Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16360
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Gabriel
Buscariol Poveda
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Gabriel Buscariol Poveda, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Futebol Clube de Alverca, Portugal
Represented by 14 Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16360
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 January 2019, the Brazilian player, Gabriel Buscariol Poveda (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and the Portuguese club, Futebol Clube de Alverca
(hereinafter: FC Alverca, the Club or the Respondent/Counterclaimant) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter: the First Contract) valid as from its date of signature until
30 June 2023.
2.
In accordance with the First Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a monthly
remuneration of EUR 1,200 net.
3.
In February 2019, the Player was loaned to Brazilian Club Athletico Paranaense until July
2019.
4.
In July 2019, the Player was loaned to Brazilian club Esporte Club Juventude until October
2019.
5.
In January 2020, the Player was loaned to Brazilian club Gremio Esportivo Brasil until 31
December 2020.
6.
In January 2021, the Player’s loan with Gremio Esportivo Brasil was extended until 31
December 2021.
7.
On 14 January 2022, the Player and the Club entered into a second employment contract
(hereinafter: the Second Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2025.
8.
In accordance with the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a monthly
remuneration of EUR 1,200 net.
9.
Clause 10 of the Second Contract provided as follows (freely translated to English by the
Player and quoted verbatim):
“Under the terms and for the purposes of article 125 of the General Regulations of the
Portuguese Professional Football League, as well as article 46 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the Professional Football Players' Union and the Portuguese Professional
Football League, the PARTIES expressly and irrevocably agree that the inscription and
registration of the PLAYER's Federative Rights in favour of a club, association, or other
organisation shall be subject to the following conditions
The third company depends, in the legal and sporting context, on the payment of the amount
of €10,000,000.00 (ten million euros), made as a termination clause, an amount which the
PARTIES expressly recognise corresponds to the valuation of the PLAYER's sporting
participation rights, and F. C. ALVERCA may not oppose the transfer of the PLAYER.C. ALVERCA,
upon effective payment of the termination clause, plus VAT at the legal rate, if applicable, may
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16360
not oppose the transfer of the PLAYER, endeavouring to sign all the documents and carry out
all the actions necessary for the immediate registration of the PLAYER in favour of a third
party sports entity.”
10. In January 2022, after signing the Second Contract, the Player was loaned to the Brazilian
club Sampaio Correa FC until 31 December 2022.
11. In January 2023, the Player was loaned to the Bolivian club Bolívar until 30 June 2023.
12. In July 2023, the Player was loaned to the Brazilian club Avaí FC until 30 June 2024.
13. In the beginning of June 2024, the Player allegedly informed the Club that he was not willing
to return to Portugal after the expiry of the loan term with Avaí FC.
14. On 13 June 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player, requiring him to attend the Club’s
preparatory activities for the 2024/25 season, scheduled to commence on 1 July 2024 at
8:30.
15. On 20 June 2024, a person identified as the Club’s Manager sent a WhatsApp message to
the team’s group, of which the Player was a member, indicating that the first day of the
pre-season would be 1 July 2024.
16. On the same date, a person identified as the Club’s CEO sent a WhatsApp message to the
Player, requesting certain information in order to arrange his flight back to Portugal.
17. On 21 June 2024, the Club received a loan offer for the Player from the Thai club Uthai
Thani FC. According to the offer, the Thai club proposed to pay the Player an overall
remuneration of THB 7,200,000 for the 2024/25 season.
18. On the same date, the Club forwarded the aforementioned loan offer to a person identified
as the Player’s agent.
19. On 4 July 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player, stating that he had failed to report to
the Club’s activities and had not duly responded to the Club’s most recent correspondence.
According to the Club, the Player’s conduct suggested that he had “no intention whatsoever
of resuming his employment relationship with the Club”. The Club granted him a period of 10
days to present himself at the Club’s facilities for the 2024/25 pre-season training sessions.
The Club also confirmed its willingness to reimburse the Player’s travel expenses to
Portugal and expressly warned that failure to comply within the stipulated timeframe
would constitute a breach of contract.
20. On 16 July 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player, requesting him to provide his bank
account details in order to process the payment of his salaries for the 2024/25 sporting
season.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16360
21. On 23 July 2024, the Club sent to the Player a proposal for an extension of the Second
Contract until 30 June 2026. This proposal included an increased monthly net remuneration
of EUR 7,000 for the 2024/25 season and EUR 8,000 for the 2025/26 season, in addition to
certain bonuses.
22. On 13 August 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Second Contract. In his
communication, the Player recalled the background of the parties’ employment
relationship, contending that he had never been genuinely bound to the Club. He alleged
that the Club had no intention of utilizing his services and that he had been subjected to
several unlawful “bridge transfers.” The Player characterized his salary as insignificant and
asserted that the Club’s modus operandi undermined the mutual trust between the parties.
Consequently, he claimed to have just cause for termination pursuant to art. 14 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
23. On 7 January 2025, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Brazilian club
Vila Nova Futebol Clube, valid as from the date of signature until 30 November 2025. In
accordance with the new contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly remuneration of
BRL 30,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 2 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
25. In his claim, the Player alleged he terminated the Second Contract with just cause and
requested compensation.
26. The Player submitted that he had been transferred to the Club under a so-called “bridge
transfer” scheme, whereby the Club exercised control over his career without ever paying
his salaries or fielding him in the first team, with the sole purpose of profiting from a future
transfer.
27. The Player further alleged that, throughout his entire employment relationship, the Club
never had any genuine sporting interest in his services and instead treated him merely as
a tradeable asset. He asserted that, for over five years, he was subjected to a continuous
series of loans without any sporting purpose, which restricted his professional
development and violated the principle of contractual stability.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16360
28. The Player also claimed that the Club’s conduct amounted to a serious infringement of his
personality rights, as it deprived him of the opportunity to practice his profession at a
competitive level and forced him into a cycle of instability.
29. The Player stated that, in June 2024, he informed the Club of his intention not to return to
Portugal, as he was exhausted from repeatedly being loaned to different clubs. The Player
further asserted that, after such communication, the Club fabricated a scenario to simulate
having sporting interest in his services.
30. The Player concluded that he decided to put an end to that situation by terminating the
Second Contract, claiming he had just cause to do so and seeking compensation.
31. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“In view of the above, the Player submits to the following requests for relief to the attention
of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST – To accept and uphold the present claim in full;
SECOND – To confirm that the Player terminated the Second Employment Contract with just
cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the play (sic) the total amount of EUR 14,400 (fourteen
thousand four hundred euros) as compensation for the unilateral and premature termination
of the Second Employment Contract with just cause, plus default interest at the applicable
rate of 5% (five percent) per annum as from 14 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
FOURTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
32. In its reply, the Club requested the claim to be rejected and lodged a counterclaim against
the Player.
33. In its submission, the Club alleged that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Second Contract and requested to be compensated accordingly.
34. The Club argued that it maintained a legitimate sporting interest in the Player and that the
loan arrangements were strategic measures aimed to optimize his potential. In this
respect, the Club asserted that, given its participation in the Portuguese third division at
the time, it was essential to loan the Player to clubs competing at a higher level.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16360
35. The Club further emphasized that all loan agreements were concluded with the Player’s
unequivocal consent, and that his personality rights were duly protected. The Club also
underscored that the Player’s signature of the Second Contract on 14 January 2022
evidenced his satisfaction with the situation.
36. The Club rejected the Player’s allegations regarding a “bridge transfer” scheme, arguing
that such claims were unfounded as the necessary elements were not met.
37. The Club additionally highlighted that the Player was absent without authorization for a
period of 44 days, namely from 1 July 2024 until 13 August 2024.
38. The Club further alleged that the Player’s termination violated the principle of venire contra
factum proprium, since the Player had never raised any concerns regarding the loan
arrangements during the contractual relationship.
39. For the above reasons, the Club maintained that the Player did not have just cause to
terminate the Second Contract and the Club should be compensated in accordance with
art. 17 of the Regulations.
40. With regard to the calculation of compensation, the Club referred to the following
elements:
-
Clause 10 of the Second Contract consisted of a buy-out clause in the amount of EUR
10,000,000;
-
The Player’s loan agreements with Bolívar in January 2023 and Avaí FC in July 2023
each contained purchase option rights in the amount of USD 800,000; and
-
The Club received a loan proposal from Uthai Thani FC under which the Player would
receive an overall remuneration of THB 7,200,000, equivalent to EUR 195,096.
41. Consequently, the Club claimed it should be compensated in an amount ranging between
EUR 195,000 and EUR 10,000,000.
42. In addition, the Club asserted that the Player’s termination on 13 August 2024 was made
within the contractual protected period, given that the Second Contract was signed on 14
January 2022, when the Player was 23 years old at the time.
43. The Club requested the following relief:
“In light of all of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant respectfully requests the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i) Dismiss the Statement of Claim in its entirety;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16360
(ii) Determine that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the Second
Employment Agreement without just cause;
(iii) Order the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay compensation to the Respondent /
Counterclaimant in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP, which could never be more
than EUR 10.000.000 (ten million euros) nor less than EUR 195.000 (one hundred and ninety
five thousand euros).
(iv) Impose sporting sanctions upon the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as considered
appropriate.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
44. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player maintained his position and rejected the Club’s
arguments.
45. The Player reiterated that, throughout more than five years of contractual relationship, the
Club never demonstrated any genuine sporting interest in his services. Accordingly, the
Player asserted that such conduct irreparably undermined the mutual trust required in any
employment relationship, ultimately leaving him with no alternative but to terminate the
Second Contract on 13 August 2024.
46. The Player further argued that, should the Football Tribunal conclude that the termination
of the Second Contract was without just cause, clause 10 of the Second Contract should
not be considered for compensation purposes, as it constitutes a buy-out clause rather
than a liquidated damages clause.
47. The Player submitted that, in the event compensation is deemed payable, its calculation
should take into account, inter alia, the following elements:
-
The remuneration under the existing contract amounted to EUR 1,200 net per
month;
-
The Player had already completed approximately 87% of the total contractual term,
given that the employment relationship started on 17 January 2019 and was
scheduled to end on 30 June 2025, while the termination occurred on 14 August
2024;
-
The Club incurred no expenses when hiring him and, during the contractual period,
paid him only one monthly salary, as he was continuously on loan;
-
The Club failed to provide any evidence of replacement costs or lost earnings;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16360
-
The purchase option rights of USD 800,000 could not be used for calculation
purposes, as Avaí FC and Bolívar expressed no interest in permanently acquiring his
federative rights and the amount was not connected to the termination of the
Second Contract;
-
Portuguese law was not applicable; and
-
The references to the “protected period” and “specificity of sport” should be
disregarded, as the Club never intended to maintain contractual stability and he
never caused any issues during the employment relationship.
48. In addition, the Player alleged that the financial gains obtained by the Club during the
contractual period should be divided into savings and direct profits.
49. Regarding savings, the Player alleged that the Club saved up to EUR 119,942, calculated as
the difference between the committed total remuneration and the remuneration
effectively paid, plus taxes avoided due to the Player being on loan.
50. Regarding direct profits, the Player alleged that the Club received a loan fee of USD 250,000
(approximately EUR 236,000) from Bolívar and EUR 75,000 from Avaí FC.
51. The Player alleged that, considering the total savings and profits amounting to EUR
430,372, there is no factual or legal basis for the Club to claim any additional compensation
should the Football Tribunal conclude that the termination was without just cause.
52. Alternatively, the Player submitted that any compensation payable should be limited to
EUR 12,000, corresponding to ten monthly salaries of EUR 1,200 each.
53. Finally, the Player asserted that no sporting sanctions should be imposed, as his intention
was not to terminate the Second Contract in order to immediately sign with a third club,
but rather to escape what he described as an illegitimate scheme.
54. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“In view of the above, the Player hereby submits the following requests for relief to the
attention of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST – To reject the Counterclaim lodged by the Club;
SECOND – To confirm that the Player terminated the Second Employment Contract with just
cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player the total amount of EUR 14,400 (fourteen
thousand four hundred euros) as compensation for the unilateral and premature termination
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16360
of the Second Employment Contract with just cause, plus default interest at the applicable
rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 14 August 2024 until the date of effective payment;
Alternatively, and only in case the above is rejected:
FOURTH – Not to order the Player to pay any compensation whatsoever to the Club for an
alleged unilateral termination of the Second Employment Contract without just cause;
Alternatively, and only in case the above is rejected:
FOURTH – Assuming but not admitting the FIFA DRC decides the Player terminated the Second
Employment Contract unilaterally and without just cause to order the latter to pay to the Club
a compensation never higher than EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand Euros);
FIFTH – Not to impose any sporting sanctions on the Player; and
SIXTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
d. Additional comments of the parties on the Interim Regulatory Framework
55. On 23 December 2024, the Bureau of the FIFA Council adopted a new interim regulatory
framework (hereinafter: the IRF), which entered into force on 1 January 2025.
56. On 7 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit any comments or
amendments to its counterclaim, should it so wish exclusively in relation to the possible
consequences of the application of the IRF.
57. On 14 March 2025, the Club submitted that it had successfully quantified, substantiated,
and proven the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Player’s termination in its
counterclaim. The Club further argued that the IRF reinforced the arguments and
calculations previously presented, all of which were expressly reiterated.
58. On 25 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat also invited the Player to supplement his
position, should he so wish, taking into consideration the application of the IRF.
59. On 9 April 2025, the Player argued that the concept of “damage” is central to the application
of the positive interest principle under art. 17 of the Regulations. In this regard, he referred
to his previous reply to the counterclaim, reiterating his position that the Club had not
suffered any damage due to the termination of the Second Contract. The Player further
maintained that the IRF confirmed his position and, consequently, he did not wish to
amend his arguments.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16360
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
60. 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 2 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 13 November 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
61. 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 (July 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.
62. 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.
b. Burden of proof
63. 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
64. 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. 11
REF. FPSD-16360
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
65. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract, and the counterclaim
filed by the same club against same the player.
66. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player argued that he terminated the Second
Contract with just cause, alleging that the Club had no genuine sporting interest in his
services, as evidenced by the fact that he was never fielded with the Club’s first team and
had been loaned out every season since the start of the contractual relationship in January
2019.
67. Conversely, the Chamber took note that the Club contested the Player’s position, asserting
that the termination of the Second Contract was without just cause. The Club further
submitted that all loan arrangements were concluded with the Player’s consent and in line
with his sporting interests.
68. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was terminated with just cause and the consequences thereof, if any. The
Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
Was the Second Contract terminated with just cause?
69. As a departure point, the Chamber took note that the Player unilaterally terminated the
Second Contract by notice dated 13 August 2024, alleging that the lack of sporting purpose
combined with the undue control over his career destroyed the mutual trust necessary for
an employment relationship.
70. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Regulations, in general, just
cause to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a party
can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual
relationship (cf., art. 14 of the Regulations).
71. In this context, the Chamber analysed the evidence on file and highlighted the following
chronological events:
-
On an unspecified day in June 2024, the Player allegedly informed the Club that he
was not willing to return to Portugal after the expiry of his loan with Avaí FC;
-
On 13 June 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player requiring his presence at the
pre-season training scheduled for 1 July 2024. This communication was reiterated
through further correspondence and WhatsApp messages, including logistical
arrangements for the Player’s return to Portugal;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16360
-
On 21 June 2024, the Club received a loan offer from Uthai Thani FC and immediately
forwarded it to the Player;
-
On 4 July 2024, the Club acknowledged that the Player had failed to present himself
at the Club’s facilities and requested that he resume his services, warning that
otherwise it would confirm his lack of interest in rendering services.
-
On 16 July 2024, the Club requested the Player’s bank account details to proceed
with the payment of his upcoming salaries; and
-
On 23 July 2024, the Club proposed to the Player a contract extension with a
significantly increased remuneration.
72. The Chamber further observed that, during the contractual relationship, the Player was
loaned out on several occasions and for extended periods. While the Chamber
acknowledged the Player’s contention that such practice may not be ideal for his
professional development, it noted that the Player agreed to each loan arrangement and
duly performed his services without raising any formal objections.
73. In the Chamber’s view, the Player’s conduct suggested that he had, to some extent,
accepted to sharing with the Club the sporting management of his career and only raised
concerns regarding the alleged lack of sporting purpose in June 2024. In this regard, the
Chamber emphasized that the Player failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that he
had previously criticized the Club’s modus operandi, nor that the Club exercised any form
of undue pressure upon him.
74. Although the Chamber acknowledged that the Player’s tenure with the Club was atypical, it
also considered that the Player derived certain benefits therefrom and never expressed
any intention to terminate the relationship. In fact, the Chamber noted that the Player
voluntarily agreed to renew his employment relationship with the Club by executing the
Second Contract, despite having no obligation to do so.
75. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Club, in compliance with its contractual
obligations, called the Player to pre-season training after the expiry of his last loan,
proactively offered to facilitate his return by requesting travel details, and sought his bank
account information to ensure salary payments.
76. The Chamber also emphasized that the Club informed the Player about a loan offer from
Uthai Thani FC and proposed an employment contract extension with improved financial
conditions. In the Chamber’s opinion, these actions sufficiently confirmed the Club’s
willingness either to integrate the Player into its sporting project or to provide him with
alternative professional opportunities.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16360
77. The Chamber further considered that the Player had the option to either accept the
proposed contract extension, agree to the loan to Thailand, or resume his duties at the
Club, which was offered. While the Chamber took note of the Player’s argument that such
conduct amounted to a mere simulation of engagement by the Club, the Chamber was not
persuaded that the Player substantiated this claim. In fact, the Chamber concluded that
the Player failed to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Club or to prove that the Club
had misrepresented its intentions.
78. In light of the foregoing, and based on the limited evidence on file, the Chamber concluded
that the Player cannot reasonably argue that the repeated loans amounted to a destruction
of mutual trust, as he had consistently accepted such arrangements over several seasons.
Furthermore, the Chamber stressed that the Player’s objection in June 2024, following the
expiry of the loan with Avaí FC, cannot retroactively transform previously agreed situations
into grounds for just cause.
79. The same reasoning, according to the Chamber, applied to the Player’s reference to the
alleged illegitimate scheme adopted by the Club. While the Player accused the Club of
wrongdoing, he failed to demonstrate either his prior disagreement with such practices or
any illicit manipulation on the part of the Club. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that –
irrespective of any potential compliance assessment regarding the legitimacy of the
multiple loan arrangements under the Regulations – there was no evidence of
misrepresentation or impaired consent that could justify the abrupt termination.
80. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player’s termination of the Second
Contract was made without just cause, as the evidence on file does not support the
conclusion that he could no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue
the contractual relationship within the meaning of art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
81. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Player.
82. As a preliminary point, the Chamber recalled that this matter is governed by the IRF as
reflected in the July 2025 edition of the Regulations, applicable in casu. By way of context,
the Chamber underlined that said framework impacted the following rules:
-
The calculation of compensation payable in the event of a breach of contract by
a player or coach;
-
The burden of proof in relation to joint and several liability for compensation
payable for a breach of contract;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16360
-
The burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract (and the
related sporting sanction against the new club of a player); and
-
The procedure regarding the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate
(ITC).
83. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, for the present purposes, the relevant
rules are those related to the calculation payable by a player in case of a breach of contract.
84. Having stated the above, the Chamber 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. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that, according to the
principle of positive interest, the claiming party must be put in the position it would find
itself in, had the breach of the contract not occurred and had the contract been duly
performed.
85. Therefore, before even addressing how the principle of positive interest would apply to this
case, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the Second 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.
86. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 10 of the Second Contract,
which established the following (freely translated to English by the Player and quoted
verbatim):
“Under the terms and for the purposes of article 125 of the General Regulations of the
Portuguese Professional Football League, as well as article 46 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the Professional Football Players' Union and the Portuguese Professional
Football League, the PARTIES expressly and irrevocably agree that the inscription and
registration of the PLAYER's Federative Rights in favour of a club, association, or other
organisation shall be subject to the following conditions
The third company depends, in the legal and sporting context, on the payment of the amount
of €10,000,000.00 (ten million euros), made as a termination clause, an amount which the
PARTIES expressly recognise corresponds to the valuation of the PLAYER's sporting
participation rights, and F. C. ALVERCA may not oppose the transfer of the PLAYER.C. ALVERCA,
upon effective payment of the termination clause, plus VAT at the legal rate, if applicable, may
not oppose the transfer of the PLAYER, endeavouring to sign all the documents and carry out
all the actions necessary for the immediate registration of the PLAYER in favour of a third
party sports entity.”
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16360
87. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it
constitutes a typical buy-out clause, as it sets a fixed compensation amount that the Player
(or a third party on their behalf) must pay to the Club to be released from the contract
before its natural expiry. The Chamber pointed out that this legal nature was also
acknowledged by the Club itself in its submissions, confirming that the provision was not
intended to operate as a liquidated damages clause.
88. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the aforementioned provision was not
relevant for establishing the amount of compensation due to the breach of contract. As a
result, the Chamber found that the amount of compensation payable by the Player to the
Club had to be assessed in application of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, beginning of the
consideration for the damage suffered by the Club, guided by the positive interest
principle.
89. Bearing in mind the above principles, the Chamber recalled that per art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, the onus is on the Club to quantify, substantiate and prove the damage
that it allegedly suffered as a result of a breach of a contract.
90. In view of the above, the Chamber analysed each of the amounts claimed as damage by
the Club in turn.
91. First, the Club requested the payment of EUR 10,000,000 as the amount established in
clause 10 of the Second Contract.
92. The Chamber reiterated that this clause cannot be regarded as a measure of damage, as it
constitutes a buy-out clause by nature. Consequently, this request was rejected.
93. Second, the Club requested the payment of USD 800,000, referring to purchase option
rights contained in the loan agreements concluded with Bolívar in January 2023 and Avaí
FC in July 2023, allegedly reflecting the Club’s expectations and the Player’s market value.
94. The Chamber held that these purchase option rights were unable to demonstrate any
actual damage, nor did they reflect the Player’s true market value, as they were (i) contained
in agreements concluded more than one year prior to the termination; and (ii) never
exercised for reasons unrelated to the termination. Therefore, this request was also
dismissed.
95. Lastly, the Club requested the payment of THB 7,200,000, corresponding to the annual
remuneration offered to the Player by Uthai Thani FC in June 2024.
96. The Chamber emphasized that a salary the Player might have earned under a hypothetical
loan cannot be considered indicative of the damage allegedly suffered by the Club.
Accordingly, this request was also rejected.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16360
97. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s claims were based on
speculative or hypothetical scenarios rather than concrete losses, and none of the
elements invoked demonstrated actual damage resulting from the termination.
98. The Chamber further noted that the Player was never effectively integrated into the Club’s
sporting project, having been loaned out repeatedly throughout the contractual
relationship. Consequently, the Club’s sporting reliance on the Player was minimal, making
it difficult to identify any genuine sporting or financial damage.
99. Nonetheless, the Chamber acknowledged that the absence of quantified damage does not
necessarily imply that no damage occurred.
100. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the recent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
considered an amount corresponding to the amount payable to a player for rendering his
services as football player under an employment contract as an appropriate starting point
in order to establish the damage suffered by the Club.
101. However, the Chamber noted that the Club did not request compensation based on the
residual value of the Second Contract. Further, the Chamber observed that the Club’s
expressed intention to loan the Player out rather suggested that it was not necessarily
relying on his services for that season.
102. Accordingly, the Chamber considered that, in the absence of a claim for compensation
based on the residual value of the Second Contract, and given that the Club did not provide
any substantiated calculation of damage, there was no basis to award compensation in this
case.
103. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that no compensation shall be awarded to the
Club, as it failed to prove any actual damage and the elements presented do not meet the
threshold required under art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations and art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules.
d. Costs
104. 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.
105. 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16360
106. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16360
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Gabriel Buscariol Poveda, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Futebol Clube de Alverca, is
rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16360
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. 20