Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17532
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Conrado Buchanelli Holz
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Conrado Buchanelli Holz, Brazil
Represented by Bichara e Motta
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Lechia Gdańsk SA, Poland
Represented by Juliusz Paracki
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
Atlético - GO, Brazil
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17532
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 January 2020, the Brazilian player Conrado Buchanelli Holz (hereinafter: the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent 1 or the Player) and the Polish club Lechia Gdansk SA (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded a first employment contract
(hereinafter: the First Contract) valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2022.
2.
The First Contract stipulated that the Club had the right to unilaterally extend the
employment relationship for the period from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2024.
3.
On 31 August 2023, the Player received the following offer (hereinafter: the Offer) from the
Club:
“[…] I confirm my proposal from earlier today to extend your contract for an additional 3
seasons under the same contractual conditions you currently have!
Signing Bonus / Payment:
EUR 100,000 upon signing the contract now
EUR 100,000 on 15.9.24 (24/25 season)
EUR 100,000 on 15.9.25 (25/26 season)
EUR 100,000 on 15.9.26 (26/27 season) For every season you stay at the club, you will receive
this bonus, called the Loyalty Bonus!
I would like to sign this next week if possible! The objective of this new contract is to prepare
together for a future transfer to the best club possible for your career and to motivate you to
have an outstanding season! […]”
4.
On 4 October 2023, the Player and the Club concluded a second employment contract
(hereinafter: the Second Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2027.
5.
On the same day, i.e., 4 October 2023, the Player and the Club concluded an annex to the
Second Contract (hereinafter: the Annex).
6.
According to article 3 of the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as
follows:
“[…] a. in the 2023/2024 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 12.000 plus
VAT (23%) monthly,
b. in the 2024/2025 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 12.000 plus VAT
(23%) monthly,
c. in the 2025/2026 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 12.000 plus VAT
(23%) monthly,
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17532
d. in the 2026/2027 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 12.000 plus VAT
(23%) monthly. […]
a. in the 2023/2024 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 108.000 plus VAT
(23%),
b. in the 2024/2025 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 144.000 plus VAT
(23%),
c. in the 2025/2026 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 144.000 plus VAT
(23%),
d. in the 2026/2027 Football Season – the remuneration in the amount of EUR 144.000 plus VAT
(23%). […]”
7.
In addition, article 4 of the Second Contract read as follows:
“1. The Player will be entitled to team prizes or bonuses for achieving individual sports results
specified by the Club in the amounts specified in the internal regulations of the Club, which may
be adopted by the Club’s authorities, unless the Club’s authorities decide otherwise.
2. The Player shall be entitled to receive the additional bonus of:
a. EUR 750 net plus VAT (23%) for every point gained in the league competitions of
Ekstraklasa in case the Player plays in the “starting 11”, from the beginning of 2nd half
time or plays at least 45 minutes of this match.
3. The additional bonus referred to in sec. 2 above shall be paid on the basis of an invoice issued
by the Player, by no later than 14 days after the beginning of the next round of the football
season.”
8.
Further, article 5 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“[…] 2. The Player’s remuneration, stipulated in § 3 sec. 1 of the Contract, shall be paid until 15th
day of the next month after the month for which the remuneration is due, conditional upon the
delivery of a correctly issued VAT invoice not later than 7 days before the payment date. […]
7. The remunerations indicated in § 3 and § 4 above, include personal income tax and all
relevant social security payments and premiums, payable by the Player in accordance with
Polish public law from the income obtained in its business activity. The Club shall not bear any
liability for changes of the amounts of taxes and/or social security payments related to
remuneration obtained by the Player as an entity conducting business activity on the basis of
the Contract, what the Player irrevocably accepts and is fully aware of and accepts the obligation
to execute this [sic] duties on his own. […]
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17532
10. The Player declares that he provides services under this Contract as part of his business
activity and on that [sic] grounds, he pays all public contributions on his own, in particular the
income tax and contributions to the health and social insurance, and therefore is liable to
maintain the voluntary sickness insurance throughout the term of the Contract.
11. The Player declares that as of the date of this Contract, as well as during the period of its
validity, the Player will make settlements in the form of a lump sum on recorded revenues of
15%, including a written declaration on the selection of this form of taxation to the competent
head of the tax office, and in the event of a tax change in the form of income settlements will
bear all risk of reducing the income associated with it.
12. The Player bears the full economic risk arising from conducting business activity.
13. The Player is solely liable to the Club and to third parties for the result of conducting his
activity and its implementation, as well as damage caused to the Club or a third party
respectively in the performance of the Contract or as a result of its implementation.
Consequently, the Club is not responsible for the result of actions and omissions of the Player
towards third parties.
14. Any tax liabilities, public burdens and payments related to social security arising from the
Player’s income obtained under the Contract shall be borne by the Player and the Club shall not
bear any responsibility for their payments by the Player as well as for any changes of public law
in respect to such liabilities and/or any other costs of maintaining business activity by the Player.
[…]”
9.
With respect to the Annex, it stipulated the following:
“[…] 1. The Player will be entitled to the following additional remuneration:
a. loyalty bonus in the amount of EUR 100.000 plus VAT (23%), to be paid on 15.09.2024,
b. loyalty bonus in the amount of EUR 100.000 plus VAT (23%), to be paid on 15.09.2025,
c. loyalty bonus in the amount of EUR 100.000 plus VAT (23%), to be paid on 15.09.2026,
2. The remuneration referred to in sec. 1 let. a, b and c above respectively is due solely under
the condition that the Player remains the player of the Club on the respective payment date. […]”
10. In continuation, article 6 of the Second Contract read as follows:
“[…] 18. The Player hereby confirms that before the signing of the present Contract the following
documents, which constitutes attachments to this Contract, were presented to him, he
acknowledges that he read them, understood and accepted them and does not raise any
comments or complaints against them:
18.1 Minimum Requirements;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17532
18.2 Disciplinary Regulations;
18.3 Information Clause for the Player;“
11. In addition, article 7 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“1. Subject to other provisions of the Contract, during its term the Club shall:
1.3 guarantee medical treatment in the event of an injury of the Player as a result exclusively of
training or participation in Official Matches or Friendly Matches or an illness […]
1.6 pay to the Player the accommodation allowance up to the maximum amount of EUR 500,00
including the rent and due charges. Any possible difference in the cost of the apartment shall be
borne by the Player;
1.7 provide the Player with 2 (two) economy class return flight tickets from Poland to Brazil, in
each Football Season of the term of the Contract, on the basis of the Player’s request issued with
at least 30-days notice. Tickets that are not used in a given Football Season shall not be
transferred and used in the next Football Season. […]“
12. Furthermore, article 12 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“[…] 2. The Player is entitled to unilaterally terminate the Contract before its term, due to the
Club’s guilt, in accordance with occurrence of the events stipulated in Art. 8 of the Minimum
Requirements. […]”
13. Further, article 15 of the Second Contract read as follows:
“1. This Contract shall be governed by and interpreted exclusively in accordance with the relevant
regulations of PZPN, including in particular Minimum Requirements, and by Polish law in the
extent not covered by these regulations.
2. All disputes concerning proprietary and non-proprietary rights, which may be subject to
settlement, arising out of or in connection with conclusion, validity, performance or termination
of the Contract, the Parties shall exclusively submit for resolution of Pilkarski Sad Polubowny
PZPN.
3. The Parties hereto confirm and acknowledge that this Contract includes all rights and
obligations undertaken by the Parties hereto and the fixed term period thereof reflects the
special relationship and characteristics involved in the employment of professional football
players and the participation by the Parties in the game of football pursuant to the relevant
regulations of PZPN. Accordingly, the Parties agree that any disputes in relation to the rights and
obligations of the Parties under this Contract, including the provisions on termination of the
Contract and any compensation due for termination or breach of the Contract, shall be settled
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17532
by the jurisdictional authorities in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. At the same
time, the Parties hereby accept all decisions (as well as those resulting from an appeal) of the
jurisdictional authorities, in accordance with the provisions resulting from the Contract. […]”
14. Lastly, article 18 of the Second Contract stipulated the following:
“1. By signing the Contract, the Parties mutually agree and acknowledge that during negotiations
and signing of the Contract each of them received in its own scope and at its own expense
professional legal advisory, they understand every clause of this Contract and its appendices, as
well as their potential consequences and does not raise any comments or reservations in this
regard. Consequently, the Contract contains the entire agreement between the Parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other arrangements, commitments or
agreements relating hereto.
2. The Player hereby irrevocably and unconditionally represents that during the negotiation
phase of this Contract he received a professional legal advice, he fully understands and is aware
of all provisions of the Contract and accepts its content as the reflection of the will of Parties.”
15. On 27 September 2024, the Player and the Club concluded an agreement to postpone
(hereinafter: the Agreement) the payment of bonuses from the season 2023/2024 until 30
November 2024.
16. The Agreement also stipulated the following:
“[…] In case if Club fail to make payment deadline, Club will be obliged to pay a contractual
penalty of 100% of the value of the bonuses specified in point 1 above. […]”
17. On 16 November 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment within
15 days of the following amounts:
“[…] a) Two monthly salaries, corresponding to September and October 2024, in the total
amount of EUR 24,000.00 (twenty-four thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT, which should have been
paid no later than 15 October and 15 November, respectively, pursuant to Clauses §3.2 b) and
§5. I.2 of the Employment Contract;
b) The loyalty bonus stipulated in Clause §1 a) of the Annex to the Employment Contract, in the
amount of EUR 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT, which should have
been paid on 15 September 2024;
c) The signing-on fee which was agreed between the Club’s President, Mr. Paolo Urfer, and the
Player, in the amount of EUR 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT, in
connection with the execution of the Employment Contract; and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17532
d) The reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Player in August 2024, with the Club’s
authorization, in order to undertake certain medical examinations requested by the Club’s
medical services, in the amount of PLN 900.00 (nine hundred Polish złoty). Per the Club’s
standard practice, this amount should have been promptly reimbursed upon the Player’s
request and submission of the respective proof of payment, which is again sent to you, for ease
of reference (Annex 2). […]”
18. On the same day, i.e., 16 November 2024, the Club answered the Player’s default notice,
inviting him to a telephone call on 18 November 2024.
19. On 26 November 2024, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] As discussed over the phone, the Player has acknowledged receipt of his monthly salary of
September. All other amounts indicated in our default notice remain outstanding, though.
In this regard, we reaffirm the entire content of such notice, including the time limit thereby
granted, as the Club has been in persistent default of art. 12bis and 14 of the FIFA RSTP for
several months. If not remedied, this situation may lead to the collapse of the relationship
between the Parties. […]”
20. On 29 November 2024, the Club answered the latest correspondence from the Player as
follows:
“[…] I am glad to inform you that we have instructed our bank to proceed with the payment of
all amounts due to Conrado.
Thank you for your friendly and professional way of dealing with this matter.
We will send you the confirmation of the payment on Monday, once executed. […]”
21. On 2 December 2024, the Club sent the following additional correspondence to the Player:
“[…] Following the email that I sent you on Friday, please find herewith enclosed the confirmation
for the payment of the salary of the player for the month of October.
As per the employment contract, Conrado’s salary for the month of November will be paid on
December 16th, as the 15th is a Sunday.
I will keep you posted as soon as our bank will have executed the other payments. […]”
22. On 3 December 2024, the Player terminated the Second Contract with the Club as follows:
“[…] Reference is made to our default notice from 16 and 17 November 2024, as well as to the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17532
telephone understandings between the undersigned and the President of Lechia Gdańsk Spółka
Akcyjna (hereinafter the “CLUB”), regarding the multiple outstanding payments due by the CLUB
to the Brazilian player Conrado Buchanelli Holz (hereinafter the “PLAYER”).
Although in the meantime the CLUB has paid the PLAYER’s monthly salary of September 2024
and, today, the one of October 2024, the PLAYER has not yet acknowledged receipt of the
majority of the amounts due – despite the promises made by the CLUB’s President. To date, the
CLUB still owes the PLAYER (i) the loyalty bonus stipulated in Clause §1 a) of the Annex to the
Employment Contract, (ii) the signing-on agreed with the CLUB’s President and (iii) the
reimbursement of his medical expenses, in the total amount of EUR 200,000.00 (two hundred
thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT and PLN 900.00 (nine hundred Polish Złoty).
In addition, the PLAYER has also not received the bonus for points won by the CLUB in the
2023/2024 league season, in the amount of PLN 11,955.60 (eleven thousand, nine hundred fiftyfive Polish Złoty and sixty Groszy), which according to the agreement concluded with the squad
on 27 September 2024, fell due on 30 November 2024.
Considering the significance of the amounts above, as well as the CLUB’s repeated delays in the
payment of his monthly salaries, the situation has become unbearable for the PLAYER, as he can
no longer tolerate such persistent and severe breaches of his Employment Contract.
Therefore, in line with the content of our e-mail dated 26 November 2024, this notice serves to
terminate the PLAYER’S Employment Contract with the CLUB with just cause and immediate
effect, pursuant to article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The
Player reserves all his rights accordingly.
Finally, the PLAYER requests the CLUB to provide him with the flight ticket stipulated in Clause
§7 1.7 of the Employment Contract to enable him to travel to his hometown Porto Alegre (Brazil)
on 8 December 2024. We remind you that this date had already been agreed between the
Parties, as the squad will soon be released by the CLUB for holidays. In the event of failure to
provide such flight ticket, the PLAYER reserves the right to seek reimbursement for this expense.
[…]”
23. On the same day, i.e., 3 December 2024, the Club answered the Player’s notice of
termination of the Second Contract as follows:
“[…] The Club strongly opposes the validity and justification of the Termination Notice. As has
been confirmed by the Player, the Club has duly paid all the Player’s outstanding monthly
remuneration before the Termination Notice was delivered. At the same time, being fully aware
of the Club’s difficult financial situation, the parties continued (with assumption of good faith)
negotiations regarding payment of any further receivables the Player may be entitled to. As a
consequence, pursuant to Art. 9 sec. 3 let. a) of the Resolution of the Management Board of the
Polish Football Association – Minimum requirements for standard players contracts in the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17532
professional football sector (“Minimum Requirements”) the Player was not in the position to
validly terminate the Contract.
The applicability of the Minimum Requirements in this respect results unequivocally from
various provisions of the Contract, including § 6 sec. 18.1, § 12 sec. 2 and § 15 sec. 1 therein. In
particular, § 12 sec. 2 of the Contract provides that the Player is entitled to unilaterally terminate
the Contract before its term, due to the Club’s fault, in accordance with occurrence of events
stipulated in the Minimum Requirements. Considering that the individual remuneration of the
Player was duly paid, the right to unilaterally terminate the Contract has not materialized.
Furthermore, irrespective of the Club’s position on all other claims raised by the Player, the Club
takes note of the fact that the Player based his Termination Notice on the claim to reimburse
medical expenses in the alleged amount of 200.000,00 EUR. Such claim was never raised by the
Player in the previous correspondence, neither was such amount substantiated and agreed
upon with the Club. In his previous communication, the Player indeed requested reimbursement
of the medical expenses, however in the amount of 900,00 PLN, and provided the Club with the
relevant invoices. This amount was to be reimbursed to the Player upon signing of the
mandatory receipt of reimbursement for the accounting purposes, which so far did not happen.
Nevertheless, the claim for the further amount of 200.000,00 EUR is alarming, and the Club
hereby requests the Player to verify such statement with his legal representatives who issued the
Termination Notice on his behalf.
Finally, the Club takes note of the fact that the Termination Notice was sent by the Player just a
few minutes after the start of today’s training session, one of the last before the last match of
this round of league competitions, taking place on 7 December 2024. The Player is fully aware
of the Club’s unfavourable sporting situation and the utmost importance of good performance
and preparation for the incoming match. The Player seems to have taken unfair advantage of
the Club’s difficult sporting and financial situation, while the Club has duly paid the Player’s
individual remuneration and continued in good faith negotiations regarding payment of other
receivables. The Club perceives this behaviour as the Player’s gross disloyalty against the Club,
which constitutes a material breach of the Player’s contractual obligations.
Taking into consideration the above, the Club hereby requests the Player to withdraw
the Termination Notice immediately, however no later than within 24 hours as from receipt of
this letter and to reach an agreement with the Club regarding payment of any other outstanding
receivables of the Player.
In these circumstances, should the Player refrain from finding the agreement with the Club, the
Club may have no other choice but to seek protection of its rights resulting from the Contract.
Nevertheless, on behalf of the Club, we express the hope for amicable resolution of the present
matter. […]”
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17532
24. On the same day, i.e., 3 December 2024, the Player answered the latest correspondence
from the Club as follows:
“[…] Of course, the Player is not asking for the reimbursement of EUR200,000 in medical
expenses. The medical expenses are indeed of PLN900.00. As the Club is perfectly aware, the
amount of EUR200,000 plus VAT corresponds to the Player’s loyalty bonus and signing-on fee,
which have been outstanding for several months, in violation of art. 14 of the FIFA RSTP, thus
leading, among other reasons, to just cause for termination.
From the content of your reply, and unless we hear otherwise by return, the Player understands
that the Club is refusing to provide him with the agreed flight ticket for 8 December 2024 (the
day after this year’s last match).
For all the above, the Player objects to and denies the entire content of your reply, and reaffirms
the terms of his termination notice. All the Player’s rights are fully reserved.”
25. On the same day, i.e., 3 December 2024, the Player purchased a flight ticket to return to
Brazil on 9 December 2024.
26. On 5 February 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with the Brazilian club
Atlético - GO (hereinafter: the Counter-Respondent 2 or the New Club) valid as from its date
of signature until 30 November 2025.
27. In accordance with the said employment contract with the New Club, the Player is entitled
to a monthly salary of BRL 40,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
28. On 18 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
29. In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Second Contract with just cause due
to outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR 200,000. In this regard, the Player noted
that the signing bonus and the loyalty bonus formed part of his fixed annual remuneration.
30. In this context, the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“a) Admit the present claim and enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute;
b) Declare that the Employment Contract between the Parties was lawfully terminated by the
Player with just cause on 3 December 2024;
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17532
c) Order the Club to pay the Player the following outstanding amounts:
(i) Signing-On Fee: EUR 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR
123,000.00 (one hundred twenty-three thousand Euros);
(ii) Loyalty bonus of Clause §1.1 (a) of the Annex: EUR 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros)
plus 23% VAT or EUR 123,000.00 (one hundred twenty-three thousand Euros);
(iii) The amount of the Bonus Agreement: PLN 9,720.00 (nine thousand seven hundred and
twenty Polish Złoty) plus 23% VAT or PLN 11,955.60 (eleven thousand, nine hundred fifty-five
Polish Złoty and sixty Groszy);
(iv) The individual bonus of Clause §4.2 (a) of the Employment Contract in connection with the
2024/2025 season: EUR 6,750 (six thousand seven hundred and fifty Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR
8,302.50 (eight thousand three hundred two Euros and fifty cents;
(v) The reimbursement of medical expenses: PLN 950.00 (nine hundred fifty Polish Złoty);
(vi) The reimbursement of the flight ticket: PLN PLN [sic] 5,073.00 (five thousand and seventythree Polish Złoty);
d) Order the Club to pay the Player compensation for the termination of the Employment
Contract in the amount of EUR 600,0000.00 (six hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR
738,000.00 (seven hundred thirty eight [sic] thousand Euros), plus Additional Compensation
and/or Mitigated Compensation, in accordance with article 17.1, of the FIFA RSTP, as specified
in Section IV.C) above;
e) Order the Club to pay 5% (five percent) per annum over all amounts specified above;
f) Impose the Club sanctions under articles 12bis,17.4and/or 24 of the FIFA RSTP; and
g) Order the Club to bear all administrative and/or procedural costs related to this procedure (if
any).”
31. For the sake of completeness of his requests for relief, the Player stated that the
compensation requested for the breach of the Second Contract corresponds to the
following amounts:
“a) 8 (eight) months of a EUR 12,000.00 (twelve thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT salary, relating to
the months of November 2024 to June 2025, i.e. EUR 96,000.00 (ninety-six thousand Euros) plus
23% VAT or EUR 118,080.00 (one hundred eighteen thousand and eighty Euros);
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17532
b) The Player’s full annual salary for the 2025/2026 season, totalling EUR 144,000.00 (one
hundred forty-four thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR 177,120.00 (one hundred seventyseven thousand one hundred and twenty Euros);
c) The Player’s full annual salary for the 2026/2027 season, totalling EUR 144,000.00 (one
hundred forty-four thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR 177,120.00 (one hundred seventyseven thousand one hundred and twenty Euros);
d) The loyalty bonuses foreseen in Clauses §1.1 (b) and (c) of the Annex, totalling EUR 200,000.00
(two hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR 246,000.00 (two hundred forty-six thousand
Euros); and
e) The Player’s accommodation allowance guaranteed in Clause §7.1.6 of the Employment
Contract for a total of 32 (thirty-two months), from November 2024 to June 2027, totalling EUR
16,000.00 (sixteen thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT or EUR 19,680.00 (nineteen thousand six
hundred and eighty Euros).”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
32. In its reply, the Club disputed the jurisdiction of FIFA and argued accordingly that article 15
of the Second Contract, consists of a clear, unequivocal and exclusive arbitration clause in
favour of the Football Court of Arbitration of the Polish Football Association, known as
PZPN (hereinafter: the FCA). In this regard, the Respondent argued that the FCA complies
with FIFA’s National Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: NDRC) Recognition
Principles.
33. Notwithstanding the above, the Club argued that the Player terminated the Second
Contract without just cause. In particular, the Club pointed out that the alleged signing
bonus to which the Player referred to in his statement of claim does not have any
contractual basis. In fact, the Club acknowledged that a signing bonus of EUR 100,000 was
negotiated for the extension of the Contract, but that it was never agreed as part of the
Second Contract or the Annex.
34. In addition, the Club stated, in accordance with articles 6, 12 and 15 of the Second Contract,
that the Player acknowledged having read, understood and accepted the provisions of the
so-called Minimum Requirements, which establish a numerus clausus of cases in which the
employment relationship may be terminated unilaterally. In particular, the Club referred
to the following wording of article 9.3 of the Minimum Requirements
“[…] The Player has the right to unilaterally terminate the Contract for reasons attributable to
the Club, through the declaration submitted to the Club in writing under pain of nullity only in
the following cases:
a. the Club delays the payment of individual remuneration due to the Player in respect of
professional football activities for a period of at least two months, provided that after that
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17532
period the Player determines in writing to the Club an additional period of payment, not shorter
than 14 days, and provided that the failure to pay the full amount will result in the possibility of
exercising the right to unilaterally terminate the Contract for reasons attributable to the Club;
[…]”
35. In view of the foregoing, the Club argued that the individual remuneration of the Player
corresponds to his monthly salaries, as opposed to any additional remuneration such as
bonuses. In other words, it is the position of the Club that only the outstanding monthly
salaries of the Player can be taken into account for him to be entitled to unilaterally
terminate the Second Contract with just cause.
36. With the above in mind, the Club acknowledged that on 16 November 2024, i.e. the day of
the Player’s default notice, the latter had two outstanding monthly salaries, namely
September and October 2024. That said, the Club argued that it duly paid these monthly
salaries on 19 November 2024 and 2 December 2024, i.e. before the Player’s notice of
termination of the Second Contract on 3 December 2024. Therefore, the Club argued that
the Player terminated the Second Contract without just cause considering the wording of
article 8 of the Minimum Requirements.
37. Lastly, the Club argued that despite its financial difficulties, it always acted in good faith
and tried to meet its obligations towards the Player as soon as possible. On the contrary,
the Club stated that the Player behaved in a dishonest manner, which caused it a damage
such as the loss of his sporting and marketing services, as well as his market value.
38. On account of the above considerations, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player
and the New Club and its requests for relief were the following:
“1. reject the claim on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and to refer the case to the Football
Court of Arbitration of the Polish Football Association (Piłkarski Sąd Polubowny PZPN);
alternatively, in case the jurisdiction of the DRC is confirmed:
2. reject the claim in its entirety;
3. accept the counterclaim of the Respondent in its entirety;
4. order the Claimant to pay the Respondent the amount of 570.839,00 EUR (in words: five
hundred seventy thousand eight hundred thirty nine [sic] euro 00/100) as compensation for
termination of the contract without just cause, increased by 5% (in words: five percent) default
interest per annum as from the date of termination (03.12.2024) until the date of effective
payment;
5. impose sporting sanctions on the Claimant pursuant to Art. 17 para. 3 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players.”
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17532
39. For the sake of completeness of its counterclaim, the Respondent amended it as follows:
“1. hold Atletico Clube Goianiense as the Claimant’s new club jointly and severally liable for
payment of compensation for the breach of contract to the Respondent pursuant to Art. 17 para.
2 of the RSTP,
2. impose sporting sanctions on Atletico Clube Goianiense pursuant to Art. 17 para. 4 of the
RSTP.
3. order the Claimant and Atletico Club Goianiense to declare which football agents (or persons
performing football agent services without the required license) have been involved in
negotiations and/or conclusion of the contract between the Claimant and Atletico Club
Goianiense,
4. order the Claimant and Atletico Club Goianiense to submit any and all correspondence,
including e-mail, text and WhatsApp (or any other platform of communication) exchanges
between the Claimant, Atletico Club Goianiense and the football agents (or persons performing
football agent services without the required license), related to the initial approach of the
parties, negotiation and conclusion of the contract, in order to determine Atletico Club
Goianiense’s involvement in and possible inducement of termination of the contract by the
Claimant with the Respondent,
5. order the Claimant and Atletico Club Goianiense to submit any and all contracts, agreements
and annexes whatsoever that form basis of their new contractual relationship, including
agreements concluded between Atletico Club Goianiense and the Claimant and the agreements
concluded by these parties with the football agents (or persons performing football agent
services without the required license), in relation to this transfer, in order to duly mitigate
compensation requested by the Claimant.”
c. Player’s response to the Club’s counterclaim
40. In his reply to the counterclaim lodged by the Club, the Player argued that he terminated
the employment relationship due to the Respondent’s repeated, persistent and severe
breaches of the Second Contract over the course of several months. In other words, the
Player stated that the termination of the employment relationship was based on art. 14 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
41. In this respect, the Player noted that article 9.3 of the Minimum Requirements is not a
numerus clausus as stipulated by the following wording of article 9.10 of the Minimum
Requirements:
“Each of the Parties has the right to submit an application to the Football Court of Arbitration of
the PZPN to terminate the Contract due to the fault of one of the Parties or for reasons not
attributable to the Parties, in cases other than those specified in sec. 3 to 5. When considering a
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17532
case, the Football Court of Arbitration of the PZPN shall assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether
there has been a gross breach of contractual obligations by the Club or Player. The contract
shall be terminated as of the date of the final decision of the Football Court of Arbitration of the
PZPN, unless the decision issued in the first instance is made immediately enforceable.”
42. With respect to the signing bonus, the Player acknowledged that it is not stipulated in the
Second Contract, but argued that he is entitled to it on the basis of the true and common
intention of the Club and himself. In particular, the Player referred to his exchange of
correspondence with the Club, where the debt of the signing bonus was acknowledged by
the latter.
43. Lastly, the Player sustained that FIFA has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute, noting
that the FCA does not comply with FIFA’s Circular 1010 nor with FIFA’s NDRC Standard
Regulations and FIFA’s NDRC Recognition Principles. In particular, the Player argued that
there is no parity in the constitution of panels that adjudicate disputes within the FCA and
that there is no equal representation of players and clubs within the FCA.
d. New Club’s response to the Club’s counterclaim
44. Despite being invited to do so, the New Club failed to reply to the counterclaim lodged by
the Club.
e. Replica of the Club
45. In its replica, the Club reiterated its initial position and counterclaim, noting its objection to
the jurisdiction of FIFA and that the Player terminated the Second Contract without just
cause.
46. In particular, the Club argued that the termination of the Second Contract was equally
unjustified under art. 14 of the Regulations, considering the Player’s outstanding
remuneration which did not include a signing bonus of EUR 100,000.
47. Notwithstanding the above, the Club argued that the amounts requested by the Player,
accrued by the value added tax (hereinafter: VAT), should not be awarded to him
considering that it does not constitute additional income but a tax payable to the Polish
authorities and it would unjustly enrich him. In this regard, the Club also noted that the
accommodation allowance, the reimbursement of the Player’s flight ticket, and the loyalty
bonus should not form part of any compensation for the breach of the Second Contract.
f. Duplica of the Player
48. In his duplica, the Player reiterated his previous comments and requests for relief, noting
that FIFA is competent to hear the present matter considering that there is no parity in the
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17532
constitution of panels that adjudicate disputes within the FCA and that there is no equal
representation of players and clubs within the FCA. In any event, the Player pointed out
that the FCA is not a NDRC recognized by FIFA.
49. In addition, the Player reiterated that he terminated the employment relationship due to
the Club’s repeated, persistent and severe breaches of the Second Contract over the course
of several months, in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations.
50. Lastly, the Player argued, in accordance with the principle of positive interest, that
compensation for the breach of the employment relationship includes the residual value
of the Second Contract, the accommodation allowance and the loyalty bonus.
g. Evidentiary requests from the Club
51. During the submission phase, the Club submitted the following evidentiary requests:
“3. order the Claimant and Atletico Club Goianiense to declare which football agents (or persons
performing football agent services without the required license) have been involved in
negotiations and/or conclusion of the contract between the Claimant and Atletico Club
Goianiense,
4. order the Claimant and Atletico Club Goianiense to submit any and all correspondence,
including e-mail, text and WhatsApp (or any other platform of communication) exchanges
between the Claimant, Atletico Club Goianiense and the football agents (or persons performing
football agent services without the required license), related to the initial approach of the
parties, negotiation and conclusion of the contract, in order to determine Atletico Club
Goianiense’s involvement in and possible inducement of termination of the contract by the
Claimant with the Respondent,
5. order the Claimant and Atletico Club Goianiense to submit any and all contracts, agreements
and annexes whatsoever that form basis of their new contractual relationship, including
agreements concluded between Atletico Club Goianiense and the Claimant and the agreements
concluded by these parties with the football agents (or persons performing football agent
services without the required license), in relation to this transfer, in order to duly mitigate
compensation requested by the Claimant.”
52. The Player only disclosed his employment contract with the New Club.
53. In this context, the FIFA general secretariat referred the parties to art. 13 par. 6 of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), which
reads as follows:
“Parties have the duty to collaborate to establish the facts and shall respond in good faith to
any evidentiary request from a chamber, the FIFA general secretariat or a party. A party
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17532
submitting an evidentiary request shall demonstrate that the evidence requested is likely to exist
and is relevant. An adverse inference may be drawn from a party’s reaction to an evidentiary
request.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
54. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 18 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, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
55. 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), it is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Brazilian player and a Polish club, with the involvement of a Brazilian club.
56. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took note that the Club contested FIFA’s
jurisdiction in this matter in favour of the FCA, the NDRC of the Polish Football Association,
in accordance with article 15 of the Second Contract.
57. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA
to adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the FCA does not comply with FIFA’s Circular
1010 nor with FIFA’s NDRC Standard Regulations and FIFA’s NDRC Recognition Principles.
58. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that art. 26 par. 1 lit c) of the Regulations
(February, June and October 2024, January 2025 and July 2025 editions) establishes that
“Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January
2025. Any other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”. As a result, the
Chamber considered that it had to assess this part of the claim using the May 2023 edition
of the Regulations, as this claim was brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
59. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art.
22, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle, competent to
hear an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement, and which must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs. Any such arbitration clause must be included either
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17532
directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties.
The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect
the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred
to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
60. In continuation, the Chamber recalled the following wording of article 15 of the Second
Contract to analyse, first and foremost, whether it contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the FCA:
“1. This Contract shall be governed by and interpreted exclusively in accordance with the relevant
regulations of PZPN, including in particular Minimum Requirements, and by Polish law in the
extent not covered by these regulations.
2. All disputes concerning proprietary and non-proprietary rights, which may be subject to
settlement, arising out of or in connection with conclusion, validity, performance or termination
of the Contract, the Parties shall exclusively submit for resolution of Pilkarski Sad Polubowny
PZPN.
3. The Parties hereto confirm and acknowledge that this Contract includes all rights and
obligations undertaken by the Parties hereto and the fixed term period thereof reflects the
special relationship and characteristics involved in the employment of professional football
players and the participation by the Parties in the game of football pursuant to the relevant
regulations of PZPN. Accordingly, the Parties agree that any disputes in relation to the rights and
obligations of the Parties under this Contract, including the provisions on termination of the
Contract and any compensation due for termination or breach of the Contract, shall be settled
by the jurisdictional authorities in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. At the same
time, the Parties hereby accept all decisions (as well as those resulting from an appeal) of the
jurisdictional authorities, in accordance with the provisions resulting from the Contract. […]”
61. After analysing the content of the entire jurisdiction clause inserted in the Contract, the
Chamber concluded that it did not clearly and unequivocally establish the competence of
the FCA. In this respect, the Chamber considered the wording of the aforementioned article
to be ambiguous and therefore insufficient to establish exclusive jurisdiction of the FCA.
62. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the first pre-requisite for establishing the
competence of an NDRC was not met, and therefore, without the need to enter the analysis
of any further requirement, it established that the Club’s objection to the competence of
FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected.
63. Consequently, the Chamber decided that it is competent to consider the present matter as
to the substance, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17532
64. 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.
65. At this point, the Chamber assessed the Club’s evidentiary requests and considered that,
regardless of the Player’s reaction to these requests, the Club failed to sufficiently establish
that all evidence requested was likely to exist and that it was relevant. In particular, the
Chamber held that the Club’s evidentiary request for the Player and the New Club to
declare which football agents have been involved in their negotiations and the conclusion
of their employment contract is not relevant for the assessment of the compensation for
the breach of the Second Contract in the present matter.
66. Lastly, the Chamber held that the Club’s evidentiary request to order the Player and the
New Club to submit all communication exchanges between them and the football agents
involved in their initial approaches, negotiations and conclusion of their employment
contract was not specific and rather akin to what is colloquially referred to as a “fishing
expedition”. In this regard, the Chamber deemed important to recall that, in accordance
with art. 13 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules, a party making an evidentiary request shall
demonstrate that the evidence requested is likely to exist and is relevant.
b. Burden of proof
67. 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
68. 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
69. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Second Contract by
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17532
the Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club
as per the Second Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
70. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
71. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
72. In the present matter, the Chamber pointed out that, on 16 November 2024, the Player put
the Club in default and requested payment within 15 days of the following amounts:
“[…] a) Two monthly salaries, corresponding to September and October 2024, in the total
amount of EUR 24,000.00 (twenty-four thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT, which should have been
paid no later than 15 October and 15 November, respectively, pursuant to Clauses §3.2 b) and
§5. I.2 of the Employment Contract;
b) The loyalty bonus stipulated in Clause §1 a) of the Annex to the Employment Contract, in the
amount of EUR 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT, which should have
been paid on 15 September 2024;
c) The signing-on fee which was agreed between the Club’s President, Mr. Paolo Urfer, and the
Player, in the amount of EUR 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand Euros) plus 23% VAT, in
connection with the execution of the Employment Contract; and
d) The reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Player in August 2024, with the Club’s
authorization, in order to undertake certain medical examinations requested by the Club’s
medical services, in the amount of PLN 900.00 (nine hundred Polish złoty). Per the Club’s
standard practice, this amount should have been promptly reimbursed upon the Player’s
request and submission of the respective proof of payment, which is again sent to you, for ease
of reference (Annex 2). […]”
73. After a thorough analysis of the Player’s claim and of the wording of the Second Contract,
the Chamber determined that only the following amounts were outstanding under the
Player’s default notice to the Club dated 16 November 2024:
•
•
•
EUR 12,000 as the monthly salary for September 2024;
EUR 100,000 as the loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2024;
EUR 12,000 as the monthly salary for October 2024; and
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17532
•
PLN 900 as medical expenses.
74. In this respect, the Chamber held that the signing bonus of EUR 100,000 originated from
the Offer dated 31 August 2023, which was subsequently superseded by the Second
Contract signed on 4 October 2023. In other words, the Chamber emphasized that the
Second Contract contained no provision granting the Player a signing bonus, thus he was
not entitled to claim this amount as outstanding in his default notice to the Club dated 16
November 2024.
75. In addition, the Chamber considered that the Player failed to provide sufficient evidence,
in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, to substantiate his entitlement to
a signing bonus of EUR 100,000 in the absence of any contractual basis. Further, the
Chamber observed that there is no evidence on file to determine that the person, with
whom the Player corresponded and acknowledged such entitlement was the Club’s
president at the time. In fact, the Chamber noted that there is no proof either that this
person held any position within the Club that would authorize him to acknowledge a debt
on behalf of the Club.
76. For the sake of completeness of the foregoing conclusion, the Chamber recalled the
following content of article 18 of the Second Contract:
“1. By signing the Contract, the Parties mutually agree and acknowledge that during negotiations
and signing of the Contract each of them received in its own scope and at its own expense
professional legal advisory, they understand every clause of this Contract and its appendices, as
well as their potential consequences and does not raise any comments or reservations in this
regard. Consequently, the Contract contains the entire agreement between the Parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other arrangements, commitments or
agreements relating hereto. […]”
77. In view of the above considerations, the Chamber noted that the Player has provided
written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 16 November 2024, i.e., at
least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Second Contract on 3 December 2024.
78. The Chamber also noted that, in the case at hand, the Club bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Second Contract concluded between the
parties. Further, the Chamber acknowledged that the evidence provided by the Club does
not fully prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Player in his
default notice and to which he was contractually entitled to.
79. Thus, considering that the Club failed to fully comply with its financial obligations under the
Second Contract pursuant to the Player’s default notice dated 16 November 2024, the
majority of the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Second Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17532
80. The foregoing finding that the Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Second
Contract therefore necessarily leads to the conclusion that the counterclaim of the Club
must be rejected.
ii. Consequences
81. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of the Second Contract committed by the Club.
82. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber pointed out that, pursuant to the wording of article
5 of the Second Contract, the Player is entitled to an additional 23% VAT and bears
responsibility for completing the administrative formalities with the Polish tax authorities.
Accordingly, the Chamber decided to award the Player amounts inclusive of the 23% VAT.
83. The Chamber then observed that, based on the evidence on file, the Player’s outstanding
remuneration at the time of the termination of the Second Contract, coupled with his
specific requests for relief, is equivalent to the following amounts:
•
EUR 123,000 as the loyalty bonus under the Second Contract due on 15 September
2024;
•
PLN 11,955.60 as the bonus in accordance with the Agreement;
•
PLN 950 as reimbursement of medical expenses, in accordance with article 7 of the
Second Contract; and
•
EUR 8,302.50 as match bonuses, in accordance with article 4 of the Second Contract.
84. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Agreement and the Second Contract at the moment of
its termination, i.e., EUR 131,302.50 and PLN 12,905.60.
85. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
•
On the amount of EUR 123,000, as from 16 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
•
On the amount of PLN 11,955.60, as from 1 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17532
•
On the amount of PLN 250, as from 25 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
•
On the amount of PLN 350, as from 2 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
•
On the amount of PLN 350, as from 4 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
On the amount of EUR 8302.50, as from 3 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
86. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
87. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
88. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
89. 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 Second
Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
90. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 738,000
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for the breach of
the Second Contract, broken down as follows:
•
EUR 472,320 as the monthly salaries from November 2024 until June 2027
- EUR 118,080 for the season 2024/2025
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-17532
-
EUR 177,120 for the season 2025/2026
EUR 177,120 for the season 2026/2027
•
EUR 19,680 as accommodation allowances from November 2024 until June
2027;
•
EUR 123,000 as the loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2025; and
•
EUR 123,000 as the loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2026.
91. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
92. In this regard, the Chamber confirmed that the Player found employment with the New
Club from 5 February 2025 until 30 November 2025. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of BRL 40,000. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of
BRL 400,000 (BRL 40,000 x 10 months, i.e., from February 2025 until November 2025), which
corresponds to the amount of EUR 63,048.40 on the date of termination of the Second
Contract.
93. 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.
94. Accordingly, the DRC decided to award the Player additional compensation in the amount
of EUR 44,280, i.e., three times his monthly remuneration under the Second Contract.
95. 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 Player EUR 719,231.60
(i.e., EUR 738,000 minus EUR 63,048.40 plus EUR 44,280), which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-17532
96. In addition, the Chamber examined the Player’s request for reimbursement of a flight ticket
and, based on the evidence on file as well as the wording of article 7 of the Second Contract,
decided to award him PLN 5,073.
97. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on the aforementioned compensation and flight ticket at the rate of 5% p.a., as from 3
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. 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
103. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-17532
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
104. 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.
105. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-17532
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1, Conrado Buchanelli Holz.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Lechia Gdańsk SA, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1 the following amounts:
- EUR 131,302.50 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 123,000 as from 16 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 8,302.50 as from 3 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- PLN 12,905.60 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of PLN 250 as from 25 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of PLN 350 as from 2 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of PLN 350 as from 4 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of PLN 11,955.60 as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 719,231.60 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
- PLN 5,073 as reimbursement for flight tickets plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 December
2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-17532
7.
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.
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.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1 in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-17532
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. 30