to compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of USD 98,000 net, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract, as
well as to an additional compensation of USD 21,000 net.
11. Lastly, the Player sought reimbursement of his share of the amount paid for the flight
tickets to return to Brazil, in the amount of BRL 5,155.25 net.
12. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of all the above, the Claimant requests:
a. The DRC to send this claim to [the Respondent] with a time limit for a statement or a reply,
pursuant to article 21.1 the FIFA Procedural;
b. The DRC to accept this claim and declare that the Employment Contract signed by and
between the parties was terminated with just cause by the Respondent on 4 November 2024,
according to article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP;
c. The DRC to accept this claim and order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16994
i. The outstanding salaries in the net amount of USD 34,500.66, plus interest of 5% p.a. as
from the due date of each payment;
ii. A compensation equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated in the total net amount of USD 98,000, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 4
November 2024;
iii. An additional compensation in the total net amount of USD 21,000, plus 5% interest of
5% p.a. as from 4 November 2024;
iv. The reimbursement of the flight tickets in the net amount of BRL 5,155.25, plus interests
of 5% p.a. as from the date of each payment.
d. The DRC to accept this claim and sanction the Respondent in accordance with article 17.4
of FIFA RSTP.
e. The DRC to accept this claim and include the consequences of the failure to pay the relevant
amounts in due time, pursuant to article 24 of the FIFA RSTP”.
b. Position of the Club
13. In its reply, the Club argued that it informed the Player that the financial crisis would be
resolved and that his financial dues would be covered. Nonetheless, the Club sustained
that the Player decided to leave the next day.
14. The Club showed its interest on negotiating with the Player, and added that “Here we note
that we partially disagree with the applicant’s demands”.
c. Further submissions regarding an alleged agreement
15. On 2 December 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s reply
to the claim, and informed the Parties that the submission phase of the proceedings was
closed. Furthermore, the Parties were informed that, pursuant to art. 26 par. 4 of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules) the
Chairperson of the Chamber deemed that mediation was appropriate in the matter at
hand, and therefore the Parties were invited to confirm whether they agreed to mediate
their dispute and to jointly nominate a mediator from the FIFA list of approved mediators.
16. On 5 December 2024, the Claimant informed that he did not wish to mediate the dispute.
17. On 11 December 2024, the Respondent claimed to have approached the Player with an
offer in order to resolve the dispute amicably.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16994
18. Also on 11 December 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat invited the Player to inform
whether the Parties had reached an amicable solution to the dispute.
19. On the same day, the Player denied the existence of any agreement with the Club.
20. Also on 11 December 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the
Player’s correspondence and informed the Parties about the submission of the present
case to the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC).
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. First of all, the Chamber 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 7 November
2024 and submitted for decision on 16 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of
art. 31 of the January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of
the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
22. 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 (January 2025 edition), the DRC 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 Georgian club.
23. 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 the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
24. 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).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16994
c. Merits of the dispute
25. 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
26. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract.
27. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, according to the Player, the Club failed to remit
several of his monthly salaries. As such, the Player claimed having just cause to terminate
the Contract on 5 November 2024 after having put the Club in default, to no avail.
28. The DRC also observed that the Club did not dispute being in default with the Player, and
limited to state that it partially disagreed with his claim.
29. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
30. The Chamber 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 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 obligations.
31. With the above in mind, the DRC noted that the Player claimed not having received his full
remuneration corresponding to the months from March to October 2024. In particular, the
Chamber observed that, according to the Player, the following monthly instalments
remained unpaid by the Club at the time of termination:
- USD 3,500 for March 2024;
- USD 4,666.67 for April 2024;
- USD 3,500 for May 2024;
- USD 3,500 for June 2024;
- USD 3,500 for July 2024;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16994
- USD 3,500 for August 2024;
- USD 5,334 for September 2024; and
- USD 7,000 for October 2024.
32. The Chamber therefore noted that, considering that the agreed salary was USD 7,000 per
month, the alleged outstanding remuneration (i.e., USD 34,500,66) amounted to more than
two monthly salaries (i.e., USD 14,000). Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Claimant
provided written evidence of having put the Club in default on 20 October 2024, i.e., at least
15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 5 November 2024.
33. The Chamber also outlined that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract. Nonetheless, the DRC
noted that the Club merely stated that it partially disagreed with the claim of the Player,
without providing any further explanation or evidence as to the amounts due.
34. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber ruled that the Player had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations and that the Club is therefore
liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
35. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
36. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, covers the months from March
to October 2024, amounting to a total sum of USD 34,500.66 net.
37. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which
were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD 34,500.66
net.
38. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from their relevant due dates until the
date of effective payment, as follows:
- March 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 3,500 net, as from 1 April 2024;
- April 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 4,666.67 net, as from 1 May 2024;
- May 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 3,500 net, as from 1 June 2024;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16994
- June 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 3,500 net, as from 1 July 2024;
- July 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 3,500 net, as from 1 August 2024;
- August 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 3,500 net, as from 1 September 2024;
- September 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 5,334 net, as from 1 October 2024; and
- October 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 7,000 net as from November 2024.
39. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club 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 damages 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.
40. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
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.
41. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in
the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
42. As a consequence, the DRC determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set
out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
43. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 98,000 net
(i.e., USD 7,000 net for the period between November 2024 and December 2025) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
44. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16994
45. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
46. The DRC referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the
player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract, as
a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
47. In view of the above, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach
of contract in the amount of USD 98,000 net as the residual value of the Contract
(i.e., USD 7,000 net times 14).
48. At this point, the DRC took note of the Player’s request for additional compensation in the
amount of USD 21,000. In this respect, the DRC made reference to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the
Regulations to emphasise that the compensation granted was equivalent to the residual
value of the contract and that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract.
49. In this context, the DRC rejected the additional request of the Player.
50. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of the date of termination, i.e., 5 November
2024, until the date of effective payment.
51. The DRC also noted that the Player requested the reimbursement of BRL 5,155.25, which
represented his share of the cost of flight tickets for himself and his family to return to
Brazil.
52. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Appendix I of the
Contract, “Employer ensures Employee two round trip flight ticket for Brazil year during the term
of the Contract”.
53. In view of the clear wording of the foregoing provision, and also considering that the Player
presented the relevant evidence of the expenses incurred, the DRC decided to award him
the reimbursement of BRL 5,155.25 plus the requested interest of 5% per annum as from
14 November 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations – Sporting sanctions
54. In continuation, the DRC focused on the further consequences of the breach of contract in
question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions against the
Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates that,
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16994
in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on
any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
55. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the Definitions section of the Regulations,
which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or
three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
56. In this respect, the DRC took note that the Player was born on 13 September 1991, and the
Contract with the Club was concluded on 1 January 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber noted
that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause on 5 November 2024. The breach
of contract by the Club had therefore occurred during within the protected period.
57. Moreover, the Chamber took note that the Respondent had already been held liable of
breaching other player’s contracts without just cause on several recent occasions, in
particular cases:
- FPSD-15119 – notified to the parties on 23 September 2024;
- FPSD-16303 – notified to the parties on 3 December 2024; and
- FPSD-15740 – notified to the parties on 6 January 2025.
58. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the next to entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16994
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of arts. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
62. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
63. In view of the above, the DRC decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
64. 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.
d. Costs
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16994
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Wanderson Henrique do Nascimento Silva, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Dinamo Batumi, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 34,500.66 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as
follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,500 net as from 1 April 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,666.67 net as from 1 May 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,500 net as from 1 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,500 net as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,500 net as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,500 net as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,334 net as from 1 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,000 net as from 1 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- USD 98,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum
as from 5 November 2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- BRL 5,155.25 net as reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as from 14 November
2024 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16994
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16994
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. 15