Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16859
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Wesley da Silva
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / FIRST COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Wesley da Silva, Brazil
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Qingdao West Coast FC, China PR
Represented by Daniel Muñoz Sirera
SECOND COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Always Ready, Bolivia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16859
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Brazilian player Wesley da Silva (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant / First
Counter-Respondent), born on 14 July 1996;
•
the Chinese club Qingdao West Coast FC (hereinafter: Qingdao or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant), affiliated to the Chinese Football Association (CFA);
•
the Bolivian club Always Ready (hereinafter: Always Ready or the Second CounterRespondent), affiliated to the Bolivian Football Federation (FBF).
2.
On 27 June 2023, the Player and Qingdao entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Qingdao Contract) valid as from 1 July 2023 until 30 November 2023.
3.
Clause 3 of the Qingdao Contract established:
“ARTICLE 3: Salary and Bonuses
I. The Parties agree to calculate the salary on an annual basis. During the term of this
Contract, [Qingdao] shall pay [the Player] the annual salaries as follows (the Parties may
agree on currency unit):
1.1. As from 01/07/2023 until 30/11/2023:
Totally USD 40,000 (forty thousand dollars) net of taxes paid in 5 (five) equal instalments
of USD 8.000 (eight thousand dollars).
(…)
3.The annual salaries shall be paid to [the Player] in equal monthly installments.
[Qingdao] shall pay the salary' (choose one of the following two options) for the ✓ last
month/current month on the (25) day of every month. In the event the above-mentioned
payment due date falls on a statutory holiday, the payment due date shall be extended
to the first working day following the holiday. (…)”
4.
On the same date, the Player and Qingdao concluded a document entitled “Living
Allowances Agreement” (hereinafter: the Qingdao Allowances Agreement), by means of which
Qingdao undertook to pay the Player USD 40,000 net as living allowances, seven days after
he signed and began performing the Qingdao Contract.
5.
On 30 June 2023, the Player’s agent received USD 4,000 from Qingdao as a commission.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16859
6.
On 6 July 2023, Qingdao made an offer to the Player, who accepted it. The content of the
offer (hereinafter: the Qingdao Offer) was the following:
“OFFER
Dear Sir: Wesley da Silva
Qingdao West Coast FC Chinese club, would like to recruit you for the 2024 season in the
condition as follow:
-Duration: as from 01 January 2024 to 31 December 2024
-The salary for season 2024
-100,000 USD NET (One Hundred Thousand Dollars)
-60,000 USD NET (Sixty Thousand Dollars) in Sign fee.
-Bonus:
-If the player scores 10 goals, he will have a bonus of 10,000 USD NET
-Apartment Club pay
-Flight Tickets: 10,000 Dollars to spend.
-Extra payment: 15,000 Dollars before 15-07-2023
-If club promote to super league, salary 300,000 USD NET (Three Hundred Thousand) per
season”
7.
On 13 July 2023, the Player signed a document entitled “Receipt”, in which he stated (quoted
verbatim):
“This RECEIPT is made on 13th July 2023
I am DA SILVA WESLEY,Passaport number FZ524196, I hereby certify that I authorize Lian
Xin to receive my living allowance and the expenses of the new agreement totaling 55,000
USD (equal to 394,300 RMB) on my behalf”
8.
On 27 September 2023, the Player’s agent sent an email to Qingdao, stating that on 6 July
2023, Qingdao had made the Qingdao Offer, under which it undertook to make an extra
payment on 15 July 2023 and sign the renewal of the contract until 31 December 2024. The
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16859
Player’s agent argued that, while the proposal was accepted and Qingdao complied with
the payment, it failed to deliver the contract to the Player. Therefore, the Player’s agent
requested that Qingdao responded the letter to resolve this issue within three days.
9.
On 1 October 2023, Qingdao replied to the email alleging that it was a national holiday in
China PR and, therefore, the staff was on vacation. Qingdao informed the Player’s agent
that the staff would return on 10 October 2023 and would have a meeting to resolve the
issue with the Player’s contract.
10. On 11 October 2023, the Player’s agent sent a new email requesting that the contract be
signed. The Player’s agent argued that, if the response was negative, the Player would
initiate legal action.
11. Qingdao was promoted to the Chinese Super League by the end of the 2023 sporting
season.
12. On 20 December 2023, the Player and a person named Caroline Piovesan Da Silva flew
from Qingdao (China PR) to Incheon (South Korea).
13. On 21 December 2023, the Player and a person named Caroline Piovesan Da Silva flew
from Incheon (South Korea) to Doha (Qatar) and from Doha (Qatar) to São Paulo (Brazil).
14. On 1 January 2024, Always Ready announced the hiring of the Player on its official social
media, stating that he came from Qingdao.
15. Also on 1 January 2024, the webpage Onefootball replicated a report published by
Late.com.bo, in which it was reported that, on the last day of 2023, Always Ready made the
official announcement of the Player’s return to the club. Furthermore, the webpage
Transfermarkt stated that the Player’s move from Qingdao to Always Ready took place on
1 January 2024.
16. On 4 January 2024, the Player and Always Ready signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Always Ready Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31
December 2024. According to the Always Ready Contract, the Player was entitled to USD
178,572, to be paid in 11 instalments of USD 16,233.82, as well as to a guaranteed fee of
USD 17,857.50 to be paid on 25 January 2024.
17. On an unspecified day of January 2024, Qingdao and the Angolan player Nelson Coquenao
da Luz (hereinafter: Mr. Coquenao da Luz) concluded a contract valid as from 12 January
2024 until 31 December 2024. The annual salary of Mr. Coquenao da Luz was USD 230,000
gross and USD 180,000 net, to be paid in equal monthly instalments of USD 19,116 gross.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16859
18. On 16 January 2024, Qingdao and the Colombian player Jose Brayan Riascos Valencia
(hereinafter: Mr. Riascos Valencia) concluded a contract valid as from 16 January 2024 until
31 December 2024. The annual salary of Mr. Riascos Valencia was USD 230,000 gross and
USD 180,000 net, to be paid in equal monthly instalments of USD 19,116 gross.
19. On 1 February 2024, Qingdao concluded a document entitled “Consulting Service Contract”
with the company Rising Star Sports PTE. LTD. (hereinafter: the Company), by means of
which the Company undertook to help Qingdao complete the signing of, inter alia, Mr.
Coquenao da Luz and Mr. Riascos Valencia. In exchange, Qingdao undertook to pay the
Company USD 436,100 as a consulting fee before 31 March 2024.
20. On 10 February 2024, the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was requested by
the FBF, following a request from Always Ready.
21. On 16 February 2024, the Player’s ITC was delivered.
22. On 24 April 2024, the Player sent a letter to Qingdao stating that the parties had concluded
the Qingdao Contract on 27 June 2023, which had been renewed by means of the Qingdao
Offer accepted by the Player. The Player alleged that, despite the wording of that contract
referring to an offer, such document already contained all the essentialia negotii of a
contract. Moreover, the Player pointed out that Qingdao proceeded with the extra payment
of USD 15,000 as established in the Qingdao Offer, making it unequivocal that it deemed
the contract extended for the 2024 sporting season. The Player further alleged that
Qingdao was promoted to the Chinese Super League and, therefore, his salary for the 2024
sporting season was USD 300,000. Notwithstanding, the Player contended that the club
refused to provide him with the necessary documentation in order to allow his registration
for the 2024 sporting season, such as the draft of the federative employment contract for
registration purposes before the CFA. The Player also highlighted that on 27 September
and 11 October 2023, his agent contacted Qingdao to request the federative contract and
warned that, in the absence of a reply, the Player would initiate legal action. Based on this,
the Player stated that Qingdao breached the terms of the Qingdao Contract and the
Qingdao Offer in an attempt to prevent his registration for the 2024 sporting season, which
amounted to a termination without just cause. Therefore, the Player requested that the
Club pay USD 300,000 as compensation by no later than 6 May 2024.
23. On 8 May 2024, Qingdao replied to the Player’s letter stating that it was the Player who
failed to comply with the Qingdao Offer and signed with a Bolivian club without even
notifying Qingdao, which constituted a premeditated scheme. In this regard, Qingdao
argued that the Player travelled to Brazil in December 2023 and, in January 2024, Qingdao
found out that the Player had signed a new contract. Furthermore, Qingdao alleged that
after the New Year holiday, the Player requested that Qingdao release him to play in Bolivia.
Hence, Qingdao rejected the Player’s position and informed him that it reserved its right to
claim compensation.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16859
24. On 22 May 2024, the Player replied to Qingdao’s letter, arguing that his position does not
constitute a premeditated scheme but is instead a result of Qingdao’s own choices, which
eventually led to the termination of the contract without just cause. The Player referred to
the facts outlined in his previous letter and stated that Qingdao did not have any genuine
interest in registering the contract extension before the CFA and was, in fact, committed to
preventing such registration from happening at all. The Player remarked that he could not
be reasonably expected to believe that the club would register the contract extension, as
Qingdao had failed to do so for more than six months, despite having received multiple
correspondences. The Player further alleged that it was after his trust in Qingdao had
already been legitimately affected that he signed a new contract with Always Ready. Lastly,
the Player pointed out that Qingdao never notified him or requested his return to China
and did not reject the issuance of the ITC. Therefore, the Player insisted that it remains
unequivocal that Qingdao terminated the contract.
25. On 28 June 2024, the Player, Always Ready and the Japanese club Imabari Yume Sports Co
LTD (hereinafter: Imabari) concluded a document entitled “Agreement for definitive
transfer of registration rights of professional football player” (hereinafter: the Imabari
Transfer Agreement), by means of which the Player was transferred from Always Ready to
Imabari. Always Ready and Imabari stipulated that the transfer was free of payment,
although Always Ready would be entitled to receive the net 40% of any and all net potential
economic results to be received by Imabari in case of a future transfer of the Player to a
third club.
26. Also on 28 June 2024, the Player and Imabari concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Imabari Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until 31 December 2026.
According to the Imabari Contract, the Player would be entitled to the following amounts:
(i) USD 70,000 net for the 2024 season, from July to December; (ii) USD 110,000 net for the
2025 season, from February to December; and (iii) USD 110,000 net for the 2026 season,
from February to December.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
27. On 31 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Player’s claim
28. The Player first argued that the parties concluded the Qingdao Contract on 27 June 2023,
which was valid until 30 November 2023. Nevertheless, he argued that Qingdao then
presented him with the Qingdao Offer to renew his employment for the 2024 sporting
season, i.e., from 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024. According to the Player, the
Qingdao Offer constituted a valid and binding document, as it contained all essentialia
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16859
negotii, and Qingdao always considered the employment relationship between the parties
as extended.
29. The Player further contended that, on 13 July 2023, Qingdao paid him USD 15,000, as
stipulated in the Qingdao Offer. The Player argued that this could be demonstrated by the
receipt signed by him, in which he authorised an individual to receive USD 55,000 on his
behalf, of which USD 40,000 corresponded to living allowances arising from the Qingdao
Allowances Agreement and USD 15,000 to the expenses of the “new agreement”.
Therefore, the Player remarked that, considering that Qingdao had already made this onetime payment, it considered the Qingdao Offer as being valid upon the parties. In any event,
the Player contended that if the Football Tribunal did not consider the Qingdao Offer to be
a contract, it should be considered a pre-contract.
30. Additionally, the Player alleged that Qingdao was promoted to the Chinese Super League
and, therefore, his salary for the 2024 sporting season was supposed to be USD 300,000.
31. Notwithstanding the above, the Player argued that Qingdao refused to provide him with
the necessary documentation in order to allow his registration for the 2024 sporting
season. The Player stated that, particularly, Qingdao never provided him with the draft of
the federative employment agreement.
32. Based on this, the Player alleged that on 27 September 2023, his agent sent
correspondence to Qingdao requesting that the latter provide him with the federative
employment contract containing the terms of the Qingdao Offer for registration purposes
before the CFA, warning the club that if it refused to provide the documentation, he would
have no other recourse but to initiate legal action. The Player argued that Qingdao replied
that it would resolve the issue until 10 October 2023, acknowledging that it was indeed in
default of its contractual obligations. However, the Player asserted that Qingdao failed to
contact him and, therefore, his agent sent new correspondence, informing that in the
absence of any reply he would initiate legal actions, but to no avail.
33. The Player pointed out that even as of 1 January 2024, the first day of the 2024 sporting
season and six months after the signature of the Qingdao Offer, Qingdao was still in default
with its obligations for not having registered the Player’s extension. Therefore, the Player
alleged that he could not be reasonably expected to believe that Qingdao would still
register the Qingdao Offer before the CFA, especially considering his limited time to seek a
new employment.
34. In light of the above, the Player argued that on 24 April 2024 he sent new correspondence
requesting compensation and Qingdao replied to it arguing that his position constituted a
premeditated scheme, as he had signed the Always Ready Contract. In this regard, the
Player clarified that his position was a result of Qingdao’s own choices, which led to the
termination of both the Qingdao Contract and the Qingdao Offer without just cause.
Furthermore, the Player stated that it was only when his trust was affected that he signed
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16859
the Always Ready Contract. In addition, he argued that his travel to Brazil coincided with
the club’s leave during Christmas and New Year and this absence was neither irregular nor
unauthorised.
35. The Player then pointed out Qingdao’s lack of interest in him, as (i) it failed to make any
effort to resolve the issue of his non-registration and (ii) it did not reject the ITC’s issuance,
thereby acknowledging the termination and demonstrating that it had no legitimate
interest in him following its refusal to provide him with the necessary support for his
registration. The Player contended that Qingdao’s silence and withholding of the necessary
documentation resulted in the unilateral termination of the employment relationship and
alleged that he could not have been expected to return to duty as this would also result in
a breach of his fundamental rights, given the importance of allowing players to compete in
official matches.
36. Having stated the above, the Player argued that Qingdao’s unilateral termination was made
without just cause, as none of the criteria regarding the existence of just cause have been
met by the club. Nevertheless, the Player alleged that, in the event that the DRC finds that
Qingdao did not terminate the employment relationship, it must be considered that the
Player implicitly terminated it after waiting for six months for Qingdao to provide the
federative contract. In this sense, the Player argued that Qingdao’s breach was sufficiently
serious, it was unreasonable for the employment relationship to continue, and it was an
action of last resort.
37. Based on the above, the Player alleged that he is entitled to the residual value of the
Qingdao Offer, which amounts to USD 300,000, as Qingdao was promoted to the Chinese
Super League. Considering that he mitigated his damages with the Always Ready Contract
and the Imabari Contract, the Player argued that he is entitled to USD 132,597.08.
38. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“107. In the light of all of the above, Mr. Wesley da Silva respectfully requests the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
i. Determine that the Employment Agreement Extension dated 6 July 2023 is valid,
affirming its binding nature and enforceability under the applicable law;
ii. Determine that the Respondent stands in breach of its statutory obligation by having
failed to provide the Player with the necessary documentation required for registering
him before the Chinese Football Association;
iii. Determine that by persisting in its breach of statutory obligations for a prolonged
period of time, the Respondent impliedly terminated the employment relationship
without just cause -or in the alternative- the Claimant impliedly terminated the
employment relationship with just cause;
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16859
iv. Order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Claimant in the amount of USD
132.597,08 (One Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-Seven
United States Dollars and Eight Cents) in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP.”
b. Qingdao’s reply and counterclaim
39. In its reply, Qingdao acknowledged that the Player and the club concluded the Qingdao
Contract and the Qingdao Allowances Agreement with an initial duration set to culminate
on 30 November 2023. Qingdao further contended that on 6 July 2023 it presented the
Player with the Qingdao Offer to renew the employment relationship as from 1 January
2024 until 31 December 2024, which was accepted and duly signed by the Player. In this
respect, Qingdao argued that no other employment agreement was required to be signed
other than the Qingdao Offer. The Club also acknowledged having paid the Player USD
15,000 on 13 July 2023, implying that the parties were bound by the Qingdao Offer.
40. In this context, Qingdao contended that the Chinese winter registration period was from 4
January 2024 to 28 February 2024, and there was plenty of time for the Player’s registration.
Furthermore, Qingdao argued that since the Player wanted to spend Christmas and New
Year with his family, the club even booked a ticket for him from China to Brazil for 20
December 2023.
41. Qingdao asserted that it was surprised when it read an article published on 1 January 2024
reporting that the Player had signed the Always Ready Contract without informing Qingdao,
thereby terminating the employment relationship without just cause. Moreover, Qingdao
stated that it was also surprised with the notice of default sent by the Player arguing that
the club allegedly attempted to prevent his registration for the 2024 season.
42. Qingdao mentioned that there was no provision stating that the Qingdao Offer must be
immediately registered before or at the start of the transfer window, considering that the
registration period ended on 28 February 2024 and there was sufficient time to register the
Player. Therefore, Qingdao alleged that the termination made by the Player on 1 January
2024 was without just cause.
43. Qingdao argued that when a player signs a contract during the term of the first contract,
the signing of the second contract is deemed to have terminated the first contract without
just cause. Thus, Qingdao asserted that the Player terminated his employment relationship
with Qingdao when he signed the Always Ready Contract.
44. Qingdao recalled that the parties were already under a binding employment relationship
and the fact that he was not provided with a copy of the federative contract before the start
of the registration period does not constitute a serious reason to terminate the contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16859
45. Qingdao asserted that the Qingdao Contract was valid until 30 November 2023, and, after
that, the Player became a free agent and could have been registered at any time between
that moment and 28 February 2024. Moreover, Qingdao stated that it never asked the
Player to leave the club or train separately. Qingdao argued that, conversely, the Player
had a premeditated plan when he left for Brazil, to never return to China, and to receive
the entire salary for the 2024 season. Therefore, Qingdao argued that the Player must pay
compensation.
46. Regarding the calculation of the compensation, Qingdao first highlighted that the Player
concluded the Always Ready Contract and the Imabari Contract. Based on the
remunerations provided in both contracts (USD 178,572 for the Always Ready Contract and
USD 70,000 for the Imabari Contract) and the salary the Player would have earned with
Qingdao (USD 300,000 for the Qingdao Offer), Qingdao argued that it is entitled to receive
USD 182,857 as an average of all the salaries.
47. Moreover, Qingdao stated that it paid USD 15,000 as an advance fee under the Qingdao
Offer and USD 4,000 as a commission to the Player’s agent. Thus, Qingdao alleged that the
Player is liable to pay USD 19,000 as non-amortised expense. In addition, Qingdao asserted
that it should be awarded an amount equivalent to three monthly salaries (USD 75,000)
under the criterion of the specificity of sport.
48. On top of the above, Qingdao argued that, since the Player was of utmost importance and
difficult to replace, Qingdao had to sign three players in the same position to fill the gap
left by his sudden departure. Qingdao alleged that paid USD 436,000 in agent fees and USD
611,940 in salaries, spending a total amount of USD 1,048,040.
49. Based on this, Qingdao alleged that the Player is liable to pay USD 1,324,897 and shall also
be sanctioned.
50. On another note, Qingdao asserted that Always Ready induced the Player to terminate the
employment relationship with Qingdao. In this respect, Qingdao pointed out that the Player
concluded two subsequent contracts under worse financial conditions. Thus, Qingdao
requested that Always Ready be ordered to pay compensation to Qingdao.
51. Qingdao also contended that, even if the Football Tribunal understands that the
counterclaim must be rejected, the Player is not entitled to receive any amounts from the
club as (i) it did not commit any breach, (ii) Qingdao attempted to settle the matter amicably
in good faith, and (iii) Qingdao did not obtain any financial advantage with the early
termination, as it had to spend more money to replace him than it would have if he had
remained at the club.
52. As a further alternative, Qingdao argued that, if the club is held liable for the termination,
the Player is equally responsible for the breach and therefore should be equally liable for
the same penalty.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16859
53. Qingdao’s requests for relief were the following:
“VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
151. In view of all the above legal and factual arguments, we hereby kindly request this
honourable Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal:
1. To accept the present counter claim of QINGDAO WEST COAST FC against WESLEY DA
SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A
2. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
compensation to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 182,857 (One hundred
eighty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-seven United States Dollar) as per the average
yearly salary of the Player with the three clubs.
3. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 19,000 (Nineteen thousand United States
Dollar) as reimbursement.
4. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
compensation to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 75,000 (Seventy-five
thousand United States Dollar) as specificity of sport.
5. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
compensation to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 1,048,040 (One million
forty -eight thousand forty United States Dollar) to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC as
replacement cost.
6. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
a default interest of 5% p.a to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC on all the amounts payable to
QINGDAO WEST COAST FC as from filing of this claim i.e. 16 December 2024.
7. To declare that WESLEY DA SILVA is banned from participating in any official matches
for 4 months.
8. To declare that CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A is banned from registering any
players nationally or internationally for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods
In the alternative to above mentioned requests
9. To dismiss the claim of WESLEY DA SILVA against QINGDAO WEST COAST FC in full.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16859
10. To decide that QINGDAO WEST COAST FC is not liable to pay any amount to WESLEY
DA SILVA under the claim filed by it.
11. To decide that no sporting sanction are imposed on QINGDAO WEST COAST FC as
requested by WESLEY DA SILVA under the claim filed by it.
In any case
12. Order WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A to pay all the legal,
advance and procedural costs arising from this procedure.”
c. Additional comments from Qingdao on the Interim Regulatory Framework
54. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations and the Procedural Rules, on 7 March 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat
invited the Club to amend its position, should it wished to do so, exclusively in relation to
the possible consequences of the application of the interim regulatory framework to this
case.
55. In this respect, Qingdao alleged that its arguments already aligned with the Interim
Regulatory Framework, which also emphasises that sporting sanctions shall be imposed on
a player’s new club if it is proven that the new club induced the breach, as it is in this case.
56. Therefore, Qingdao informed that it did not wish to amend its submissions.
d. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
57. The Player first highlighted that it remained undisputed by Qingdao that the parties had
concluded the Qingdao Contract on 27 June 2023, which was extended on 6 July 2023 by
means of the Qingdao Offer, covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2024. The
Player also remarked that both parties agreed that Qingdao paid USD 15,000 based on the
Qingdao Offer. In this context, the Player restated that it was the club’s responsibility to
provide him with a copy of the federative contract, as it had to be registered with the CFA.
58. The Player insisted that his agent sent correspondence on 28 September 2023 and argued
that, in this notification, it was mentioned that Qingdao had undertaken to comply with this
requirement until 31 December 2023, which was logical considering that the extended
duration was to start on 1 January 2024. Nevertheless, the Player repeated that the club
failed to resolve this issue and to register the contract with the CFA before the beginning
of the extension duration, i.e., until 31 December 2023 the latest, since, according to the
Player, this was always the understanding between the parties.
59. The Player also argued that the federative contract was essential for the formalisation and
registration of the extension with the CFA, a step the club failed to take. Moreover, the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16859
Player alleged that the Player was already registered with the CFA and his ITC was already
in the club’s possession, which is why the extension could have been registered at any time
and was not subject to transfer window restrictions.
60. The Player remarked that he only signed the Always Ready Contract after Qingdao had
failed to register the extension before the CFA, as he could no longer be expected to believe
that the club would comply with its obligation, especially considering the limited time
available for him to find a new employer. In this regard, the Player alleged that the
counterclaim is unfounded and should be dismissed in its entirety, as he never breached
the contract.
61. The Player pointed out that the club merely needed to register the extension of the
employment relationship, which was an administrative process that could have been
completed at any time, irrespective of the transfer window. In this regard, the Player
alleged that Qingdao’s argument – that he was a free agent and could therefore have been
registered at any time until 28 February 2024 - is incorrect and incoherent. The Player
remarked that, on the one hand, the club does not dispute that the relationship was
extended, yet on the other hand it claims that he became a free agent on 30 November
2023. According to the Player, Qingdao procrastinated for over six months and ignored his
requests.
62. The Player further contended that, if Qingdao needed more time, it should have
communicated this to his agent rather than ignoring him and making him conclude that
Qingdao was not counting on him for the 2024 season. The Player asserted that the pattern
of behaviour proves that Qingdao had no intention of registering him and was frustrating
his rights.
63. Based on this, the Player restated that he is entitled to USD 132,597.08 as compensation.
However, the Player alleged that the compensation sought by Qingdao is grossly excessive
and should be significantly reduced. In this sense, the Player pointed out that the
replacement cost of USD 1,048,000 is based on the assumption that three players were
required to fill a single position. Furthermore, the Player stated that the wage
compensation and other expense figures have been computed without proper
consideration of mitigating factors.
64. In light of the above, the Player made the following requests for relief:
“57. In the light of all the above, and in reference to the Request for Relief already
contained under the SoC, Mr. Wesley da Silva respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
i. Reject the Counterclaim filed by Qingdao in entirety;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16859
ii. Determine that the Employment Agreement Extension dated 6 July 2023 is valid,
affirming its binding nature and enforceability under the applicable law;
iii. Determine that Qingdao stands in breach of its statutory obligation by having failed
to provide the Player with the necessary documentation required for registering him
before the CFA;
iv. Determine that by persisting in its breach of statutory obligations for a prolonged
period of time, the Respondent impliedly terminated the employment relationship
without just cause -or in the alternative- the Claimant impliedly terminated the
employment relationship with just cause;
v. Order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Claimant in the amount of USD
132.597,08 (One Hundred and Thirty-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety- Seven
United States Dollars and Eight Cents) in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP.
In the alternative,
vi. Determine, arguendo- if the Player is found to be in breach of his contractual duties
without just cause, the compensation claimed by the Club is excessive and
disproportionate, which should be massively reduced taking into consideration all the
subjective and objective relevant factors, pursuant to which such compensation amount
should be adjusted accordingly at the discretion of this Tribunal.”
e. Always Ready’s reply to the counterclaim
65. In its reply, Always Ready argued that there was no reason for it to be included in the
present case. In this sense, Always Ready stated that it contracted the Player’s services from
4 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 and that both the Player and his agent provided it
with the Qingdao Contract, which ended on 30 November 2023.
66. Always Ready also asserted that the Always Ready Contract only lasted six months, due to
the Player’s sporting aspirations to move abroad.
67. Lastly, Always Ready requested to be removed from the dispute.
f. Qingdao’s final comments
68. Regarding the Player’s response, Qingdao restated that no FIFA regulation forces clubs to
register a player within a certain date or on a specific date and emphasised that the
registration period began on 4 January 2024 and ended on 28 February 2024, whereas the
new season started on 1 March 2024. Qingdao argued that the Player expected that the
club would register him before the contract even started.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16859
69. Qingdao then argued that the Player’s claim was based solely on this alleged failure to
provide him with the federative contract, even though the club had plenty of time to do so,
as the contract had not yet come into force and the season had not started. Qingdao
remarked that there was no breach from the club, as it had paid his remuneration on time,
including the advance payment and the provision of the tickets.
70. Qingdao further insisted that the Player breached the contract by signing the Always Ready
Contract and pointed out that the Player failed to prove that Qingdao was not required to
undertake a new registration. According to Qingdao, since the Player was a free agent from
1 December 2023, he had to be registered with the CFA upon the start of the contract for
the 2024 season.
71. Qingdao also argued that the club never rejected his request for a copy of the federative
contract and that there is no evidence demonstrating that it was not relying on the Player
for the 2024 season. Furthermore, Qingdao highlighted that the Player was a free agent
when he signed with Always Ready, and that he had been in contact with that club since at
least a few weeks or days before signing the Always Ready Contract.
72. Regarding the ITC, Qingdao asserted that it was requested after the Player had signed the
Always Ready Contract and its issuance was merely an administrative requirement,
meaning that the Always Ready Contract was already binding and could not be vitiated.
Qingdao argued that, as per its internal policy, does not hinder the issuance of ITC in good
faith, and that its priority was signing the Player’s replacement. Nevertheless, Qingdao
remarked that on 8 May 2024 it warned the Player about the consequences of his actions
and on 16 December 2024 it lodged its claim against him.
73. Lastly, Qingdao pointed out that the Player failed to provide any reasonable reason
regarding the reduction of compensation, whereas the club has substantiated and proved
the damages caused by the Player.
74. Qingdao made the following requests for relief:
“61. In view of all the above legal and factual arguments, we hereby kindly request this
honourable Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal:
1. To accept the present final response of QINGDAO WEST COAST FC against WESLEY DA
SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A
2. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
compensation to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 182,857 (One hundred
eighty-two thousand eight hundred fifty-seven United States Dollar) as per the average
yearly salary of the Player with the three clubs.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16859
3. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 19,000 (Nineteen thousand United States
Dollar) as reimbursement.
4. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
compensation to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 75,000 (Seventy-five
thousand United States Dollar) as specificity of sport.
5. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
compensation to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC amounting to USD 1,048,040 (One million
forty -eight thousand forty United States Dollar) to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC as
replacement cost.
6. To decide that WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A has to pay
a default interest of 5% p.a to QINGDAO WEST COAST FC. on all the amounts payable to
QINGDAO WEST COAST FC as from filing of this claim i.e. 16 December 2024.
7. To declare that WESLEY DA SILVA is banned from participating in any official matches
for 4 months.
8. To declare that CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A is banned from registering any
players nationally or internationally for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods
In the alternative to above mentioned requests
9. To dismiss the claim of WESLEY DA SILVA against QINGDAO WEST COAST FC in full.
10.
To decide that QINGDAO WEST COAST FC is not liable to pay any amount to
WESLEY DA SILVA under the claim filed by it.
11.
To decide that no sporting sanction are imposed on QINGDAO WEST COAST FC
as requested by WESLEY DA SILVA under the claim filed by it.
In any case
12.
Order WESLEY DA SILVA and CLUB DEPORTIVO ALWAYS READY S.A to pay all the
legal, advance and procedural costs arising from this procedure.”
75. Regarding Always Ready’s submission, Qingdao highlighted that Always Ready stated that
the Player and his agent provided it with the Qingdao Contract, which ended on 30
November 2023. In this regard, Qingdao contended that this was a serious violation of the
due diligence principle, and the club should bear the responsibility of the insufficient level
of diligence.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16859
76. Furthermore, Qingdao alleged that this shows the Player’s true intention and his bad faith,
as he hid the true facts of still being under a contract with Qingdao, which he himself has
acknowledged in this claim. Therefore, Qingdao argued that Always Ready shall be liable to
face the consequences for signing the Player, who had a valid and binding contract.
77. Lastly, Qingdao asserted that Always Ready’s request to be removed from the dispute
should be dismissed in its entirety.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
78. 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 31 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 7 October 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.
79. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (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 Chinese club with the involvement of a Bolivian club.
80. 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
81. 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).
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16859
c. Merits of the dispute
82. 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
83. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club and a counterclaim of a club against a player and his subsequent
club for compensation for breach of contract.
84. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, Qingdao terminated the employment
relationship by failing to register the federative contract with the CFA. Therefore, he argued
that he is entitled to compensation.
85. Conversely, Qingdao argued that it was the Player who terminated the employment
relationship by signing a contract with a new club. Hence, Qingdao asserted that the Player
and his new club must pay compensation.
86. Additionally, Always Ready argued that there was no reason for it to be included in the
present case and denied having induced the Player to breach his employment relationship
with Qingdao.
87. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (i) who
terminated the employment relationship, (ii) whether the termination was made with or
without just cause and (iii) its consequences.
88. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber found important to note that several facts remain
undisputed between the Player and Qingdao. In this respect, the Chamber noted that both
parties agree that they concluded the Qingdao Contract, valid until 30 November 2023.
Both parties also acknowledge that the Qingdao Offer presented by the club and signed by
the Player was a valid and binding contract, which had a duration from 1 January 2024 until
31 December 2024. The parties also agree that (i) Qingdao paid USD 15,000 based on the
Qingdao Offer, and (ii) Qingdao was promoted to the Chinese Super League and, therefore,
the Player’s annual salary for the 2024 season was USD 300,000.
89. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the parties strongly dispute whether Qingdao
had the obligation to register the Qingdao Offer before its start date and if the failure to do
so amounted to a termination. In this sense, the Chamber stressed that it will first analyse
the facts to establish who terminated the employment relationship.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16859
A. Who terminated the employment relationship?
90. The Chamber noted that the Player and Qingdao concluded two contracts: the first one
was valid as from 1 July 2023 until 30 November 2023, and the second one was valid as
from 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024. In this respect, the Chamber considered that,
with the second contract, the parties did not extend the first contract but concluded a new
one with a different duration, meaning that during December 2023 the parties were not
contractually bound.
91. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the Player provided evidence – which was not
disputed by Qingdao – demonstrating that, on 27 September 2023, his agent sent a
communication to Qingdao stating that the club had not delivered the contract related to
the Qingdao Offer to the Player, and granting Qingdao three days to respond in order to
resolve the issue. The Player’s agent warned that, in the absence of any response, he would
take legal action. The Chamber also remarked that, on 1 October 2023, Qingdao replied
arguing that the staff was on holiday and, after their return, they would have a meeting to
resolve the issue of the Player’s contract. Nevertheless, on 11 October 2023, the Player’s
agent sent a new email to Qingdao requesting it to sign the contract. The Player’s agent
again stated that, in the absence of a response, the Player would initiate legal actions.
92. The Chamber also highlighted that, based on the evidence on file, there were no further
communications between the parties. Considering that none of the parties are claiming a
breach of the Qingdao Contract, the Chamber concluded that this contract expired
naturally on 30 November 2023 and that both parties complied with their respective
obligations. Furthermore, the Chamber stressed that Qingdao provided evidence
demonstrating that the Player flew from China to Brazil in December 2023 and argued that
these tickets were bought by the club, which was not disputed by the Player.
93. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the only communications between the parties
took place between 27 September 2023 and 11 October 2023, and the parties then
normally continued with their relationship until the end of the Qingdao Contract and the
beginning of the term established in the Qingdao Offer. Considering that it is undisputed
that the Qingdao Offer, despite its name, was a valid and binding contract, the Chamber
interpreted that it entered into force on 1 January 2024, without any prior communication
from either party stating that the contract would not be executed.
94. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that it is undisputed that, on 1 January
2024, Always Ready announced the signing of the Player and, on 4 January 2024, the Player
signed the Always Ready Contract.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16859
95. In this regard, given that the Player signed a new contract with Always Ready on 4 January
2024 and based on art. 18 par. 5 of the Regulations, the Chamber considered that he
terminated the employment relationship with Qingdao by signing his new contract.
96. The Chamber found important to highlight that, although the Player argued that it was the
club who terminated the employment relationship by failing to register the new contract,
he failed to prove that it was no longer possible for Qingdao to register him and, therefore,
the club tacitly terminated the relationship by demonstrating a lack of willingness to
register him. While the Chamber noted that, according to the jurisprudence, it is the club’s
responsibility to register a player and, thus, the failure to do so constitutes a breach, it also
observed that there is no evidence demonstrating that Qingdao failed to register the Player
to an extent that made it impossible to continue the employment relationship.
97. The Chamber underscored that the Player’s agent’s request was made more than three
months before the start date of the Qingdao Offer and the termination was made only
three days after it entered into force. In this sense, despite the Player’s agent’s claim made
at the end of September and the beginning of October and the lack of response from the
club at that time, the Chamber acknowledged that Qingdao provided evidence
demonstrating that the registration period started on 4 January 2024 and ended on 28
February 2024, which is consistent with the information retrieved from TMS. Also, the club
proved that the Chinese Super League started on 1 March 2024.
98. Based on all the above and the evidence on file, the Chamber considered that it is not
possible to conclude that Qingdao, despite its behaviour, terminated the employment
relationship and, instead, it was the Player who terminated it.
99. Therefore, the Chamber proceeded to determine whether the Player had just cause to
terminate the employment relationship.
B. Did the Player have just cause to terminate the employment
relationship?
100. In this context, the Chamber recalled that art. 14 of the Regulations establishes:
“1. A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind
(either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just
cause. In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no
longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.
2. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.”
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-16859
101. The Chamber also referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, according to
which a premature contractual termination may only arise where there has been a
substantial or repeated breach of contract by the relevant counterparty, and if there are
more lenient measures for the parties to remedy their contractual relationship, those
measures should be turned to prior to unilaterally terminating the Contract. A premature
unilateral termination of the Contract may only be an ultima ratio measure.
102. In this case, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, (i) Qingdao’s breach was
sufficiently serious, (ii) it was unreasonable for the employment relationship to continue,
and (iii) the termination was an action of last resort.
103. However, the Chamber reiterated that both parties agreed that the Qingdao Offer was a
valid and binding contract. In the Chamber’s opinion, considering that this document
contained all the essentialia negotii and was acknowledged by the parties as a contract, it
was not necessary for the parties to sign a new contract to formalise the employment
relationship, as it was already formalised. Although the Player should have been registered
with the CFA to participate in official competitions, the Chamber considered that, as long
as the club complied with the Player’s registration before it was no longer possible to
register him, Qingdao was not in breach.
104. In the Chamber’s view, the fact that the Player had requested to sign the federative contract
months before the start date of the registration period does not imply that Qingdao was
obliged to comply with his demands nor that, in the absence of any response or fulfilment
of this demand, the club was in breach. The Chamber also did not find any provision or
agreement between the parties stipulating that the club was obliged to register the
contract before its start date, i.e., no later than 31 December 2023.
105. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that there were no elements on file to
comfortably conclude that Qingdao breached the contract.
106. Furthermore, the Chamber underscored that, even if it were to consider that Qingdao
breached the contract by failing to register the Player before the start date and by failing
to comply with the Player’s demand, the termination was not an ultima ratio act. In this
regard, Qingdao still had considerable time to register the Player, and, in any event, the
latter should have sent at least a new notice of default before unilaterally terminating the
employment relationship, granting the club a period to remedy the alleged default. In this
regard, the Chamber remarked that a communication made almost three months earlier
cannot serve as a notice of default, especially considering that, after that communication,
the parties continued fulfilling their obligations in accordance with the Qingdao Contract.
107. The Chamber also noted that the Player did not send a termination notice and merely
concluded a new contract without even informing the club, as if he were not bound to
Qingdao.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-16859
108. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the termination was made without just
cause.
109. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to highlight that, although it considered
that Qingdao could have been more consistent with its subsequent acts - for example, by
sending a notice to the Player claiming that he terminated the contract without just cause
and requesting compensation, or by disputing the ITC request - this does not imply that
Qingdao contributed to the termination, as all these acts or omissions occurred after the
Player’s termination and not before. In this sense, the Chamber determined that the
termination lies solely with the Player.
C. Consequences
c.1) Player’s claim
110. The Chamber highlighted that, since the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
employment relationship, this necessarily leads to the conclusion that his claim must be
rejected.
c.2) Qingdao’s counterclaim
111. 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.
112. As a preliminary point, the Chamber recalled that this matter is governed by the Interim
Regulatory Framework 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;
•
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 ITC.
113. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, for the present purposes, the relevant
rules are those related to (i) the calculation payable by a player in case of a breach of
contract; (ii) the question of the joint and several liability of the new club; and (iii) the
burden of proof in relation to an inducement to breach a contract.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-16859
c.2.1) Compensation
114. Having established 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 emphasised 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.
115. 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 analyse whether the Qingdao Offer
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 this contract.
116. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Player to Qingdao has to be assessed in application of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
beginning with the consideration for the damage suffered by the club, guided by the
positive interest principle.
117. 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.
118. In this regard, the Chamber observed that Qingdao requested compensation for USD
1,324,897, broken down as follows:
• USD 1,048,040 as replacement costs;
• USD 19,000 as reimbursement of expenses incurred;
• USD 75,000 as “specificity of sport”;
• USD 182,857 as the average salary the Player would earn from the Qingdao
Contract, the Always Ready Contract and the Imabari Contract.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-16859
119. In view of the above, the Chamber analysed each of the amounts claimed as damage by
Qingdao.
120. First, regarding the USD 1,048,040 requested as replacement costs, the Chamber recalled
that Qingdao argued that it had to replace the Player with three other players in the same
position, paying USD 611,940 in total for their salaries. Additionally, Qingdao stated that it
spent USD 436,100 in total in agent fees for signing the three players.
121. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, although Qingdao mentioned that it replaced the
Player with three players, it only provided the contracts signed by two players, Mr.
Coquenao da Luz and Mr. Riasco Valencia. Notwithstanding this, the Chamber remarked
that the club failed to prove that these players indeed replaced the Player: there is no
evidence demonstrating that they played in the same position. In any event, the Chamber
found it difficult to follow Qingdao’s argumentation that the Player was replaced by three
other players. In this sense, Qingdao failed to explain why the Player allegedly had to be
replaced by three players and not just one.
122. Therefore, the Chamber considered that Qingdao failed to demonstrate a clear link
between the amounts spent on the salaries of these players and the Player’s departure.
The Chamber expressed that it could not determine, solely based on this evidence, that the
signing of these players was a direct consequence of the termination.
123. Consequently, the Chamber determined that Qingdao failed to prove that it had to pay USD
611,940 in salaries to replace the Player and decided not to grant this amount, as there is
no actual evidence that the club incurred such expenses as damages resulting from the
Player’s breach.
124. Based on the above and considering that it is not possible to link the Player’s termination
with the signing of these players, the Chamber considered that it should also be concluded
that the club failed to prove that it paid USD 436,100 in agent fees as a consequence of the
breach. In any event, the Chamber stressed that this fee was not paid solely for the signing
of these three players but also included other players and coaches.
125. Then, the Chamber observed that Qingdao requested USD 19,000 as reimbursement of
expenses incurred, arguing that (i) it paid USD 15,000 to the Player as an advance fee and
(ii) it paid USD 4,000 as commission to the Player’s agent for the signature of the Qingdao
Offer.
126. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, according to the Qingdao Offer, the club undertook
to pay the Player USD 15,000 before 15 July 2023, which it undisputedly did. Nevertheless,
in the Chamber’s view, this was an additional payment agreed upon by the parties and the
fact that the Player subsequently breached the contract does not imply that the club is
entitled to reimbursement of this amount. Specifically, the Chamber underscored that this
payment was part of the execution of the contract and was not an expense that can be
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-16859
reimbursed based on the subsequent behaviour of the parties. In other words, the
Chamber determined that the termination cannot have retroactive effects on obligations
that have already been fulfilled by the parties.
127. Regarding the alleged agent fee, Qingdao provided a receipt signed by the Player’s agent
in which he acknowledged a payment made by the club on 30 June 2023 for USD 4,000.
However, the Chamber highlighted that this receipt (i) was dated before the signature of
the Qingdao Offer, (ii) does not refer to the Qingdao Offer and (iii) does not even mention
the Player, although it is undisputed that this individual was his agent.
128. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject Qingdao’s request for the amount of USD 19,000
as reimbursement for expenses.
129. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that Qingdao requested USD 75,000 as compensation
under the criterion of specificity of sport. Nevertheless, the Chamber referred to the
Interim Regulatory Framework and confirm that this criterion was no longer one of the
criteria used to determine compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations. Therefore, the
Chamber held that Qingdao’s contentions in this respect must be rejected. In any event,
the Chamber emphasised that the specificity of sport was never intended to constitute as
standalone head of damage; it was only a correcting factor to either increase or decrease
the payable compensation in a given set of circumstances. Be that as it may, the Chamber
underlined again that such correcting factor is no longer foreseen in the Regulations, and
it is therefore not applicable.
130. Lastly, the Chamber observed that Qingdao claimed USD 182,857 as compensation
considering the average of the residual value of the Qingdao Offer (USD 300,000), the total
value of the Always Ready Contract (USD 178,572) and the total value of the Imabari
Contract (USD 70,000).
131. In this regard, the Chamber stressed that an amount corresponding to the amount payable
to a player for rendering his services as football player under an employment contract can
be appropriate to establish the damage suffered by the club. In fact, the Chamber found it
reasonable to depart from the fact that under a fixed-term employment contract both
parties (player and club) have a similar and mutual interest and expectation that the term
will be respected, subject to termination by mutual consent or the existence of just cause.
In this respect, further reference is made to the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, which in
essence means that agreements must be respected by parties in good faith and is a
fundamental principle of contractual stability and contract law. When a player and a club
sign an employment contract, both parties are fully entitled to assume that both parties
will comply with their contractual obligations towards each other. If a different approach
was adopted, this would mean disregarding such an essential principle.
132. Having regard of the circumstances of this individual case, the Chamber considered that
the Player’s remuneration as foreseen in the breached contract could a priori be awarded,
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-16859
as it constitutes a reliable basis on which to establish the economic value that the Player’s
services represented for Qingdao and this remuneration can be understood as bearing
correlation to his value as player, which Qingdao lost (and which thus could be alleged to
have caused damage to the Club) in light of the Player’s breach of contract.
133. Nevertheless, the Chamber found important to recall that Qingdao did not claim the
residual value of the Qingdao Offer as damages, but rather an amount corresponding to
an average that also took into account the Player’s new contracts and, therefore, claimed
USD 182,857, apparently on the basis of the previous wording of art. 17, and thereby
specifically setting this amount as the amount sought as compensation for breach of
contract.
134. In this regard, the Chamber noted that Qingdao was invited to amend its claim based on
the Interim Regulatory Framework and chose not to amend this part of the claim. This
indicated that the club continued to consider the damage caused by the Player to amount
to the originally claimed figure.
135. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, after his departure and during the relevant contract
period, the Player signed two contracts and, as a consequence, received for the 2024
season the amounts of USD 115,260.40 for the Always Ready Contract and USD 70,000 for
the Imabari Contract, totalling USD 185,260.40.
136. Based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case and the request of Qingdao,
the Chamber considered that Qingdao shall be entitled to compensation of USD 182,857.
137. Therefore, the Chamber decided to award Qingdao USD 182,857 as compensation for
breach of contract, with 5% interest p.a. as from 16 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment, as requested by Qingdao.
c.2.2) Sporting sanctions
138. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Player in accordance with art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
139. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which establishes, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-16859
140. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 14 July 1996 and the
relevant contract with the club entered into force on 1 January 2024. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Player terminated the contract without just cause on 4 January
2024. The breach of contract by the Player had therefore occurred within the protected
period.
141. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber remarked that, even assuming the Qingdao
Offer constituted an extension of the Qingdao Contract, the breach would nonetheless
have occurred within the protected period.
142. Furthermore, the Chamber reiterated that the Player entered into the Always Ready
Contract while simultaneously acknowledging the Qingdao Offer as a valid and binding
agreement, thereby confirming his contractual obligation to Qingdao as of 1 January 2024.
143. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the
Player had to be sanctioned with a restriction of four months on his eligibility to participate
in official matches.
c.2.3) Joint liability
144. Then, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that a
player’s new club shall be held jointly liable to pay compensation if, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case, it can be established that the new club
induced the Player to breach their contract.
145. Similarly, art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations states that a sporting sanction shall be imposed
on a player’s new club if, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of each
case, it can be established that the new club induced the Player to breach the contract
during the protected period.
146. Therefore, the Chamber turned to the consideration of the matter of inducement, as it is
key for determining any consequences that may apply to Always Ready.
147. In this respect, the Chamber noted that Qingdao, in its counterclaim, argued that Always
Ready clearly induced the Player to terminate the contract, as the Player joined that club
on 1 January 2024, which was the start date of the Qingdao Offer. Qingdao remarked that
the Always Ready Contract had worse conditions than the Qingdao Offer and, after that,
the Player was transferred to Imabari, with Always Ready retaining a 40% sell-on fee.
148. The Chamber pointed out that Qingdao in its original claim relied merely on the fact that
the Always Ready Contract was signed on 4 January 2024, arguing that it should be
presumed that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without
just cause has induced the professional to commit the breach. Nevertheless, the Chamber
stressed that when Qingdao was invited to amend its claim based on the Interim Regulatory
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-16859
Framework, it maintained its position that the inducement was clearly proven, as the
Always Ready Contract was signed despite the existence of a valid employment contract
between Qingdao and the Player.
149. The Chamber also noted that Always Ready replied to the counterclaim arguing that, before
signing the Player, the latter and his agent provided it with the Qingdao Contract, which
had expired on 30 November 2023. Always Ready provided a copy of said contract, which
is the same copy that was uploaded in TMS as the proof of the Player’s “last contract end
date”. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the ITC was not disputed.
150. In response to Always Ready’s position, Qingdao argued that Always Ready failed to carry
out the necessary due diligence before signing the Player, as he was still under a contract
with Qingdao.
151. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that Qingdao had the burden of proof to
demonstrate that the new club induced the player to breach the contract. Considering the
individual facts and circumstances of the present matter, the Chamber concluded that
Qingdao failed to discharge its burden of proof and demonstrate that Always Ready
induced the Player to breach his contract with Qingdao.
152. In the Chamber’s opinion, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances of this
case and the evidence on file, it is not possible to determine that Always Ready induced the
Player considering that, apart from the fact that the Always Ready Contract was signed
during the term of Qingdao Offer, there is no further evidence that this occurred. The
Chamber emphasised that, when the Player was transferred to Qingdao, the information
included in TMS indicated that the contract between the Player and Qingdao was valid until
30 November 2023. Furthermore, Qingdao did not dispute the ITC. Based on this, the
Chamber determined that there are no elements to establish that Always Ready knew that
the Player had signed the Qingdao Offer, still less that it induced him to breach it.
153. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that Always Ready shall not be held jointly
liable for the payment of the amount of compensation due to Qingdao. For the same
reasons, the Chamber held that no sanctions shall be imposed on Always Ready.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
154. 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.
155. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-16859
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
156. Accordingly, the Chamber established that in casu art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations shall
apply, insofar as in case the Player fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application
of a further restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts are paid
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
157. In view of the above, the DRC decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of Qingdao, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
158. The Player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by Qingdao in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
d. Costs
159. 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.
160. 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.
161. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-16859
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / First Counter-Respondent, Wesley da Silva, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Qingdao West Coast FC, is partially
accepted.
3.
The Claimant / First Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent / Counterclaimant
USD 182,857 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counterclaimant are rejected.
5.
A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the
Claimant / First Counter-Respondent. This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the
date of notification of the present decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended
in the period between the last official match of the season and the first official match of the
next season, in both cases including national cups and international championships for
clubs.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-16859
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. 32