Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16494
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Club Bruno Miguel
Ponces Lourenco
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Boavista FC, Portugal
RESPONDENT 1:
Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenco, Portugal
Represented by Duarte Costa
RESPONDENT 2:
Amed Sportif Faaliytler, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16494
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the present case are:
-
The Portuguese club, Boavista FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Claimant or Boavista);
-
The Portuguese player, Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenco (hereinafter: the Player or the
First Respondent);
-
The Turkish club, Amed Sportif Faaliytler (hereinafter: the Second Respondent).
2.
On 9 June 2022, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract valid as from
1 July 2022 until 30 June 2025 (hereinafter: the Contract).
3.
Clause 3 of the Contract reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
Translation provided by the Club
BOAVISTA, SAD shall pay the PLAYER the
following remuneration:
Translation provided by the Player
1. BOAVISTA SAD will pay the PLAYER the
following remunerations:
In the 2022/2023 sports season, a net
annual amount of €80,000.00 (eighty
thousand euros), payable in 12 (twelve)
monthly installments of €6,666.67 (six
thousand six hundred and sixty-six euros
and sixty-seven cents), with the first
installment due by August 5, 2022, and
the last installment by July 5, 2023.
- For the 2022/2023 sports season, a net
annual amount of €80,000.00 (eighty
thousand euros), paid in 12 (twelve)
monthly installments of €6,666.67 (six
thousand six hundred sixty-six euros
and sixty-seven cents), with the first
installment due by August 5, 2022, and
the last installment due by July 5, 2023.
In the 2023/2024 sports season, a net
annual amount of €80,000.00 (eighty
thousand euros), payable in 12 (twelve)
monthly installments of €6,666.67 (six
thousand six hundred and sixty-six euros
and sixty-seven cents), with the first
installment due by August 5, 2023, and
the last installment by July 5, 2024.
- For the 2023/2024 sports season, a net
annual amount of €80,000.00 (eighty
thousand euros), paid in 12 (twelve)
monthly installments of €6,666.67 (six
thousand six hundred sixty-six euros
and sixty-seven cents), with the first
installment due by August 5, 2023, and
the last installment due by July 5, 2024.
In the 2024/2025 sports season, a net
annual amount of €80,000.00 (eighty
thousand euros), payable in 12 (twelve)
monthly installments of €6,666.67 (six
thousand six hundred and sixty-six euros
and sixty-seven cents), with the first
- For the 2024/2025 sports season, a net
annual amount of €80,000.00 (eighty
thousand euros), paid in 12 (twelve)
monthly installments of €6,666.67 (six
thousand six hundred sixty-six euros
and sixty-seven cents), with the first
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16494
4.
installment due by August 5, 2024, and
the last installment by July 5, 2025.
installment due by August 5, 2024, and
the last installment due by July 5, 2025.
Holiday and Christmas allowances and
respective proportions are included in the
fixed annual remuneration.
2.Holiday, Christmas, and respective
proportional subsidies are included in
the fixed annual remuneration;
During the term of the contract, for each
sports season, the PLAYER is entitled to a
housing allowance of €7,200.00 (seven
thousand two hundred euros) net,
payable in 12 (twelve) monthly
installments of €600.00 (six hundred
euros) net each, to be paid on the same
dates as the remuneration provided in
clause 1.
3.During the term of the contract, for
each sports season with BOAVISTA SAD,
the PLAYER will be entitled to a housing
subsidy of €7,200.00 (seven thousand
two hundred euros) net, paid in 12
(twelve) monthly installments of €600.00
(six hundred euros) net each, paid on
the same days as the remunerations
provided in clause 1 of this clause.
BOAVISTA, SAD shall also pay the PLAYER
the following bonuses:
4.BOAVISTA SAD will also pay the PLAYER
the following bonuses:
If the PLAYER participates in 25 (twentyfive) official league matches for BOAVISTA,
SAD, playing a minimum of 45 minutes in
each match: €5,000.00 (five thousand
euros) net. […]”
a) If the PLAYER participates in 25
(twenty-five) official matches for the
national Championship with BOAVISTA
SAD, for a minimum of 45 minutes each
game: €5,000.00 (five thousand euros)
net; […]”
Clause 8 of the Contract reads as follows:
Translation provided by the Club
“Matters not provided for in this
contract, and only such matters, shall be
governed by the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players and,
subsidiarily, by Portuguese law and the
Collective
Bargaining
Agreement
approved by the National Union of
Professional Football Players and the
Portuguese
Professional
Football
League.”
5.
Translation provided by the Player
“Cases and situations not covered by this
contract, and only these, will be
governed by Portuguese Law and the
Collective Labor Agreement approved by
the National Union of Professional
Footballers
and
the
Portuguese
Professional Football League.”
Clause 9 of the Contract reads as follows:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16494
Translation provided by the Club
“This contract shall be interpreted in
accordance with FIFA regulations,
specifically the "FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players" (2022
edition).
The parties agree that, for matters not
resolved under clause 1 of this contract,
the Player Status Committee, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, or the Court of
Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne shall
have jurisdiction, with the language of
the proceedings being English”
6.
Translation provided by the Player
“1. This contract should be interpreted in
accordance with the Collective Labor
Agreement entered into between the
National
Union
of
Professional
Footballers
and
the
Portuguese
Professional Football League.
2.The parties agree to elect, for situations
not resolved under clause 1 of this clause,
as applicable, the Sports Arbitration
Tribunal, headquartered in Lisbon, with
express waiver of any other.”
On 21 December 2023, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment, within 3
working days, of EUR 19,533.34, corresponding to the outstanding salaries and housing
allowances for October and November 2023 (EUR 14,533.34), as well as the performance
bonus of EUR 5,000. The content of said default notice is reproduced inter alia hereinafter
(for the sake of efficiency, only the English translation of the document provided by the
Player, and not disputed by Boavista, is reproduced here):
“I […] hereby come and for the purposes of the provisions of article 43.º no. 2 of the
Collective Labor Agreement granted between SJPF and LPFP, inform of my intention to
terminate the employment contract signed with Boavista Futebol Clube SAD, on June 9,
2022 , based on the lack of payment of remuneration for more than thirty days (in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 43 of the aforementioned CCT),
if your club do not pay the remuneration for the month of October/2023, due on 05.11.23
and for the month of November 2023, due on 05.12.2023, in the net amount of €. 6,666.67
each, as well as the amounts due as a housing subsidy in the monthly amount of €. 600,
due on the same dates and not paid by your club in the accumulated amount of €.1200,
which makes the total value of €. 14,533.34, (fourteen thousand five hundred and thirtythree euros and thirty-four cents).
To this value is added the amount of €.5000, due as a performance bonus under the terms
set out in paragraph 4 of the third clause of the aforementioned contract, which expired
on 30 June 2023, and to date remains unpaid.
The total amount of € 19,533.34 (nineteen thousand five hundred and thirtythree [sic]
euros and thirty-four cents), is therefore owed which your club must regularize FULLY
within the deadline set out in article 43, paragraph 1, paragraph a) of the aforementioned
CCT. […]”
7.
On 9 July 2024 (noting that the letter was sent on 8 July 2024 but received by the Club on 9
July 2024), the Player put the Club in default and requested payment, within 3 working days,
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16494
of the total amount of EUR 17,033.34. This amount corresponded to the outstanding
salaries for May and June 2024 (EUR 13,333.34), the housing allowance (EUR 1,200), as well
as the performance bonus referred to in clause 3.4 of the Contract (EUR 2,500). The content
of said default notice is reproduced inter alia hereinafter (for the sake of efficiency, only the
English translation of the document provided by the Player, and not disputed by Boavista,
is reproduced here):
“I, […] hereby inform you, for the purposes of the provisions of article 43.2 of the Collective
Labour Agreement signed between the SJPF and the LPFP, of my intention to terminate the
employment contract entered into with Boavista Futebol Clube SAD, on 9 June 2022, on
the grounds of nonpaymentof remuneration for more than thirty days (under the terms
of the provisions of no. 1 of article 43 of the aforementioned CCT), if Your Club do not
proceed with the payment of the salaries for the month of May due on 05.06.24 and for
the month of June 2024, due on 05.07.2024, in the net amount of €. 6,666.67 each, as well
as the amounts due as housing subsidy in the monthly amount of €. 600, due on the same
dates and not paid by Your club in the accumulated amount of €. 1200, which makes the
total amount of €. 14,533.34, (fourteen thousand five hundred and thirty-three euros and
thirty-four cents).
I also remind you who have only paid 50% of the amount due as a performance bonus,
under the terms set forth in paragraph 4 of clause three of the aforementioned contract,
which expired on 30 June 2023, and therefore the amount of €2,500. (two thousand and
five hundred euros) remains outstanding.
Therefore, the total amount of €17,033.34 (seventeen thousand and thirty-three euros and
thirty-four cents) is owed, which you must pay in FULL within the period set forth in article
43.1, letter a) of the aforementioned CCT. […]
GROUNDS
Under the terms of paragraph 1 of article 43 of the CCT signed between the SJPF and the
LPFP, the following constitute just cause for termination at the player's initiative, with the
right to compensation, among other things: conduct attributable to the employer resulting
in the non-payment of remuneration that lasts for more than 30 days, provided that the
player gives prior notice to the club or sports society, giving it a period of three working
days to make the payment of the remuneration for which he is accused of not paying, such
conduct constituting, in itself, just cause for termination of the employment contract.
In fact, according to the provisions of Article 43.2 of the aforementioned CCT, failure to
pay remuneration on time for a period of more than 30 days gives the player the right to
terminate the contract as provided for in paragraph a) of the previous paragraph,
provided that the player communicates his intention to terminate the contract, with
knowledge of the LPFP, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt and the club
or sports association does not make the respective payment within three working days.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16494
I hereby expressly comply with the duty I have to inform you of my intention for the
purposes mentioned above.
I would like to remind you that payment of remuneration is the employer's first duty
towards its employees and that failure to do so has resulted in the impossibility of meeting
my monthly expenses and costs, as well as those of my family, which is why I find myself
in an unsustainable situation, both financially, personally and professionally.”
8.
On 10 July 2024, the Portuguese League sent a communication to the Club informing about
the Player’s default notice, and that “[f]rom the date of this notification, you have five business
days to provide proof of payment to the player as described. Failure to respond within the
mentioned period "shall be deemed as tacit acknowledgment of the grounds for termination
invoked by the player and will be considered as recognition of the player's release from
contractual obligations, which will be declared by the Portuguese Professional Football League”.
9.
On 11 and 12 July 2024, the Club made two payments of EUR 7,266.67 each.
10. On 12 July 2024, the Club sent to the Portuguese league the proof of payments.
11. On 13 July 2024, the Player sent a termination notice to the Club mentioning the Club’s
failure of paying his salaries and bonus. For reference the letter mentioned the following
(for the sake of efficiency, only the English translation of the document provided by the
Player, and not disputed by Boavista, is reproduced here):
“I, […]hereby communicate, pursuant to Articles 21 and 25 of Law 54/2027, of July 14
(RJCTD) and Article 43, paragraph 1, subparagraph a) and paragraph 2 of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement between SJPF and LPFP, my immediate termination, with just cause,
of the employment contract signed with Boavista Futebol Clube SAD on June 9, 2022, due
to the culpable failure to pay the due remuneration punctually (Article 394, paragraph 1,
subparagraph a) and paragraph 5 of the Labor Code) as well as the failure to pay
remuneration for more than thirty days (in accordance with Article 43, paragraph 1 of the
said CCT), specifically for failing to pay the salaries for May (due on 06.05.24), June (due
on07.05.2024), the housing allowance due on the same dates, and finally, the
performance bonus as stipulated in paragraph 4 of the third clause of the aforementioned
contract, amounting to a total of €17,033.34 (seventeen thousand and thirty-three euros
and thirty-four cents) […]”
12. On 20 July 2024, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Second
Respondent valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2026. The Player was entitled
to a total amount of EUR 450,000 for the season 2024/2025 and EUR 450,000 for the season
2025/2026.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16494
13. On the same date, 20 July 2024, the Player’s instruction in order to be transferred from the
Claimant to the Second Respondent was initiated in the Transfer Matching System
(hereinafter: TMS).
14. On 7 August 2024, the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) rejected the Player’s
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) request.
15. On 26 August 2024, the Portuguese Joint Arbitration Committee issued the following
decision:
“Having been submitted to this Committee the proceedings regarding the termination of
the professional sports employment contract between player Bruno Miguel Ponces
Lourenço and Boavista Futebol Clube – Futebol SAD, this Committee is required to assess
whether, under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for professional
football players and the Legal Regime governing the Sports Employment Contract, the
sports relationship must be deemed lawfully terminated and, as a result, whether the
player is entitled to recognition of his release from the sports contract. Therefore, the
members of this Joint Arbitration Committee hereby decide as follows:
[…]
From the established facts, this is a professional sports employment contract for football,
registered with LPFP and FPF, valid from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2025, covering three sports
seasons.
As such, the relationship is primarily governed by the CBA between LPFP and SJPF (as
published in BTE no. 8 of 28.02.2017) and by Law no. 54/2017 of 14 July (Legal Regime of
the Sports Employment Contract – RJCTD).
Under the RJCTD, once the termination notice is issued by the athlete, they may enter into
a new contractual relationship without being subject to regulatory impediments from the
Federation or League. Additionally, Article 3 of the RJCTD states that employment law
provisions shall apply on a supplementary basis, provided they are compatible with the
specific nature of sports employment.
In light of this legal framework, the role of the CAP is limited to verifying the formal
regularity of the player’s termination notice. It does not assess the merits of the legal
grounds invoked for the termination.
According to Article 52(2) of the CBA, a player terminating a contract on grounds of just
cause must do so by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, stating the reasons
for termination. Under Article 44, effectiveness of termination is also subject to notification
to LPFP, SJPF, and FPF, by the terminating party.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16494
Based on the proven facts, the PLAYER notified SAD via registered letter with
acknowledgment of receipt, stating the grounds for termination, in compliance with Article
27(1) of the RJCTD, Article 52(2) of the CBA, and Article 395 of the Labour Code.
As the letter was received at the official registered address elected in the contract, it is
deemed legally effective.
Additionally, the PLAYER also notified LPFP, SJPF, and FPF of the termination and its
grounds, as required.
Following the expiry of the 8-day period under Article 52(8) of the CBA, and despite the
SAD’s opposition, the termination remains formally effective.
Therefore, even if the existence of just cause may be arguable in substance, the sports
contract release must be recognized, as the PLAYER fulfilled all legal formalities.
Decision:
In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 52(8) and (10) of the CBA, as published in
BTE no. 8 of 28.02.2017, the members of this Joint Arbitration Committee for Professional
Football Players hereby recognize the PLAYER Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenço’s right to
terminate his sports contract.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 8 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
17. The Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA for breach of contract.
18. The Claimant submitted that the Contract, as well as the underlying employment
relationship, is primarily governed by the FIFA Regulations, and subsidiarily by Portuguese
law, including the Collective Labour Agreement concluded between the National
Portuguese Professional Football Players’ Union and the Portuguese Professional Football
League.
19. According to the Claimant, the Player terminated the Contract without just cause. The Club
asserted that, upon receipt of the Player’s default notice, it proceeded to pay the two
requested amounts within the prescribed deadline. Consequently, at the time the Player
terminated the Contract, no grounds for termination existed. The Club additionally
referred to a similar case (FPSD-13973), which it claimed supported its position.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16494
20. On this basis, the Claimant concluded that the Player’s termination was unlawful and
argued that the Player must be ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract.
21. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Second Respondent should be held jointly liable
under both Portuguese law and the FIFA Regulations. By signing the Player, according to
the Claimant, the Second Respondent accepted the risks associated with engaging a player
whose contractual stability with the Claimant had been violated. In the Club’s view, the
Second Respondent must therefore be held jointly and severally liable for any
compensation awarded to the Claimant.
22. Finally, the Claimant requested that FIFA impose sporting sanctions, namely a six-month
suspension on the Player and a transfer ban on the Second Respondent for two
consecutive registration periods.
23. The Claimant requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“I. The Club respectfully request to he [sic] Dispute Resolution Chamber recognize that the
Player breach the sport employment contract with the Claimant unlawfully.
II. Declare the contractual termination by Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenço illegal, due to
the absence of just cause.
III. The Club respectfully request to he Dispute Resolution Chamber recognize that the Club
is entitle to receive a compensation accoding [sic] to Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations in
the residual amount of the contract which amounts to €160,000 (one hundred and sixty
thousand euros), plus interest at the legal rate from 13rd of July 2023.
IV. The Club respectfully request to he [sic] Dispute Resolution Chamber recognize that
AMEDSPOR SK induced the Player to breach the sport employment contract with BOAVISTA
FUTEBOL CLUBE – FUTEBOL SAD. unlawfully.
V. The Club respectfully request to he [sic] Dispute Resolution Chamber recognize the
transfer proposed, and therefore, condemn the Player and AMEDSPOR SK jointly pay to
BOAVISTA FUTEBOL CLUBE –FUTEBOL SAD. the compensation in the amount of €750,000
(seven hundred and fifty thousand euros).
VI. Impose sporting sanctions on the Player, consisting of a six-month suspension from all
official competitions as provided in Article 17(3) of the RSTP
VII. Impose sanctions on Amedspor SK, prohibiting the club from registering new players
at national and international levels for two consecutive transfer windows, as stipulated in
Article 17(4) of the RSTP
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16494
VIII. Order the reimbursement to BOAVISTA FUTEBOL CLUBE – FUTEBOL SAD of all
procedural costs and expenses related to this case.”
24. On 24 March 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Claimant to amend its claim, if
it so wished, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the
new interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council on 23
December 2024 (hereinafter: the Interim Regulatory Framework). The FIFA general
secretariat also highlighted that any submission that went beyond the scope of the
mentioned request would be disregarded.
25. The Club’s position remained unchanged.
b. Position of the Player
26. The Player first challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction, arguing that the present matter constitutes a
domestic dispute between a Portuguese player and a Portuguese club. He submitted that
the Contract was executed, performed, and terminated in Portugal, that all facts giving rise
to the dispute occurred entirely within Portuguese territory, and that the Contract was
expressly governed by Portuguese law without any reference to FIFA’s jurisdiction. The
Player further argued that, pursuant to both the applicable law and the terms of the
Contract, any dispute arising between the parties must be submitted to Portuguese judicial
or arbitral bodies, namely the Tribunal Arbitral do Desporto (TAD).
27. With respect to the application of art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and the issue of joint liability, the Player argued that
the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the present matter. He further
submitted that the Club failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the Second
Respondent had any involvement in, or inducement regarding, the termination of the
Contract. Consequently, the Player maintained that the Second Respondent cannot be held
jointly liable for any potential compensation.
28. The Player then argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract. He emphasised
that the Claimant had consistently failed to pay his salary and housing allowance for May
and June 2024, as well as the performance bonus of EUR 2,500 from the 2022/2023 season.
These arrears occurred within a broader pattern of repeated financial misconduct by the
Club, including salary delays in October and November 2023, which were only rectified
following the intervention of Liga Portugal in December 2023. According to the Player, this
ongoing pattern, characterised by late payments, ambiguous partial settlements, a lack of
transparency, and reliance on league or FIFA intervention—resulted in significant financial
distress and constituted a fundamental breach of trust.
29. According to the Player under art. 394 of the Portuguese Labour Code, such failures to pay
salaries constitute just cause for immediate termination by the employee. Additionally,
under art. 43 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the failure to pay remuneration
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16494
for more than 30 days following written notice granting a three-working-day deadline
equally constitutes just cause for termination with entitlement to compensation. The Player
also clarified that, pursuant to art. 258(3) of the Portuguese Labour Code, performancerelated remuneration linked to objective criteria is presumed to form part of the agreed
remuneration, and thus the outstanding bonus must be treated as regular remuneration.
30. The Player submitted that he notified the Claimant on 8 July 2024 and the Claimant’s partial,
unexplained payments did not fully settle the debt. The Club’s history of financial
mismanagement, including multiple FIFA registration bans and administrative relegation,
further supports the Player’s position.
31. The Player concluded that:
“42. The Club’s repeated misconduct, lack of transparency, ambiguous partial payments,
need for league or FIFA intervention, and resulting financial distress endured by the Player
constitute a fundamental breach of trust.
43. The presumption of good faith inherent to employment contracts is destroyed, making
continuation untenable. This breakdown reaches beyond technical defaults, embodying a
breach of the relational foundations required for sustained mutual performance.
44. As of 8 July 2024, the Player validly terminated the employment contract with
immediate effect based on Article 394.o n.o 1 and n.o 5 of the Labour Code and Article 43
of the CCT LPFP/SJPF. (Enclosed Exhibit 9)
45. Consequently, Boavista SAD is liable to pay all overdue salaries, allowances, and
bonuses. The Player is entitled to compensation under Article 48 of the CCT, which may
include cover for unpaid portions of the term.
46. Additionally, Portuguese jurisprudence affirms that damages for non-patrimonial
losses and reputational harm are due when employer breach results in personal or
professional harm. Notification of termination will be communicated to the Portuguese
Football Federation, Liga Portugal, and SJPF in strict compliance with Article 44 of the CCT
and Article 27 of Law No. 54/2017.”
32. Subsidiary, in case FIFA decides otherwise, the Player mentioned that under Portuguese
law (art. 24(1) of Law no. 54/2017) and the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (art.
50(1)), if a player terminates their contract without just cause, the compensation owed to
the club is strictly limited to the amount of remuneration the player would have earned
until the end of the contract. In this case, the Player’s contract was valid until 30 June 2025,
with an annual salary of EUR 80,000, which sets the maximum compensation at that
amount. Therefore, any claim by the Club exceeding EUR 80,000 goes beyond what is legally
and contractually permissible. Both statutory law and the applicable Collective Bargaining
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16494
Agreement clearly establish this ceiling, reaffirming that even in cases of unjustified
termination, the compensation cannot surpass the remaining contractual salary.
33. The Player further added that the parties had contractually agreed to submit any disputes
before TAD. However, the Claimant failed to initiate proceedings before TAD or any other
agreed arbitration body, thereby disregarding the dispute resolution clause in the Contract.
This omission constituted a procedural breach that undermines the admissibility and
legitimacy of the current proceedings, as the Claimant did not follow the mutually
established mechanism for resolving sports-related disputes.
34. Finally, the Player highlighted that the Joint Arbitration Committee is a recognized
arbitration body under the CBA, that has already ruled in his favor. In its decision dated 26
August 2024 (Case No. 10 CAP/2024), the Joint Arbitration Committee concluded that the
Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract, reinforcing his legal position.
Although the Joint Arbitration Committee decisions primarily concern sporting
consequences, they are based on a thorough factual and legal assessment and should
carry persuasive weight beyond the regulatory framework.
35. The Player requested the following relief:
“On account of all the foregoing, Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenço, respectfully requests the
Players’ Status Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to issue a decision ruling that:
i) The claim filed by Boavista Futebol Clube against player Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenço
& Club Amed Sportif, is rejected in limine for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 22
RSTP;
ii) In the alternative, declare that the Turkish club is not jointly liable, due to the complete
absence of evidence of inducement, as required under Article 17n.º 2 RSTP;
iii) the player Bruno Miguel Ponces Lourenço termination was performed with just cause
and consequently no compensation should be awarded to Boavista Football Club;
iv) no Sporting Sanctions should be imposed against the player.
v) the costs of the proceedings, if any, shall be entirely born by Boavista Futebol Clube”
c. Position of the Second Respondent
36. The Second Respondent argued that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause. It
further submitted that a sporting sanction may only be imposed where the Claimant
demonstrates that the Player’s new club induced the Player to breach the employment
contract. In the present case, however, the Claimant failed to provide any evidence of
inducement and relied solely on hypothetical or speculative assertions. Accordingly, the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16494
Second Respondent maintained that it would be inadmissible to impose any presumptive
sporting sanction or financial liability on the Respondent Club.
37. The Second Respondent requested the following relief:
“6.1 The reasons explained above we kindly request you to decide judgment of dismissal
about the present case.
6.2 As a result of all this, the sporting sanctions and compensation claims requested by
the Claimant Club, despite the fact that it has not provided any evidence that it caused the
termination of the contract, should be completely rejected.”
d. Replica of the Claimant
38. Despite being invited to provide its comments as to the First and Second Respondents’
position (jointly called the Respondents), the Claimant failed to provide any comment.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Jurisdiction and applicable legal framework
39. 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 8 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 11 December 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.
40. The Chamber then turned to the assessment of its jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter
and recalled that the First Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction mentioning that this
case was national dispute. The Club, on the other hand, has not provided any comment in
this respect.
41. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber noted that the Claimant and the First Respondent
submitted different translations of the Contract, particularly with respect to clauses 8 and
9. Neither party, however, provided any explanation as to which translation should prevail.
Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that following the Player’s submission of the Contract,
the Respondent did not contest that the version provided by the Player was inaccurate
despite having had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, the Chamber decided to rely on
the First Respondent’s translation for the purposes of its analysis.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16494
42. In continuation, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations
(July 2025 edition), and emphasised that, in cases involving a club and a player of the same
nationality, the decisive element for establishing FIFA’s jurisdiction was indeed the
involvement of a new club affiliated to a different member association.
43. In the present case, the Chamber considered that art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) applied in the present
matter: the involvement of the Second Respondent, a club affiliated to a foreign
association, conferred an international dimension on the dispute. Furthermore, the
Chamber considered that the core of the dispute was “employment-related”. Further,
neither the sequence of events nor the conduct of the parties indicated an abuse of rights
or an artificial creation of an international element that would justify excluding FIFA’s
jurisdiction.
44. Furthermore, the Chamber held that the First Respondent’ reliance on an exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the TAD did not alter this conclusion, as the choice of a
National Dispute Resolution Chamber is only analysed when the assessment is conducted
pursuant to art. 22 para. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
45. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the dispute concerning the alleged breach of
contract and the ensuing consequences fell within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the
Regulations. Therefore, the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the
Claimant.
46. 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.
47. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant and the First Respondent referred
in its positions that the applicable law to the present case is Portuguese law.
48. In this context, the Chamber referred to article 3 of the Procedural Rules, which establishes
inter alia that “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”. The FIFA Football Tribunal’s longstanding jurisprudence and practice in line with the rules, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
assess the disputes based on the Regulations, referring to the FIFA Statutes and other FIFA
regulations where appropriate.
49. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the main objective of the FIFA regulations is
to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the football community are
subject to and can rely on (cf. art. 1 par. 1 of the Regulations). As has long been held by the
Football Tribunal, it is in the interest of football that cases are decided based on uniform
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16494
criteria rather than on provisions of national law that may vary considerably from country
to country.
50. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that FIFA regulations, general principles of law and,
where existing, the Football Tribunal’s well-established jurisprudence shall apply.
b. Admissibility
51. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that on 26 August 2024, the Portuguese
Joint Arbitration Committee issued a decision acknowledging the Player’s right to terminate
his employment contract. However, based on the scope and content of the decision
provided, this decision appears to be administrative in nature, serving only to enable the
Player to formalize the termination. It did not address the underlying merits of the case nor
determine the legal consequences arising from the termination. Accordingly, the Chamber
considered that the decision does not have res judicata effect.
c. Burden of proof
52. 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 TMS.
d. Merits of the dispute
53. 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
54. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the Contract’s early termination by the Player.
55. The Chamber observed that, according to the Claimant, the Player had terminated the
employment contract without just cause. Consequently, the Claimant argued that it was
entitled to receive compensation for the alleged unilateral breach.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16494
56. The Chamber further took note of the position of the Respondents, who submitted that the
Player terminated the contract with just cause as the Club failed to pay the salaries claimed.
In addition, the Respondents maintained that the Second Respondent had not induced the
Player to terminate the contract, and that no evidence had been submitted to support such
an allegation.
57. In view of the above, the Chamber acknowledged that its task is to determine the following:
-
Whether the Contract was terminated with just cause; and
-
What are the legal consequences of such termination.
58. In order to assess whether the Contract had been terminated with or without just cause,
the Chamber observed the following:
-
The Player sent a first default notice to the Club on 21 December 2023 requesting
payment of his salaries and housing allowances for October and November 2023, as well
as the 2022/2023 performance bonus. The Club subsequently paid almost all requested
amounts, with the exception of the outstanding portion of the bonus in the amount of
EUR 2,500.
-
The Player then sent a second default notice to the Club on 9 July 2024, requesting
payment of salaries and housing allowances for May and June 2024, in addition to the
remaining EUR 2,500 of the 2022/2023 performance bonus, totalling EUR 17,033.34. In
this letter, the Player granted the Club three days to remedy the default.
-
Regarding the 2022/2023 performance bonus and the outstanding EUR 2,500, the
Chamber noted that it constituted a conditional bonus provided for in clause 3 of the
Contract, for which no supporting documentation had been submitted. Nevertheless,
the Chamber considered that the Player had initially claimed EUR 5,000 in his first default
notice, an amount which the Club partially paid. Furthermore, in the second default
notice, the Player claimed only the outstanding balance of EUR 2,500.
The Chamber also noted that although the Club stated that it had fulfilled all financial
obligations, it did not specifically address whether this bonus was due nor whether the
relevant contractual conditions had been met.
Therefore, in the absence of any dispute over the unpaid EUR 2,500, the Chamber
concluded that such amount remained outstanding.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16494
-
The Chamber further observed that no contractual date had been stipulated for
payment of the 2022/2023 performance bonus. Nonetheless, given its nature, the
Chamber deemed that the bonus should have been paid at the end of the relevant
season, i.e. no later than 30 June 2023.
-
On 11 and 12 July 2024, the Club made two payments of EUR 7,266.67 each, totalling
EUR 14,533.34. These payments did not fully cover the amount requested in the second
default notice, leaving an unpaid balance of EUR 2,500. The references used in the proofs
of payment, namely “vencimento junho” and “vencimento maio”, indicated that the
payments related to May and June, but it remained uncertain whether part of the
payment was intended to cover the bonus.
-
On 13 July 2024, the Player terminated the Contract.
59. Based on the above, the Chamber reached the following conclusions:
-
The Club had paid four monthly salaries and allowances late.
-
The Player had sent two default notices to the Club.
-
The Player had granted the Club three working days to remedy the default on each
occasion.
-
Upon the second default notice, the Club paid EUR 14,533.34 out of the EUR 17,033.34
requested. Accordingly, at the moment of termination, the Club had failed to pay the
outstanding EUR 2,500.
Was the Contract terminated with just cause in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations?
60. The Chamber first observed that the conditions of art. 14bis paras. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations had not been met, as the deadline of 15 days was not granted. Nonetheless,
the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 14bis para. 3, which provided that:
“Collective bargaining agreements validly negotiated by employers’ and employees’
representatives at domestic level in accordance with national law may deviate from the
principles stipulated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. The terms of such an agreement shall
prevail.”
61. The Chamber also referred to the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition) (pp. 154–
155), which stated that:
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16494
“The only codified exception to the “two-month rule” stipulates that collective bargaining
agreements properly negotiated by employers’ and employees’ representatives at
domestic level in accordance with national law may supersede the conditions provided in
article 14bis. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be clarified that the reference to
national law relates to the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements. In other words,
for the conditions contained in a collective bargaining agreement to be recognised, this
agreement must have been entered into in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the relevant national law regarding agreements of this kind.”
62. The Chamber noted that the Player provided excerpts of a CBA concluded between the
Players’ Union and the Portuguese League, and that the Club did not contest its existence
or relevance. However, only partial extracts, specifically arts. 43 and 44, had been
submitted, without the full text of the CBA. These articles addressed just cause for
termination and notification requirements.
63. The Chamber further noted that the Player had invoked national law (art. 258(3) of the
Portuguese Labour Code) to argue that the performance bonus formed part of
“remuneration”. However, only a single article from national law had been provided,
without further explanation.
64. In line with art. 13 para. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber recalled that the party
asserting a fact bears the burden of proof. Given the absence of the full CBA text and the
limited information on its application, particularly regarding the link between CBA
provisions and national labour law; the Chamber determined that the Player had not
discharged his burden of proof in order to duly substantiate the applicability of art. 14bis
para. 3 and, more importantly, of the various provisions of the CBA and Portuguese Labour
Code cited by the Player.
65. Moreover, even assuming that art. 43 of the CBA was applicable, the Chamber found that
not all formal conditions had been satisfied. In particular, there was no evidence on file
that the Player had notified the SJPF which appears to be the Player’s Football Union and
the FPF, as expressly required under art. 44 of the CBA. The Chamber recalled that art. 44
stipulated that:
“Communication of Contract Termination
1 — The effectiveness of the termination of the employment contract depends on its
communication to the Portuguese Football League, the SJPF, and the FPF.
2 — The communication must be made by the party that initiated it, indicating the grounds and
the respective method of contract termination.” (emphasis added by the Chamber).
66. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber was not satisfied that art. 14bis para. 3 was applicable
to the present case.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16494
Was the Contract terminated with just cause in accordance with art. 14 of the
Regulations?
67. For the sake of completeness, and as nothing prohibits the Chamber from doing so, the
Chamber went on to analyse the termination of the Contract under art. 14 of the
Regulations.
68. In doing so, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 14 of the Regulations, according to
which, in general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be
reasonably expected in good faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship.
69. Generally, as stated in art. 14 of the Regulations, a premature termination may be issued
only in circumstances in which it can no longer, reasonably and in good faith, be expected
from the party issuing the termination to continue the respective contractual relationship.
In line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the termination of
a contract should always be an action of last resort, having regard to the individual facts
and circumstances of each case. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be
taken in order for an employee to assure the employer’s fulfilment of its contractual duties,
such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. In other words,
as consistently held by this Chamber, a premature termination of an employment contract
can only be an ultima ratio measure.
70. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Club failed to pay the Player’s remuneration
for no less than four months, which led the Player to put the Club in default twice, granting
a period of 3 working days each time in reliance on certain provisions of national CBA cited
in each of the default notices. On both occasions, the Club did not fully pay the requested
amounts within the time granted.
71. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Club had repeatedly failed
to pay the Player’s remuneration in a timely manner. Although the deadline granted to the
Club was 3 working days, in this specific case, the majority of the Chamber was persuaded
by the Player’s submissions that such timeframe had been provided pursuant to the
conditions set forth in the applicable CBA. While the full text of the CBA had not been
submitted, the majority of the Chamber noted that the three-working-day period had been
accepted by the parties as sufficient to anticipate the consequences of noncompliance.
Accordingly, the majority of the Chamber considered in this specific case that the deadline
was consistent in the present case within the framework that the parties considered
governed their employment relationship, which, notably, had not been contested by either
party.
72. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber also recalled that the Portuguese League had
expressly instructed the Club to comply with the Player’s notice. Although the subsequent
national decision dated 26 August 2024 was administrative in nature, it provided further
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16494
credibility to the Player’s position that he had undertaken all steps for termination under
the applicable national regulatory system. Moreover, the Club never objected to the
Player’s reliance on that framework and was, on the contrary, demonstrably aware of the
procedures and consequences flowing from it.
73. Furthermore, the majority of the Chamber observed that although the Club argued that it
had paid the requested amounts, it did not contest the adequacy of the deadline, nor did
it claim that the termination had been premature or disproportionate (i.e. not an ultima
ratio measure). The Club merely asserted that it had paid the amounts. In light of the
particular circumstances of the case, and taking into account the Club’s repeated delays
and its failure to pay the requested amounts on two separate occasions (the bonus already
having been requested in the first default notice), the specific procedures followed by the
Player to effect his termination, and the Club’s failure to comply with the deadlines given
to pay all the requested amounts, the majority of the Chamber held that the Player could
no longer, reasonably and in good faith, be expected to continue the contractual
relationship, and therefore had just cause to terminate the Contract.
74. Consequently, the claim was rejected. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that no
counterclaim was filed and, therefore, it was not analysed.
e. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-16494
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Boavista FC.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-16494
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. 23