Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16304
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Victor de Almeida Souza Reis
BY:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Victor de Almeida Souza Reis, Brazil
Represented by Mr Evandro Luis Rezende Forte
RESPONDENT:
Portimonense SC, Portugal
Represented by Mr Joao Filipe Lobao
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16304
I. Facts of the case
1. On 17 May 2024, the Brazilian player Vitor de Souza Reis (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Portuguese club Portimonense SC (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until
30 June 2027.
2. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
remuneration until the 5th day of the following respective month:
-
EUR 960 for the seasons 2024/2025 and 2025/2026;
EUR 1,000 for the season 2026/2027.
3. Moreover, the Contract foresaw the following clause under art. 10:
“In the event that one of the parties terminates this contract, the party that gave rise to
the unlawful termination shall be obliged to indemnify the other party for the damage
caused, with a penalty clause to be established as follows:
a) In the event that at PORTIMONENSE SAD terminates the contract unlawfully, it is
obliged to pay the PLAYER an indemnity corresponding to the amount of
remuneration due until the end of the contract, although it may deduct from
the indemnity any amounts that the PLAYER may receive for providing the same
activity to another sports organisation;
b) In the event that the PLAYER is unlawfully terminated, PORTIMONENSE SAD is entitled
to require the PLAYER to pay compensation of no less than EUR 40,000,000 (forty
million euros).”
4. Furthermore, pursuant to art. 14 of the Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“Anything not provided for in this contract shall be subject to the provisions of the CCT
signed between the National Union of Professional Football Players and the
Portuguese Professional Football League, published in the Bulletin of Labour and
Employment, 1stSeries, no.33, of 08/09/1988, as updated, and Law no.54/2017 of 14
July and subsidiarily the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players.”
FACTS AND DEFAULT NOTICES
5. On 25 July 2024, the Claimant received a flight ticket and invitation letter from the
Respondent in order to travel to Portugal for the Contract.
6. On 26 July 2024, the Claimant travelled to Portugal and was unveiled as a new signing of
the Respondent.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16304
7. On 30 July 2024, the Claimant allegedly completed his medical examination for the
Respondent.
8. On 1 August 2024, the Claimant participated in an U23 training match for the
Respondent.
9. On 5 August 2024, the Claimant allegedly verbally requested payment of the salary for
the month of July 2024.
10. On 24 August 2024, the Claimant participated in another U23 training match for the
Respondent.
11. After said match, the Claimant was allegedly instructed to train alone with only a
physiotherapist present.
12. On 28 August 2024, the Claimant allegedly sent a text message to the Sporting Director,
requesting him to organize a nutritional test for the Claimant. The latter allegedly
informed him that this was not necessary, as the club could not register the Claimant.
When asked why the club would not register the Claimant, the Respondent’s Sporting
Director allegedly indicated that “it was the club’s choice”.
13. On 31 August 2024, the Respondent’s Sporting Director sent a text message to the
Claimant, informing the latter that he had sent an offer to the Claimant’s agent to
mutually terminate the Contract, and that the Claimant’s return to Brazil was being
planned for 3 September 2024.
14. On the same day, the Claimant allegedly received – through his agent – such proposal to
mutually and prematurely terminate the Contract, for an amount of 3 monthly salaries.
In such proposal, the Respondent stated that they cannot proceed with the payment
“here” and requested alternative bank coordinates.
15. On 1 September 2024, the Respondent allegedly informed the Claimant that another
director of the club had approved the terms of the premature termination offer.
16. On 2 September 2024, the Respondent allegedly informed the Claimant that he would
not participate in any trainings until his “contractual situation”, insurance and
registration were resolved.
17. On the same day, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
18. On the same day still, the Respondent summoned the Claimant to the club’s facilities,
and allegedly presented the Claimant with “registration documents” and purportedly
attempted to make the Claimant sign the termination offer under duress, which the
Claimant allegedly refused.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16304
19. On 3 September 2024, the Claimant sent the termination notice to the Portuguese
Football Federation.
20. On 5 September 2024, the Claimant returned to Brazil.
21. On 4 June 2025, the Claimant signed a new contract with the Brazilian club Esporte Club
São Bento from Brazil, valid until 13 October 2025 and with a monthly salary of
BRL 1,545.08 (the New Contract).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16304
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 30 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
23. On 7 November 2024, the Respondent filed a counterclaim exclusively against the Claimant
before FIFA.
24. A summary of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
25. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to pay the first salary under the
Contract for the month of July 2024.
26. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent behaved abusively towards him
and informed him that, following an unsatisfactory performance in a test match, the club
refused to register him and informed him that it wanted to prematurely terminate the
Contract and sign a mutual settlement agreement to this effect.
27. The Claimant further explained that he was subsequently excluded from team training and
made to continue the preparation on his own, with only a physiotherapist present.
28. Based on this abusive conduct and breach of trust by the Respondent, the Claimant argued
that the threshold of ultima ratio was met, and that, as a result, he had a just cause to
prematurely terminate the Contract.
29. The following request for relief was, thus, formulated:
-
EUR 960 as outstanding remuneration, plus interest as from 6 August 2024;
EUR 34,080 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest as from
3 September 2024;
Sporting sanctions on the Respondent.
b. Counterclaim of the Respondent
30. The Respondent firstly wished to emphasise that, in accordance with art. 14 of the Contract,
Portuguese law applies instead of the FIFA Regulations, which are only applicable
subsidiarily.
31. In light of this, the Respondent argued that the amount described as outstanding by the
Claimant cannot be considered as such, in accordance with Portuguese law.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16304
32. Indeed, pursuant thereto, the Respondent argued that a player must put the club in default
after the amount remains unpaid for at least 30 days, grant a deadline of three business
days, and only then, if the amount still remains unpaid, may the contract be terminated.
33. As the Claimant failed to put the Respondent in default, and did not grant a due grace
period to remedy this supposed breach, he cannot base his argumentation of just cause
on a lack of payment of the salary for July 2024.
34. In any event, the Respondent outlined that it requested the Claimant on several occasions
to provide the bank coordinates to make the payment of remuneration, to no avail.
35. Subsidiarily, the Respondent argued that the requirements of art. 14bis RSTP were not met
in the case at hand, and that, as such, a termination with just cause due to overdue
payables cannot be argued.
36. Equally, the Respondent argued that the threshold of ultima ratio was not met in the case
at hand.
37. First of all, the Respondent described that the Sporting Director alluded to by the Claimant
– “Mr Delgado” – did not “perform the functions in the Club that the Player mentions, not even
having the power or competence to decide anything”, as well as outlining that, from the tone
of the messages exchanged, the player and Mr Delgado had a close, friendly relationship,
and that any statements from the latter should, as a result of not being “professional”, be
disregarded.
38. Having said this, the Respondent denied that it refused to register the player. The
Respondent referred to a recent change in legislation introduced on 3 June 2024, regarding
the entry and stay of foreign citizens, which made the process for obtaining authorization
to stay in the country significantly lengthier and more complicated.
39. As a result, according to the Respondent’s own admission, it was unable to register the
player “at the time it wanted, although it was its intention to do so”, and that “(…) the player
was restless and impatient and did not want to wait for the completion of the registration
process for the competitions”.
40. Furthermore, the Respondent outlined that the registration period for the 2024/2025
season would end on 13 September 2024, therefore arguing that, provided that the other
administrative requirements would be met in the meantime, the player could have,
theoretically, still been registered before the window closed.
41. As a result, by prematurely terminating the Contract, the player himself prevented the club
from registering him.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16304
42. Lastly, the Respondent argued in generic terms that it did not prevent the player from
participating in training and that the burden of proving such allegations rested on him.
43. Having set out all the above, the Respondent argued that the Claimant lacked just cause to
terminate the Contract, and was therefore liable to pay compensation.
44. Pursuant to art. 10 of the Contract, the Respondent argued that it was entitled to
compensation of EUR 40,000,000 (forty million euro), which it requested as compensation
with interest as from 3 September 2024.
45. Subsidiarily, the Respondent requested the residual value of the Contract.
46. Moreover, the Respondent requested the imposition of a playing ban on the player for a
period of six months.
47. Additionally, the Respondent formulated an evidentiary request against the Claimant, to
demonstrate that he opened a bank account in Portugal, facilitating the payment of salary.
48. Lastly, the Respondent was invited to comment and (if applicable) amend its counterclaim
in accordance with the Interim Regulatory Framework that was introduced by FIFA in its
January 2025 edition of the Regulations.
49. In this respect, the Respondent stated:
“(…) the FIFA Tribunal must resolve this dispute exclusively under the primary applicable legal
framework, which is Portuguese law. For the reasons mentioned, the Club states that it is not
necessary to change its counterclaim.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the Claimant
50. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant firstly insisted that the FIFA Regulations are
applicable to the case at hand.
51. According to the Claimant, by choosing FIFA as the forum for dispute resolution in this case,
the FIFA Regulations are automatically applicable by way of the Statutes, and the relevant
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS.
52. Having established the above, the Claimant addressed the arguments of the Respondent
in respect of the lawfulness of the premature termination.
53. The Claimant firstly emphasised the lack of registration since the beginning of the
contractual term, arguing that the club never informed him that this was due to any change
in regulations or that it intended to register him subsequently, but that this was merely a
decision within the club’s discretion.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16304
54. Additionally, the Claimant referred to the fact that the Respondent offered him three
salaries as an early compensation, after informing him that it would not register him, and
that it would pay for his flight back to Brazil.
55. As for the alleged lack of involvement by the Sports Director, Mr Delgado, the Claimant
included several pieces of evidence to corroborate that he was in fact occupying said
position. As he was an employee of the Respondent, and occupied a significant position in
the club’s hierarchy, he could be expected to make certain decisions about players’ –
including the Claimant’s – status at the club.
56. Lastly, as for the creation of a bank account, the Claimant argued that the Respondent
never requested him to open an account in Portugal, and that, instead, he requested the
salary to be paid to his account in Brazil.
57. In conclusion, the Claimant reiterated that he had a just cause to terminate the Contract
prematurely, and thus insisted on his initial request for relief.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16304
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
58. 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 30 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 8 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the
July 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.
59. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (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 Portuguese club.
60. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter.
61. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the line of reasoning put forward by the
Respondent, that the legal framework governing the case at hand was the collective
bargaining agreement applicable at national level, rather than the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, which should only be considered subsidiarily thereto. The
Respondent hereby made reference to art. 14 of the Contract, as well as art. 14bis par. 3 of
the Regulations.
62. As a general remark, the Chamber firstly pointed out that, pursuant to art. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, “In their application and adjudication of law, the chambers shall apply the
FIFA Statutes and FIFA regulations, whilst taking into account all relevant arrangements, laws,
and/or collective bargaining agreements that exist at national level […]”.
63. Consequently, the Chamber stated that the FIFA Regulations shall primarily apply in the
present case.
64. 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 July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16304
b. Burden of proof
65. 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
66. 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
67. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the lawfulness of the premature termination of the Contract
by the Claimant.
68. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine first of all, which
article in the Regulations was applicable to determine the lawfulness of the termination, in
order to establish whether or not the provisions included in a collective bargaining
agreement could be deemed as relevant in this respect. Subsequently, and having
established the legal basis for determining the lawfulness of the contractual termination,
the Chamber would have to determine whether or not the Claimant had a just cause to
terminate the Contract prematurely, and what the consequences of any breach of contract
may be.
69. At this stage, the Chamber recalled the submissions of the parties, whereby the Claimant
had argued that the Respondent had not only failed to comply with its financial obligations,
but further, that various other breaches of contract had been committed – namely, failing
to register the player, excluding him from training, and proposing a premature contractual
termination, leading to an overall image being conveyed to the Claimant that he had no
future at the club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16304
70. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the Claimant lacked just cause to
prematurely terminate the Contract, due to the relevant provisions governing termination
of employment contracts due to overdue payables contained in the collective bargaining
agreement existing at national level. Subsidiarily, the Respondent asserted that the
Claimant could, indeed, still be registered, that there were only difficulties therewith, due
to a recent change in domestic legislation related to foreign citizens. Furthermore, the
Respondent alleged that the Claimant had not been excluded from training, and that the
latter failed to meet his burden of proving such assertion.
71. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber noted that the above circumstances clearly fell
outside the scope of art. 14bis of the Regulations. Not only were the formal requirements
of said article – more specifically, either its paragraph 1 or 2 – not met, but further, the
Claimant had invoked various other reasons for prematurely terminating the Contract than
just overdue payables.
72. Therefore, the Chamber was unanimous in its view that the termination of the Contract –
and the existence of a just cause – would be determined in accordance with art. 14 of the
Regulations, and the doctrine of ultima ratio (as laid down in the relevant jurisprudence).
By extension, the Chamber also held that, as a result, art. 14bis par. 3 was not applicable
in the case at hand, and therefore any legal provision contained in the collective bargaining
agreement existing at national level bore no effect in the present case for the purposes of
determining whether just cause exists.
73. With this established, the Chamber went on with its analysis as to the merits of the case.
In doing so, it firstly pointed out that the Respondent, whilst challenging the authority of
Mr Delgado within the club, has not questioned the authenticity of the text / WhatsApp
messages adduced by the Claimant.
74. Furthermore, as is established by the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, it generally is
considered too burdensome for a player to be fully acquainted with the internal hierarchy
and division of responsibilities within a club. For the Claimant, in this case communicating
with the Sporting Director of the Respondent (as has subsequently been demonstrated
with adequate evidence), it would be reasonable to assume that a sporting director within
a club would be responsible for the retention or dismissal of a player and his contractual
situation, or at least the communication of the club’s decisions in this regard.
75. As a result, any argument raised by the Respondent in terms of the alleged lack of authority
of the Sporting Director to bind the Respondent with his actions and statements was
disregarded by the Chamber, and the correspondence between the Claimant and the
Sporting Director of the Respondent via text and/or the messaging platform WhatsApp
would be taken into consideration.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16304
76. Having set out these preliminary comments, the Chamber deemed it relevant to recall the
timeline of undisputed and corroborated facts in the case at hand:
-
On 17 May 2024, the parties signed the Contract
-
On 3 June 2024, the Portuguese government passed a legislation in respect of the
“entry and stay of foreign citizens”
-
On 26 July 2024, the Claimant arrived in Portugal
-
On 1 August 2024, the Claimant participated in a training match for the Respondent
-
On 24 August 2024, the Claimant participated in a further training match
-
On 28 August 2024, the Respondent’s sporting director informed the Claimant that
they are unable to register him and that he should return to Brazil
-
On 31 August 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant an offer for early
termination of three months and requested alternative bank coordinates for the
payment thereof
-
On 2 September 2024:
-
o
the Respondent informed the Claimant that, until his contractual situation,
insurance and registration were resolved, he would be excluded from
training
o
the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract
On 5 September 2024, the Claimant returned to Brazil.
77. From the above, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had – according to the Claimant
– been in breach of contract in four distinct ways, which would have to be analysed
individually in order to establish just cause or not. These four arguments consisted of the
Respondent’s alleged failure to register the Claimant; the alleged exclusion from training,
the alleged failure to remit one salary on time; and lastly, the alleged proposal for a mutual
termination of the contract.
78. As for the registration of the Claimant, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent was
indeed in breach of its obligations.
79. In particular, from the submission of the Respondent, the Chamber was unable to establish
any clear link between the law introduced as to the entry and stay of foreign nationals, and
the registration of the Claimant with the Portuguese Football Federation. This should, in
any event, pursuant to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, not create an obstacle for the
execution of an employment contract, as administrative requirements such as the
registration of a player and the obtention of a work permit / visa are within the club’s
responsibility as an employer.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16304
80. The Chamber did note that the Respondent has expressed concerns about the recently
introduced domestic legislation regarding foreign citizens, which created difficulties vis-àvis the Claimant’s registration.
81. However, based on the evidence on file, such legislation was introduced on 3 June 2024,
with the Claimant arriving in Portugal at the end of July 2024. The first time the Respondent
expressly mentioned issues with the registration of the player was at the end of
August 2024 – long after the Claimant had already participated in two training matches on
the Respondent’s behalf and been engaged pursuant to the Contract at stake.
82. The Chamber hereby deemed the fact that the season in Portugal had already commenced
as an aggravating factor, to the extent that the player’s administrative requirements
permitting him to carry out his obligations should, at this point, already have been in place,
in line with the club’s general obligations as an employer.
83. Therefore, based on the evidence on file, the Chamber understood that the Respondent
failed to demonstrate having made any effort to register the player for nearly two months
after the Contract’s inception, nor that it took any steps to corroborate its intention to
retain the player’s services. On the contrary, the Respondent informed the Claimant that
his services were no longer needed and that he would return to Brazil at the same time as
the club revealed the issues with his registration.
84. This, therefore, already constituted a breach of contract by the Respondent at the
Claimant’s expense.
85. However, the Chamber understood that it had to further analyse the facts at stake in order
to determine whether or not the threshold of ultima ratio was met.
86. In respect of the alleged exclusion from training, the Chamber understood that the
Claimant had met the burden of proving that the Respondent was in breach of its
obligations.
87. More specifically, the Claimant provided proof of correspondence sent by the Sporting
Director of the Respondent dated 2 September 2024, indicating that, until his contractual
situation, insurance and registration were sorted out, he would not participate in training.
88. Equally, the Chamber deemed it relevant that the Respondent failed to address the
evidence provided by the Claimant and argued, without any evidence of its own, or without
questioning the veracity of the correspondence sent by the Claimant, that the allegations
are untrue.
89. Therefore, without any evidence or reasoning to the contrary, the Chamber found that the
evidence on file suggests that the Respondent confirmed, in writing, that the Claimant
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16304
would be excluded from training until his registration and contractual situation would be
sorted out – which, as outlined above, was not a valid justification to prevent a player from
carrying out his contractual obligations as a professional football player. This was, in the
Chamber’s estimation, a breach of contract by the Respondent.
90. In addition, the Chamber took into consideration the allegedly unpaid salary for the month
of July 2024. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the non-payment of the amount is not
in dispute. Rather, the Respondent has made an evidentiary request towards the player to
demonstrate that he opened a bank account in Portugal, which the player had not
complied with.
91. Notwithstanding, the Chamber hereby deemed that the Respondent itself failed to
corroborate its own allegation that it had asked the Claimant “on several occasions” to open
a bank account in Portugal in the first place, or that it contacted the Claimant about
difficulties with making the payment at all. As the payment obligation befell the
Respondent, the latter primarily was obligated to meet the burden of proving that it
complied with such obligation, or that it attempted to do so, to no avail.
92. It followed, in the Chamber’s opinion, that the purported lack of a bank account in Portugal
did not justify the Respondent in defaulting on its financial obligations.
93. As a result, at the time of termination, one monthly salary had remained outstanding.
94. Lastly, the Chamber went on to consider the alleged proposal for a mutual termination put
forward by the Respondent.
95. In this sense, the Chamber was of this opinion that this does not, per se, constitute a breach
of contract; parties are entitled to negotiate and inquire about the possibility of mutually
terminating an employment contract, provided that such proposal is not abusive by nature.
96. Notwithstanding, the Chamber did understand that the proposal, taken hand-in-hand with
the aforementioned breaches of contract and the Respondent’s overall conduct leading up
to the termination of the Contract, led to the creation of an image for the player that he
was not wanted at the club, and that his contractual future was uncertain.
97. Based on the above, the Chamber summarised that the Respondent failed to register the
Claimant for more than two months after the Contract had entered into force, has
defaulted on one salary payment, and invalidly excluded the Claimant from training until
further notice.
98. At this stage, the Chamber went on to recall the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, based on which a premature contractual termination should only be a measure
of last resort – ultima ratio. Where the parties may turn to other measures to remedy their
contractual situation, they shall apply these before putting the contract to an end. Only a
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16304
substantial or repeated breach of contract gives rise to just cause to prematurely terminate
a contract.
99. In the case at hand, the Chamber noted that the termination of the Contract occurred very
rapidly. Indeed, most events giving rise to the termination of the Contract took place on, or
after 28 August 2024 – whereas the termination took place on 2 September 2024.
100. The Claimant, based on the evidence on file, should have, but did not provide the
Respondent with any substantial opportunity to remedy its breaches. No default or
warning letter, or formal deadline were provided by means of which the Claimant expressly
addressed the issues at stake, giving the Respondent a chance to 1) register him, 2) pay the
outstanding salary, and 3) reinstate him into the squad and assure him of his future with
the club.
101. Notwithstanding, the Chamber deemed that the totality of the breaches and other actions
by the Respondent mentioned above, cumulatively and due to their nature, constitute a
severe enough conduct by the Respondent to the extent that the Claimant could, at the
time of termination, no longer be expected to continue the contractual relationship.
102. Based on all the circumstances present at the time of termination, the Claimant was
objectively left with the impression that he had no future at the club, that the Respondent
had no intention of pursuing the Contract, and that its manifest intention was to find a
solution to prematurely terminate the Contract and send the player back to Brazil.
103. In conclusion, the Chamber held that the threshold of ultima ratio was met in the case at
hand, and that the Claimant had a just cause to terminate the Contract on
2 September 2024.
ii. Consequences
104. 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.
105. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to one monthly
salary under the contract, amounting to EUR 960.
106. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber 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. EUR 960.
107. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16304
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 6 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
108. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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 damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
109. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber 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 Chamber
established that, whilst the Contract did contain a compensation clause, such clause was
not reciprocal as it foresaw (substantially) different amounts for the Claimant and the
Respondent in case of a premature contractual termination.
110. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
111. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber 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 EUR 34,080 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, or 23 x
EUR 960 between August 2024 and June 2026, plus 12 x EUR 1,000 between July 2026 and
June 2027) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
112. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 DRC 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. 17
REF. FPSD-16304
113. Indeed, the player found employment with Esporte Club São Bento. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to BRL 1,545.08 per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of BRL 7,725.40, or approx. EUR 1,165.81 during the overlapping period between
the two contracts.
114. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
115. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
EUR 2,880, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player at the time of
termination. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that this amount fully covered the
mitigation mentioned beforehand.
116. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 34,080 to the Claimant (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, minus the mitigation,
plus the additional compensation, capped at the amount of mitigation), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
117. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 3 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
118. Lastly, taking into account the aforementioned considerations, the Respondent’s
counterclaim was rejected in full.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
119. 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.
120. 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
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16304
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
121. 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.
122. 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.
123. 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.
d. Costs
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16304
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Victor de Almeida Souza Reis, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaim, Portimonense SC, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 960 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 August 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 34,080 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
3 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16304
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-16304
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. 22