Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14831
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 October 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Jefesson
Vieira Eufrazio
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Jefesson Vieira Eufrazio, Brazil
Represented by Alejandro Pascual Madrid
RESPONDENT:
Persik Kediri, Indonesia
Represented by Vitus Derungs
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14831
I. Facts of the case
1. On 5 July 2023, the Brazilian player Jefesson Vieira Eufrazio (hereinafter the “Claimant” or
“Player”) and the Indonesian club Persik Kediri (hereinafter the “Respondent” or “Club”)
concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter the “Contract”), valid as from 1 July 2023
until 30 April 2024.
2. In the Contract, the Respondent undertook, inter alia, to pay the Claimant the following
remuneration:
“Contract Value
The contract value for the period 1 July 2023 – 30 April 2024 is USD 80,000 (eighty thousand
dollars) which will be paid under the following conditions:
a. Down Payment of 20% or USD 16,000 (sixteen thousand dollars) which will be paid under
the following conditions:
I.
The first tranche of USD 8,000 which will be paid on August 1, 2023
II.
The second tranche is USD 8,000 which will be paid on September 1, 2023
b. The remaining USD 64,000 will be paid in stages over 10 months each month in the amount
of USD 6,400 (six thousand four hundred dollars) and the first salary will be paid on August
6, 2023
c. First salary will be given on 6 August 2023”
3. The Contract further provided the following:
“Any income earned by the Player from the Club under this Contract will be tax deducted as
stipulated in the applicable laws of the Republic of Indonesia. Player tax payments are made by
the Club by deducting the amount of salary they receive the club shall provide thr player with
the corresponding tax certificates, [sic] [ . . . ]”
4. On 30 October 2023, the Respondent requested an extension for the payment of the second
tranche of the Down Payment of USD 8,000, which had fallen due 1 September 2023, asking
to pay the debt at the latest December 2023.
5. On 29 November 2023, the Claimant accepted the extension but proposed that the payment
terms would be as follows
-
USD 4,000 before 5 December 2023
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14831
-
USD 4,000 before 30 December 2023
6. After the Respondent failed to make either payment, on 12 February 2024, the parties
reached a Settlement Agreement which provided, inter alia, the following:
“TERMINATION OF WORK AGREEMENT
[...]
THE PARTIES agree that the work agreement between [Respondent] and [Claimant] with number
048/PKP/PERSIK/VIII/2023 which should have ended on April 30, 2024, is now agreed to be end
on February 10, 2024
[...]
[Respondent] is obliged to provide the following:
[...]
Player salaries for February 2024 are calculated pro rate by calculating working days on February
6-11 2024 (six working days), which is divided from the total monthly salary of USD 6,400 (USD
Six Thousand Four Hundred) to USD 1,280 (USD One Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty). The
pro rata calculation is obtained from dividing USD 6,400 divided by 30 working days so that per
day you get USD 213.33 as the basis for the calculation. As for the player’s salary, it will be given
no later than March 6 2024.
[...]
To pay the player’s remaining Down Payment amounting to USD 8,000 divided into 2 (two)
payment terms as follows: [ . . . ]
March 15 2024 USD 4,000 [ . . . ]
April 15 2024 USD 4,000 [ . . . ]
Providing Surabaya – Florianopolis tickets with dates and airline choices determined by
management, for players, wives and children.
[...]
Each date mentioned in point 2 above is the final payment date. Where, the [Claimant] can carry
out further proceedings with the DRC and/or the FIFA Disciplinary Committee if there is a violation
of this agreement. However, in case any of the mentioned installments is not fully paid on time,
the [Claimant] will be automatically entitled to any outstanding amounts plus a net
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14831
compensation equal to the remaining salaries of the employment contract without mitigation.
[...]
The Agreement to terminate the Working Agreement is made without any coercion. [ . . . ]”
7. On 3 May 2024 the Claimant sent a notice of default to the Respondent, stating that USD
4,000 due on 15 April 2024 remained outstanding and therefore, pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, the remaining amount established under the Contract fell due in the amount
of USD 23,467, representing
-
USD 5,120 for the remaining February 2024 salary from 11 February 2024 until the end
of the month;
USD 6,400 for the full March 2024 salary;
USD 6,400 for the full April 2024 salary;
USD 1,547 for the return flight tickets from Indonesia (amounting to BRL 7,843.32)
8. In the aforementioned letter, the Claimant provided the Respondent 10 days to remedy the
default.
9. In a letter dated 5 May 2024, which the Claimant states he received 6 May 2024, the
Respondent acknowledged its obligation to settle the payment on 14 April 2024 and
explaining that, due to its financial condition, it was forced to make a payment after said
date. The Respondent went on to write as follows:
“When the club found a way to make the payment although the club has requested for the player
consideration through the letter dated 1st May 2024, the club then decided to transfer the second
payment on May 3 2024. It was before the club received your letter. At the first the club tried to
transfer the USD 4,000 however in the last minutes the club was only able to transfer USD 2,000.
Unfortunately the payment notification letter and the proof of payment was only sent the day
after (04/05) by the club Legal Department officer and it was with incomplete and contain a
wrong information on the letter, since it was drafted and signed before the payment transferred.”
10. The Respondent requested additional time to settle the remaining payment and that it
would do its best to finalize soon, requesting that the Claimant not file any lawsuit.
11. On 7 May 2024, the Claimant sent a new letter to the Respondent stating that the
Respondent now owed USD 21,467, representing the previously stated debt less USD 2,000
paid following the 3 May 2024 letter, providing the Respondent an additional six days to
fulfil the payment obligation. The same day, the Club responded and confirmed the total
outstanding amount.
12. On 8 May the Claimant sent a letter confirming the receipt of the outstanding amount but
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14831
reiterating that as requested previously, the Club remained liable for the late payment fees,
granting the Respondent another five days to make the payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 3 June 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
14. According to the Claimant, the Respondent paid the Claimant USD 1,280 net and USD 4,000,
but still owed outstanding remuneration which he calculated to amount to USD 19,467 net,
comprised of the following payments:
-
USD 5,120 net for the remainder of February 2024 salary;
USD 6,400 net for his March 2024 salary;
USD 6,400 net for his April 2024 salary;
USD 1,547 net for flight ticket reimbursement.
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant was the following:
“a. To accept this Claim against the Club.
b. To condemn the Club to pay the Player USD 17,920 (Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and
Twenty US Dollars) net as compensation for breach of the Settlement Agreement, plus interests
on a 5% annual rate starting from 16 April 2024 until its effective payment.
> Alternatively, in case any mitigation is applied, to grant the Player with the Additional
Compensation in an amount equal to the Mitigated Compensation as per Art. 17 FIFA RSTP.
c. To condemn the Club to pay the Player USD 1,547 (One Thousand five Hundred and forty
seven US Dollars) net as the reimbursement for the flights rickets already paid by the Player in
advance, plus interests on a 5% annual rate starting from 16 April 2024 until its effective
payment.
d. To confirm any amount granted as “net”;
e. To order the Club to provide the relevant tax certificates.
f. To impose the Club a ban on registering players, either national or international, until the full
amounts are paid as per Art. 24 of the FIFA RSTP;”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14831
b. Position of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged that some of the payments it made to the
Claimant were not completed in a timely manner.
17. Nonetheless, the Respondent argued that the Settlement Agreement superseded the
Contract and that by accepting the remuneration in the Settlement Agreement the Player
waived any right to the remuneration from the Contract following the termination.
18. Furthermore, the Respondent disputed the parties’ intention behind the following language:
“any of the mentioned instalments is not fully paid on time, the [Claimant] will be automatically
entitled to any outstanding amounts plus a net compensation equal to the remaining salaries of
the employment contract without mitigation.”
19. The Respondent argued that the foregoing provision (hereinafter: the “Late Penalty Clause”)
was not intended to trigger payments due after 11 February 2024 and that once it
completed the payments to the Player, the aforesaid provision (i.e., para. 3 of the Settlement
Agreement) was no longer applicable.
20. Instead, the Respondent argued, the remaining compensation owed to the Claimant
pursuant to the Late Penalty Clause was only the remaining salary of the Contract up until
11 February 2024, the final day of payments before the Settlement Agreement obligation
went into force.
21. The Respondent calculated such amount falling due under the Late Penalty Clause to be the
salary for the first five days of February which prorated to USD 1,066.
22. In the alternative, the Respondent argued that if the amount under the Contract was taken
into consideration, the award should be subject to mitigation and the Player’s compensation
earned with his new club which he joined 26 February 2024 until the end of April 2024
should be deducted from the amount awarded.
23. The Respondent further disputed that the amounts claimed by the Claimant were payable
as “net.” The Respondent argued that the payments were not made as net payments nor did
the Contract provide that they be made net.
24. The Respondent further rejected the claim for additional compensation on account that it
lacked specificity, and it argued that the Claimant did not substantiate the claim.
25. Finally, the Respondent rejected the claim for flight ticket reimbursement, arguing that the
Claimant submitted a flight reservation without price indication and a financial transaction
on the other, but failed to include an invoice for the flights which would substantiate the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14831
flight cost. The Respondent argued that no link was established between the financial
transaction and the reservation.
26. The Respondent requested the following relief:
a. “the Player’s claim be accepted at a reduced amount of USD 1’066;
b. in the alternative, the Player’s income from Figueirense FC between 26 February 2024 and
30 April 2024 shall be deducted from the Player’s claim;
c. all further claims of the Player be rejected;
d. the procedural and legal costs be borne by the Player.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14831
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. 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 03 June 2024 and submitted for decision on
08 October 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
28. 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 (June 2024 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 an Indonesian club.
29. 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 June 2024, the June 2024 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
30. 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
31. 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. 9
REF. FPSD-14831
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute how much remuneration was owed by the Respondent to the
Claimant.
33. Preliminarily, the Chamber noted that the parties did not dispute that a valid Contract
existed between them.
34. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the parties did not dispute that they entered into a
valid Settlement Agreement terminating the Contract, wherein the Respondent undertook
to pay remuneration to the Claimant in multiple instalments.
35. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent did not deny delaying the payment past
the stipulated instalment due dates or that the Settlement Agreement contemplated a
consequence in the event of late or incomplete payment.
36. The Chamber recalled that instead, Respondent argued the Settlement Agreement’s Late
Penalty Clause should not be interpreted to mean that the remaining amounts under the
Contract would fall due in the event of delayed payment.
37. Next, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in the event that
the Respondent delayed payment beyond the due date stipulated in the Settlement
Agreement, “the [Claimant] will be automatically entitled to any outstanding amounts plus a net
compensation equal to the remaining salaries of the employment contract without mitigation.”
38. The Chamber found that a plain reading of the clause did not suggest that the “remaining
salaries of the employment contract” were limited to the salaries of the Contract up until 5
February 2024, as suggested by the Respondent, but rather that the amounts originally due
through the end of the Contract fell due, as argued by the Claimant.
39. In continuation, the Chamber determined that the following obligations fell due upon the
Respondent’s failure to timely pay the due amounts: (1) any amounts remaining due under
the Settlement Agreement and (2) the remaining salaries from the Contract.
40. The Chamber therefore concluded that such due amounts, both from the Settlement
Agreement and the Contract, should be awarded.
41. Thereafter, the Chamber observed that the only remaining outstanding remuneration
arising from the Settlement Agreement alleged by the Claimant was a reimbursement for
flight tickets. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Settlement Agreement provided
as follows:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14831
“Providing Surabaya – Florianopolis tickets with dates and airline choices determined by
management, for players, wives and children.”
42. The Chamber realized that the Respondent raised a valid objection to the claimed tickets,
namely that the evidence submitted by the Claimant was not an invoice of the flight, but
rather a copy of the reservation and a separate transaction receipt which did not indicate
that such payment was made for the flight. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the
reservation included no cost for the flight. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the Claimant’s
request for reimbursement for the flight ticket could not be granted, as the Claimant failed
to provide sufficient proof that he paid this amount for the flight.
43. Furthermore, with respect to the Claimant’s request to order the Respondent to provide the
relevant tax certificates, the Chamber observed that this entitlement was one outlined in
the Contract, not the Settlement Agreement. The Chamber emphasized that the Settlement
Agreement did not provide that all entitlements would become due from the Contract in
the event of late payment, but only the “remaining salaries.” Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the request to compel the tax certificates should not be granted.
ii. Consequences
44. For the amounts remaining on the Contract, the Chamber observed that the Claimant’s
calculations appeared to reflect the contractual terms, and what constituted the residual
value for the remaining months under the Contract went unchallenged by the Respondent.
Therefore, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber determined that the amounts should be awarded as follows:
-
USD 5,120 net for rest of February 2024 salary;
USD 6,400 net for March 2024 salary;
USD 6,400 net for April 2024 salary.
45. The Chamber recalled that the amounts in the Settlement Agreement provided that “a net
compensation equal to the remaining salaries of the employment contract” be awarded.
Therefore, the Chamber decided to award the amounts as net, as requested.
46. In continuation, the Chamber did not consider mitigation principles to apply in the matter
at hand, because the present matter was not a claim for compensation for breach of
contract within the meaning of art. 14 of the FIFA RSTP and mitigation principles do not
apply to overdue payables and remuneration from liquidation clauses, unless established
otherwise in the relevant contract.
47. Similarly, the Chamber highlighted that if the parties had intended to mirror the standard
calculation of the compensation in accordance with art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP, the Chamber
concluded that the parties should have done so in writing. However, on the contrary: the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14831
Settlement Agreement provided that the amounts at issue were due “without mitigation.”
48. In addition, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant requested interest of 5% per annum
starting from 16 April 2024 which represented the date following the final payment due date
under the Settlement Agreement.
49. The Chamber determined that, in line with past practice of the DRC (supporting that in the
event of an acceleration clause, the Chamber may award interest as from the day following
the date on which the acceleration clause was triggered), that the interest be awarded as
requested.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14831
d. Costs
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14831
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jefesson Vieira Eufrazio, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Persik Kediri, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 17,920 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 April
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.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14831
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