Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17471
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Rodrigo Andres Llano Montes
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Rodrigo Andres Llano Montes, Colombia
Represented by Melanie Schärer
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
FC Universitario, Bolivia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17471
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
a) The Colombian player Rodrigo Andres Llano Montes (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent); and
b) The Bolivian club FC Universitario (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant).
2.
On 10 January 2022, the parties concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the First
Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 10 December 2022.
3.
On 16 November 2022, the parties concluded a document entitled “Compromiso de pago
al contrato anexo y federativo”, freely translated into English as “Payment commitment to
the annex and federative contract” (hereinafter: the First Settlement).
4.
Clause 3 of the First Settlement established:
“TERCERA (PLAN DE CUOTA)
La remuneración económica pendiente con el jugador es de 4500 $US DOLARES
AMERICANOS de 3 meses hasta la finalización del torneo FUERZA MAYOR pagadero en 4
cuotas MENSUALES
a. PRIMERA CUOTA.- 20 de ENERO 2023 la suma de 1000 $US DOLARES AMERICANOS
b. SEGUNDA CUOTA.- 20 DE FEBRERO DEL 2023 la suma de 1000 $US DOLARES
AMERICANOS
c. TERCERA CUOTA.- 20 de MARZO del 2023 la suma de 1000 $US DOLARES AMERICANOS
d. CUARTA CUOTA.- 20 de ABRIL del 2023 la suma de 1500 $US DOLARES AMERICANOS”
Freely translated into English:
“THIRD (INSTALMENT PLAN)
The outstanding financial remuneration owed to the player is 4,500 US dollars for three
months until the end of the tournament, payable in four monthly instalments
a. FIRST INSTALMENT: 20 January 2023, in the amount of 1,000 US dollars
b. SECOND INSTALMENT: 20 February 2023, in the amount of 1,000 US dollars
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17471
c. THIRD INSTALMENT: 20 March 2023, in the amount of 1,000 US dollars
d. FOURTH INSTALMENT: 20 April 2023, in the amount of 1,500 US dollars”
5.
On 11 February 2023, the Club and the team captains Julio Demian Vila, Raul Alejandro
Olivares Galvez, Joaquin Adan Lencinas and Rodrigo Vargas Touchard concluded a
document entitled “Documento privado de compromiso”, freely translated into English as
“Private commitment document” (hereinafter: the Bonus Agreement).
6.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bonus Agreement established (quoted verbatim):
“SEGUNDA (AUTORIZACIÓN).El primer plantel de jugadores del club F.C. UNIVERSITARIO de la división profesional
autorizan a los REPRESENTANTES a gestionar y firmar el documento privado para los
premios a un torneo internacional con el club F.C. UNIVERSITARIO.
TERCERA (PORCENTAJE DE RETRIBUCIÓN)
Ambas partes declaran haber llegado a un acuerdo económico para los porcentajes de
los premios por el objetivo de llegar a un TORNEO INTERNACIONAL.
El club F.C. UNIVERSITARIO desembolsara los porcentajes del premio económico a los
REPRESENTANTES una vez depositado por la CONMEBOL a las cuentas institucionales
bancarias del club.
FASE DE GRUPOS PUESTOS 1, 2 COPA LIBERTADORES PREMIO que recibirá el porcentaje
de 40% y se descontara el porcentaje del 40% de TODOS LOSIMPUESTOS EMITIDOS POR
LEY por el valor del premio que recibirá el CLUB F.C. UNIVERSITARIO y que se le otorgara
a los REPRESENTANTES.
REPECHAJE PUESTOS 3,4 COPA PRE-LIBERTADORES PREMIO que recibirá el porcentaje del
27% LIQUIDOS el club F.C. UNIVERSITARIO correrá con los IMPUESTOS EMITIDO POR LEY.
COPA SUDAMERICANA PUESTOS 1, 2, 3, 4 premio que recibirá el porcentaje de 35% y se
descontará el porcentaje de 35% de TODOS LOS IMPUESTOS EMITIDOS POR LEY por el
valor del premio que recibirá el CLUB F.C. UNIVERSITARIO y que se le otorgara a los
REPRESENTANTES.”
Freely translated into English:
“SECOND (AUTHORISATION).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17471
The first team of players of the F.C. UNIVERSITARIO club in the professional division
authorise the REPRESENTATIVES to manage and sign the private document for the prizes
for an international tournament with the F.C. UNIVERSITARIO club.
THIRD (PERCENTAGE OF REMUNERATION).
Both parties declare that they have reached a financial agreement on the percentages
of the prizes for the objective of reaching an INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT.
The F.C. UNIVERSITARIO club will pay the percentages of the financial prize to the
REPRESENTATIVES once it has been deposited by CONMEBOL into the club's institutional
bank accounts.
GROUP STAGE POSITIONS 1,2 COPA LIBERTADORES PRIZE: 40% will be received and 40%
of ALL TAXES ISSUED BY LAW will be deducted from the value of the prize that F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO will receive and that will be awarded to the REPRESENTATIVES.
REPECHAJE POSITIONS 3,4 PRE-LIBERTADORES CUP PRIZE: the club F.C. UNIVERSITARIO
will receive 27% NET and will be responsible for the TAXES ISSUED BY LAW.
SOUTH AMERICAN CUP POSITIONS 1, 2, 3, 4 prize to be received in the amount of 35%
and the percentage of 35% of ALL TAXES ISSUED BY LAW will be deducted for the value of
the prize to be received by CLUB F.C. UNIVERSITARIO and awarded to the
REPRESENTATIVES.”
7.
On 15 June 2023, the parties concluded another employment contract (hereinafter: the
Second Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2024.
8.
Clauses 5 and 6 of the Second Contract established:
“QUINTA (REMUNERACION): El JUGADOR recibirá una remuneración por un total de $us
34.000.- (Treinta y cuatro mil 00/100 Dólares Americanos) pagados de la siguiente
forma: 17 cuotas mensuales de $us 2.000.- (Dos mil 00/100 Dólares Americanos).
Se aclara que de acuerdo a la normativa vigente boliviana y lo previsto por la ley No.
843, el club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ realizara los siguientes descuentos:
a) El monto correspondiente a la cuota sindical para hacerse efectiva a FUTBOLISTAS
AGREMIADOS DE BOLIVIA.
b) Actuará como agente de retención y descontará el 13% de cada cuota pagadera,
pudiendo EL JUGADOR descargarse con la presentación de facturas por consumo.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17471
SEXTA (OBLIGACIONES DEL CLUB: El Club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ tiene las siguientes
obligaciones:
a. Pagar a EL JUGADOR el salario establecido entre partes.
b. Tratamiento médico si el jugador se lesiona en un partido disputado entre el club 'F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO’ y otro club nacional.
c. Bono vivienda de $US 500 (Quinientos Dólares Americanos) desde el mes que venga
la familia.”
Freely translated into English:
“FIFTH (REMUNERATION): The PLAYER shall receive remuneration totalling $34,000
(thirty-four thousand 00/100 US dollars), paid as follows: 17 monthly instalments of
$2,000 (two thousand 00/100 US dollars).
It is clarified that, in accordance with current Bolivian regulations and the provisions of
Law No. 843, the club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ will make the following deductions:
a) The amount corresponding to the union fee to be paid to FUTBOLISTAS AGREMIADOS
DE BOLIVIA.
b) It will act as a withholding agent and deduct 13% from each payable instalment, with
THE PLAYER being able to claim this back by presenting receipts for consumption.
SIXTH (CLUB OBLIGATIONS): The club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ has the following obligations:
a. To pay THE PLAYER the salary agreed upon by both parties.
b. To provide medical treatment if the player is injured in a match between the club ‘F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO’ and another national club.
c. A housing allowance of US$500 (five hundred American dollars) from the month the
family arrives.”
9.
On 11 January 2024, the parties concluded another employment contract (hereinafter: the
Third Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2025.
10. Clause 5 and 6 of the Third Contract stipulated:
“QUINTA (REMUNERACION): El JUGADOR recibirá una remuneración por un total de $us
55.000 - (cincuenta y cinco mil 00/100 Dólares Americanos) pagados de la siguiente
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17471
forma: 22 cuotas mensuales de $us 2.500.- (Dos mil quinientos 00/100 Dólares
Americanos) o su equivalente en Bolivianos a cotización del B.C.B.
Aclarando que el jugador por cada año recibirá 11 cuotas.
En caso de existir factores externos que provoquen la paralización de los torneos de la
división profesional (Bloqueos, convulsiones sociales, paros o pandemia) el club “F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO” cancelara a EL JUGADOR el 50% del salario convenido en la presente
clausula mientras dure la paralización de los torneos.
Asi mismo en caso que la FBF de por terminado los torneos de la división profesional
donde el club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ de manera anticipada, se le cancelara a EL JUGADOR
hasta la fecha de finalización de los torneos.
Se aclara que de acuerdo a la normativa vigente boliviana y lo previsto por la ley No.
843, el club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ realizara los siguientes descuentos:
a) Actuará como agente de retención y descontará el 13% de cada cuota pagadera,
pudiendo EL JUGADOR descargarse con la presentación de facturas por consumo.
SEXTA (OBLIGACIONES DEL CLUB): El Club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ tiene las siguientes
obligaciones:
a. Pagar a EL JUGADOR el salario establecido entre partes.
b. Tratamiento médico si el jugador se lesiona en un partido disputado entre el club ‘F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO’ y otro club nacional o internacional.
c) El club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ otorgara a EL JUGADOR la suma de $us 500 - de vivienda
de manera mensual mientras este vigente el presente contrato como bono.”
Freely translated into English:
“FIFTH (REMUNERATION): The PLAYER shall receive remuneration totalling $55,000 (fiftyfive thousand 00/100 US dollars), paid as follows: 22 monthly instalments of $2,500 (two
thousand five hundred 00/100 US dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivianos at the B.C.B.
exchange rate.
It is clarified that the player will receive 11 instalments per year.
In the event of external factors causing the suspension of professional division
tournaments (blockades, social unrest, strikes or pandemics), the club ‘F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO’ will pay THE PLAYER 50% of the salary agreed in this clause for the
duration of the suspension of the tournaments.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17471
Likewise, in the event that the FBF terminates the professional division tournaments in
which the club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ participates in advance, THE PLAYER will be paid until
the date of termination of the tournaments.
It is clarified that, in accordance with current Bolivian regulations and the provisions of
Law No. 843, the club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ shall make the following deductions:
a) It shall act as a withholding agent and deduct 13% from each payable instalment, with
THE PLAYER being able to claim a refund by presenting receipts for consumption.
SIXTH (CLUB OBLIGATIONS): The club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ has the following obligations:
a. To pay THE PLAYER the salary agreed upon by both parties.
b. Medical treatment if the player is injured in a match between the club “F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO” and another national or international club.
c) The club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ shall grant THE PLAYER the sum of $500 per month for
housing while this contract is in force as a bonus.”
11. Clause 16 of the Third Contract set forth:
“DECIMA SEXTA (RESOLUTORIA): En caso de que otro club, organización nacional o
internacional, el propio jugador y/o su representante, gestionara los servidos de EL
JUGADOR antes del vencimiento del presente contrato, EL JUGADOR deberá cancelar para
obtener su libertad de acción al Club ‘F.C. UNIVERSITARIO’ un monto de indemnización
libremente fijado entre partes de $us. 150.000.- (Ciento cincuenta mil 00/100 Dólares
americanos).”
Freely translated into English:
“SIXTEENTH (RESOLUTION): In the event that another club, national or international
organisation, the player himself and/or his representative, manages the services of THE
PLAYER before the expiry of this contract, THE PLAYER must pay the Club ‘F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO’ a compensation amount freely agreed between the parties of $us.
150,000.- (One hundred and fifty thousand 00/100 US dollars).”
12. On 23 May 2024, the Player put the Club in default and argued that the Club failed to pay
him (i) USD 4,500 corresponding to the four instalments of the First Settlement, (ii) USD
11,250 corresponding to half a salary for July 2023, the full salaries for September to
December 2023 and housing allowances based on the Second Contract, and (iii) USD 5,000
corresponding to two full salaries of the Third Contract. The Player granted the Club 48
hours to pay the amounts corresponding to the First Settlement and the Second Contract,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17471
and 15 days to comply with the payment of the amounts corresponding to the Third
Contract.
13. On 24 May 2024, the parties concluded a document entitled “Acuerdo transaccional y
conciliatorio definitivo sobre deudas vencidas por la gestión 2022 y 2023”, freely translated
into English as “Final settlement and conciliation agreement on overdue debts for the 2022 and
2023 financial years” (hereinafter: the Second Settlement).
14. Clause 2 of the Second Settlement provided as follows:
“SEGUNDA: (DE LOS ANTECEDENTES). - LAS PARTES expresan como antecedentes del
presente acuerdo lo siguiente:
2.1. LAS PARTES suscribieron contratos deportivos de trabajos durante la gestión 2022 y
2023 de los cuales quedaron pendiente de pago las siguientes cantidades:
Año 2022 el monto de USD 4.000 (cuatro mil 00/100 dólares estadunidenses)
Año 2023 el monto de USD 8.379 (ocho mil trescientos setenta y nueve 00/100 dólares
estadounidenses)
Haciendo un total de USD 12.379 (doce mil trescientos setenta y nueve 00/100 dólares
estadounidenses) correspondiente a las gestiones 2022 y 2023
2.2. En fecha 23 de mayo de 2024 la abogada Melanie Scharer, en nombre del jugador
envió a través del correo electrónico a la dirección [email protected] una
intimación al club requiriendo DE MANERA ERRONEA el pago de USD 16.000 (dieciséis
mil 00/100 dólares estadounidenses), otorgando un plazo de 48 horas para realizar el
pago del mismo.
2.3. A la presente fecha, 24 de mayo de 2024 a horas 21:30 horas y luego que las partes
sostuvieron conversaciones de manera directa y amigable, para primeramente llegar a
conciliar el monto real adeudado y posteriormente acordar la forma de pago de la
misma se llega a efectuar y formalizar el presente acuerdo conforme lo siguiente.”
Freely translated into English:
“SECOND: (BACKGROUND). - THE PARTIES express the following as background to this
agreement:
2.1. THE PARTIES signed sports work contracts during the 2022 and 2023 seasons, for
which the following amounts remain outstanding:
Year 2022: the amount of USD 4,000 (four thousand 00/100 United States dollars)
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17471
Year 2023: the amount of USD 8,379 (eight thousand three hundred and seventy-nine
00/100 United States dollars)
For a total of USD 12,379 (twelve thousand three hundred and seventy-nine 00/100
United States dollars) corresponding to the 2022 and 2023 financial years
2.2. On 23 May 2024, solicitor Melanie Scharer, on behalf of the player, sent an email to
[email protected] demanding that the club pay USD 16,000 (sixteen
thousand 00/100 US dollars), giving a deadline of 48 hours to make the payment.
2.3. On the present date, 24 May 2024, at 9:30 p.m., after the parties held direct and
amicable discussions to first reach an agreement on the actual amount owed and then
agree on the form of payment, the present agreement is reached and formalised as
follows.”
15. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Second Settlement established:
“TERCERA: (ACLARATIVA). - Sin que exista ningún vicio de consentimiento las partes de
forma libre y voluntaria aclaran que la deuda real correspondiente a la gestión 2022 y
2023 que el club sostiene con el jugador es por el monto de USD 12.379 (doce mil
trescientos setenta y nueve 00/100 dólares estadounidenses) y no lo señalado por la
abogada Melanie Scharer mediante su carta de fecha 23 de mayo de 2024.
CUARTA: (OBJETO Y ACUERDO). - Las Partes de acuerdo con los antecedentes descritos y
detallados en la cláusula segunda de este documento y con la aclarativa realizada en la
cláusula tercera del presente documento, y por asi convenir a sus legítimos intereses y
derechos de las partes, y sin que medie, error, dolo, culpa, violencia o cualquier vicio en
el consentimiento y de su propia y libre voluntad, acuerdan que el objeto del presente
documento consiste en que el club le está pagando a la firma del presente documento
al jugador el monto de USD 12.379 (doce mil trescientos setenta y nueve 00/100 dólares
estadounidenses), correspondiente a las deudas vencidas de los contratos deportivos de
trabajos suscritos en la gestión 2022 y 2023, tal como se indicó en la cláusula 2.1 del
presente documento.
El jugador manifiesta recibir el dinero en efectivo de manera integra y a su entera
conformidad no teniendo ningún reclamo en contra del club.
Por el pago que el club está realizando a favor del jugador que se encuentra descrito
anteriormente las partes acuerdan de forma libre y voluntaria poner fin a cualquier
posible controversia: Las Partes de común acuerdo establecen poner fin a toda
diferencia o posible controversia entre ellas, sobre todo conceptos en cualquiera de sus
formas y cuantía correspondiente a los contratos suscritos durante la gestión 2022 y
2023 que se están saldando/pagando en su totalidad a la presente fecha. (…)”
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17471
Freely translated into English:
“THIRD: (CLARIFICATION). - Without any defect of consent, the parties freely and
voluntarily clarify that the actual debt corresponding to the 2022 and 2023 seasons that
the club owes the player is in the amount of USD 12,379 (twelve thousand three hundred
and seventy-nine 00/100 US dollars) and not as stated by solicitor Melanie Scharer in her
letter dated 23 May 2024.
FOURTH: (PURPOSE AND AGREEMENT). - The Parties, in accordance with the background
described and detailed in clause two of this document and with the clarification made in
clause three of this document, and in accordance with their legitimate interests and
rights, and without any error, fraud, fault, violence or any defect in consent, and of their
own free will, agree that the purpose of this document is that the club is paying the
player, upon signing this document, the amount of USD 12,379 (twelve thousand three
hundred and seventy-nine 00/100 United States dollars), corresponding to the debts due
from the sports contracts signed in the 2022 and 2023 seasons, as indicated in clause
2.1 of this document.
The player declares that he has received the money in full and to his complete
satisfaction and has no claims against the club.
For the payment that the club is making to the player as described above, the parties
freely and voluntarily agree to put an end to any possible dispute: The Parties mutually
agree to put an end to any difference or possible dispute between them, especially
regarding any concepts in any form and amount corresponding to the contracts signed
during the 2022 and 2023 seasons, which are being settled/paid in full as of this date.
(…)”
16. Also on 24 May 2024, the parties concluded a document entitled “Documento privado de
adenda al contrato anexo A”, freely translated into English as “Private addendum to
contract annex A” (hereinafter: the Addendum).
17. Clause 3 of the Addendum established:
“TERCERA (REMUNERACIÓN): En mutuo acuerdo de LAS PARTES acordaron los siguientes
montos a cancelar:
• CUOTA 7 hasta la CUOTA 11 DEL 2024: la suma de $us 4.000 (CUATRO MIL DÓLARES
AMERICANOS) POR CUOTA
• CUOTA 1 hasta la CUOTA 5 del 2025: la suma de $us 6.000 (SEIS MIL DÓLARES
AMERICANOS) POR CUOTA
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17471
Cabe recalcar que el sueldo a partir de la sexta cuota del 2025 será determinado de
acuerdo o al rendimiento del jugador, bajo informe del cuerpo técnico.”
Freely translated into English:
“THIRD (REMUNERATION): By mutual agreement, THE PARTIES agreed on the following
amounts to be paid:
• INSTALMENT 7 to INSTALMENT 11 OF 2024: the sum of US$4,000 (FOUR THOUSAND US
DOLLARS) PER INSTALMENT
• INSTALMENT 1 to INSTALMENT 5 of 2025: the sum of US$6,000 (SIX THOUSAND US
DOLLARS) PER INSTALMENT
It should be noted that the salary from the sixth instalment of 2025 onwards will be
determined according to the player's performance, as reported by the coaching staff."
18. On 5 December 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD
20,765, of which USD 1,500 corresponded to July 2024, USD 16,000 corresponded to the
full salaries for August, September, October and November 2024, and USD 3,265
corresponded to the bonus for qualifying for the CONMEBOL Sudamericana™. The Player
granted the Club until 9 December 2024 to comply with the payments.
19. On 9 December 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s letter stating that it was attempting
to reach an amicable settlement with him but that it had not yet been possible. The Club
proposed to pay (i) the balance for July 2024 and the salary for August 2024 no later than
13 December 2024, (ii) the salary for September 2024 no later than 21 December 2024, and
(iii) the salary for October no later than 29 December 2024. Regarding the bonus related to
the CONMEBOL Sudamericana™, the Club alleged that there was no established amount,
as the distribution agreement had been made with the captains and there were no
preestablished amounts to be paid to each player. Additionally, the Club referred to the
deadlines established in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) and requested that the Player respect them.
20. On 10 December 2024, the Player terminated the employment relationship, stating that
offering a payment plan was insufficient to remedy the breach, mainly considering that it
was not the first time that the Club had failed to comply with the payments, and it had even
failed to comply with previous agreements. The Player contended that he was unable to
cover his basic needs, as he had not received his salary for months. Lastly, the Player
asserted that, as no payment had been made by the Club within the deadline previously
granted, he terminated the employment relationship.
21. Also on 10 December 2024, the Club issued a notice to the Player with a warning, arguing
that he had failed to attend training.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17471
22. On 11 December 2024, the Club issued a notice to the Player imposing a fine on him of
BOB 400 to be paid within five days, arguing that he had failed to attend training twice.
23. On 12 December 2024, the Club issued a notice to the Player imposing a fine on him of
BOB 600 to be paid within five days, arguing that he had failed to attend training three
times. The Club requested that he return to training and stated that if he persisted with his
conduct, it would be considered that he had terminated the employment relationship.
24. On 13 December 2024, the Club issued a notice to the Player imposing a fine on him of
BOB 800 to be paid within five days, arguing that he had failed to attend training four times.
The Club requested that he return to training and stated that if he persisted with his
conduct, it would be considered that he had terminated the employment relationship.
25. On 16 December 2024, the Club issued a notice to the Player imposing a fine on him of
BOB 1,000 to be paid within five days, arguing that he had failed to attend training five
times. The Club requested that he return to training and stated that if he persisted with his
conduct, it would be considered that he had terminated the employment relationship.
26. On 17 December 2024, the Club issued a notice to the Player stating that, since he had
failed to attend training six times, it was considered that he had terminated the
employment relationship.
27. On 30 January 2025, the Player and the Bolivian club CD Totora Real Oruro (hereinafter:
Real Oruro) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Real Oruro Contract) valid
as from 15 January 2025 until 31 December 2025. According to the Real Oruro Contract,
the Player was entitled to BOB 385,000, to be paid in 11 instalments of BOB 35,000 each
from February to December 2025.
28. On 14 May 2025, the Player and the Nicaraguan club Cacique Diriangen FC (hereinafter:
Cacique FC) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Cacique Contract) valid as
from 1 June 2025 until 31 May 2026. According to the Cacique Contract, the Player would
be entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,500 and to a signing fee of USD 3,000.
29. On 26 May 2025, the Player and Real Oruro mutually terminated their contract, establishing
that neither party would receive any amount as of that date.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17471
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 15 December 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
31. The Player first pointed out that the parties concluded three contracts, but the Club
consistently failed to fulfil its financial obligations. According to the Player, he was
persuaded to remain through successive contracts, which promised increasing salaries in
recognition of his contributions.
32. In this regard, the Player remarked that the parties concluded the First Settlement in
November 2022, by means of which the Club acknowledged its debt and agreed to pay USD
4,500 to him in four instalments. Furthermore, the Player stated that following the Third
Contract, the Club again breached its obligations.
33. The Player further contended that on 24 May 2024, the parties concluded the Addendum,
by means of which his salary would be increased to (i) USD 4,000 monthly for the remaining
2024 salaries, (ii) USD 6,000 monthly for the first five months of 2025, and (iii) the remaining
months of 2025 would be determined based on his performance. However, the Player
stated that conditioning his salary to his performance would be invalid and, therefore, it
should be considered that his salary for the remaining months of 2025 was also USD 6,000.
34. In this context, the Player argued that he sent the Club another reminder as it had failed to
pay him USD 1,500 for July 2024, the full salaries for August, September, October and
November 2024 and USD 3,265 for a bonus. The Player alleged that the Club’s response,
offering a payment plan, shall be considered an acknowledgement of debt. Nevertheless,
he stated that he was unwilling to grant further extensions and therefore terminated the
employment relationship.
35. The Player asserted that, considering that the Club owed him 4.5 monthly salaries, the
termination was made with just cause, in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations.
36. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“Requests for relief
The Respondent shall pay the Claimant USD 17,500 (seventeen thousand five hundred
US dollars) as outstanding salaries, plus 5% Interest per annum as follows:
• over the amount of USD 1,500, as of 1 August 2024 until the date of effective payment
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17471
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment
The Respondent shall pay the Claimant USD 3,265 (three thousand two hundred sixtyfive US dollars) as outstanding bonus for the qualification to the Sudamericana.
The Respondent shall pay the Claimant USD 66,000 (sixty-six thousand US dollars) as
compensation for the breach of the employment contract, plus 5% interest per annum
from 10 December 2024 until the date of effective payment”
b. Reply of the Club and counterclaim
37. The Club acknowledged that the parties concluded the Third Contract and that, on 5
December 2024, the Player put it in default, requesting USD 20,765 and granting four days
to comply with the payment. In this regard, the Club first remarked that the deadline
granted by the Player did not comply with either art. 12bis or art. 14bis of the Regulations
but that, in any case, the Club offered the Player a payment schedule, demonstrating its
good faith.
38. The Club argued that, nevertheless, the Player’s representative communicated that the
Player had terminated the employment relationship. However, the Club challenged the
termination, as he did not have just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations as there was no
abusive conduct by the Club. Furthermore, the Club alleged that the Player did not have
just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations. In fact, the Club pointed out that the
termination letter did not even state a reason for the termination.
39. According to the Club, the Player had an agreement with other club for the 2025 season
and, therefore, he failed to grant the Club 15 days - or at least 10 days - to comply with the
payments. In this respect, the Club asserted that the period granted by the Player did not
allow the Club to adjust its economic resources. The Club also stated that, if the Player did
not agree with the proposed settlement, he should have rejected it and reiterated his
request for the Club to comply with the payment within 15 days. The Club argued that the
Player violated the Club’s right to a defence.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17471
40. The Club further contended that, as of 10 December 2024, the Player failed to attend
trainings and, therefore, the Club initiated five disciplinary memorandums with progressive
sanctions, which led to the termination with just cause.
41. The Club argued that the parties maintained a contractual relationship for years, and the
Club had increased the Player’s salary more than once. The Club acknowledged that there
was a debt, but it argued that it offered a payment schedule in order to maintain
contractual stability. The Club pointed out that it offered to pay three instalments during
December 2024, meaning that the debt would have been paid by 29 December 2024.
According to the Club, the debt was caused due to Bolivia’s current financial situation.
42. Although it did not deny the debt regarding the salaries, the Club denied owing the Player
USD 3,265 as a bonus for qualifying for the CONMEBOL Sudamericana™. The Club
contended that there is no established amount that is owed to the Player, as the Bonus
Agreement was signed with the team captains and they did not present the amounts to be
paid to each Player. The Club argued that the Player has no standing to claim this bonus,
as he did not sign the Bonus Agreement and was not a team captain himself. The Club
stated that only the team captains could claim this bonus. Furthermore, the Club rejected
the document submitted by the Player with the alleged amounts to be paid to each player.
The Club also rejected any claim made for year 2022.
43. Moreover, the Club rejected the Player’s claim for compensation, arguing that the
termination was caused by the Player’s breach for not attending training. In any case, the
Club remarked that in his notice of default the Player requested USD 20,765 and is now
tripling his claim. Additionally, the Club stated that, if compensation is awarded to the
Player, it should be mitigated, as the Player had signed a new contract with Real Oruro.
44. The Club also lodged a counterclaim against the Player, arguing that he did not lawfully
terminate the Third Contract. In this sense, the Club stated that the Player terminated the
Contract by means of his absences. The Club remarked that the Player failed to attend six
trainings and, therefore, the Club imposed progressive sanctions, including fines, and
finally terminated the employment relationship. Based on this, the Club requested that the
Player be ordered to pay USD 70,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
45. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“6. PETITORIO
Ante todo, lo expuesto, solicitamos:
1. Que la CRD declare infundada la demanda del jugador y rechace todas sus
pretensiones o en el caso que hipotéticamente se admita la demanda del jugador, se
considere todos los fundamentos expuestos por parte del FC Universitario, así como
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17471
también a la hora de mitigar daños que el Sr. Rodrigo Andres Llano a suscrito un nuevo
contrato deportivo de trabajo con el Club CD Totora Real Oruro.
2. Que se admita la contrademanda presentada por el Club FC Universitario y se ordene
al jugador el pago de USD 34,000 (treinta y cuatro mil 00/100 dólares americanos) más
un importe a determinar por la CRD correspondiente al tiempo restante de contrato
desde junio de 2025 a diciembre de 2025 como compensación por daños y perjuicios
ocasionados por el Sr. Rodrigo Andrés Llano en contra del Club FC Universitario.
3. Que se determine la suspensión del Sr. Llano de ejercer toda actividad relacionada
con el fútbol por el lapso de 6 meses, toda vez que ha incurrido en un grave
incumplimiento del contrato suscrito con nuestra institución al haberle faltado el respeto
a la institución con su ausencia en 5 entrenamientos consecutivos.
4. Que se confirme que la rescisión unilateral realizada por el Club FC Universitario fue
con justa causa.
5. Que se condene al jugador al pago de las costas procesales y honorarios legales.”
Freely translated into English:
“6. PETITION
In view of the foregoing, we request:
1. That the CRD declare the player's claim unfounded and reject all his claims or, in the
hypothetical case that the player's claim is admitted, that all the grounds presented by
FC Universitario be considered, as well as the fact that Mr Rodrigo Andres Llano has
signed a new sports employment contract with Club CD Totora Real Oruro in order to
mitigate damages.
2. That the counterclaim filed by Club FC Universitario be admitted and that the player
be ordered to pay USD 34,000 (thirty-four thousand 00/100 US dollars) plus an amount
to be determined by the CRD corresponding to the remaining term of the contract from
June 2025 to December 2025 as compensation for damages caused by Mr Rodrigo Andrés
Llano against Club FC Universitario.
3. That Mr Llano be suspended from all football-related activities for a period of six
months, as he has committed a serious breach of the contract signed with our institution
by disrespecting the institution with his absence from five consecutive training sessions.
4. That the unilateral termination by Club FC Universitario be confirmed as having been
made with just cause.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17471
5. That the player be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and legal fees.”
46. The Club subsequently amended its requests for relief as follows:
“1. En cuanto al detalle del monto en disputa y reclamado, tenemos a bien aclarar de
manera clara e inequívoca que la cantidad solicitada por el Club es de USD 70.000
(SETENTA MIL 00/100 DÓLARES AMERICANOS) DE ACUERDO A LO SIGUIENTE:
• 34.000.- (TREINTA Y CUATRO MIL 00/100 DOLARES ESTADOUNIDENSES) NETOS Y
LIBRES DE IMPUESTOS POR CONCEPTO DE PAGO DE VALOR RESIDUAL DEL CONTRATO
SUSCRITO EL 11 DE ENERO DE 2024 Y EL DOCUMENTO PRIVADO DE ADENDA AL
CONTRATO ANEXO “A” DE 24 DE MAYO DE 2024 ENTRE EL JUGADOR CONTRADEMANDADO
Y EL CLUB CONTRADEMANDANTE
• Una indemnización a favor del Club FC Universitario a partir de la sexta cuota pactada
en el documento privado de adenda al contrato anexo A de 24 de mayo de 2024 hasta
la finalización del contrato suscrito, teniendo en cuenta que el club debía pagar al
jugador cual si hubiera cumplido con su contrato a cabalidad incluyendo lo dispuesto
en cuanto a lo acordado desde junio de 2025 a diciembre de 2025, por lo que a efectos
de subsanar la observación realizada se calcula el monto de USD 36.000.- (TREINTA Y
SEIS MIL 00/100 DOLARES ESTADOUNIDENSES) NETOS Y LIBRES DE IMPUESTOS
Por lo tanto, ambas sumas hacen un total reclamado por el Club FC Universitario de
USD 70.000.- (SETENTA MIL 00/100 DOLARES ESTADOUNIDENSES) NETOS Y LIBRES DE
IMPUESTOS, más el pago de intereses sobre la suma adeudada a favor del Club FC
Universitario hasta el día de efectivo pago por parte del jugador contrademandado.”
Freely translated into English:
“1. With regard to the details of the amount in dispute and claimed, we would like to
clarify clearly and unequivocally that the amount requested by the Club is USD 70,000
(SEVENTY THOUSAND 00/100 US DOLLARS) AS FOLLOWS:
• 34,000.- (THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND 00/100 US DOLLARS) NET AND TAX-FREE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF THE RESIDUAL VALUE OF THE CONTRACT SIGNED ON 11 JANUARY 2024 AND
THE PRIVATE ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT ANNEX ‘A’ OF 24 MAY 2024 BETWEEN THE
COUNTER-DEFENDANT PLAYER AND THE COUNTER-PLAINTIFF CLUB
• Compensation in favour of FC Universitario from the sixth instalment agreed in the
private addendum to contract annex A of 24 May 2024 until the end of the signed
contract, taking into account that the club had to pay the player as if he had fulfilled his
contract in full, including the provisions agreed upon from June 2025 to December 2025.
Therefore, in order to remedy the observation made, the amount of USD 36,000 is
calculated. (THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND 00/100 US DOLLARS) NET AND TAX-FREE
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17471
Therefore, both amounts make a total claim by Club FC Universitario of USD 70,000.(SEVENTY THOUSAND 00/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) NET AND TAX-FREE, plus the
payment of interest on the amount owed to Club FC Universitario until the day of actual
payment by the counterclaimed player."
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
47. The Player argued that the termination letter was fully valid and in strict compliance with
art. 14 of the Regulations. In this regard, the Player stated that non-payment of three
months’ salary constitutes just cause for unilateral contract termination, even without prior
notice or an opportunity to remedy the breach. The Player alleged that in this case the Club
failed to pay him 4.5 salaries, and he even demonstrated his willingness to find a solution
with the letter dated 5 December 2024. Nevertheless, the Player stated that the Club’s
repeated breaches have irreparably damaged his trust, making the continuation of the
employment relationship untenable.
48. The Player also asserted that he did not act in bad faith. In fact, the Player argued that it
was the Club who acted in bad faith by repeatedly failing to comply with its obligations. The
Player affirmed that he was not obliged to accept a payment plan.
49. Furthermore, the Player alleged that the Club did not provide any evidence of its financial
hardship and, even in that case, jurisprudence has already established that a club’s
economic situation does not justify failure to meet its contractual obligations.
50. The Player confirmed that he did not terminate the employment relationship based on art.
14bis but on art. 14 of the Regulations. Additionally, he argued that his alleged absences
were consequence of the termination made on 10 December 2024, as he was no longer
legally bound to the Club. Therefore, he stated that the disciplinary memorandums are
irrelevant and must be dismissed.
51. Lastly, the Player restated that he is entitled to the bonus and that he has standing to claim
it as he was a rightful beneficiary. The Player provided a witness statement from one of the
team captains, authorising him to claim his portion of the agreed amount and confirming
that other players had already received it. The Player alleged that accepting the Club’s
reasoning would effectively deny his access to justice.
52. The Player updated his requests for relief as follows:
“Requests for relief
Reject the Club’s counterclaim in its entirety, as it lacks grounds and is based on a
misinterpretation of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17471
Recognize the validity of the contract termination for just cause by the Player, in
accordance with Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Order the outstanding salaries, bonus and compensation, as requested in the claim of
15 December 2024:
a. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant USD 17,500 (seventeen thousand five hundred
US dollars) as outstanding salaries, plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
• over the amount of USD 1,500, as of 1 August 2024 until the date of effective payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 October 2024 until the date of effective payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment
• over the amount of USD 4,000, as of 1 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment
a. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant USD 3,265 (three thousand two hundred sixtyfive US dollars) as outstanding bonus for the qualification to the Sudamericana.
b. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant USD 66,000 (sixty-six thousand US dollars) as
compensation for the breach of the employment contract, plus 5% interest per annum
from 10 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.”
d. Club’s final comments
53. In its final comments, the Club insisted that the Player’s intention had always been to
terminate the employment relationship in order to sign a new contract with Real Oruro, to
which he was bound as of mid-January 2025. The Club remarked that the Player used the
debt as an excuse, acting in bad faith. The Club argued that, while the Player was not
obliged to accept a payment plan, he should have acted in favour of contractual stability if
his intention was to fulfil the Third Contract. Nevertheless, the Club alleged that his
intention was to sign a new contract and indicated that Real Oruro’s behaviour should be
analysed under art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations.
54. The Club again referred to the fact that it offered the Player a payment plan. In this respect,
it stated that the breach was not persistent over time, and the bond of trust was not
definitively broken.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17471
55. According to the Club, at the end of the 2024 season there were already rumours that the
Player would join Real Oruro. In this sense, the Club alleged that the contacts between the
Player and Real Oruro were initiated before the termination, which could lead to an
inducement to terminate.
56. Additionally, the Club indicated that the Player mitigated his damages in BOB 385,000,
which is equivalent to USD 55,316.
57. The Club updated its requests for relief as follows:
“VI. PETITORIO
A la luz de los elementos de hecho y derechos expuestos, solicitamos a su Cámara:
1. Se RECHACE en su integridad la contestación presentada por el jugador Rodrigo
Andrés Llano Montes.
2. SE DECLARE QUE LA RESCISIÓN UNILATERAL DEL CONTRATO POR PARTE DEL SR. LLANO
FUE EJECUTADA SIN JUSTA CAUSA, existiendo únicamente la intención de fichar por otro
club.
3. Se CONDENE al Sr. Rodrigo Andrés Llano Montes al pago de una indemnización
correspondiente por ruptura contractual anticipada sin causa, conforme al artículo 17.1
del RSTP y sea por la suma equivalente a USD 70.000 (setenta mil 00/100 dólares
estadounidenses) según lo desglosado en el escrito de fecha 10 de marzo de 2025
presentado por nuestra parte.
4. Se determine, si corresponde, la responsabilidad solidaria del Club CD Totora Real
Oruro en virtud del artículo 17.4 del RSTP.
5. En el hipotético caso que se declare el reclamo a favor del Sr. Rodrigo Andrés Llano se
tome en cuenta la suma de USD 55,316 (cincuenta y cinco mil trescientos dieciséis
dólares americanos) como valor de mitigación de daños debido a que este monto es el
valor del nuevo contrato suscrito entre el Sr. Rodrigo Andrés Llano y el CD Totora Real
Oruro, que tiene vigencia hasta la misma fecha de finalización del contrato que unía al
Sr. Rodrigo Andrés Llano y el FC Universitario.”
Freely translated into English:
“VI. PETITION
In light of the facts and rights set forth above, we request that your Chamber:
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17471
1. REJECT in its entirety the response submitted by the player Rodrigo Andrés Llano
Montes.
2. DECLARE THAT THE UNILATERAL TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY MR. LLANO WAS
EXECUTED WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, with the sole intention of signing with another club.
3. Mr Rodrigo Andrés Llano Montes be ordered to pay compensation for early
termination of the contract without cause, in accordance with Article 17.1 of the RSTP, in
the amount of USD 70,000 (seventy thousand 00/100 United States dollars), as detailed
in the letter dated 10 March 2025 submitted by us.
4. Determine, if applicable, the joint and several liability of Club CD Totora Real Oruro
under Article 17.4 of the RSTP.
5. In the hypothetical case that the claim is declared in favour of Mr Rodrigo Andrés
Llano, take into account the sum of USD 55,316 (fifty-five thousand three hundred and
sixteen US dollars) be taken into account as mitigation of damages, since this amount is
the value of the new contract signed between Mr Rodrigo Andrés Llano and CD Totora
Real Oruro, which is valid until the same date of termination of the contract between Mr
Rodrigo Andrés Llano and FC Universitario.”
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 15 December 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.
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 Colombian player and a Bolivian club.
60. 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.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17471
b. Burden of proof
61. 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
62. 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
63. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract, and a counterclaim of a club against a player for compensation for
breach of contract.
64. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he terminated the employment
relationship with just cause in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations, as the Club
repeatedly defaulted its financial obligations and ultimately failed to pay him 4.5 salaries.
Therefore, he argued that he is entitled to the outstanding salaries and compensation
equal to the residual value of the Third Contract.
65. The Chamber noted that conversely, the Club stated that the Player’s termination was
unlawful and that, in fact, the termination was caused by his unjustified absences. Hence,
the Club is also claiming compensation equal to the residual value of the Third Contract.
66. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (i) who
terminated the Third Contract, (ii) whether the termination was made with or without just
cause and (iii) its consequences.
A. Who terminated the Third Contract?
67. First, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he terminated the Third Contract
through the letter dated 10 December 2024. While the Club acknowledged having received
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17471
the letter, it stated that, as the Player did not have a just cause to terminate the
employment relationship, this letter could not legally constitute termination. Based on this
rationale, the Club affirmed that the parties were still legally bound and, therefore, the
Player’s failure to attend training led to a termination by the Club with just cause.
68. In this respect, the Chamber found the Player’s position more persuasive. It was convinced
that the letter sent by the Player on 10 December 2024 constituted an unequivocal
termination notice, irrespective of any assessment regarding the existence of just cause. In
this respect, the Chamber concluded that, as of that date, the parties were no longer
contractually bound and, therefore, the Player was not required to attend training.
Consequently, any alleged absence or subsequent termination is immaterial, as the Third
Contract had already been terminated.
69. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player terminated the Third Contract
and, consequently, it was necessary to determine whether such termination was effected
with just cause.
B. Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Third Contract?
70. The Chamber observed that the Player acknowledged that he did not terminate the Third
Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, as the requirements set out in that article
were not met. In this sense, the Chamber noted that it is undisputed that the Player did not
grant the Club 15 days to remedy the breach but only four. Hence, the Chamber’s first
interim conclusion was that art. 14bis should not apply to this case.
71. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he terminated the Contract
based on art. 14 of the Regulations, as he could no longer be expected to continue the
contractual relationship.
72. In this respect, 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.”
73. 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
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17471
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.
74. The Chamber then moved on to analyse the Club’s purported breaches.
75. First, the Chamber noted that the Player terminated the Third Contract arguing that the
Club failed to pay him (i) the balance of the salary for July 2024, (ii) the full salaries for
August, September, October and November 2024, and (iii) the bonus for qualifying for the
CONMEBOL Sudamericana™.
76. While the Club did not deny owing the salaries and, therefore, the Chamber concluded that
they were owed by the Club, it argued that it did not owe the bonus for qualifying for the
CONMEBOL Sudamericana™, as it was not quantified and the Player was not entitled to the
amount requested. To prove his entitlement to this bonus, the Player provided (i) a copy of
the Bonus Agreement, (ii) a document containing a calculation that bears no signature,
making it impossible to determine who created it, and (iii) a witness statement from one of
the team captains, who signed the Bonus Agreement. The Club, conversely, stated that the
Player has no standing to claim this bonus and rejected the evidence submitted by the
Player, arguing that the individual amounts to be paid to each Player were not specified.
77. In this regard, the Chamber analysed whether the Player was entitled to the bonus in
dispute. The Chamber observed that the Bonus Agreement was signed on 11 February
2023, when the Player was apparently not bound to the Club. In addition, the Chamber was
of the opinion that it remained unclear from this agreement what the event triggering this
bonus was. Moreover, the Chamber stressed that, although the team captains were
representing all the players, the Bonus Agreement established that the bonus was to be
paid by the Club to the team captains and not directly to each player.
78. While the Chamber acknowledged that the Club did not specifically deny the Player’s
entitlement to this bonus, but rather his entitlement to the specific amount that he is
requesting, the Chamber recalled that, based on art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, it
was the Player’s burden to prove his entitlement to this specific amount. Accordingly, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the Player did not provide convincing evidence
demonstrating his entitlement to the amount he is claiming. In this sense, the Chamber
considered that there is no contractual basis to establish that the Player is entitled to USD
3,265.
79. Similarly, in the Chamber’s opinion, the alleged calculation submitted by the Player could
not be taken into account as it does not bear any signature from the Club. In fact, it does
not bear any signature at all. Although the witness statement submitted by the Player
mentioned that he was entitled to USD 3,265, the Chamber also noted that there is no
further explanation of how this amount was calculated or why the Player is entitled to it
based on objective criteria. That said, the Chamber emphasised that this statement cannot
replace a contractual basis. Furthermore, there was no acknowledgement made by the
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17471
Club regarding any amount. Therefore, the Chamber determined that, based on the
evidence on file, it is not possible to verify that the Player was actually entitled to this or to
any other amount.
80. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player was not entitled to USD 3,265
as a bonus – or failed to demonstrate otherwise.
81. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the Club actually failed to pay the Player USD
17,500, which was equivalent to 4.37 instalments. In this respect, although the Third
Contract was valid for 24 months, the parties stipulated that the Player was entitled to 22
instalments, and they also clarified that he was entitled to 11 instalments per year.
Although they did not establish the due dates for these instalments, based on the principle
in dubio contra stipulatorem, the Chamber interpreted that the Player was entitled to
receive the payments from January to November, to be paid at the end of each month.
82. Having stated the above, the Chamber underscored that, in 2024, considering the Third
Contract and the Addendum, the Player was entitled to six instalments of USD 2,500 and
to five instalments of USD 4,000, totalling USD 35,000. In this respect, the Chamber
concluded that, at the time of sending the notice of default, the Club owed him 50% of the
remuneration to be received in 2024.
83. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the parties concluded the Addendum on 24 May
2024, by means of which the Club undertook to pay a salary increase. In this sense, the
Club committed to pay the Player five instalments of USD 4,000 and, at the time of sending
the notice of default, the Club had only complied with the partial payment of one of the
instalments.
84. In light of all the above, the Chamber considered that the Club breached the Third Contract
and the Addendum, and that the breach was significant, as, for example, it far exceeded
the two-month salary threshold set out in art. 14bis of the Regulations.
85. Having established the Club’s breaches, the Chamber then moved to analyse the behaviour
of the parties to establish whether the termination was an ultima ratio act. In this regard,
the Chamber observed that the Player put the Club in default on 5 December 2024 and
granted it only four days to comply with the payment, stating that, in the absence of
payment, he would take all the necessary legal measures to protect his rights.
86. In response, the Club stated that the Player should respect the terms established in the
Regulations. In any event, the Club offered a payment plan, which included: (i) the payment
of the balance for July 2024 and the instalment for August 2024 no later than 13 December
2024, (ii) the payment of the instalment for September 2024 no later than 21 December
2024 and (iii) the payment of the instalment for October 2024 no later than 29 December
2024.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17471
87. The Chamber noted that, after receiving this letter, the Player terminated the employment
relationship on 10 December 2024, stating that a payment plan was insufficient to remedy
the serious breach committed by the Club. In this context, the Player also asserted that this
was not the first time that the Club had delayed his salaries and that it had also failed to
comply with previous payment plans. The Player contended that he could not even cover
his basic needs, as he had not received his salaries for months.
88. In this sense, the Chamber noted that the Player only granted the Club four days to remedy
the breach and terminated the employment relationship on the fifth day.
89. At this point, the Chamber again recalled the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, which
has established that a notice of default is intended to ensure that the defaulting party is
given a chance to comply with its obligations and, if it accepts the claim is legitimate, to
rectify the situation. The Chamber also emphasised that this principle is applicable in most
cases and the deadlines granted by the parties should be sufficiently broad to grant the
defaulting party the opportunity to remedy the breach.
90. The Chamber considered that, given that art. 14bis of the Regulations stipulates that in
case of overdue payables parties must grant defaulting parties a 15-day deadline before
terminating a contract with just cause, it can be concluded – also based on jurisprudence that a 15-day period is generally considered a sufficiently broad deadline for this purpose.
91. In casu, the Chamber was unimpressed with the Player’s behaviour, as it considered that
the four-day deadline could, in principle, be considered too short.
92. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber highlighted that, within this four-day deadline,
the Club did not propose to immediately remedy the breach, or to fully remedy it within 15
days, but offered a payment plan that essentially meant that the Player would receive USD
5,500 eight days after having sent the notice, USD 4,000 16 days after having sent the notice
and USD 4,000 24 days after having sent the notice. The Club did not mention anything
regarding the remaining USD 4,000.
93. The Chamber also noted that throughout the employment relationship, this was not the
first time that the Club offered a payment plan. In 2022, the parties concluded the First
Settlement, by means of which the Club acknowledged a debt corresponding to the First
Contract and undertook to pay it in four instalments. Nevertheless, the Club only paid USD
500 out of the USD 4,500 established in the First Settlement on its due dates and, therefore,
the Player put the Club in default on 23 May 2024. In this context, the parties then
concluded the Second Settlement, under which the Club paid the owed USD 4,000 and also
paid USD 8,370 that were owed based on the Second Contract.
94. Therefore, the Chamber stressed that it was based on this erratic behaviour that the Player
argued in his termination letter that a new payment plan was insufficient, as it was not the
first time the Club had defaulted, and it had already failed to comply with the terms of
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-17471
previous payment plans. Specifically, the Player alleged that he could no longer be
expected to continue the employment relationship.
95. All in all, after a thorough analysis, the Chamber summarized its findings as follows:
(i)
the Club owed the Player more than four instalments out of eleven, which were
equivalent to 50% of the total amount he was entitled to receive in 2024, meaning
that the breach was sufficiently severe;
(ii)
although the Player granted only a short deadline, he formally put the Club in default
and requested that it remedy the breach within a specific period. Therefore, the Club
was granted an opportunity to cure the breach and even had sufficient time to
respond to the Player’s letter. Moreover, in its response to the notice, the Club
acknowledged that, during the last days, it was attempting to reach an amicable
settlement with the Player. This demonstrates that the Club was already aware of its
breach even prior to the notice of default;
(iii)
while the Club offered a payment plan, it did not offer the Player to fully remedy the
breach within 15 days. Therefore, even assuming that the Player should have
granted a longer period, the Club was not willing to remedy the breach within the
period specified under art. 14bis of the Regulations. The Chamber noted that the
proposed payment plan did not consider the last instalment. In fact, the amounts
remain unpaid until today;
(iv)
it was not the first time that the Club failed to comply with its obligations. Based on
the evidence on file, the Club breached its payments obligations under the First
Contract, the Second Contract and the Third Contract, demonstrating that the nonpayment of salaries was a repeated and consistent pattern of behaviour; and
(v)
although the Club offered him a payment plan to resolve the situation, this was not
the first time that the Club offered a settlement to the Player. In this sense, the
parties had already signed the First Settlement, which the Club also failed to comply
with. As a result, the parties had to conclude the Second Settlement. In this regard,
the Player could have not reasonably be expected to conclude yet another
agreement to novate the Club’s obligations, especially without any guarantees that
the Club would comply with its term.
96. Based on all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Club’s consistent default and lack
of satisfactory solution was significant enough to entail an ultima ratio measure, justifying
the termination of the Third Contract. The Chamber confirmed that the Player had just
cause to terminate the Third Contract according to art. 14 of the Regulations, as he could
no longer be reasonably expected to continue a contractual relationship.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-17471
C. What are the ensuing consequences?
97. The Chamber first highlighted that, since the Player had just cause to terminate the
employment relationship, this necessarily led to the conclusion that the Club’s
counterclaim must be rejected.
98. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
99. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, was equivalent to the balance for
July 2024 (USD 1,500) and the full instalments from August to November 2024 (USD 4,000
each).
100. Therefore, the Chamber decided to award the Player USD 17,500 as outstanding
remuneration, with interest as from the day following each due date. Considering that the
Chamber had already established that the instalments were to be paid by the last day of
each month, it decided to award interest as from the first day of each subsequent month.
101. Moreover, the Chamber confirmed that the Player was not entitled to the contractual
bonus of USD 3,265.
102. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
103. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber recalled
that the Third Contract included the following clause (freely translated to English):
“SIXTEENTH (RESOLUTION): In the event that another club, national or international
organisation, the player himself and/or his representative, manages the services of THE
PLAYER before the expiry of this contract, THE PLAYER must pay the Club ‘F.C.
UNIVERSITARIO’ a compensation amount freely agreed between the parties of $us.
150,000.- (One hundred and fifty thousand 00/100 US dollars).”
104. Although the wording of the clause established that the Player should pay “compensation”,
in the Chamber’s view, this clause was a buy-out clause granting the Player the right to
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-17471
terminate the Third Contract by paying the pre-established amount. According to the
Chamber, this is also consistent with the fact that (i) neither party has claimed
compensation based on this clause and (ii) the amount established therein was almost
three times the value of the original contract and nearly 50% more than the amended
contract. Thus, the Chamber considered the compensation must be calculated based on
the other parameters set out in art. 17 of the Regulations.
105. In this respect, the Chamber initially recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to
be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was
prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract following the termination
of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
106. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
107. The Chamber noted that in 2025, and based on the Addendum, the Player was entitled to
five instalments of USD 6,000, and to six instalments to be determined based on his
performance. Considering that it is not possible to establish what his salary would have
been had the Third Contract not been terminated, the Chamber determined - as already
acknowledged by the parties - that his salary could not have been less than USD 6,000.
Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to 11 instalments of USD
6,000 and that the residual value of the Third Contract was USD 66,000.
108. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
109. Indeed, the Chamber noted that the Player concluded two new contracts: the Real Oruro
Contract, valid as from 15 January 2025 until 31 December 2025, and the Cacique Contract,
valid as from 1 June 2025 until 31 May 2026. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the
Player terminated the Real Oruro Contract on 26 May 2025.
110. Based on the above, the Chamber noted that the overlapping period of the Real Oruro
Contract was from 15 January 2025 to 26 May 2025 and the overlapping period of the
Cacique Contract was from 1 June 2025 to 31 December 2025. Considering that the Player
was entitled to receive BOB 385,000 for the Real Oruro Contract, to be paid in 11
instalments of BOB 35,000 from February to December, the Chamber considered that, until
26 May 2025, he received BOB 35,000 per month from February to April 2025 (BOB 35,000
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-17471
times 3, totalling BOB 105,000) and the prorated amount for May 2025 (BOB 29,354.83),
totalling BOB 134,354.83, which, on the date of signature, corresponded to USD 18,904.40.
111. Moreover, the Chamber remarked that, between 1 June 2025 and 31 December 2025, the
Player would receive, under the Cacique Contract, a monthly salary of USD 3,500 and a
signing fee of USD 3,000, of which 50% was to be paid upon his arrival and 50% after his
first month of work, i.e., June 2025. Thus, the Chamber considered that, for the Cacique
Contract, the Player would receive, during the overlapping period, seven salaries of USD
3,500, totalling USD 24,500, along with the bonus of USD 3,000, making it a total of USD
27,500.
112. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages by USD
46,404.40.
113. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
114. To calculate the additional compensation, the Chamber acknowledged that the termination
occurred in December 2024, and, at that time, the Player was not entitled to any instalment
under the Third Contract. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, while in November 2024
the Player was entitled to an instalment of USD 4,000, in January 2025 he would have been
entitled to an instalment of USD 6,000. Therefore, considering the particularities and
specific circumstances of this case, and in the interest of fairness and the reasonable
application of art. 17 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided to calculate the additional
compensation on the basis of the average salary over the entire Third Contract, i.e., six
instalments of USD 2,500, five instalments of USD 4,000, and 11 instalments of USD 6,000,
divided by 24 months.
115. Consequently, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
12,624.99, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player based on the above
calculations (USD 4,208.33).
116. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of USD
32,220.59 to the Player (i.e., USD 66,000 minus USD 46,404.40 plus USD 12,624.99), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
117. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-17471
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 10 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
118. 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.
119. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
120. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
121. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
122. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
123. 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.
124. 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.
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-17471
125. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-17471
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Rodrigo Andres Llano Montes, is partially
accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, FC Universitario, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- USD 17,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 1 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 1 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- USD 32,220.59 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counterclaimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-17471
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 35
REF. FPSD-17471
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. 36