Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17800
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Carlos
Eduardo Bacila Jatoba
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Carlos Eduardo Bacila Jatoba, Brazil
Represented by Gabriel Mendes
RESPONDENT:
ACSM Politehnica Iasi, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17800
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 February 2023, the Brazilian player, Carlos Eduardo Bacila Jatoba (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Romanian club, ACSM Politehnica Iasi (hereinafter: the Club
or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract valid from the date of signature
until 30 June 2025.
2.
On 30 June 2024, the Player and the Club mutually agreed to terminate the Contract
through a termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
3.
Article 1 of the Termination Agreement reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
“THE CLUB and THE PLAYER mutually agreed the Club shall pay to the Player the total amount
of 104,010 Lei net, representing the monthly remunerations according to contract no.
523/30.06.2023 for April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024, and also the amount of 3,000 Euro
net representing bonuses due according to the regulation of bonuses awards no.
440/10.05.2024.
The payment will be made as follows:
29,700 Lei net on 02.07.2024
74,310 Lei net on 31.07.2024 at latest
The Club will also pay, until 31.07.2024, all the amounts due to the Player for season 2023–
2024 according to Internal Regulations.”
4.
Article 4 of the Termination Agreement provided the following (quoted verbatim):
“The Club and the Player mutually agreed that until 30.06.2024 at latest, the Player will hand
to the Club all sports equipment that he received from the Club. Otherwise, the Player, by
signing this agreement, agrees that the Club will deduct the value of the equipment which is
not returned from the amounts mentioned in Article 1 of this agreement. The deduction will
be made directly, without the intervention of any jurisdictional commission.”
5.
On 6 August 2025, the Romanian national courts granted the Club’s request to initiate
insolvency proceedings.
6.
On 20 August 2025, the Club notified the Player that it entered insolvency proceedings.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 15 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17800
a. Claim of the Player
8.
In his claim, the Player alleged that the Club failed to pay in full the amounts stipulated in
the Termination Agreement. In particular, the Player contended that he received only RON
29,700 net, instead of the total amount of RON 104,010 net.
9.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“Considering the above, the [PLAYER] requests:
a) The determination for the CLUB to proceed with the full payment of the outstanding
salaries and bonuses, amounting to €17,931.29.
b) In case of failure to comply with the payment, the determination of the consequences of
Article 24, paragraph 2, a), of the FIFA RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Club
10. In its reply, the Club argued that the Player failed to return the equipment provided by the
Club, therefore an amount of RON 14,910 should be deducted from the sum due, in
accordance with article 4 of the Termination Agreement.
11. In addition, the Club asserted that it had been unable to pay the outstanding amount of
RON 59,400 net due to financial difficulties.
12. In this respect, the Club indicated that it is currently undergoing a restructuring plan, within
which the overdue amount of RON 59,400 net is included and scheduled for payment in
instalments. The Club submitted no request for relief.
c. Replica of the Player
13. In his rejoinder, the Player denied the Club’s allegations regarding the return of the Club’s
equipment.
14. The Player further alleged that the restructuring plan presented by the Club is invalid under
the FIFA regulations as “the effects of the special procedure of the club are limited exclusively
to Romanian public jurisdiction”.
15. Finally, the Player expressed his willingness to accept payment of the total overdue amount
of RON 74,310 net in two instalments.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17800
d. Duplica of the Club
16. Despite being invited to do so, the Club did not submit any duplica.
e. Additional comments by the parties
17. On 25 August 2025, the Club submitted additional comments concerning the opening of
disciplinary proceedings in Romania. The Club alleged that on 6 August 2025, the national
courts formally admitted the Club’s request for opening of insolvency proceedings in
accordance with the corresponding Romanian Law.
18. The Club also informed that the Player had been officially notified of the above facts. It also
emphasised that any payment orders were suspended. As a result, the Club requested that
“FIFA proceedings be immediately and unconditionally suspended, in compliance with the legal
effects arising from the opening of insolvency proceedings under Romanian law, duly notified to
the parties as of 07 August 2025.”
19. On 9 September 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
additional comments regarding the opening of insolvency proceedings and denied the
Club’s request for suspension of the FIFA proceedings. For the sake of good procedural
order, the FIFA General Secretariat also invited the Player to comment on this issue, if he
wished to do so.
20. On 8 September 2025, at the request of the FIFA General Secretariat, the Romanian
Football Association (FRF) confirmed that the Club is still affiliated with the FRF and
participates in competitions organized under its auspices.
21. On 12 September 2025, the Player alleged that the judicial proceedings in Romania do not
affect the jurisdiction or competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies. The Player further asserted
that, in the event of a decision in his favour, the Club would remain obligated to comply
with FIFA’s ruling and would be subject to the enforcement mechanisms and sanctions if it
fails to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 23 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17800
23. 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
a Brazilian player and a Romanian club.
24. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Club had requested a suspension of the present
proceedings, citing the existence of ongoing insolvency proceedings in its local jurisdiction.
25. While the Chamber recognized that the initiation of insolvency proceedings may have
implications for the enforcement of financial decisions, the Chamber also established that
these proceedings do not, in and of themselves, preclude FIFA’s jurisdiction to adjudicate
the matter or the admissibility of the claim. In this regard, the Chamber found it particularly
relevant that the Club remains affiliated with its national association, the FRF, and
continued to actively participate in competitions organized under its auspices.
26. Accordingly, the Chamber ruled that the Club’s request to pause the proceedings based on
insolvency lacked regulatory basis and should be rejected. According to the Chamber, the
matter should proceed in accordance with FIFA’s regulatory framework, without prejudice
to any future considerations regarding enforcement.
27. In addition to the above, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29
of the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
28. 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
29. 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17800
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
30. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim for outstanding remuneration lodged by a player against a club arising
from a termination agreement.
31. As a preliminary observation, the Chamber noted that in his initial submissions, the Player
requested payment of EUR 17,931.29. However, in his subsequent rejoinder, the Player
indicated that the amount due corresponds to RON 74,310 net, which the Chamber found
to be consistent with the contractual documentation on file. Consequently, the Chamber
considered the value of the dispute to be RON 74,310 net.
32. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that it is undisputed that the Club failed to pay the
amount stipulated in the Termination Agreement. However, the parties disagree as to
whether a deduction of RON 14,910 should be applied pursuant to article 4 of the
Termination Agreement.
33. In this respect, 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.
34. The Chamber noted that the Club alleged that the Player failed to return the sports
equipment and, therefore, a deduction should apply. Conversely, the Player maintained
that he duly returned the equipment.
35. The Chamber further observed that neither party has provided documentary evidence to
substantiate its respective allegations.
36. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that the Club, by invoking a modifying
circumstance (i.e., the alleged non-return of equipment) to justify a deduction, bore the
burden of proving both the non-return and the corresponding value.
37. In the absence of such evidence, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s claim for the full
outstanding amount should prevail and the Club’s request for a deduction should be
rejected.
38. Consequently, in line with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the outstanding salaries sought,
amounting to RON 74,310 net.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17800
39. Furthermore, the DRC noted that no interest shall apply, as it was not requested by the
Player (ne ultra petita).
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. The Chamber further recalled that art. 24 par. 3 lit b) of the Regulations establishes:
“Such consequences may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has:
[…]
b) been informed that the debtor club was subject to an insolvency-related event
pursuant to the relevant national law and is legally unable to comply with an order.”
43. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that two cumulative conditions should
be satisfied for a debtor club to benefit from the exemption provided under art. 24 par. 3
of the Regulations, namely: (i) the debtor club must be subject to an insolvency-related
event under the applicable national legislation; and (ii) it must be legally prevented from
complying with the relevant payment order.
44. In this context, the Chamber carefully examined the documentation submitted by the Club,
which includes: (i) a copy of the decision issued by the competent Romanian court initiating
insolvency proceedings against the Club; (ii) evidence of notification of said proceedings to
the Player; and (iii) references to the Romanian Law no. 85/2014, seemingly governing
insolvency matters.
45. The Chamber then noted that the Club had successfully demonstrated the initiation of
insolvency proceedings in Romania, thereby satisfying the first condition under art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations. However, the DRC considered that the second condition – i.e., the
legal impossibility to comply with the payment order – remained unfulfilled.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17800
46. Specifically, the Chamber pointed out that the decision of the Romanian court confirmed
the opening of general insolvency proceedings and instructed the Club to undertake
further steps, including the convening of a creditors’ assembly. However, the DRC found
no indication that this decision contained any express provision prohibiting the Club from
making payments and the Chamber was also unconvinced that this interpretation was
unconditional vis-à-vis Romanian national law. In the absence of a clear legal impediment,
the Chamber found that it could not be concluded that the Club was legally barred from
fulfilling its financial obligations. On the contrary, the Chamber found it telling that, based
on the information available in the TMS, the Club was seemingly actively engaged in
football-related operations, which further undermines the assertion that it was unable to
make payments due to insolvency.
47. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the Club had failed to provide any evidence
indicating that either the judicial administrator or the competent court had issued an
enforceable order explicitly prohibiting payment of the debt in question. In the absence of
such evidence and considering the international employment-related nature of the credit,
the Chamber decided that the Club failed to demonstrate that it was legally incapable of
complying with the payment order as required under art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
51. 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.
52. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17800
53. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17800
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Carlos Eduardo Bacila Jatoba, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ACSM Politehnica Iasi, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- RON 74,310 net as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17800
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. 12