Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16554
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Guttiner
Heider Fernando Costa Tenorio
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Guttiner Heider Fernando Costa Tenorio, Brazil
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT:
Marsaxlokk, Malta
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16554
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 May 2024, the Brazilian player, Guttiner Heider Fernando Costa Tenorio (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant), and the Maltese club, Marsaxlokk (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
2 June 2024 until 8 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with Clause 2 the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant, inter alia, remuneration as follows (quoted verbatim):
“2.1 In remuneration for his services, the Club shall pay the Player a gross monthly salary of
€2,697 (a net monthly salary of €2,400) from 1st day of training of season 2024/25 till the last
competitive match of season 2024/25. The gross monthly salary is composed of: a basic
monthly salary of €925.38 and monthly allowances amounting to €1,772.
2.2 The above payments are to be made at the end of each month. Such remuneration shall
be paid by means of cheque or bank transfer.
2.3 The Club and the Player hereby agree that all taxes due by the Player to the Inland Revenue
Department and any national insurance contributions due arising out of this Contract shall
be paid by the Club, on behalf of the Player. The Player hereby authorizes the Club to deduct
from his monthly salary payment that amount which is due by the Player to the national tax
authorities and make such payment on his behalf.”
3.
On 19 July 2024, the Club’s head coach contacted the Claimant – through his legal
representative – and expressed concern regarding the Player’s unprofessional attitude,
including lack of concentration and consumption of alcohol.
4.
On 30 August 2024, the Club filed a police report in Malta for the Player’s purported
aggressive attitude, use of foul language and threats.
5.
On 2 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default of payment of the July and August
2024 salaries (i.e., EUR 4,800) setting a 15-day deadline in order to remedy the default.
6.
Moreover, within this default notice, the Player included an offer to negotiate a mutual
termination agreement and proposed the following terms (quoted verbatim):
“Payment of the arrears for July and August 2024 (€4,800) plus an additional €10,200 as
compensation for early termination, bringing the total to €15,000.”
7.
The Player granted the Club 48 hours to respond, or it would be presumed that it intends
to continue with the Player’s services under the current terms of the Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16554
8.
On 3 September 2024, the Club’s Disciplinary Board notified the Player that a disciplinary
hearing would be held on 6 September 2024, and an email reminder was sent on 6
September 2024.
9.
On 4 September 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s notice and rejected the content of
said letter as well as the termination terms proposed.
10. On the same date, the parties exchanged a string of emails in which the Player highlighted
the Club’s breach of contract and the proposed terms for mutual termination. The Club,
again, rejected these terms and stated that the amounts claimed were not correct.
11. On 6 September 2024, a disciplinary hearing was held at the Club (hereinafter: the
Disciplinary Hearing). It is undisputed by the parties that the Player did not attend. The
Player contended, however, that he was not properly notified of the hearing.
12. On 15 September 2024, the Player issued a reminder regarding the default notice and its
upcoming deadline and provided his bank details.
13. On 17 September 2024, the Club issued a termination notice citing that the decision had
been made following the Disciplinary Hearing held on 6 September 2024 at the Club.
Additionally, the Club attached proof of payment amounting to EUR 3,680 (EUR 3,684 with
processing fees) for the August and September 2024 salaries.
14. On 18 September 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s correspondence and refuted the
validity of the termination. The Player argued that, following the payments made by the
Club, there were still EUR 2,476 outstanding. The Player also indicated that payments made
did not release the Club from further liability for the remaining contractual balance, which
amounted to EUR 22,716.
15. On 19 September 2024, the Club issued an email and requested the Player to vacate the
apartment provided by the Club by 20 September 2024.
16. On the same day, the Club issued a communication stating that the Player had left the
apartment’s premises in an unsatisfactory condition. In response to these allegations, the
Player issued a formal reply and refuted the claims.
17. On 22 September 2024, the Player sought clarification from the Club regarding the status
of his work visa. The Club replied and attached a visa submission application and a
subsequent visa withdrawal confirmation.
18. On 27 September 2024, the Player extended an offer to the Club to settle the matter and
granted a 3-day period within which to respond to the settlement proposal. Said proposal
included the payment of EUR 15,000 to be paid in two instalments.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16554
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 12 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
20. According to the Claimant, the Respondent had engaged in an orchestrated course of
conduct designed to compel the premature termination of the Contract.
21. The Claimant contended that, while the Respondent had complied (although belatedly)
with the payment of the salary of June 2024, it initially failed to comply with the salary
payments of July and August 2024.
22. Furthermore, the Claimant highlighted that, despite the Respondent’s failure to
remunerate the Claimant for the said months, it had fully complied with the payment of
salary arrears for the same period in favour of the Claimant’s teammates. He argued that
such selective non-payment suggests an intentional strategy aimed at coercing the
Claimant into terminating the Contract.
23. Following the Respondent’s allegations of the Player’s unprofessional attitude,
communicated on 19 July 2024, the Claimant requested proof of said allegations, which
were not provided.
24. The Claimant asserted that no written warning letter was issued by the Respondent, which
constitutes a fundamental procedural step in the event of alleged disciplinary infractions.
25. At this time, the Claimant was presumably undergoing treatment for an injury at the time;
under professional supervision of a physiotherapist.
26. According to the Claimant, the true motivation behind the Club’s actions can be linked to
the Player’s injury, sustained approximately one month after his arrival, which temporarily
prevented him from participating in matches. After recovering, the Player returned to the
field but suffered a second, more serious shoulder injury on 22 August 2024.
27. On 25 August 2024, the Club’s president and the Claimant exchanged messages regarding
termination conditions, which were apparently not accepted by the Club’s president.
28. On the same date, the Club’s president allegedly summoned the Claimant to his office.
According to the Claimant, he recorded the meeting and the Club’s president was arrogant
and aggressive, which caused the Player significant concern for his safety.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16554
29. Upon the conclusion of this meeting, the Club’s president allegedly summoned the
Claimant to another meeting, in which the Respondent sought to coerce him into accepting
the termination of the Contract.
30. Being that the Claimant did not submit to the Club’s pressure, the Respondent allegedly
isolated the Claimant from his teammates, requiring him to train separately and in solitude.
31. On 27 August 2024, the Claimant was supposedly invited to another meeting with the
Respondent (which he recorded), in which the Club’s head coach and director allegedly
attempted to fabricate various alleged issues concerning the Claimant’s conduct— issues
that were completely unsubstantiated.
32. The Claimant contended that the Club’s staff unequivocally and unambiguously stated that
the Claimant would not be allowed to play for the team should he continue his tenure at
the Club.
33. Following the issuance of a default notice on 2 September 2024, the Claimant stated that
the only documented payments made by the Respondent pertain to the sign-on fee in the
amount of EUR 2,000 and the first salary payment for June 2024, amounting to EUR 2,400.
34. The Claimant noted that these payments had to be made to a teammate (Yuri de Jesus
Messias), due to the fact that the Respondent had applied for the Claimant’s visa, which
had not yet been approved, which prevented the Claimant from opening his own bank
account in Malta.
35. Further correspondence was exchanged between the Claimant and the Club’s president.
According to the Claimant, these emails clearly demonstrated, that the Respondent failed
to process the salary payments for July and August 2024.
36. According to the Claimant, it was well-established that he had exhausted all available
avenues to each an amicable resolution, efforts that were repeatedly rebuffed by the
Respondent. Particularly considering he had proposed terms for a mutual termination.
37. On 22 September 2024, the Claimant sought clarification from the Respondent regarding
the status of his work visa, given that it was the Respondent’s responsibility to secure the
Claimant’s work permit. The Claimant noted that the Player’s mobile phone had been stolen
while in Malta, resulting in a complete loss of access to his email account.
38. The Respondent then replied and attached the visa submission application and the visa
withdrawal confirmation. According to the Claimant, this was a manifest illustration of the
Respondent’s mala fide conduct, as it intentionally left the Claimant in Malta without a valid
visa, and a party acting in good faith and in accordance with its fiduciary duties would not
have initiated the withdrawal of the visa application.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16554
39. According to the Claimant, the Respondent’s breach of contract caused significant
economic harm and irreparable damage to the Claimant’s professional career.
40. The Claimant stated that the Respondent’s material breach of contract can be summed up
in the following actions: (i) failure to remit salary payments, (ii) unilateral termination
without just cause, (iii) failure to cure breach.
41. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“In light of the substantive breaches committed by the Respondent, as set forth in this
submission, and the significant harm caused to the Claimant, the Claimant respectfully seeks
the following redress from this Tribunal:
1. Declaration of Breach:
The Tribunal is requested to formally declare that the Respondent has breached the terms of
the employment contract. This breach is demonstrated by the Respondent’s failure to pay the
agreed salary, totaling EURO 2,476 up to the purported termination of the contract. Despite
the Claimant fulfilling his professional duties until the wrongful termination on September
17, 2024, the Respondent’s actions have caused significant financial and professional harm.
2. Compensatory Damages:
The Claimant seeks EURO 22,683 in compensatory damages to cover the remaining balance
of the contract. This amount is sought in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Swiss law, particularly the Swiss Code of Obligations, which
governs remedies for contractual breaches. This compensation is necessary to fully address
the financial losses resulting from the Respondent's breach.
3. Total Relief Sought:
The Claimant respectfully requests that the Tribunal order the Respondent to pay a total of
EURO 22,759, composed as follows:
• EURO 76 for the unpaid salary owed before the termination, reflecting the balance after the
Respondent’s partial payment of EURO 2,400 on September 26, 2024.
• EURO 22,683 as compensation for the remaining contractual obligations, covering the
financial harm caused by the Respondent’s failure to meet its commitments.
This relief is essential to fully compensate the Claimant for the financial and professional
harm suffered due to the Respondent’s breach.
4. Other Relief as Deemed Appropriate:
The Claimant further requests that the Tribunal consider granting any additional relief it
deems just and equitable, including ancillary measures necessary to fully address the
Respondent’s breaches and ensure a fair and just resolution.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16554
b. Reply of the Respondent
42. In its reply, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant was regularly paid for the months
of June 2024, July 2024, August 2024 and part of September 2024.
43. The Respondent then argued that the payments were not made on time due to the
Claimant’s issues opening a bank account. It was therefore agreed that as a temporary
solution and for expediency’s sake, the initial payment was to be made through the bank
account of the teammate Yuri de Jesus Messias.
44. The Respondent asserted that the Claimant was given numerous verbal warnings that his
attitude off-the-field was inappropriate and not tolerable, leading to the filing of a police
report in Malta on 30 August 2024, for aggressive attitude, use of foul language and threats.
45. The Respondent also provided a signed statement by the Club’s team manager, in which
he confirmed that the Player was disruptive to the wellbeing of the team, acted in a
disrespectful manner and as well as insubordinate in his attitude.
46. Following this, the Respondent indicated that a decision was made to institute charges
against the Player, for gross misconduct before an independent and impartial Disciplinary
Board.
47. The Respondent further asserted that the Player failed to show at the Disciplinary Hearing
and therefore did not provide any explanation to his misconduct. The Disciplinary Board
then issued its decision.
48. According to the Respondent, the documents submitted evidence that the Claimant
repeatedly breached his obligation to act in a professional manner. The Claimant had been
given the possibility to remedy his continued failures, however, rather than rectifying his
breaches, the Claimant allegedly threatened the Club’s president.
49. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the Club had no other option but to terminate the
Contract. On 16 September 2024, the Player was informed by the Club that it was
terminating the Contract.
50. The Respondent contended that, besides the termination being in accordance with art. 14
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of the Players (hereinafter: the Regulations),
it was noteworthy to mention that: (i) the Player was verbally warned of his inappropriate
behaviour and was asked to remedy the situation; (ii) the Player was asked to attend the
Disciplinary Hearing, however he failed to do so; (iii) the right exercised by the Respondent
to unilaterally terminate a Contract under just cause, is based on clearly documented
breaches.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16554
51. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“As a consequence of the aforesaid, having regard on all the facts and legal arguments put
forward above, the respondent club is humbly requesting this Honourable Tribunal to:
a) Reject in its entirety all of the requests by the player,
b) Order the player to pay any and all other costs related to this Claim;
c) To do anything further which is conducive and relevant for the proper execution of this
decision;”
c. Replica of the Claimant
52. In its replica, the Claimant contended that the Respondent’s allegations purporting to
justify the unilateral termination of the Contract were unfounded, both in fact and in law,
and failed to satisfy the stringent requirements established under art. 14 of the
Regulations.
53. Specifically, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to do the following: (i)
demonstrate that the alleged breaches attributed to the Claimant were sufficiently serious
to justify unilateral termination of the Contract, (ii) issue a warning letter or formal notice
prior to the termination, and (iii) adhere to the principle of ultima ratio, since there was no
evidence provided to suggest that reasonable alternatives were explored.
54. The Claimant reaffirmed that the Respondent failed to fulfil its contractual obligations, as
evidenced by the irregularities in salary payments, as well as failed to comply with the
requests under the default notice sent on 2 September 2024.
55. The Claimant also referred to the payment executed on 26 September 2024, which was
paid in concept of salary for July 2024. The Claimant argued that the Respondent attempted
to subvert the Tribunal’s process by indicating in the document that the payment was made
on 3 September 2024.
56. The Claimant provided a video of the Player allegedly accessing his bank account in real
time in order to retrieve the original receipt of the abovementioned payment, which
supported the claim that it was executed on 26 September 2024.
57. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the allegations of misconduct are unsubstantiated
by credible and independent evidence. The Claimant further indicated that despite replying
to the default notice issued on 2 September 2024, the Respondent did not make any
reference to these purported allegations at the time.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16554
58. The Claimant stated that the conduct that must be analysed is the one from the
Respondent, since it displayed unprofessional, aggressive and impolite behaviour, as
evidenced by the audio recordings submitted by the Claimant.
59. The Claimant contended that the Respondent’s intention to breach the Contract was
evidenced throughout the facts of the case. Therefore, the allegations made against the
Claimant were merely a retaliatory measure aimed at deflecting accountability for the
Respondent’s own contractual breaches and bad faith conduct.
60. Regarding the Disciplinary Hearing, the Claimant disputed the reception of the notification
indicating the date of the hearing, due to the fact that the Claimant’s cell phone was stolen
on 31 August 2024 thereby rendering him unable to access his email. A circumstance which
was allegedly communicated to the Respondent.
61. The Claimant then argued that, despite the Respondent being fully aware of the Player’s
inability to access email or other communication channels, the Respondent chose to
proceed with the Disciplinary Hearing, thus deliberately depriving the Claimant of his right
to defend himself and violating the fundamental principles of fairness.
62. Additionally, the Claimant argued that the disciplinary proceedings were suddenly initiated
only after the Claimant pursued unpaid salaries and issued formal notices to the
Respondent, which support the claim that the Respondent was attempting to coerce the
Player into prematurely terminating the Contract.
63. According to the Claimant, if the Player had indeed committed the acts of indiscipline
alleged by the Respondent, it is both illogical and contradictory that the Respondent would
actively seek to secure a transfer offer for the Claimant to a new club.
64. Regarding the police report filed by the Respondent, the Claimant argued that he was never
summoned or contacted by law enforcement authorities to provide a statement or
participate in any investigatory proceedings, which raised significant concerns about the
authenticity and timing of the police report.
65. The Claimant further contended that one of the members of the Disciplinary Board,
Christabelle Chetcuti, is a former police inspector, which diminished the credibility and
independence of the board.
66. Considering all the above, the Claimant argued that the Respondent’s actions entitled the
Claimant to seek all outstanding salaries, as well as compensation for breach of contract
and associated damages.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16554
d. Duplica of the Respondent
67. In its final comments, the Respondent rejected all claims of misconduct and/or breach of
contract.
68. The Respondent noted that criminal proceedings had been initiated and filed by the
Executive Police in the Court of Magistrates and that the next criminal sitting is scheduled
for 5 June 2026.
69. The Respondent also provided a subpoena by which the Club’s president was summoned
as a witness in the proceedings following the police report filed on 30 August 2024.
70. The Respondent stated that the Claimant had failed to impugn or challenge the decisions
rendered by the Club’s Disciplinary Board. Therefore, the decision shall remain final,
binding, and res judicata for all parties involved.
71. The Respondent rejected the claim that the Disciplinary Board member, Ms. Christabelle
Chetcuti, had any form of conflict of interest in this matter and asserted that such
allegations lack any supporting evidence and were entirely unfounded.
72. Lastly, the Respondent confirmed that the decision to terminate the Contract was taken as
a last resort, only after all appropriate steps were followed, and after the appropriate due
process in accordance with the Regulations.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
73. 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 12 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 25 September 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.
74. 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 an Brazilian player and a Maltese club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16554
75. 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
76. 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
77. 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
78. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the claim for overdue payables and alleged termination without
just cause.
79. The Claimant contended that the Respondent first failed to pay two salaries ⎯for July and
August 2024⎯ and then attempted to coerce the Claimant to prematurely terminate the
Contract. When this proved unsuccessful, the Respondent allegedly proceeded to
terminate the Contract without just cause. Accordingly, the Claimant seeks payment of
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
80. Conversely, the Respondent maintained that all salary obligations had been fulfilled and
that the termination was justified due to the Claimant’s sustained misconduct.
81. In light of these opposing positions, the Chamber acknowledged that its primary task was
to assess whether the Respondent’s unilateral termination of the Contract was carried out
with just cause, and to determine the legal consequences thereof.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16554
82. As a preliminary matter, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had filed a police report
on 30 August 2024, alleging that the Claimant had made aggressive comments and threats
towards the Club’s team manager.
83. While the Chamber does not question the existence of the police report, it emphasised that
the Football Tribunal is not a criminal court, and its investigative powers are limited. Thus,
the Football Tribunal is not in a position to verify the factual accuracy of the events
described therein. In this regard, the Chamber found that the police report remained a
unilateral declaration by the Respondent and, in the absence of corroborating evidence,
cannot be considered conclusive proof of misconduct.
84. The Chamber further observed that, on 2 September 2024, the Claimant issued a default
notice requesting payment of outstanding amounts pertaining to the salaries of July and
August 2024 and proposing terms for a mutual termination.
85. The Chamber noted that the Claimant was reportedly notified via email on 3 September
2024 that a disciplinary hearing was taking place on 6 September 2024. However, the
Claimant argued that he was unaware of this notification due to his mobile phone being
stolen and thus lacking access to his email. Despite this, the Disciplinary Hearing proceeded
in his absence, and the charges were deemed admitted.
86. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Board concluded that the Club had enough grounds upon
which to terminate the Contract with immediate effect, and this decision was
communicated to the Claimant on 17 September 2024.
87. In evaluating the legitimacy of the termination, the Chamber recalled that jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal establishes that when assessing whether a unilateral contract
termination is justified, the following general criteria must be applied, considering the
specific circumstances of each individual matter:
•
Only a sufficiently serious breach of contractual obligations by one party qualifies as
just cause for the other party to terminate the contract.
•
In principle, the breach is considered sufficiently serious when there are objective
circumstances that would render it unreasonable to expect the employment
relationship between the parties to continue, such as a serious breach of trust.
•
The termination of a contract should always be an action of last resort (an “ultima ratio”
action).
88. With the above in mind, the majority of the Chamber found it decisive that the Respondent
did not provide compelling evidence of the Claimant’s alleged unprofessional behaviour or
misconduct. According to the Chamber, the documentation submitted by the Respondent
consisted of unilateral written statements from the Club’s president / coaching staff, which
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16554
did not substantiate a breach of contract by the Claimant, let alone one of sufficient gravity
to justify termination.
89. While the Chamber acknowledged that there were discussions between the parties in the
days leading up to the disciplinary proceedings, and that the possibility of misconduct from
the Claimant could not be entirely ruled out, such circumstances did not warrant the abrupt
dissolution of the employment relationship. In the Chamber’s view, this conclusion was
reinforced by the absence of any formal notice or written warning to the Claimant
regarding his alleged behaviour and by the lack of evidence that the police report invoked
by the Respondent was ever communicated to the Claimant.
90. Although the Respondent initially acted within its authority by convening the Disciplinary
Hearing, the Chamber considered that its subsequent decision to terminate the Contract
was disproportionate and premature, particularly in light of the Claimant’s expressed
willingness to negotiate a mutual termination.
91. The Chamber reiterated that a club contemplating the option of terminating a contract with
a player due to his behaviour, should respect the ultima ratio principle; in that less stringent
disciplinary measures should be considered and applied first. The Chamber pointed out
that the Club could have imposed internal sanctions first, such as a reprimand, suspension
or fines, before resorting to the termination of the Contract.
92. In conclusion, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Respondent terminated the
Contract without just cause and is therefore liable of the consequences.
ii. Consequences
93. Having stated the above, the majority of the Chamber turned its attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
For the sake of completeness and given that the determination of the Club’s lack of just
cause was reached by majority, the findings regarding the consequences of the breach
were likewise adopted by majority decision.
94. The Chamber noted that, at the time of termination on 17 September 2024, the
outstanding remuneration corresponded to the Player’s salaries for July and August 2024,
as reflected in the specific relief sought. Furthermore, the Chamber clarified that, since the
termination occurred in the second half of September, the salary for that month must also
be included in the outstanding remuneration. Accordingly, the total amount due to the
Player was EUR 7,200, representing three monthly salaries of EUR 2,400 each.
95. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that on 17 September 2024, a payment receipt
of EUR 3,680 was issued by the Respondent in concept of salary for August and the prorata payment for the 16 days worked in September 2024.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16554
96. Additionally, the Chamber noted that on 26 September 2024, the Respondent submitted
another payment receipt of EUR 2,400, corresponding to the salary for July 2024.
97. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the total amount paid by the Respondent
totals EUR 6,080. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to
receive the balance of EUR 1,120 as outstanding remuneration (i.e., EUR 7,200 minus EUR
6,080).
98. 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date of the termination (i.e.,
17 September 2024) until the date of effective payment.
99. 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.
100. 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 no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
101. As a consequence, 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 a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
102. 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 (i.e., 17 September 2024) until its end date (i.e.,
8 June 2025).
103. Under the terms of the Contract, the Claimant was entitled to a fixed monthly salary of EUR
2,400. Therefore, the Chamber calculated the residual value of the Contract as follows:
•
October 2024 to May 2025: 8 months × EUR 2,400 = EUR 19,200
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16554
•
June 2025 (8 days pro-rata): EUR 640
104. As a result, the Chamber determined that the total amount of EUR 19,840 represents the
residual value of the Contract and shall serve as the basis for the calculation of
compensation for breach of contract.
105. 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.
106. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Emirati club, Masfout. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to AED 9,200 (approximately
EUR 2,301.99) per month.
107. Taking into account the duration of the new employment, the Chamber observed that the
Claimant would be entitled to remuneration for seven full months, as well as a pro-rata
amount for half a month, detailed as follows:
•
7 months × EUR 2,301.99 = EUR 16,113.93
•
Half-month pro-rata salary = EUR 1,150.99
108. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 17,264.92.
109. In continuation, the DRC pointed out that no additional compensation was applicable in
this case, as the Club terminated the Contract and this termination was not grounded on
overdue payables.
110. 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 2,575.08 to the Claimant (i.e., EUR 19,840 minus EUR 17,264.92), which was considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
111. Lastly, 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 the date of the termination (i.e., 17
September 2024) until the date of effective payment.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16554
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
112. 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.
113. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
114. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber 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.
115. 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.
116. The Chamber 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
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16554
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Guttiner Heider Fernando Costa Tenorio, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Marsaxlokk, must pay the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 1,120 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 September
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,575.08 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16554
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. 19