Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17538
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luis
Fernandez Teijeiro
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Lechia Gdańsk S.A., Poland
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Luis Fernandez Teijeiro, Spain
Represented by 14 Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17538
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
the Polish club, Lechia Gdańsk S.A. (hereinafter: the Club or the Claimant / CounterRespondent); and
•
the Spanish player, Luiz Fernando Teijeiro (hereinafter: the Player or the Respondent
/ Counter-Respondent).
2.
On 11 July 2023, the Club and the Player concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract), which was valid as from 12 July 2023 until 30 June 2026.
3.
Pursuant to clause 2 of the Contract, the parties stipulated (quoted verbatim):
“2. TERM OF THE CONTRACT
[…]
II. Buy-out clause
3. The parties hereby agree that the Player shall be entitled to unilaterally terminate
the Contract within the term of the Contract. Such entitlement may be executed by
the player solely conditional upon the prior, joint fulfilment of the following
conditions:
(i)
the payment by the player to the bank account of the Club of the buy-out fee
amounting to EUR 3,000,000 (three million Euro) net. The amount indicated
above do not include and shall be increased by VAT;
[…]
3.3 In case of execution of this buy-out clause, 33% of the buy-out fee received by the
club will be payable to the player within 30 days of receipt of the payment.”
4.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player the following
“basic remuneration”:
• 2023/2024 season: EUR 240,000 plus VAT (23%), which is a gross amount of EUR
295,200
• 2024/2025 season: EUR 240,000 plus VAT (23%), which is a gross amount of EUR
295,200
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17538
• 2025/2026 season: EUR 240,000 plus VAT (23%), which is a gross amount of EUR
295,200
Paid in equal monthly instalments as follows:
• EUR 20,000 plus VAT (23%), which is a gross amount of EUR 24,600 per month.
5.
Moreover, the clause 3 (3) of the Contract foresaw that, if the Club were to be promoted to
a higher division, during the following season, the Player would be entitled to an annual
salary of EUR 355,000 plus VAT (23%), i.e., a gross amount of EUR 436,500, translating to a
monthly remuneration of EUR 29,600 plus VAT of EUR 36,408 gross.
6.
Additionally, the Contract contained, inter alia, the following miscellaneous provisions:
-
Clause 6 par. 2.7: “[the Player undertakes] to maintain the confidentiality of all provisions
of this Contract and other internal information concerning the Club, including the
information concerning the training system, tactics used by the team, as well as any other
information revealed to the Player by the Club.”
-
Clause 6 par. 3.7: “[the Player undertakes] to refrain from taking any actions abusing the
good name, image and interests of the Club, its shareholders, players, other persons
connected with the Club or the Club’s official sponsors, as well as organisers and entities
managing the official competitions, in which the Club participates.”
-
Clause 7 par. 1.3 et seqq.: “[the Club undertakes to] 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, in accordance with the following rules:
1.3.1. treatment shall take place at centre/hospital designated by the Club;
1.3.2. In case of no consent by the Player for treatment at centre/hospital designated
by the Club, the Club shall bear the costs of the other centre/hospital selected
by the Player, only up to the equivalent of the cost of this treatment or
rehabilitation, which would suffer by the Club in its centre/hospital.”
7.
On the same day, the parties concluded an Annex to the Contract (hereinafter: the Annex),
in accordance with which the Club undertook to pay the Player the following amounts:
-
Loyalty bonus of EUR 295,000 plus VAT (23%), which is a gross amount of EUR
362,850 – to be paid on 15 September 2024; and
-
Loyalty bonus of EUR 295,000 plus VAT (23%), which is a gross amount of EUR
362,850 – to be paid on 15 September 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17538
8.
Clause 1.2 of the Annex provided that the above payments would only be due “under the
condition that the Player remains the player of the Club on the respective payment date”.
9.
On 12 July 2023, the Club issued a statement titled “Commitment of the Club” (hereinafter:
the Commitment Statement), whereunder the following was stipulated:
“The Club undertakes and is obliged to (…) find a private sponsor for [the Player], who
will conclude a sponsoring agreement and pay EUR 300,000 for exploitation of image
rights of the Player during season 2023/2024. The payment shall commence not later
than 15.09.2023. In case such a sponsoring contract is not concluded until 15.09.2023,
the Club undertakes to compensate the Player with the additional amount equal to the
abovementioned.”
10. At an unspecified time, according to the Club, the Player requested to be provided with a
cash amount of EUR 250,000 net (i.e., his basic salary for the season 2023/2024) as a
“guarantee”, to be collected by his father. According to the Club, the Player allegedly
verbally undertook to return this “guarantee payment” by no later than 1 July 2024, when
the respective season had concluded and after his basic salary had been paid in the
meantime.
11. On 19 July 2023, the Player’s father allegedly collected an amount of EUR 245,000 “in hand”.
12. A few days later, the Player allegedly received the remaining amount of EUR 5,000 in cash.
13. On 4 August 2023, the Player suffered an injury which prevented him from participating in
training and matches in his full capacity as from said moment.
14. On 13 October 2023, the Player was scheduled for a surgery, and thereafter to a
rehabilitation plan.
15. In April 2024, the Player participated in two league matches following his recovery from
injury. However, therein, his injury once again aggravated, and two further surgeries were
scheduled.
16. At the end of the 2023/2024 season, the Club was promoted to the first division in the
Polish national championship (Ekstraklasa).
17. At the end of August 2024, allegedly according to the Player’s request, the Club entered
negotiations with the Polish club Rakow Czestochova for a potential transfer. Therein, the
two clubs discussed that the Player should participate in trials.
18. On 31 August 2024, Rakow Czestochova informed the Club per email that it was not
interested in pursuing the Player’s services any longer, as his fitness and playing level was
not sufficient yet following his injury.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17538
19. On 5 September 2024, the Player addressed the Club in writing, alleging that the latter
violated his right to play in matches, informing the Club that he was in “perfect physical
conditions to exercise his professional activities”, and requesting to be reinstated to the first
team within 48 hours.
20. On 9 September 2024, the Club scheduled an MRI for the Player, which allegedly later
revealed that he had not fully recovered and that he was still vulnerable to aggravating his
injury.
21. On the same day, the Club sent a letter to the Player, accusing him of having recorded
training sessions and various other activities on his mobile phone, and outlining that this
constituted a violation of the confidentiality and data protection regulations applicable in
the Contract and national law. The Club requested the Player to confirm receipt of the
letter, provide a list of all individuals recorded, and delete any recordings he had made
within 48 hours.
22. On 10 September 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s letter, stating that he would not
accept any medical report based on the Club’s recent examinations as a valid justification
for his ongoing exclusion from collective training, as the Club already received extensive
documentation confirming that he was fully fit. As such, the Player requested to be
reinstated into the squad within 48 hours.
23. As to the video recordings highlighted in the Club’s previous letter, the Player argued that
he was not in violation of any provisions while making such recordings. Lastly, the Player
argued that the Club was in default of payment of EUR 71,807.20 plus PLN 16,029.36
consisting of more than two monthly salaries – namely, the salaries for June 2024 and July
2024, a bonus payment of PLN 16,029.37, and a reimbursement of EUR 10,799.20 for
medical expenses incurred during the Player’s treatment in Spain, setting a deadline until
25 September 2024 for the Club to remedy such default.
24. On 24 September 2024, the Player sent a further letter reiterating his previous position as
outlined in his letter dated 10 September 2024. Further, the Player argued that the Club’s
sporting director allegedly issued a public statement that the Player was still injured and
incapable of playing in any matches – an allegation he disagreed with. The Player reiterated
his request for payment of outstanding salaries within one day, per the deadline previously
issued.
25. On 26 September 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
26. On 28 September 2024, the Player published a post on his Instagram page, justifying the
termination of his employment with the Club by stating that the it had failed to pay his
salaries and that he was not allowed to play.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17538
27. On 2 October 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player, arguing that the premature
termination of the Contract was “unjustified and abusive”. In such letter, the Club argued
that it was never granted the opportunity to remedy the default, as Player’s notice allegedly
did not contain a 15-day deadline to remedy the default, besides that no more than 2
monthly salaries were outstanding. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Player had acted
abusively, making damaging public statements on his social media about the Club and its
purported conduct in preventing him from playing, which resulted in a lucrative sponsor
backing out of a potential partnership agreement. The Club also emphasized the Player’s
injury and resulting poor fitness, and that the Player refused to accept this and instead
blamed the Club for hamstringing his development and career. Ultimately, the Club
decided to “terminate by immediate effect [his] contract for just cause”. As a result, the Club
stated that it would pursue legal measures in order to restore its rights, which the Player
allegedly prejudiced with his “series of lies and bad faith attitude”.
28. On 4 December 2024, the Club sent a further letter to the Player, addressing the Player’s
assertions regarding unpaid salaries. In this regard, the Club described that it had paid him
an advance of EUR 250,000 at the beginning of the Contract in cash, and that the Player
failed to meet his commitment of repaying this amount at the end of the season. The Club
invited the Player to return the amount of EUR 250,000, set off against the balance of
unpaid salaries for part of June 2024 (allegedly paid), July 2024 and August 2024. The Club
further stated that the Player had effectively waived his right to receive the loyalty bonus
payable on 15 September 2024, due to his decision to prematurely terminate the Contract.
Lastly, the Club argued that it never agreed to cover his medical expenses while he was
abroad, and instead, that it only committed to paying his medical expenses in Poland.
29. On 2 January 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with the Spanish club, Club
Deportivo Arenteiro (hereinafter: the New Club), valid as from 3 January 2025 until 30 June
2025, including a monthly salary of EUR 5,000 gross.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 19 December 2024, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Club
31. In its claim, the Club argued that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause. In
particular, according to the Club, the reasons invoked by the Player for prematurely
terminating the Contract were either ungrounded or insufficient to give rise to just cause.
32. The Club argued that it complied with its financial obligations under the Contract, as it had
paid the Player an advance of EUR 250,000 prior to the 2023/2024 season, which he had
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17538
never returned. As a result, any of the unpaid salaries from June 2024 onwards were
covered by this guarantee payment.
33. As to the alleged exclusion from trainings and matches, the Club firmly argued that the
Player was not sufficiently fit to participate, fearing that his injury would once again
aggravate. The Club hereby emphasised that it had consistently provided the Player with
comprehensive medical treatment and prioritised his wellbeing by not fielding him, which
should not be held against it.
34. Additionally, as to the costs for medical fees incurred in Spain, the Club affirmed that, not
only did it never commit to paying the Player this amount, but further, the Player never
communicated any invoices to the Club to remit any potential reimbursement. As a result,
the Club argued that it should not be held liable for any such medical costs.
35. Based on the above, the Club argued that the Player terminated the Contract without just
cause, and that compensation was payable as a result.
36. The Club firstly referred to the buy-out clause in the Contract to corroborate the value of
its claim, arguing that it could have realistically received a payment of EUR 3,000,000 net
for the Player’s services. The Club referred to the ruling of the European Court of Justice
(ECJ) passed on 4 October 2024 (C-650/22 “Diarra”).
37. Notwithstanding the above, the Club recognised that the Contract foresaw that, if the buyout clause were to be activated, that the Player was entitled to 33% of such amount,
thereby reducing the Club’s entitlement to EUR 2,010,0000 net.
38. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the Player should be held liable to pay the residual value
of the Contract as compensation, in the amount of EUR 1,215,346 net.
39. Lastly, the Club requested interest on the above amounts as from the date of termination
of the Contract.
b. Additional comments of the Club on the Interim Regulatory Framework
40. On 4 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit any additional
comments in light of the new interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the
FIFA Council on 23 December 2024.
41. On 14 February 2025, the Club reiterated its position per the statement of claim,
particularly highlighting the impact of the loss of the Player’s services. The Club nonetheless
restated its calculations, now adding that the value of the Player as indicated on the website
transfermarkt.de should subsidiarily be considered as the for assessing the value of the
Player’s services, and ultimately requested the following relief:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17538
“Taking into consideration the foregoing, the Claiman thereby respectfully requests the
DRC to:
1. find that the Respondent terminated the contract of professional football player
concluded on 11.7.2023 without just cause;
2. order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 2.010.000 (two
million ten thousand euro) net as compensation for termination of the contract
without just cause, with default interest of 5% (five percent) per annum as from
26.09.2024 until the date of effective payment;
alternatively to point 2 above:
3. order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 1.215.346 (one
million two hundred fifteen thousand three hundred forty six euro) net as
compensation for termination of the contract without just cause, with default
interest of 5% (five percent) per annum as from 26.09.2024 until the date of
effective payment;
alternatively to point 3 above:
4. order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 250.000 (two
hundred fifty thousand euro) net as compensation for termination of the contract
without just cause, with default interest of 5% (five percent) per annumas from
26.09.2024 until the date of effective payment;
in any case:
5. impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent amounting to a four-month
restriction on playing in official matches.”
c. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
42. On 3 January 2025, the Player submitted his reply to the Club’s claim and lodged a
counterclaim it.
43. The Player argued primarily that the Club failed to meet its financial obligations under the
Contract. In particular, the Player asserted that the following amounts remained unpaid at
the time the Contract was terminated:
•
•
•
EUR 24,600 – salary for June 2024 (claimed as unpaid in its entirety);
EUR 36,408 – salary for July 2024;
EUR 36,408 – salary for August 2024;
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17538
•
•
•
•
PLN 16,029.36 – performance-related bonus payable by 15 August 2024
(unspecified in which context);
EUR 362,850 – loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2024;
EUR 10,799.20 – reimbursement of medical expenses;
EUR 50,000 – residual amount under Commitment Statement.
44. In particular, the Player explained that the residual amount under the Commitment
Statement represented the difference between the amount agreed upon (EUR 300,000)
and the amount received at the beginning of the Contract (namely, EUR 250,000). The
Player specified that the Club aimed at limiting its tax liability through this Commitment
Statement, and that the notion of a reimbursable “guarantee payment” was misleading and
did not correspond to the true situation between the parties.
45. As the Club failed to find a sponsor, pursuant to the terms of the Commitment Statement,
the amount of EUR 300,000 became due – and was subsequently ratified by the Club
through its payment of EUR 250,000.
46. In any event, according to the Player, the Club had not adduced any evidence to
corroborate its allegation that the amount of EUR 250,000 was to be repaid at the end of
the 2023/2024 season – nor did the wording of the Commitment Statement reflect
otherwise.
47. The Player hereby deemed it crucial to point out that, after putting the Club in default, the
latter had not invoked the alleged debit of EUR 250,000 based on the purported failure to
repay such amount. Had the Club indeed been entitled to this amount, and not been in
default, the Player argued that the Club would have indicated so in writing in reply to the
default notice – quod non.
48. As a result of the above, and particularly considering that the Player had put the Club in
default on 10 September 2024, granting a 15-day time limit (contrary to the Club’s
assertions), the former argued that he had a just cause to prematurely terminate the
Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) alone.
49. However, the Player went further in explaining the Club’s purported breaches of contract.
50. As to his exclusion from training and matches, the Player adduced various alternative
medical examinations next to the ones submitted by the Club, to corroborate that he was
in good health and cleared to participate in training and in competitions as from July 2024.
51. Further, the Player argued that he never received the medical report issued by the Club,
and that the latter had, in their communications, not corroborated his allegedly poor
fitness, causing him to doubt the latter’s intentions.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17538
52. All in all, the Player argued that the Club fell short of its financial obligations and had,
without a valid justification, excluded him from training and from matches, invoking an –
allegedly – inexistent lack of fitness.
53. Therefore, the Player maintained that he had a just cause to prematurely terminate the
Contract, both in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations, as well as art. 14bis
thereunder.
54. The Player submitted the following requests for relief:
“110. In the light of all of the above, Luis Fernandez Teijeiro respectfully requests the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal to:
(a) Determine that the present claim is admissible;
(b) Determine that the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
established under the Employment Agreement and, consequently, order the
Respondent to the payment of the outstanding monthly salaries and bonuses,
reimbursement of medical expenses and residual value of the contract in the
total amount of €1,322,041.00 (One Million Three Hundred Twenty-Two
Thousand Forty-One Euros), together with the payment of ZL16,029.36 (Sixteen
Thousand Twenty-Nine Zlotys and Thirty Six Cents);
(c) Order the Respondent to pay 5% interest p.a. calculated over the outstanding
amount, as of the day after such amount became due, until the date of effective
payment;
(d) Impose a fine upon the Respondent as outlined under Article 12bis par. 4 FIFA
RSTP.”
d. Reply to the counterclaim by the Club
55. On 29 April 2025, the Club was invited to provide its reply to the Player’s counterclaim by
no later than 19 May 2025.
56. On 25 June 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the counterclaim, arguing as follows:
“The Claimant has become aware of the FIFA’s correspondence dated 29.04.2025, by
means of which Lechia was invited to file its position to the Respondent’s counterclaim,
only on 23.06.2025.
Due to an unknown technical obstacle, the Club never received any notification related
to said correspondence. The notification of changes to the case was equally not visible in
the ‘My Notifications’ tab.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17538
Therefore, the Club was not aware of insertion of any new documents in the case file
FPSD-17538. As a consequence, the deadline granted in the said correspondence expired
without the Club’s knowledge. It should be noted that in other cases registered in its Legal
Portal, the Club received the relevant notifications and duly responded to all FIFA’s
correspondence within granted time limits, with no exceptions. The fact that notifications
for all other cases were properly received during the relevant period confirms that the
failure was isolated and unforeseeable. The failure to file its position in due time resulted
solely from external, technical factors beyond the Claimant’s control. The Claimant does
not know their reasons but stresses its due diligence in handling the ongoing cases in the
FIFA Legal Portal.
[…]
Taking into consideration the foregoing, the present requests shall be regarded as
justified and acceptable. May we thank you in advance for their positive consideration.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Jurisdiction and admissibility
57. 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 19 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.
58. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
an Spanish player and a Polish club.
59. At this stage of the proceedings, the Chamber identified two preliminary threshold issues,
which it decided to examine ex officio and in sequence: (i) the admissibility of the Club’s
reply to the counterclaim; and (ii) the Chamber’s jurisdiction over the Commitment
Statement, in light of the reference therein to image rights.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17538
(a)
Admissibility of the Club’s reply to the counterclaim
60. In this respect, the Chamber first observed that the Club submitted its reply to the
counterclaim after the deadline set by the FIFA general secretariat had already expired.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Club sought to justify the delay by invoking alleged
technical issues and the purported absence of proper notification.
61. Notwithstanding the above, upon review of the case file and, in particular, the historical
records of the FIFA Legal Portal, the Chamber observed that all email notifications at the
relevant time were correctly communicated to the Club via the email address and
corresponding profile in the FIFA Legal Portal.
62. Further, the Chamber considered that the Club adduced a statement from its email domain
provider, in which the latter confirmed that between 28 April 2025 and 30 April 2025, the
server experienced problems with the email delivery. The Chamber therefore established
that the difficulties invoked by the Club originated on its own side and were not attributable
to any technical malfunction of the FIFA Legal Portal.
63. In any event, the Chamber also referred to art. 10 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, whereby
parties must review the Legal Portal at least once per day, and failure to do so will result in
any procedural disadvantages being within the parties’ responsibility. The Chamber
recalled that the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has confirmed
that the absence of an email notification following an update in the FIFA Legal Portal does
not affect the validity of service of documents uploaded therein, nor does it impair the
parties’ right to be heard.
64. The Chamber, therefore, concluded that the Club’s reply to the counterclaim was
inadmissible, as it had been submitted after the expiry of the applicable deadline.
(b)
Jurisdiction over the Commitment Statement
65. Subsequently, the Chamber briefly examined the nature of the Commitment Statement, as
its content appeared to concern image rights, which could, at least prima facie, fall outside
the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
66. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Commitment Statement provided that the Club
committed to finding a sponsor for the Player for the exploitation of his image rights during
the 2023/2024 season, and, if no such sponsor was found, the Club would simply pay the
Player a lump sum in the same amount – EUR 300,000.
67. Though the Statement did not expressly mention that it was directly linked to the Contract,
the Chamber was sufficiently convinced that there were elements suggesting otherwise. In
particular, the Commitment Statement did not mention any third party, and it linked the
payment obligation to the Club in case no sponsor is found. As such, the Chamber deemed
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17538
that this wording rather demonstrated the opposite: that no standalone image rights
agreement had been concluded and that, until such formal agreement, the obligation to
pay could still be derived to the Club and linked to the Contract.
68. Moreover, the Chamber underscored that Commitment Statement even exceeded the
value of the annual salary under the Contract, further suggesting that it was
complementary thereto and not unrelated to the exercising of the Player’s obligations in
an employment capacity – as suggested by the Club.
69. Lastly, the Chamber pointed out that the Commitment Statement appeared to envisage a
period entirely overlapping with the Contract, rather than exceeding its duration (as often
seen in actual image rights agreements, where parties typically stipulate an indefinite – or
at least longer – term than the contract to exploit the player’s image as a “former player” of
the club).
70. In any event, the Chamber noted that the Commitment Statement had been drafted by the
Club. Accordingly, in the event of ambiguity as to its legal nature, the Chamber held that
the principle of in dubio contra stipulatorem was applicable, thereby leading to the
conclusion that the Commitment Statement was employment‑related in the absence of
convincing evidence to the contrary.
71. In conclusion, the Chamber confirmed that the dispute fell within the scope of art. 22 par.
1 lit b) of the Regulations – including with regard to the claims related to the Commitment
Statement.
b. Applicable legal framework
72. In continuation, 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.
c. Burden of proof
73. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17538
d. Merits of the dispute
74. 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
75. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a club against a player for breach of contract, with a concurring counterclaim lodged by
this player against the club on the same grounds.
76. The Chamber began by briefly recalling the parties’ position in this case:
•
According to the Club, the Player terminated the Contract without just cause,
considering that the reasons cited – namely overdue payables and the exclusion
from training and matches – were either incorrect as a matter of fact, or
uncorroborated by evidence.
•
The Player, on the other hand, argued that the Club failed to comply with its financial
obligations, namely failing to pay various salaries as from June 2024, as well as
disregarding his requests for being introduced into collective training and matches
again following his injury, as independent medical experts allegedly corroborated
his physical condition.
77. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that its task was to assess whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the employment relationship and, if so, to determine
the legal consequences arising therefrom. To that end, the Chamber deemed it appropriate
to structure its analysis of just cause around the three contentious issues identified
between the parties, and thereafter to reach a conclusion based on their collective or
individual relevance, as applicable, depending on whether art. 14 or art. 14bis of the
Regulations was found to apply.
78. In particular, the following issues were considered relevant for the purposes of the
Chamber’s assessment:
(a) the alleged non‑payment of EUR 250,000 due at the start of the Contract;
(b) the existence of further outstanding remuneration allegedly overdue as from June
2024 onwards; and
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17538
(c) the presence of any additional alleged breaches of contract invoked by the Player.
79. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
(a) EUR 250,000 payment at the start of 2023/2024
80. The Chamber first recalled that the Club signed the Commitment Statement at the
beginning of the contractual term and that its validity, in the absence of an admissible reply
to the counterclaim, remained uncontested.
81. The Chamber further noted that the Club argued that the payment of EUR 250,000
constituted a “guarantee” or advance payment against the Player’s remuneration for the
2023/2024 season. However, the Chamber observed that this position was not only
contradicted by the wording and existence of the Commitment Statement itself, but also
remained entirely unsupported by any documentary evidence. In particular, the Club failed
to provide any correspondence, contractual amendment, receipt, or other documentation
demonstrating that the Player had requested or accepted such an advance payment
arrangement.
82. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Club’s argument in this respect and concluded
that the Player had indeed received the lump sum payment of EUR 250,000 on the basis of
the Commitment Statement.
83. Equally, given that the non-payment of the remaining EUR 50,000 under the Commitment
Statement was undisputed, the Chamber held that this amount remained outstanding at
the time the Contract was terminated.
(b) Further overdue payables
84. The Chamber noted that the Player claimed the following additional outstanding amounts:
•
EUR 24,600 – salary of June 2024;
•
EUR 36,408 – salary of July 2024;
•
EUR 36,408 – salary of August 2024;
•
PLN 16,029.36 – bonus related to the month of July 2024;
•
EUR 362,850 – loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2024;
•
EUR 10,799.20 – reimbursement of medical expenses as per invoices included in the
claim.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17538
85. Preliminarily, the Chamber observed that the lack of payment of the salaries for July 2024
and August 2024 was undisputed. Accordingly, these amounts were in any event to be
considered outstanding at the time the termination took place.
86. With regard to the June 2024 salary, the Chamber noted that the Club merely asserted that
it had paid “part” of the amount due. However, the Club neither specified the amount
allegedly paid nor adduced any proof of payment, in breach of its burden of proof pursuant
to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
87. In the absence of any substantiating evidence, the Chamber accepted the Player’s position
and held that the full salary for June 2024 remained unpaid at the time of termination.
88. As regards the alleged bonus of PLN 16,029.36 related to July 2024, the Chamber observed
that no contractual provision establishing such entitlement had been identified. On the
contrary, the bonus appeared to be discretionary in nature. Moreover, the Player failed to
demonstrate the fulfilment of any conditional objective or the existence of a written
commitment by the Club to pay this amount.
89. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the claim for the July 2024 bonus in the amount
of PLN 16,029.36 had to be rejected.
90. Turning to the loyalty bonus of EUR 362,850, the Chamber recalled that the Player was still
contractually employed by the Club at the time this payment fell due, i.e., on 15 September
2024, whereas the Contract was terminated only on 26 September 2024.
91. The Chamber considered that, by its nature, a loyalty bonus was intended to reward the
continuation of the employment relationship up to the agreed reference date, in the
absence of any express contractual stipulation to the contrary. The Chamber therefore
rejected the Club’s argument that this loyalty bonus was no longer payable merely because
the Player terminated the Contract shortly after the due date.
92. As a result, the Chamber held that the loyalty bonus validly fell due on 15 September 2024
and remained outstanding at the time the employment relationship was terminated.
93. Lastly, with respect to the claim for medical expenses in the amount of EUR 10,799.20, the
Chamber referred to art. 7 par. 1.3 et seqq. of the Contract, which provided that the Club
guaranteed medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of training or matches,
subject to treatment being carried out at a medical centre designated by the Club, or,
where the Player elected otherwise, only up to the equivalent cost of treatment at the
Club-designated facility.
94. While the Chamber acknowledged that the Player provided evidence of having incurred
medical expenses abroad, it noted that no evidence had been adduced of any prior
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17538
communication or agreement between the parties concerning such treatment. In
particular, it was undisputed that the Club had organised rehabilitation and surgical
treatment locally, and that the Player subsequently travelled to Spain for further treatment
at an unspecified point in time.
95. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the Player had been authorised to
complete his treatment abroad, or of any comparative cost assessment between treatment
in Poland and treatment in Spain, the Chamber considered that it was impossible to
establish the mutually intended financial threshold applicable to such expenses. The
Chamber emphasised that the Player bore the burden of proof in this respect, and that it
would have been reasonable to expect him to submit any relevant correspondence with
the Club.
96. Accordingly, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for reimbursement of
medical expenses.
(c) Additional (alleged) breaches of contract
97. The Chamber noted that the remaining allegations concerned, on the one hand, the
Player’s alleged exclusion from training and matches following his injury, and, on the other
hand, the Player’s allegedly unauthorised recording of internal meetings and training
sessions.
98. As regards the alleged exclusion from training and matches, the Chamber observed that
the Player claimed to have been fully fit, whereas the Club maintained that the measures
taken were of a precautionary nature due to the seriousness of the injury sustained at the
beginning of the contractual period.
99. In this respect, the Chamber found that the evidence on file did not support the conclusion
that the Club had acted in breach of its contractual obligations. Although conflicting
medical opinions were present in the file, it was undisputed that the Player had been
injured for a substantial portion of the season and that, when he was reintroduced into
matches in early 2024, he was substituted shortly thereafter on both occasions due to
concerns about re-injury – circumstances which the Player did not contest at the time.
100. The correspondence submitted further indicated that the Club acted in good faith and with
the legitimate aim of safeguarding the Player’s health, rather than with any intent to
marginalise or ostracise him. In the Chamber’s view, separating the Player from collective
training and limiting his match participation following a serious injury could not be held
against the Club.
101. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the alleged exclusion occurred only shortly before the
termination of the Contract, as the Player first raised the issue on 5 September 2024,
whereas the Contract was terminated on 26 September 2024. In the absence of any
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17538
evidence of bad faith, such a brief period could not be considered sufficiently serious to
amount to a contractual breach.
102. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that no breach of contract occurred in relation to
the Player’s training and match participation following his injury.
103. As for the alleged unauthorised recording of internal material, the Chamber observed that
the Club promptly objected to such conduct and requested the Player to delete any
recordings made.
104. The Chamber further noted that, while the Player did not meaningfully contest this
allegation, the Club did not initiate any internal disciplinary proceedings in accordance with
the procedures typically applied in Football Tribunal matters, such as summoning the
Player to a hearing or imposing disciplinary sanctions.
105. In any event, the Chamber emphasised that this issue was without prejudice to the Club’s
already established failure to comply with its financial obligations under the Contract.
106. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that no substantial breach of contract could be
established against the Player in this respect.
(d) Interim conclusion – lawfulness of the termination
107. Taking all of the foregoing into consideration, the Chamber concluded that the material
breaches of contract established in the present matter were limited to the Club’s failure to
comply with its financial obligations under the Contract, its Annex, and the Commitment
Statement.
108. In particular, the Chamber established that the following amounts remained unpaid at the
time the Contract was terminated:
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 24,600 – salary for June 2024
EUR 36,408 – salary for July 2024
EUR 36,408 – salary for August 2024
EUR 362,850 – loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2024
EUR 50,000 – outstanding balance under the Commitment Statement
109. The Chamber further recalled that the Player had formally put the Club in default on 10
September 2024, granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy the outstanding payments. In
this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the Player’s subsequent correspondence of 24
September 2024, reiterating the request for payment, did not nullify or reset the grace
period initially granted.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17538
110. In the absence of full payment within the stipulated deadline, the Chamber held that the
conditions set out in art. 14bis of the Regulations were fulfilled. Accordingly, the Chamber
concluded that the Player had just cause to prematurely terminate the Contract on 26
September 2024.
ii. Consequences
111. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
112. With regard to the outstanding remuneration, the Chamber held that, in application of the
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Player was entitled to receive the following amounts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 24,600 – salary for June 2024
EUR 36,408 – salary for July 2024
EUR 36,408 – salary for August 2024
EUR 36,408 – salary for September 2024
EUR 362,850 – loyalty bonus due on 15 September 2024
EUR 50,000 – outstanding balance under the Commitment Statement
113. This resulted in a total amount of EUR 546,674.
114. The Chamber further decided that the above amounts were payable together with interest
at a rate of 5% per annum, calculated as follows:
•
on the amount of EUR 50,000, as from 16 September 2023 until the date of effective
payment;
•
on the amount of EUR 24,600, as from 16 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
•
on the amount of EUR 36,408, as from 16 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
•
on the amount of EUR 399,258 (i.e., EUR 362,850 plus EUR 36,408), as from 16
September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
•
on the amount of EUR 36,408, as from 27 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
115. 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
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17538
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.
116. 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.
117. 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).
118. 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. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 764,568 (i.e., EUR 36,408 multiplied by 21 months)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
119. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that the loyalty bonus had to be included in the
calculation, as its payment was merely conditional upon the Contract not being
prematurely terminated. Accordingly, had it not been for the breach of contract, this
amount would have become payable in the same manner as the monthly salaries
stipulated therein.
120. 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.
121. Indeed, the Player found employment with the New Club, thereby mitigating his damages
in the overlapping period in the amount of EUR 30,000.
122. 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
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17538
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.
123. In this respect, the Chamber stated that the Player would be entitled to additional
compensation in the amount of EUR 109,224, corresponding to three monthly salaries, but
capped at EUR 30,000 in light of the mitigation established.
124. As a result, the Chamber decided to award compensation in the amount of EUR 764,568
(i.e., the residual value of the Contract), plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 September 2024
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. 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.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-17538
e. Costs
130. 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.
131. 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.
132. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-17538
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lechia Gdańsk S.A., is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Luiz Fernandez Teijeiro, is partially
accepted.
3.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent / Counterclaimant the
following amount(s):
- EUR 546,674 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 as from 16 September 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 24,600 as from 16 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 36,408 as from 16 August 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 399,258 as from 16 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 36,408 as from 27 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 764,568 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counterclaimant 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 Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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. 24
REF. FPSD-17538
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 Respondent /
Counterclaimant 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. 25
REF. FPSD-17538
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 26