Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17250
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Konrad de la Fuente
BY:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Konrad de la Fuente, USA & Haiti
Represented by SILA International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
Olympiacos FC, Greece
Represented by Statim
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17250
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 August 2022, the American and Haitian player Konrad de la Fuente (hereinafter:
Claimant or player) and the Greek club Olympiacos FC (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2023.
2.
According to the contract, the parties agreed on the following provision regarding the
payment of taxes:
"4.3.4. In the event that on the occasion of the player's change of residence to Greece he
receives a tax inspection or for any other reason that the player is obliged to pay extra
taxes, for the amount received from Olympiacos (salaries, installments, bonuses) the Club
undertakes to pay the taxes or fines on behalf of the player, releasing the player from any
liability, and indemnifying him for the amounts he has had to pay, in order to guarantee
at all times that the salary agreed in this contract will always be net. In that case the
payment will be done in maximum 60 days.
This clause shall be valid for a period longer than the contract of up to 5 years from the
termination of this contract. It is specifically agreed that this clause does not apply for any
eventual taxes corresponding to the Bonus Payment considering the "FIFA World Cup Club
Benefits Program" (par. 4.2.4.)”
3.
On 28 February 2023, the parties concluded a mutual termination agreement (hereinafter:
the Agreement), pursuant to which the parties undertook as follows:
1. Definitions: “Settlement Sum means the settlement sum of EUR 480.000 (Four hundred
eighty thousand Euro) NET of any taxes […]
3.3. To avoid doubt, the Settlement Sum refers to the final amount the Player expects to
receive. The Club shall entirely bear all sorts of relevant costs, charges, and withdrawals
due to the banks involved in the bank transfer connected with (the payment of) the
Settlement Sum, whether recoverable by the Player.
3.4. It shall also be fully responsible for any taxes, especially the Personal Income Tax over
the Settlement Sum that may be due and payable to the tax authorities in Greece.
3.5. Following that, the Club undertakes to pay on the Player’s behalf and as established in
the employment contract of August 12, 2022 between the Parties any subsequent amount
that the Player may be found to be responsible to compensate to the Tax Authorities in Greece
for 2022 and for 2023 corresponding to the amounts received pursuant to the Contract and
the Settlement Sum.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17250
4.
On 28 June 2024, the Claimant filed his tax declaration with the Spanish tax authorities,
where he was residing at the time. Pursuant to such tax declaration, the Claimant stated
that he was liable to pay a total amount of EUR 206,432.09. Moreover, he declared under
the section “international double taxation” an income of EUR 708,303.22, and a relevant
international tax liability (presumably, in Greece) of EUR 155,197.76 already paid.
5.
On 15 July 2024, the Claimant made a payment of EUR 123,859.25 to the Spanish tax
authorities.
6.
On 6 November 2024, the Claimant addressed the Respondent, requesting a
reimbursement of his taxes incurred in Spain as a result of the income received by the
respondent, in the amount of EUR 206,432.09, within 10 days.
7.
On 11 November 2024, the Claimant made a further payment to the Spanish tax
authorities, in the amount of EUR 82,572.84.
8.
On 21 November 2024, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, alleging that the latter
failed to submit the tax certificates of the payments made by the Respondent to the Greek
authorities, giving rise to his liability in Spain and constituting an omission by the Claimant.
The Respondent therefore requested clarification by the Claimant in terms of this aspect,
making reference to a double taxation convention between Spain and Greece, and stating
that it would withhold payment until any further liability could be determined.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 27 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
10. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent undertook to cover all of his tax liability,
regardless of jurisdiction, in relation to the employment he had with the latter.
11. The Claimant referred not only to the wording of the Contract, but equally the Agreement,
by means of which the parties mutually departed from the Contract. In this regard, the
Claimant insisted that the wording of clause 4.3.4 of the Contract was clear in stating that
the Respondent would pay taxes on his behalf, releasing him from any liability, so that the
salary agreed in his Contract would “always be net”.
12. The Claimant argued that he had put the Respondent in default of the respective amount,
in vain, thus referring to art. 12bis of the Regulations.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17250
13. As for his legal reasoning, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the Court of
Arbitration for Sport, whereby the “true intention of the mutually agreed upon provisions”
had to be determined in cases where the interpretation of a clause is not clear. In this
sense, the Claimant opined that the award of the CAS in 2023/A/10142 Al Arabi SC v. Juan
Ignacio Martinez has laid down that, “in the absence of any specific reference to the contrary,
(…) net of any taxes” indicated that the remuneration incurred by the employee in that case
would be free of any tax, whether incurred in Kuwait (the country of the club’s residence),
or Spain (the country where the employee had also incurred tax liability).
14. Additionally, the Claimant indicated that the clause also stipulated that the obligation to
cover any further taxes would be for a period of up to five years following the termination
of the Contract – therefore demonstrating that the parties’ intention was clearly to extend
the club’s liability to foreign jurisdictions as well.
15. As a result, the Claimant requested the following amounts as reimbursements:
-
EUR 123,859.25 plus interest as from 16 July 2024;
EUR 82,572.84 plus interest as from 7 November 2024.
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Respondent argued that it could not be held liable for the Claimant’s taxes
incurred in Spain.
17. In particular, the Respondent argued that the Contract and Agreement, read in conjunction
with each other, clearly limit the Respondent’s liability for taxes in Greece. The Respondent
firmly denied the notion that it was obligated to cover the Claimant’s liability in any other
jurisdictions.
18. The Respondent specified that, not only is the wording of the clause in the Contract
referring to the payment of taxes – “net of any taxes” – too broad to include liability
extending to foreign jurisdictions, but also, the Agreement reaffirms the parties’ intention
that any tax liability of the Claimant in relation to the Contract would be limited to that
incurred in Greece.
19. The context of the Claimant’s employment with the Respondent was hereby deemed
relevant by the latter, who pointed out that the Claimant was hired on loan from the French
club Olympique Marseille. Such loan was prematurely and, by mutual agreement,
terminated, culminating in the Agreement whereby the parties also ceased their
employment relationship.
20. In light of the fact that the player was hired on a temporary basis, uncertain where his next
destination would be, the Respondent firmly asserted that it would make no sense for it to
undertake a tax liability, the extent of which was unknown to itself. This was specifically the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17250
reason why it decided to expressly include a clause in the Agreement whereby it limited its
tax liability on the Claimant’s behalf to only Greece – a clause which the Claimant freely
agreed to.
21. The Respondent equally argued that the reference to CAS precedent by the Claimant was
not applicable in the present case. The Respondent hereby clarified that the Claimant
omitted parts of the relevant CAS award which expressly indicated that the parties to those
proceedings had foreseen “any issue with the Kuwaiti and the Spanish tax authorities”.
Contrary to those proceedings, in the Respondent’s view, not only was there no mention
of the Spanish tax authorities in the present case, but the Agreement stipulated the
contrary – namely that any liability in respect of taxes would be limited to only Greece.
22. Subsidiarily, should the deciding body of FIFA deem that the clause(s) in question extended
to Spain, the Respondent also argued that the Claimant failed to meet the burden of
proving that there is a causal link between the liability actually incurred by the Claimant in
Spain, and the employment contract he had with itself.
23. In particular, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant omitted several pages of his tax
declaration, and therefore, income which contributed to his overall liability, therefore
making it impossible to determine what the exact liability is related exclusively to the
Contract at stake and the Agreement. In this respect, the Respondent emphasised that the
Claimant likely had other sources of income that year – including local income such as
related to his employment with Spanish club Eibar, any stocks or other holdings, but also
foreign income, such as during his tenure with Olympique Marseille.
24. As a further subsidiary submission, the Respondent argued any tax liability in Spain as a
result of the Contract and Agreement should be limited to no more than EUR 7,526.84,
which would disregard any other income the player incurred during this year that was
unrelated to the Respondent..
25. As a result, the Respondent requested for the claim to be rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
26. In his replica, the Claimant reaffirmed most of his previous views and insisted on his
request for relief.
27. In particular, he stated that the clause in question is abundantly clear in the sense that any
taxes – regardless of jurisdiction – would be included and covered by the Respondent.
Therefore, the Claimant specified that any reference to art. 18 of the Swiss Code of
Obligations and establishing the “true intentions” of the parties was needless.
28. The Claimant also made reference to art. 341 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, by virtue of
which he argued that the Settlement Agreement limiting the tax liability to Greece acted as
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17250
a waiver of remuneration the Claimant was already entitled to. In particular, the Claimant
emphasised that tax liability should be considered part of the salary in this sense.
29. In conclusion, the Claimant reiterated his initial request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
30. In its duplica, the Respondent essentially reproduced its previous arguments.
31. On one hand, it did emphasise that the Claimant failed to substantially address the
argument related to meeting the burden of proving the exact amount of taxes to which he
would be entitled.
32. Furthermore, the Respondent insisted on the fact that the Claimant’s interpretation of the
clause(s) in question was plainly erroneous. Not only did the clause per se not sufficiently
clearly extend to another jurisdiction, but on the contrary, included an express delimitation
to only Greece.
33. In conclusion, the Respondent insisted on the claim being rejected.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17250
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. 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 27 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 18 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
35. 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
an American and Haitian player and a Greek club.
36. 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
37. 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
38. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17250
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
39. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the Respondent’s purported obligation to cover the Claimant’s
tax liability, not only in Greece, but also in other jurisdictions – including Spain.
40. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine what the parties’
had established contractually and what their mutual intention was at the time the Contract
– and corresponding Agreement – had been drafted, and based thereupon, whether or not
the Respondent had fallen short of its obligations by not paying the Claimant’s taxes in
Spain.
41. The Chamber, prior to entering into its analysis, briefly recalled the parties’ respective
submissions. On one hand, according to the player, the club failed to comply with its
contractual obligations, in the sense that it had allegedly undertaken to cover his tax
liability in Greece and any further territory, exclusively in relation to the amounts earned
under the Contract and Settlement. As such, the Claimant requested a reimbursement of
the taxes incurred in Spain, based on the amounts earned with the Respondent.
42. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued primarily that its obligation to cover the
Claimant’s taxes was limited to Greece, based on the plain reading of the Contract and the
Agreement in conjunction with each other. Subsidiarily, the Respondent argued that the
Claimant failed to establish a causal link between the taxes incurred in Spain and the
amounts earned in Greece, as the tax declaration and breakdown of the costs incurred was
incomplete and he had other sources of income which contributed to the entire amount.
43. With the above in mind, the Chamber deemed that the matter at stake must be addressed
in two mutually dependent steps: firstly, based on the wording of the Contract and the
Agreement, what was the extent of the Respondent’s liability to cover the Claimant’s taxes,
and, if such liability did indeed extend to other jurisdictions – specifically, Spain – did the
Claimant meet the burden of proving that the amount incurred was directly linked to the
Contract and the Agreement, to the extent that an exact figure for reimbursement can be
established?
44. Having set out the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the wording of the relevant
clause(s). They are reproduced for the sake of ease below:
The Contract:
"4.3.4. In the event that on the occasion of the player's change of residence to
Greece he receives a tax inspection or for any other reason that the player is
obliged to pay extra taxes, for the amount received from Olympiacos (salaries,
installments, bonuses) the Club undertakes to pay the taxes or fines on behalf of
the player, releasing the player from any liability, and indemnifying him for the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17250
amounts he has had to pay, in order to guarantee at all times that the salary
agreed in this contract will always be net. In that case the payment will be done in
maximum 60 days.
This clause shall be valid for a period longer than the contract of up to 5 years
from the termination of this contract. It is specifically agreed that this clause does
not apply for any eventual taxes corresponding to the Bonus Payment considering
the "FIFA World Cup Club Benefits Program" (par. 4.2.4.)”
The Agreement:
1. Definitions: “Settlement Sum means the settlement sum of EUR 480.000 (Four
hundred eighty thousand Euro) NET of any taxes […]
3.3. To avoid doubt, the Settlement Sum refers to the final amount the Player
expects to receive. The Club shall entirely bear all sorts of relevant costs, charges,
and withdrawals due to the banks involved in the bank transfer connected with
(the payment of) the Settlement Sum, whether recoverable by the Player.
3.4. It shall also be fully responsible for any taxes, especially the Personal Income
Tax over the Settlement Sum that may be due and payable to the tax authorities in
Greece.
3.5. Following that, the Club undertakes to pay on the Player’s behalf and as
established in the employment contract of August 12, 2022 between the Parties any
subsequent amount that the Player may be found to be responsible to compensate
to the Tax Authorities in Greece for 2022 and for 2023 corresponding to the amounts
received pursuant to the Contract and the Settlement Sum.”
45. Having analysed the above, the Chamber firstly pointed out that the Contract and the
Agreement appear to collectively govern the extent of the Respondent’s obligation to cover
the Claimant’s tax liability for all amounts earned by the Claimant from the Respondent –
in other words, the Agreement appeared to complement the wording of the Contract in
terms of this aspect by not creating a separate regime for the amounts stipulated under
the Contract, on one hand, and the amounts agreed upon in the Agreement on the other.
This becomes evident upon reading clause 3.5 of the Agreement, which referred to the
Contract which was initially concluded by the parties.
46. Equally, the Chamber’s opinion diverged from the Claimant’s in as far as the clause being
sufficiently straightforward / clear that no interpretation is needed. This was because the
wording of the clause in the Contract – “net of any taxes” – was deemed by the Chamber to
be generic, making no specific reference to jurisdiction, which is the issue at stake.
Furthermore, the Agreement does not merely reproduce the text of the Contract, but
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17250
further mentions the limitation to taxes incurred in Greece – the country where the
performance of the Contract was based – as a qualifying factor.
47. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that the two clauses must be read in conjunction with
each other in order to establish the true intention of the parties.
48. The reading of these clauses revealed, in the Chamber’s view, that the parties never
expressly committed to establishing an obligation for the Respondent to cover the
Claimant’s tax liability in other jurisdictions.
49. On one hand, the wording of the Contract generically refers to the Respondent undertaking
“to pay the taxes and fines on behalf of the player, releasing the player from any liability
(…) in order to guarantee at all times that the salary agreed in this contract will always be
net”.
50. Although the wording goes slightly beyond merely stating “net” or “net of all taxes”, the
Chamber opined that an undertaking to cover taxes in foreign jurisdictions requires an
express provision specifying as such, particularly since tax liability under the local regime –
Greece – is a cost which is foreseeable to the Respondent, whereas foreign tax liabilities
are variable depending on where the player would have been a tax resident after leaving
the Respondent.
51. Hereby, the wording of the CAS award cited by the Claimant was, in the Chamber’s view,
indeed relevant. In this award, the parties had expressly agreed to narrow the territorial
scope of the tax obligation borne by the Respondent – unlike the present case – as it was
pointed out by the Sole Arbitrator therein that: “the mention of Spanish tax authorities
indicates that the parties foresaw the possibility that the Coach would incur some tax liability in
Spain, or, at the very least, that circumstances could arise where he could be considered a tax
resident in Spain.”
52. Reading this together with the wording of the Agreement, the Chamber unanimously
deemed that this view is further cemented, as it states that the Respondent’s covering of
the Claimant’s tax liability is limited to that only incurred in Greece, making clear reference
to the Contract and stating that the parties had established, or understood this therein.
53. The Chamber did not fail to take note of the Claimant’s argumentation that the clause
included a separate provision which extended the duration of this obligation to any tax
liability incurred as a result of either the Contract or the Agreement for five years following
the termination of the Contract. The Claimant has argued that this indicates that the
Respondent undertook to also cover costs in foreign jurisdictions.
54. However, the Chamber did not agree with this assessment. Based on an objective reading
of the clause at stake, the former understood that there is no direct correlation between
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17250
the amount of time for which the Respondent undertook to cover the Claimant’s taxes and
the location in which these taxes were incurred.
55. On the contrary, the Chamber noted that a closer reading of the Agreement revealed that
the parties foresaw contractual penalties in case of late payment of the amounts stipulated
thereunder, which, depending on the extent of the default, could have led to liability in
different years (e.g., 2024 as opposed to 2023).
56. Therefore, the Chamber could not exclude – in the absence of any clarification to the
contrary – that the temporal limitation attached to this obligation was, in reality, unrelated
to jurisdiction, but rather merely addressed the time when taxes related to this contractual
relationship would have arisen.
57. In any event, the Chamber reiterated that a clear clause explaining where the Respondent
would be liable for the Claimant’s taxes would have been essential for such an additional
undertaking.
58. Lastly, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s argument that the Agreement represents
a waiver of the tax obligations undertaken in the Contract. In this respect, the Chamber did
not consider that the Agreement represents a waiver, as the parties made a clear reference
to the Contract and consolidated the meaning of the tax-related provisions therein. In other
words, the Chamber understood that the Agreement, in its substance, did not alter the
meaning and effect of the Contract in relation to tax liability.
59. Even under the hypothesis that the Agreement represented a different meaning of the
clauses related to taxes as outlined in the Contract, the Chamber considered that, had the
Claimant truly felt that the Agreement constitutes an illegal waiver of a tax-related
reimbursement, he should have put the Respondent on notice thereof in a timely manner
(quod non).
60. The fact that this was not done indicated that the parties were in agreement as to the effect
of the clause(s) and the limitation of the Respondent’s tax liability in Greece only. The
Chamber hereby recalled that parties are expected to be aware of the contents of legally
binding documents which they sign.
61. As a result of the above, the Chamber deemed that the wording of the Agreement and the
Contract, especially when read collectively, expressly limited the obligation to cover tax
liability only in Greece, supporting the Respondent’s consistent line of argument and
shedding light on the parties’ mutual understanding that the latter did not undertake to
cover the Claimant’s taxes in Spain.
62. In conclusion, the Chamber held that the Respondent is not liable for the Claimant’s tax
liability in Spain, as there is no contractual basis for such liability.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17250
63. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim in full.
d. Costs
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17250
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Konrad de la Fuente, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17250
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. 15