Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17232
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Savio
Valadares Pereira de Mendonca
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Savio Valadares Pereira de Mendonca, Brazil
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT:
Al Shorta Sports Club, Iraq
Represented by Islam Hisham
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17232
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 2 September 2024, the Brazilian player Savio Valadares Pereira de Mendonca
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) and the Iraqi club Al Shorta Sports Club (hereinafter:
the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from September 2024 until 30 July 2025.
2.
The copy of the Contract submitted by the Player was not signed by the Club.
3.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia the following amounts / benefits:
a. USD 4,500 per month, starting from 1 September 2024 until 30 July 2025;
b. Housing and food for the duration of the Contract; and
c. Medical examination fees, entry visa, accommodation fees and a one-time round-trip
economy class travel ticket.
4.
On 20 September 2024, the Player sent a notice of default via email to the Club stating the
following:
a. The Contract entered into between the Player and the Club on 2 September 2024
contains all requisite essentialia negotii thereby constituting a valid and binding
employment relationship which is further evidenced by the fact that the Club provided
the air ticket and visa to the Player for his travel to Iraq on 13 September 2024.
b. According to the Player, on 17 September 2024, the Club unilaterally informed him of
the decision of the Club to terminate the Contract with the Player based on the
dissatisfaction of the Player’s sporting performance.
c. Therefore, the Player claimed that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause
and stated that the Club is obligated to pay the total value of the Contract in the amount
of USD 49,500.
d. The Player further stated that the Club attempted to settle the matter through payment
of USD 500 and a return ticket which was rejected by the Player.
e. Accordingly, the Player provided the Club with the following two settlement options and
granted the Club 10 days to comply with its obligations:
-
Option 1 - The Claimant would be willing to continue his employment with the
Respondent, provided that the following conditions are met:
(i)
The Respondent issues a written apology to the Claimant;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17232
(ii)
(iii)
-
The Respondent furnishes the Claimant with a copy of the signed Contract;
The Respondent provides a written assurance that it will honour the terms
of the Contract and ensure a safe and professional environment for the
Player.
Option 2 – Resolution of the matter amicably by accepting a settlement offer of USD
25,000 plus the air ticket for the Player to return to his home.
5.
According to the Player, on 22 September 2024, upon receipt of the formal notice, the Club
invited him to a meeting in the Club’s director’s car wherein the Club imposed many
compulsion tactics to get the Player to accept a settlement of USD 500 (later increased to
USD 1,000) and to leave the country with an air ticket to Brazil stating that the Player was
bound to receive no money in legal proceedings as the Contract was not signed by the Club.
6.
Further, according to the Player, in the meeting, he proposed a minimum settlement
amount of USD 10,000 which was rejected by the Club.
7.
According to the Player, on 23 September 2024, the Club evicted the Player from his hotel
which compelled the Player to purchase an air ticket to Brazil at his own expense.
8.
On 23 September 2024, the Player issued a second notice of default via email to the Club
recording the events of the previous two days and proposing a final settlement offer. The
notice stated that:
a. During a meeting on 22 September 2024 with Mr. Maurtda, who according to the Player
is a director of the Club, and Mr. Hashim, who according to the Player is the translator
employed by the Club (hereinafter: Mr. Hashim), via phone, the Player was subjected to
significant pressure to accept an unjust settlement of USD 500 and an air ticket back to
Brazil with the following statements being made by Mr. Maurtda during the meeting:
-
The Respondent insisted that the USD 500 and air ticket offered were being paid at
the director’s own expense and that the Player should accept it to avoid legal
disputes.
-
The Club warned that if the Player did not accept the settlement, the Club would
allege that the Player had voluntarily abandoned his contract and fled the country.
-
The Club attempted to mislead the Player by asserting that the Contract was not
valid because it lacked the signature of the Club.
b. The Club made the Player vacate the hotel in which he was staying which forced the
Player to purchase his own air ticket to Brazil amounting to BRL 7,802.98.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17232
c. The Player provided the Club with a final settlement offer of USD 25,000 and granted
the Club until 1 October 2024 to accept the offer and comply with its obligations.
9.
On 29 October 2024, the Player sent a request to the FIFA Data Protection Department to
provide a copy of the signed Contract.
10. On 10 January 2025, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Croatian club
MNK Novo Vrijeme valid as from 10 January 2025 until 30 June 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 26 November 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
12. In his claim, the Player requested compensation for breach of contract and costs.
13. The Player argued that there exists a valid and binding employment relationship with the
Club under the terms of the Contract, due to the following reasons:
a. Substantial correspondence between the Player, Mr. Ricardo Sobral (hereinafter: Coach
Cacau) and Mr. Hashim regarding the exchange and execution of the Contract
demonstrating that the Club had the intent to contract with the Player. The
correspondence provided by the Player is summarised by the FIFA General Secretariat
as follows:
Messages between Mr. Hashim (the translator) and the Player:
Date
(Unclear)
1 September 2024
2 September 2024
Summary of the Correspondence
Mr. Hashim introduced himself as Coach Cacau’s translator for the
Iraqi national team and requests the Player to share a signed version
of the Contract with the Club as soon as possible.
The Player and Mr. Hashim exchanged correspondence regarding
the safety of Iraq.
Mr. Hashim requests the Player to share the signed Contract and a
picture of the Player holding the Contract as soon as possible within
the day.
Mr. Hashim further tells the Player to share the signed Contract
within the day, if not the Club would sign with a different player.
The Player sends a signed version of the Contract. Mr. Hashim and
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17232
the Player discuss a shirt number for the Club (no. 7) and further
conversation regarding visa, photograph, travel and training.
3 September 2024
4 September 2024
(Unclear)
10 September
2024
(Unclear)
(Unclear)
(Unclear)
(Unclear)
Mr. Hashim states that he does not work for the Club and only the
national team.
Mr. Hashim and the Player discuss the timeline for the visa and
arrival of the Player.
Mr. Hashim informs the Player that the visa would be ready by
Monday and the Player and him discuss the payment for the cost of
the flight ticket from Brazil to Iraq.
Mr. Hashim forwards the visa to the Player and informs that the flight
ticket will be provided soon.
Correspondence regarding passport photo.
Certain voice notes and calls not provided. Messages regarding how
the training went well for the Player but certain doubts regarding the
situation at the Club.
Correspondence between Mr. Hashim and the Player for a return
ticket to leave for Brazil as the Player requires a job and money to
pay for his family.
Mr. Hashim informs the Player that a representative from the Club
would meet with the Player to terminate the Contract and settle the
matter with USD 500 and a return ticket to Brazil.
The Player informed Mr. Hashim that the Club made him leave the
hotel in which he was staying and threatened him to terminate the
Contract which forced him the purchase his own ticket back to Brazil.
Messages between Coach Cacau and the Player:
Date
Summary of the Correspondence
26 and 30 August
2024
Certain voice notes and calls not provided. Correspondence
regarding the hotel in which the Player would stay and flight ticket.
Coach Cacau informing the Player that he would need to share a
signed copy of the Contract within the next 3 hours otherwise the
Club would sign a different player.
31 August 2024
Certain voice notes and calls not provided.
The Player informed Coach Cacau that he shared the signed copy of
the Contract with Mr. Hashim.
b. Based on good-faith reliance on the communications with Coach Cacau and Mr.
Hashim, and the conduct of the Club in arranging the visa and flight ticket, the Player
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17232
travelled to Iraq on 13 September 2024, to receive the signed copy of the Contract upon
arrival in Iraq.
c. The Club’s conduct verifying the Player’s signature on the Contract, issuance of entry
visa, arrangement of travel, provision of accommodation and meals, implicitly bind the
Club to the terms of the Contract and demonstrate the meeting of the minds in entering
into the Contract.
d. Under Article 1 and 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO), a contract is deemed
valid if the parties, through mutual actions and conduct, demonstrate clear intent to
form a binding agreement, regardless of whether both parties have formally signed the
contract, which is applicable in the present case.
14. The Player argued that upon his arrival in Iraq, within 4 days of training, the management
of the Club expressed their interest in terminating the Contract due to internal conflicts
between the management and the Club’s coaching staff. The Player claimed that he made
repeated requests for the staff of the Club to resolve their conflicts and allow him to play
for the Club.
15. On 17 September 2024, according to the Player, the Club unilaterally informed the Player
of the decision of the Club to terminate the Contract with the Player based on the
dissatisfaction of the Player’s sporting performance.
16. According to the Player, on 22 September 2024, upon receipt of the formal notice, the Club
invited him to a meeting in the Club’s director’s car wherein the Club imposed many
compulsion tactics to get the Player to accept a settlement of USD 500 (later increased to
USD 1,000) and to leave the country with an air ticket to Brazil stating that the Player was
bound to receive no money in legal proceedings as the Contract was not signed by the Club.
17. Further, according to the Player, in the meeting, he proposed a minimum settlement
amount of USD 10,000 which was rejected by the Club.
18. According to the Player, on 23 September 2024, the Club evicted the Player from his hotel
which compelled the Player to purchase an air ticket to Brazil at his own expense.
19. Therefore, the Player argued that the Club’s conduct constitutes an unequivocal and
egregious breach of the Contract in violation of arts. 13, 14 par. 1 and 2, and 18 par. 4 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), as well
as art. 337.2 of the SCO. Consequently, the Player argued that the Club is liable to pay
outstanding remuneration, compensation for breach of contract to the Player under art.
17 of the Regulations due to termination of the Contract without just cause and
reimbursement of the cost of the flight ticket purchased by the Player to Brazil.
20. The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17232
“In consideration of the above, the Claimant respectfully requests the following remedies
from this Tribunal:
1. Declaration of Breach
The Tribunal is requested to issue a formal declaration that the Respondent has
materially breached the employment contract. These breaches include, but are not
limited to:
- Failure to register the contract and provide a signed copy to the Claimant;
- Failure to remit salary payments owed to the Claimant;
- Disregard of the formal notices issued by the Claimant; and
- Coercive actions attempting to compel the Claimant to terminate the contract under the
Respondent’s terms.
2. Compensatory Damages
The Claimant seeks compensatory damages amounting to USD 50,737, comprising the
following:
- USD 2,400 for unpaid salary from September 2, 2024, to September 17, 2024;
- USD 47,100 for the remaining balance of the contract’s salary obligations, and
- USD 1,237 referred to the return air ticket paid by the Claimant.
These damages are necessary to compensate the Claimant for the financial and
professional harm sustained due to the Respondent’s egregious breach of contract.
3. Additional Relief
The Claimant respectfully requests that the Tribunal consider any other relief it deems
just and equitable, including ancillary measures to fully redress the harm caused by the
Respondent. Such relief may include the imposition of fines or sanctions against the
Respondent for its consistent bad faith and failure to comply with FIFA’s regulatory
framework governing player contracts.
4. Interest
The Claimant seeks an interest rate of 5% per annum on the amounts owed, commencing
from September 2, 2024, until the total sum of USD 50,737 is fully paid by the
Respondent. The imposition of interest is necessary to ensure the Claimant receives full
restitution for the delay in receiving his rightful compensation.
5. FIFA Jurisdiction and Sanctions
- Given the Respondent’s ongoing failure to meet its contractual obligations, the Tribunal
is urged to impose appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to transfer bans,
monetary fines, and other disciplinary measures as per FIFA’s Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players. These sanctions are essential to uphold the principles of good
faith and contractual integrity within the international football community.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17232
21. In its reply, the Respondent preliminarily argued that the claim is inadmissible as it was
submitted by an unauthorized individual, with no valid power of attorney included in the
case file to authorize the person representing the Player in this matter. The Club argued
that the Power of Attorney submitted by the Claimant’s agent is invalid, as it bears the name
of an individual, "Vincenzo de Freitas Fanti," who has no apparent connection to the
Claimant or the claim. Therefore, the Club argued that the document does not meet the
procedural standards required for representation before the Football Tribunal. Therefore,
in accordance with art. 18 of the FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the case must be dismissed on procedural grounds.
22. As to the merits, the Respondent made the following arguments:
A. Lack of authorisation for representation of the Club
23. The Club argued that with respect to the Claimant's assertion, that he received the Contract
from Coach Cacau via WhatsApp, who allegedly requested him to sign it and send it to a
person named “Mr. Hashim” through the same platform, that neither “Coach Cacau” nor
“Mr. Hashim” have any official relationship with the Club and do not represent any
authorized legal entity from the Club to conduct negotiations or conclude contracts on its
behalf. The Club clarified that Coach Cacau is the coach of the Iraqi futsal national team,
and Mr. Hashim is a translator for the Iraqi futsal national team who are working with Iraq
Football Association and have no nexus with the Club.
24. In this context, the Respondent submitted an official declaration issued by Mr. Hashim, the
translator for the Iraqi National Futsal Team, stating that he has no affiliation or connection
with the Club and that he was neither authorized nor empowered by the Club in any
matters related to negotiations or contracts on its behalf. He further confirmed that he did
not engage in any negotiations regarding the Contract with Player, and his role was limited
solely to sending the Player’s entry visa and flight ticket, as instructed by Coach Cacau.
25. The declaration further affirms that Coach Cacau holds no official mandate from the Club
to negotiate or sign agreements on behalf of the Club, and his involvement was restricted
to recommending the player to the Club without any involvement in the negotiations or
formal contracting process. The declaration also confirms that the Club did not send any
contract to the coach or any other party for the purpose of obtaining signature of the
Player.
26. In this regard, the Respondent referred to art. 38 of the SCO to assert that an individual
who is not authorized by the Club cannot take any legal actions related to the contracting
of a player.
27. The Respondent further argued that the conditions for delegation or ‘agency’ under Swiss
law, i.e., the formal authorization granted by a principal the “mandatory” to another person
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17232
the “agent” to perform legal acts on their behalf, (i) to be explicit and clear, (ii) delegation
to be clear and unambiguous, specifying the exact powers granted to the agent regarding
negotiations or contract execution, (iii) to be a mutual agreement between the principal
and the agent, wherein the agent is required to carry out the assigned task in accordance
with the principal’s instructions, and (iv) the agent to be legally qualified to perform the acts
entrusted to them, are not satisfied in the present case.
28. Therefore, the Respondent argued that there is no legal basis to suggest that Coach Cacau
and/or Mr. Hashim (the translator) were authorised agents of the Club, under Swiss law.
The Respondent referred to FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) cases inter alia FPSD3772, FPSD-7925 and provided a list of the Club’s employees in support of its argument.
29. Accordingly, the Respondent concluded that the Club should not be held liable for the
unauthorized conduct of Coach Cacau and Mr. Hashim.
B. Validity of the Contract
30. The Club argued that the Contract submitted by the Claimant is invalid and non-binding
due to the following reasons:
a. It lacks the essentialia negotii, specifically the signature and/or the official seal of the
Club, demonstrating that the Club did not consent to the Contract. The Respondent
invoked art. 13 of the Swiss Civil Code (SCC) and the FIFA DRC decisions 20-00777
passed on 14 October 2020 and FPSD-13257 in support of its argument.
b. The Respondent specified that the Contract submitted by the Player was on a blank
page and not even on the Club’s letterhead, further demonstrating the lack of nexus
between the Club and the Contract.
c. The Player and the Respondent directly did not have any official negotiations in relation
to the Contract and there was no correspondence through any official means where
the Respondent directly shared the Contract or a draft of it with the Player. The Club
argued that the Player admitted that the Contract was received through Coach Cacau
and Mr. Hashim, who the Respondent has argued has no relationship or authorisation
from the Club. Therefore, the Club invoked art. 40.3 of the SCC to argue that the validity
of a contract depends on proper execution and exchange of the document between
the parties using official channels.
d. The Respondent contested the legality of Exhibit 7 submitted by the Player, the alleged
audio recording of a meeting between the Club’s director and the Player and further
stated that the contents of the conversation, i.e., the act of the director clarifying
whether the Player speaks English and his nationality, only proved that the director had
no familiarity with the Player or any previous negotiations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17232
e. Therefore, the Club argued that Claimant did not discharge his burden of proof under
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules regarding the validity of the Contract.
C. Trial
31. The Club argued that in mid-July 2024, Coach Cacau, the head coach of the Iraqi National
Futsal Team, who has a contract with Iraq Football Association (IFA), "informally"
recommended the Player to the Respondent. The Club claimed that Coach Cacau and Mr.
Hashim independently invited the Player for a trial with the Club, with contract negotiations
to follow subject to a successful trial.
32. The Club stated that following the invitation extended by the Coach Cacau and his
translator, who are neither affiliated with the Respondent nor authorized to act on its
behalf, the Claimant expressed hesitation about traveling to Iraq due to the ongoing war
and instability in the region.
33. The Club argued that its role in this matter was strictly limited to facilitating and obtaining
a visa for the Claimant to enable his attendance for a trial period with the Club to assess
his suitability for the team. Accordingly, on 9 September 2024, the visa entry was issued for
the Claimant.
34. The Club further argued that on 10 September 2024, Coach Cacau and Mr. Hashim, who
are not affiliated with or employed by the Respondent, provided the Claimant with a flight
ticket, which action was taken independently of the Respondent and without its
involvement or authorization.
35. The Club argued that upon the Claimant's arrival in Iraq and at the Respondent’s
headquarters, he did not provide any services to the Respondent. According to the Club, a
few days later, the Claimant explicitly expressed his desire to leave the country and return
to his home country. This decision was reportedly due to his dissatisfaction with living
conditions at the Club and the overall club environment, which he directly communicated
to the Respondent.
36. Therefore, the Club argued that the Club’s involvement was restricted to facilitating a visa
to the Player to try-out for the Club and no legal contract was executed by any person
having the legal authorisation of the Club.
37. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
“For all the aforementioned reasons, the Respondent requests the Honorable Chamber
to:
1) deem the Claim of the Claimant as inadmissible in all cases;
2) deem the claim of the claimant as unfounded;
3) To order the claimant to pay any costs related to these proceedings.”
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17232
c. Replica of the Claimant
38. In its replica, the Claimant rejected all the facts and arguments put forth by the Club in its
reply.
39. Preliminarily, the Claimant argued that the power of attorney submitted by the Player
conforms to all requisite formalities, encompassing but not limited to authenticity, legal
efficacy, and the scope of representational authority complying with art. 9 and 18 of the
Procedural Rules. The Claimant further submitted that the administrative downloading
anomaly concerning the power of attorney was expeditiously rectified in strict conformity
with FIFA’s directives and within the prescribed temporal parameters. The Player
additionally argued that the belated contestation of admissibility of the claim by the Club,
after validation by the FIFA General Secretariat constitutes procedural bad faith under the
principle of venire contra factum proprium.
40. As to the merits, the Claimant made the following arguments:
A. Authorisation for the representation of the Club
41. With respect to Mr. Hashim’s relationship with the Club, the Claimant submitted a separate
sworn statement from Mr. Hashim stating that:
a. His involvement in the matter was strictly limited to facilitating communication with the
Player and the Club as a translator.
b. The Club’s involvement in the negotiation of the Contract is demonstrated by the
transmission of the official Contract by the Club’s coach, Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji, to
the Player via WhatsApp, issuance of visa and flight ticket by the Club.
c. Coach Cacau’s involvement was limited to recommending the Player to the Club and
has no formal affiliation with the IFA.
d. All actions taken by him and the Club’s coach, Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji, were under the
explicit authority and direction of the Club.
e. The statement provided by the Respondent contains misspelling of his name and omits
key identification details such as his passport and is a manipulated document which
was not signed by Mr. Hashim.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17232
42. The Player further claimed that Respondent committed fraud by submitting a false
statement in its reply of Mr. Hashim, demonstrating manipulation and procedural bad
faith. In this regard, the Claimant submitted correspondence between the Club’s coach, Mr.
Athir Jamal Al-Darraji and the translator Mr. Hashim. The correspondence provided by the
Player is summarised by the FIFA General Secretariat as follows:
Date
17 August 2024
19 August 2024
20 August 2024
22 August 2024
22 August 2024
26 August 2024
27 August 2024
28 August 2024
2 September 2024
4 September 2024
7 September 2024
9 September 2024
Summary of Correspondence
Mr. Hashim sends a video to Mr. Athir regarding a Brazilian player
with Romanian nationality playing in the Romanian league to
which Mr. Athir responds with a voice note that is not provided.
Mr. Athir enquires about the player’s current salary and states that
inter alia a monthly salary, round trip ticket and hotel would be
provided.
The conversation then continues regarding a Serbian player Mr.
Leonardo Maleswick da Silva.
Mr. Athir and Mr. Hashim discuss a player, whose identity is not
visible.
Mr. Hashim informs Mr. Athir that the Serbian player Mr. Leonardo
is under contract until October 2024, to which Mr. Athir responds
with voice notes that are not provided.
Mr. Hashim informs Mr. Athir regarding another player whose
identity is not visible.
Mr. Hashim informs Mr. Athir regarding the Player and states that
he is currently with a Romanian club. Mr. Athir responds
requesting Mr. Hashim to print the current contract with the
Romanian club.
Mr. Hashim then informs Mr. Athir that ‘the player’, whose identity
is not provided, has an offer from a Saudi club.
Mr. Athir then shares a contract in Arabic and English.
Mr. Hashim informs that there is a delay due to the time difference
in Brazil and says that he will get back to him.
Discussion regarding signing of the contract and release of ‘the
player’, whose identity is not provided, from Romania.
Mr. Hashim shared a signed copy of the contract and stated that
the Player wanted to wear no.7.
Mr. Hashim enquires about flight ticket for the Player.
Further discussion between Mr. Athir and Mr. Hashim regarding
flight ticket.
An unidentified document is shared by Mr. Athir to Mr. Hashim.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17232
10 September
Mr. Athir shared a flight ticket to Mr. Hashim.
2024
13 and 14
Discussion regarding the Player’s arrival and training and Mr.
September 2024
Hashim informing Mr. Athir that the Player needs a SIM card.
The rest of the conversation is in unidentifiable voice notes and images.
43. Therefore, the Player argued that the negotiation and execution of the Contract through
the Club’s coach, Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji and Mr. Hashim is legal and binding on the Club.
44. Further, the Player invoked art. 38 of the SCO to state that a principal is legally bound by
the actions of its representatives if a third party relies in good faith on their authority. In
the present case, the Player argued that the Club’s conduct, including but not limited to,
visa facilitation, travel arrangements, transmission of contract terms through club
representatives constitute a clear manifestation of authority and intent to contract.
B. Validity of the Contract
45. The Claimant argued that the Contract constitutes a legal and binding employment
relationship for the following reasons:
a. The preliminary negotiations, formalized exchanges, and explicit commitments
between the parties constitute mutual intent to be bound by the Contract. The
extensive communications between the Claimant and the Respondent containing
explicit discussions concerning contractual terms, remuneration, professional
obligations, and logistical arrangement such as visa and travel are consistent with the
substantive elements required for contractual formation. Therefore, the Claimant
relied on art. 1 of the SCO, to argue that an agreement is deemed concluded where the
essential terms have been mutually agreed upon, and the parties’ conduct
demonstrates a manifest intention to be bound, which the Player claims has been
satisfied in the present case.
b. The Club’s conduct in incurring financial expenses in unilaterally procuring visa and
travel arrangements for the Player demonstrates execution of the Contract thereby
constituting evidence of the validity of the Contract. To this effect, the Claimant relied
on the Swiss law principle of implied consent schweigende Willenserklärung to argue that
part-performance is substantive proof of an enforceable contractual relationship.
c. The Player argued that the Swiss doctrine of reliance-based obligation Vertrauensprinzip
affirms that a party that induces reliance through clear and unambiguous contractual
representations is estopped from repudiating the existence of the agreement. In the
present case, the Player argued that his actions were executed in response to the
Respondent’s undertakings, constitute partial performance sufficient to establish
binding contractual force.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17232
d. The Player further argued that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) prioritizes substantive intent over form and in the present
case, the conduct of the Club demonstrates an intent to be bound by the Contract.
C. Trial
46. The Claimant rejected the Club’s assertion that the Player was merely invited for trials with
the Club, due to the following reasons:
a. The Club failed to execute the mandatory FIFA Trial Form as required under art. 19ter
of the Regulations with respect to the Player.
b. The ex post facto characterization of the matter as an invitation for try-outs without any
corroborative evidence such as the mandatory FIFA Trial Form is a deliberate
mischaracterization of evidence without meeting the burden of proof required under
the Procedural Rules.
c. The totality of documentary and testimonial evidence, including the Claimant’s
contractual offer, logistical arrangements, and direct witness testimony – conclusively
demonstrates that the Claimant was engaged in a formal contractual capacity rather
than an exploratory trial arrangement.
D. Other Arguments
47. The Player claimed that Mr. Lucas Santos de Souza (hereinafter: Mr Souza), a professional
player contracted by the Club, acted under the explicit instructions of the Club to negotiate
a settlement with the Player, which further demonstrates the Club’s acquiescence to an
existing contractual relationship.
48. The Player additionally argued that as per longstanding jurisprudence of FIFA and CAS,
WhatsApp and other electronic messages and audio recordings are admissible as evidence,
provided their authenticity can be reasonably substantiated, which is met in the present
case as it has been corroborated by the Claimant and the statement from Mr. Hashim.
49. The Player filed the following additional requests for relief:
“The Claimant respectfully requests that this Honorable Chamber
1. Disregard the Respondent’s submission in its entirety as baseless, procedurally
defective, and submitted in bad faith, constituting a deliberate attempt to evade liability
through misrepresentation and procedural misconduct.
2. Admit into evidence the true statements of Mr. Abood, alongside the video recordings
and WhatsApp messages provided by Mr. Abood, which corroborate the Claimant’s
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17232
version of events and conclusively establish the Respondent’s direct involvement in the
contractual relationship.
3. Formally recognize the existence of a valid and binding contractual relationship
between the Claimant and the Respondent, as substantiated by the contractual terms,
conduct of the parties, and corroborative evidentiary material submitted to the Tribunal.
4. Order the Respondent to remit all outstanding amounts due under the contract,
inclusive of:
• Salaries, bonuses, and any other contractual entitlements,
• Applicable interest accrued,
• Procedural and legal costs,
• Any additional relief deemed appropriate in light of the Respondent’s procedural
misconduct and bad faith conduct.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
50. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated the arguments made in its reply and made the
following additional arguments in response to the Claimant’s replica:
A. Authorisation for the representation of the Club
51. The Respondent argued that the testimony of Mr. Hashim should be rendered inadmissible
by the FIFA Tribunal as he has testified both in favour of the Claimant and the Respondent
in the same case with contradictory statements, undermining his impartiality and
credibility. The Club argued that it contacted Mr. Hashim, who expressly admitted that he
was not authorized by the Club’s management to negotiate with any player. He confirmed
this in writing, voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion, which clearly
demonstrates that his statements were made freely at that time. The Club claims that after
realizing the legal consequences that would arise from his role as an intermediary between
Coach Cacau and the Claimant, and the fact that the Club had no involvement in this
matter, Mr. Hashim decided to change his testimony and retract his previous statements.
52. The Club invoked art. 160 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (SCCP) to state that if a
witness gives two conflicting testimonies, one in favour of each disputing party, this
inconsistency raises concerns about their reliability, and therefore, the witness statement
must be disregarded under the standards set under Swiss law.
53. The Club further argued that Mr. Hashim failed to provide any official documentation
proving that he was authorized by the Respondent to undertake any procedures or official
negotiations on its behalf. The Club further noted that Mr. Hashim’s statements provided
by the Claimant confirm that he acted solely as a translator and had no direct involvement
or legal authority to enter into an employment relationship on behalf of the Respondent.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17232
54. The Club with respect to the coach Mr. Athir Al-Darraji stated that Mr. Athir is merely a
coach and does not possess any legal authority or official mandate from the Respondent
to enter into contracts or finalize transactions. The Club claimed that the responsibility for
such matters lies primarily with the Club’s CEO and consequently, no one can enter into an
employment relationship on behalf of the Club unless they have the requisite authority to
do so.
55. Therefore, the Club argued that Mr. Hashim and Mr. Athir lack official authorization from
the Club, and they were not legally authorized to represent the Respondent or conclude
contracts on its behalf, even if informally contracts were exchanged with individuals
without authority, it does not legally bind the Club.
B. Regarding conversations with Mr. Souza
56. The Club denied engaging its player Mr. Souza to negotiate with the Player and stated that
the Exhibit 3 submitted by the Player under its replica is merely a conversation between
two Brazilian players without any legal force.
57. The Club reiterated its requests for relief submitted in its reply.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
58. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 November 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, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
59. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (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 an Iraqi club.
60. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the admissibility of the
claim on the basis that it was submitted by an unauthorized individual, "Vincenzo de Freitas
Fanti", with no valid power of attorney included in the case file to authorize the person
representing the Player in this matter, thereby arguing that the document does not meet
the procedural standards required for representation before the Football Tribunal in
accordance with art. 18 of the Procedural Rules. On the other hand, the Chamber noted
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17232
that the Claimant argued that the power of attorney submitted by the Player conforms to
all requisite formalities under art. 9 and 18 of the Procedural Rules and that the
administrative downloading anomaly concerning the power of attorney was expeditiously
rectified in strict conformity with FIFA’s directives.
61. In this context, the Chamber noted that on 27 November 2024, upon request of the FIFA
General Secretariat, the Claimant provided an amended power of attorney authorised by
the Claimant and fulfilling the requirements under art. 18 of the Procedural Rules.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the present claim is admissible before the DRC.
62. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
63. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
64. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
65. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
is a claim for outstanding remuneration, compensation for breach of contract and
reimbursement of expenses and costs by the Player against the Club.
66. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish the contractual
basis for the employment relationship, whether the Club terminated the Contract with just
cause, and whether outstanding remuneration, compensation for breach of contract,
reimbursements and costs must be awarded.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17232
A.
Contractual basis
67. The Chamber noted, and as acknowledged by the Player, that the copy of the Contract
submitted by the Player is not signed by the Club. Further, the Chamber acknowledged that
there is no information regarding the transfer of the Player to the Club on TMS.
68. The Chamber recalled that the DRC in its established jurisprudence has stated that in order
for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the consent
of both the employer and the employee (which is usually manifested by the signature to
the relevant agreement), it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment
contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment
relationship and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
69. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the same jurisprudence has also consistently
stipulated that the Chamber must be very careful with accepting documents other than the
fully executed contract. The Chamber emphasised that the conclusion of a contract can
sometimes, in very specific and limited circumstances, be proved without a formal
signature, provided that such proof meets certain standards of confidence but decisions
determining that a contractual relationship has been formed without a signed contract
require a high standard of proof.
70. The Chamber further noted the content of 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. Therefore, the Chamber observed that in the present case it is up to the
Player to prove that the employment relationship, on the basis of which he claims
outstanding remuneration, compensation and reimbursement of costs from the Club,
indeed existed.
71. In the present matter, the Chamber pointed out that the Contract included all the relevant
information at the basis of an employment relationship between contractual parties except
the signature of the Club. Specifically, the Chamber observed that the Contract provided
for the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable to the
Player and clearly stipulated that the Player is employed as a footballer with the Club.
Accordingly, the Chamber determined that it had to assess whether the consent of the
parties could be inferred from the evidence submitted to the file.
72. In this framework, the Chamber noted that the Player has submitted the following evidence
to prove that the essentialia negotti of a contract have been met in the present case:
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17232
a. correspondence between the Player, Coach Cacau and Mr. Hashim (the translator)
regarding the exchange and execution of the Contract as summarised in paragraph
13(a) above, demonstrating that the Club had the intent to contract with the Player;
b. the Club’s conduct in verifying the Player’s signature on the Contract, issuance of entry
visa, arrangement of travel, provision of accommodation and meals, implicitly bind the
Club to the terms of the Contract and demonstrate the meeting of the mind in entering
into the Contract;
c. audio and video recording of a meeting allegedly held in the Club’s director’s car
wherein the Club allegedly imposed many compulsion tactics to get the Player to accept
a termination of the Contract and settlement of USD 500 (later allegedly increased to
USD 1,000) and to leave the country with an air ticket to Brazil stating that the Player
was bound to receive no money in legal proceedings as the Contract was not signed by
the Club. In the alleged meeting, the Claimant proposed a minimum settlement amount
of USD 10,000 which was rejected by the Club, thereby demonstrating that the Club
acknowledged the existence of the Contract;
d. witness statement from Mr. Hashim stating his connection and authorisation from the
Club to negotiate the Contract on its behalf;
e. correspondence between the Club’s coach, Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji and the translator
Mr. Hashim, summarised in paragraph 42 above, establishing that Coach Cacau and
Mr. Hashim acted on the instructions of the Club’s coach, Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji,
thereby binding the Club;
f.
arguments refuting the Respondent’s position that the Player was merely invited for a
trial due to the lack of a FIFA Trial Form and the ensuing conduct of the Club in verifying
the Player’s signature on the Contract, issuance of entry visa, arrangement of travel,
provision of accommodation and meals; and
g. correspondence between the Player and Mr. Souza, a professional player contracted
by the Club.
73. On the other hand, we note that the Club has made the following arguments refuting the
evidence submitted by the Player:
a. The contract being invalid due to lack of signature of the Club and lack of proof that the
essentialia negotii have been met in the present case, including the Contract not being
on the Club’s letterhead and lack of exchange of the Contract through official Club
channels;
b. lack of authorisation of Coach Cacau, Mr. Hashim and the Club’s coach Mr. Athir Jamal
Al-Darraji to negotiate on behalf of the Club, thereby rendering the Contract or any
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17232
correspondence thereof, null and void. In this context, the Respondent has submitted
a witness statement from Mr. Hashim stating that him and Coach Cacau are not
employed by the Club and do not have official authorisation of the Club to negotiate on
its behalf. In any event the Club argued that due to the contradictory statements
provided by Mr. Hashim, it should be disregarded due to lack of credibility;
c. the Club merely facilitated the issuance of an entry visa in order to provide a trial to the
Player and the Player wanted to leave Iraq by his own will. The Club also claimed that
the flight ticket was purchased independently by the coaches and the translator without
knowledge or approval of the Club;
d. the Club refutes the video and audio evidence submitted by the Player with respect to
any alleged negotiation of a termination or settlement of the Contract, stating that the
evidence is not clear, does not involve agents of the Club and is insufficient to prove
any form of coercion; and
e. the Club refutes the allegation that it engaged its player Mr. Souza to negotiate with the
Player and the correspondence provided by the Club is merely a conversation between
two friendly Brazilian players without legal force.
74. In this context, the Chamber first turned to Mr. Hashim’s contradictory witness statements
and noted that they should be considered with care. The majority of the Chamber
acknowledged that in both statements as well as the initial WhatsApp correspondence with
the Player on 2 September 2024, Mr. Hashim clearly states that he is not employed by the
Club and is merely a translator affiliated with the Iraqi national team. Therefore, the
majority of the Chamber was of the opinion that it is reasonable to conclude that Mr.
Hashim did not have legal authorisation to negotiate or enter into contracts on behalf of
the Club. The majority of the Chamber concluded that all other contradictory statements
of Mr. Hashim, regarding the degree of involvement of third parties, i.e., Coach Cacau and
the club’s coach Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji, be disregarded due to lack of supporting
evidence of their veracity.
75. The majority Chamber noted that the correspondence between the Player and Mr. Souza,
a player of the Club, does not provide any concrete evidence of legal negotiations of a
settlement offer for the termination of the Contract between the Club and the Player.
76. The majority of the Chamber further noted that the audio and video recording provided by
the Player of the alleged termination and settlement discussion that took place on 22
September 2024 allegedly held in the Club’s director’s car, does not identify the individuals
in the audio / video, their role / authority within the Club or the circumstances wherein the
meeting took place. The majority of the Chamber emphasised that such discussions did
not mention the signing of the Contract, any specific terms of the Contract or any validation
of the existence of the Contract. Therefore, the majority of the Chamber observed that no
specific conclusion as to the existence or consent to the Contract by the Club or the Club’s
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17232
alleged intent to terminate the Contract could be established via the audio and video
recording provided by the Player.
77. The Chamber then turned to analyse the correspondence submitted by the Player between
the Player and Coach Cacau / Mr. Hashim regarding the Contract, wherein the Player
claimed that he was under the belief that Coach Cacau and Mr. Hashim were negotiating
on behalf of the Club. In this regard, the Chamber noted that Coach Cacau and Mr.
Hashim’s authority has been refuted by the Club, stating that they were not employees of
the Club and had no legal capacity to enter into a legally binding contract on behalf of the
Club. To this end, the Club emphasised that this is evidenced by the list of employees
submitted by the Club, the Contract not being on the Club’s letterhead and not containing
any official seal or logo of the Club and the lack of exchange of any draft of the Contract
through official Club channels.
78. In this context, the majority of the Chamber noted that there is no evidence in the
correspondence between Coach Cacau / Mr. Hashim and the Player or otherwise on file,
wherein Coach Cacau / Mr. Hashim have asserted that they are representatives of the Club
or their alleged affiliation / employment with the Club or were otherwise empowered to
bind the Club to an employment contract with the Player. On the other hand, as noted
above, in the initial WhatsApp correspondence between Mr. Hashim and the Player on 2
September 2024, Mr. Hashim clearly states that he is not employed by the Club and is
merely a translator affiliated with the Iraqi national team. In addition, the conversation
provided by the Player with Coach Cacau / Mr. Hashim, through which he alleges having
received and sent back the alleged Contract, does not fully display the document as
received by the Player. Therefore, the majority of the Chamber was of the opinion that it
could not be reasonably concluded that Coach Cacau and Mr. Hashim were acting under
the authority of the Club, the document signed by the Player was indeed the same Contract
submitted by the Player and therefore, concluded that the Club could not be legally bound
by the terms of the Contract solely based on this correspondence submitted by the Player.
79. The Chamber then moved to analyse the correspondence between the Club’s coach Mr.
Athir Jamal Al-Darraji and Mr. Hashim regarding the Player’s Contract. In this regard, the
Chamber noted that Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji’s authority has been refuted by the Club,
stating that he had no legal capacity to enter into a legally binding contract on behalf of the
Club. The majority of the Chamber noted that there was no direct communication between
the Club’s coach Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji and the Player and all communications were only
between the Player and Coach Cacau / Mr. Hashim. The majority of the Chamber further
noted that, the correspondence between the club’s coach Mr. Athir Jamal Al-Darraji and Mr.
Hashim consisted of discussions of many players and the document shared via WhatsApp
on 26 August 2024, 2 September 2024, 9 September 2024, and 10 September 2024 are
unidentified and not visible to determine whether it is the same Contract as submitted by
the Player. In this context, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the existence and
consent to the terms of the Contract by the Club could not be reasonably established
through this third-party correspondence between the Club’s coach Mr. Athir Jamal Al-
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17232
Darraji and Mr. Hashim, without involvement of the Player and where no documentation
is identifiable.
80. The majority of the Chamber then acknowledged that the only remaining evidence
submitted by the Player is the Club’s alleged conduct in verifying the Player’s signature on
the Contract, issuance of entry visa, arrangement of travel, provision of accommodation
and meals to the Player. In this context, the majority of the Chamber noted that there is no
evidence on file that the Club or any authorised employee of the Club, verified the Player’s
signature on the Contract, or that the Club provided the flight ticket, accommodation or
meals to the Player. On the other hand, the majority of the Chamber noted that the Club
claimed that the flight ticket was purchased independently by the coaches and the
translator without knowledge or approval of the Club. The majority of the Chamber further
noted that the only evidence on file regarding the flight ticket, is the WhatsApp message
between Mr. Hashim and the Player on an unspecified date.
81. The Chamber then turned to analyse the conduct of the Club in arranging the entry visa for
the Player to travel to Iraq. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Club alleged that
they arranged the entry visa for the Player in order to provide a trial for the Player and on
the other hand, the Player refuted this allegation by stating that the Club failed to submit
a FIFA Trial Form for this purpose. The majority of the Chamber noted that even if the Club
arranged the entry visa for the Player to travel to Iraq, this element alone would not be
sufficient to establish the validity of the Contract with meeting of the mind of both parties
to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.
82. After the thorough analysis of all evidence on file, the majority of the Chamber again
remarked that although the conclusion of a contract can be proved without a formal
signature, the standard of proof required is high, considering that it would entail that an
employment relationship was formalised without an explicitly proof of consent: the
signature.
83. Furthermore, in the opinion of the majority of the Chamber, the evidence provided by the
Player in this case does not meet the required standard to establish the existence of a valid
and binding employment contract between the parties. In particular, the majority of the
Chamber was not convinced that there was sufficient evidence to establish that there had
been mutual acceptance of both parties of the terms of the Contract. Hence, the majority
of the DRC deemed that the Contract did not contain all essential elements recognised in
the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
84. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber decided to reject the claim in its entirety.
d. Costs
85. 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,
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17232
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
86. 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.
87. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17232
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Savio Valadares Pereira de Mendonca, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17232
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. 26