Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18606
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Thomas
Hateley
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Thomas Hateley, Great Britain
Represented by Piotr Miekus
RESPONDENT:
Gliwicki Klub Sportowy Piast SA, Poland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18606
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties of this dispute are:
-
The British player Thomas Hateley (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
-
the Polish club Gliwicki Klub Sportowy Piast SA (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
On 11 October 2021, the Club’s president, Mr Grzegorz Bednarski (hereinafter: the Club’s
President) sent a handwritten document to the Player (hereinafter: the Handwritten
document) that reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
“All parties agree that monthly salary will be paid in PLN equivalent to
€5k per month up to 31/12/21
€7k per month 1/1/22 - 30/6/22
€10k per month from 1/7/22
All above amounts are net of all taxes.”
3.
On the same date, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the First Contract) valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2022,
including an option to extend it until 30 June 2023.
4.
Clause V.1 of the First Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“1. Individual remuneration.
a) In the period from 11.10.2021 to 31.12.2021, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 24,750.00 PLN gross (in words:
twenty four thousand seven hundred and fifty zloty).
b) In the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 35,550.00 PLN gross (in words:
thirty five thousand five hundred and fifty zloty).
c) In case of execution of extension option (in accordance with point III. 2. of the Contract), in
the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023, on account of the provided service, the Player is
entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 60,600.00 PLN gross (in words: sixty
thousand six hundred zloty).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18606
d) In case of execution of extension option (in accordance with point III. 2. of the Contract),
the Player is entitled to a one-time bonus for signing the contract in the amount of 50,000.00
EURO net (in words: fifty thousand euro) payable due 1 August 2022.
e) The individual remuneration is paid to the Player on a monthly basis in arrears, by the 15th
day of the month.
f) The remuneration due under the Contract will be paid directly to the bank account indicated
by the Player.”
5.
Clause V.5 of the First Contract established the following (quoted verbatim):
"5. Due taxes, social security contributions, fees and other charges will be deducted and
remitted from all remuneration (individual, additional) due to the Player in accordance with
applicable law."
6.
On 1 September 2022, the Club made a payment of EUR 40,700.04 to the Player
corresponding to the partial payment of the signing fee set out in clause V.1, par. d), of the
First Contract.
7.
On 23 June 2023, the Player and the Club entered into a new employment contract
(hereinafter: the Second Contract) valid as from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024.
8.
Clause V.1 of the Second Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Individual remuneration.
a) In the period from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 64,845.00 PLN gross (in words:
sixty four thousand eight hundred forty five zloty).”
9.
Clause V.5 of the Second Contract established the following (quoted verbatim):
"5. Due taxes, social security contributions, fees and other charges will be deducted and
remitted from all remuneration (individual, additional) due to the Player in accordance with
applicable law."
10. Between 23 and 27 June 2023, an email exchange took place between the Club’s manager,
Mr. Michal Koziol (hereinafter: the Club’s Manager) and the Player’s agent, Mr. Adam Brown
(hereinafter: the Player’s Agent), concerning the Second Contract. In this course of this
exchange, the Club’s Manager communicated the Player’s Agent, inter alia, the following
(quoted verbatim):
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18606
“The contract have the same conditions like previous + 958 euros calculated in PLN. We could
not pay player's salaries in euro. That was why we could not pay player’s salaries in euro. That
was why we could not maked (sic) another document with salary in euro.
Please find attached draft of our agreement – 6% from Tom salary.”
11. On 29 February 2024, the Player received a letter from the Polish tax authorities requesting
the payment of the overdue amount of PLN 102,947 plus interest. In accordance with the
document named “PIT-37”, during the fiscal year 2022, the difference between the total tax
due and the sum of the tax advanced by the Club amounted to PLN 102,947.
12. On an unspecified date, the Player received the “PIT-37” document for the 2023 fiscal year
according to which the difference between the total tax due and the sum of the tax
advanced by the Club amounted to PLN 92,203.
13. On 26 March 2024, the Player paid the amount of PLN 140,877.16 to the Tax Office of
Katowice (Poland).
14. Between 13 and 20 June 2024, the Player paid the amount of PLN 103,588.14 to the Tax
Office of Katowice (Poland).
15. On 14 January 2025, the Player put the Club in default requesting the payment of EUR
54,063.25 net. The Player granted the Club 10 days to remedy its default.
16. On 5 February 2025, the Player sent a further default notice to the Club requesting the
amount of EUR 54,063.25 net and granting additional 10 days to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 14 March 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
18. In his claim, the Player claimed to be entitled to: (i) EUR 11,438.95 corresponding to the
unpaid portion of the signing fee of the First Contract; (ii) EUR 37,532.36 corresponding to
the underpayment of income tax of 2022; and (iii) EUR 5,092.04 corresponding to the
underpayment of income tax of 2023.
19. The Player alleged that the Handwritten document is an addendum to the First Contract in
which the Club assumed full responsibilities for all tax liabilities.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18606
20. The Player further asserted that the Club failed to withhold and remit taxes on behalf of
him which resulted on the Player’s burden to unlawfully pay the total amount of PLN
244,465.30 to the Polish tax authorities.
21. The Player stated that since the Club did not inform him that he had an outstanding tax
liability, he was totally unaware until enforcement actions were initiated. For this reason,
the Player claimed to be entitled not only to the reimbursement of the principal amounts
but to the amounts paid corresponding to the interest accrued.
22. The Player further alleged the claim was submitted within the two-year limitation since he
received the notification from the Polish tax authorities on 29 February 2024.
23. In addition, the Player alleged the Club failed to pay the full amount of the signing fee,
resulting on an alleged pending amount of EUR 11,438.95 gross. In this respect, the Player
alleged that the event giving rise to this alleged entitlement occurred throughout 2023,
pursuant to a verbal agreement between the Player and the Club’s President.
24. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“(I) The Claimant kindly requests the honorable FIFA DRC to adjudicate that the FIFA DRC do
have jurisdiction on the present case and that the Claim is admissible.
(II) The Claimant kindly request the honorable FIFA DRC to adjudicate that the Respondent
has to pay the Claimant EUR 54,063.35, covering unpaid salary, tax liabilities, and the
outstanding signing bonus plus interest of 5% per annum on the total amount due calculated
from 27 January 2025.
(III) All the payments above shall be made on a net basis, free of any taxation, the Respondent
being responsible for the filling and payment of all taxes relating to these payments due to
the Claimant.
(IV) The Claimant kindly requests the honorable FIFA DRC to impose on the Respondent
sanctions in accordance with Article 12bis of the FIFA RSTP.
(V) The Claimant respectfully asks the FIFA DRC to adjudicate that the Respondent shall bear
all legal and procedural costs of the entire proceeding, including a refund of the advance of
costs paid by the Appellant.
(VI) The Claimant reserves its right to amend- and/or expand- and/or submit new- statements,
allegations, claims and explanation related to the present proceeding, including its request
for relief, depending on the further submission of the Respondent, including responses to the
present Claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18606
(VII) In accordance with Article 18 para. 1 e) of the of the Rules, as the Exhibit no. 16, the
Claimant submits the Bank Account Registration Form.”
b. Reply of the Club
25. In its reply, the Club requested that the claim be dismissed in its entirety.
26. As a first remark, the Club alleged that, since the claim was submitted on 14 March 2025,
any remuneration that was due before 14 March 2023 is time-barred. In the Club’s view
this affects the claimed signing fee due on 1 August 2022.
27. The Club further denied that the remuneration in the employment relationship was agreed
“net” of any taxes. In this respect, the Club alleged that the Handwritten document was a
proposal made by the Club at the negotiation stage of the contract, even before the First
Contract was signed.
28. In addition, the Club alleged that the Player was forced to cover the unpaid income tax by
himself since he objected the Club’s making higher deductions of income tax. In this
respect, the Club stated that in August 2022 a meeting was held in which the Club’s
accountant informed the Player that he was exceeding the income tax threshold according
to Polish regulations, but the Player allegedly objected the Club’s making higher deductions
of his salary.
29. The Club further alleged that it was obliged by the Polish law to make the lowest tax rate
deductions from the Player’s salary for the income tax advances, which the Club did in fact
make. The Club further stated that it could have remitted higher advances, but only on the
Player’s request.
30. In addition, the Club asserted that the “PIT-37” documents submitted by the Player stated
that it paid its income tax advances correctly, in accordance with the Polish law.
31. The Club stated that the parties agreed the remuneration to be paid “gross” in both the
First Contract and the Second Contract and that a clear and explicit information that the
Club would make deductions was included.
32. The Club requested the following relief:
“Considering the above, the Respondent requests that:
a. the claim is dismissed in its entirety;
b. the sanctions indicated in Article 12b of the FIFA RSTP are not imposed on the Club;
c. the Claimant is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in full (if such costs are incurred);
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18606
d. the Club is allowed to respond to the claimant's letter if a second round of submissions is
ordered.”
c. Replica of the Player
33. In his replica, the Player maintained his position.
34. The Player alleged that the Handwritten document was not a preliminary draft, but rather
a binding confirmation of the “net” salary terms agreed upon by the parties. In support of
this claim, the Player submitted an extract of a WhatsApp communication dated 11 October
2021 in which the Club’s President sent the Handwritten Document to the Player.
35. In addition, the Player asserted that the Handwritten document had also binding effect to
the Second Contract.
36. The Player further asserted that the Club was solely responsible for managing tax
withholdings and that he neither directed nor influenced the manner in which tax
deductions were applied. In this regard, the Player emphasized that it was the Club’s duty
to accurately calculate, withhold, and remit the appropriate amount of income tax from his
salary.
37. The Player maintained that the Club’s assertion that the Player “objected” to higher
deductions and said he would “worry about it later” is entirely unsubstantiated.
38. The Player maintained that the calculation tables provided by the Club consistently
reflected a 12% deduction rate and that the Club never indicated the possibility of a 32%
rate. He further argued that the Club’s failure to disclose this information or to provide
guidance constituted a clear breach of its obligations.
39. The Player emphasized that if the application of a higher tax rate required a specific
declaration from him, it was incumbent upon the Club to request and obtain such a
statement. He described the Club’s assertion that it could only apply a higher rate upon his
request as irrational and inconsistent with its role as the responsible party.
40. Regarding the partial signing fee, the Player noted that it remained undisputed that an
amount of EUR 9,299.96 net is still outstanding. He further stated that he had reached an
agreement with the Club’s president for this amount to be paid in instalments throughout
2023.
41. Lastly, the Player stated that the claim is not time-barred since the cause of action arose in
2023 and 2024.
42. In light of all the above, the Player upheld his position and request.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18606
d. Duplica of the Club
43. In its duplica, the Club maintained its position.
44. The Club stated that the Handwritten document was indeed an important element of the
negotiations. However, it emphasized that the First Contract, which was signed
subsequently, amended the terms initially agreed upon.
45. In this respect, the Club alleged that the statement made in the Handwritten document
was later revoked after the parties learned that the Player would not be able to conduct
business in Poland, which would significantly increase the Club’s employment costs. The
Club further asserted that the parties agreed to reduce the net value of the Player’s
remuneration while maintaining the Club’s employment costs at a similar level.
46. The Club maintained that the provisions of both the First and Second Contracts are
unambiguous, clearly stipulating that the remuneration is expressed in “gross” terms and
subject to income tax and social security contributions.
47. The Club further contended that the Player failed to provide any evidence demonstrating
that the Handwritten document was shared after the signing of the First Contract.
48. The Club claimed it had informed the Player of the implications of not applying a higher
income tax deduction, but that the Player declined to accept such deductions. The Club
argued that the Player’s obligation to pay additional income tax did not stem from any
miscalculation on its part, but rather from the fact that it was unable to apply higher
deductions in the absence of a formal statement from the Player authorizing such action.
49. The Club also maintained that the claim regarding the signing fee is time-barred, denying
any agreement with the Player to extend the payment deadline.
50. In light of all the above, the Club upheld its position and request.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18606
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
51. 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 14 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
30 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.
52. 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 British player and a Polish club.
53. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Admissibility
54. Before entering into the merits of the dispute, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the
Regulations, which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any
dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose.
55. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on
14 March 2025. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts fallen
due before 14 March 2023 are affected by the statute of limitations
56. With the above in mind, the Chamber observed that the Player lodged his claim requesting
(i) partial payment of the signing fee of the First Contract, (ii) reimbursement of taxes for
the fiscal year 2022, and (iii) reimbursement of taxes for the fiscal year 2023.
57. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that the reimbursement of taxes for the fiscal years
2022 and 2023 that the Player is claiming arises from payments made on 26 March and 13
to 20 June 2024, respectively. Therefore, the Chamber considered that these claims are not
time-barred.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18606
58. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the Player is claiming a signing fee which,
according to the First Contract, was due on 1 August 2022.
59. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Player alleged that he agreed with the Club
to receive the remaining part of the signing fee amounting to EUR 9,299.96 net (EUR
11,438.95 gross) in monthly instalments throughout 2023.
60. Notwithstanding, the Chamber noted that the Player has not provided evidence
substantiating this allegation. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving
it.
61. In light of all the above, the Chamber interpreted that the signing fee of the First Contract
was to be paid on 1 August 2022, and, therefore, this is claim time-barred and inadmissible.
Hence, the Chamber decided that the Player’s request for relief is partially admissible.
c. Burden of proof
62. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
63. 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
64. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim of a player against a club for reimbursement of taxes.
65. The Chamber recalled that the Player claimed to be entitled to the reimbursement of a
total amount of EUR 42,624.40 net, corresponding to payments he made to the Polish tax
authorities in March and June 2024 in relation to the fiscal years 2022 and 2023.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18606
66. Conversely, the Club rejected the claim arguing that it was not contractually obliged to bear
the Player’s personal income taxes, since both the First and Second Contract expressly
stipulated that the remuneration was to be paid on a “gross” basis.
67. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player is in fact entitled to a reimbursement of his personal income tax and, if so, which
amount.
68. As a starting point, the Chamber observed that clause V.1 of both the First and the Second
Contract expressly stipulated that the remuneration was to be paid on a “gross” basis:
Clause V.1 of the First Contract:
“a) In the period from 11.10.2021 to 31.12.2021, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 24,750.00 PLN gross (in words:
twenty four thousand seven hundred and fifty zloty).
b) In the period from 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 35,550.00 PLN gross (in words:
thirty five thousand five hundred and fifty zloty).
c) In case of execution of extension option (in accordance with point III. 2. of the Contract), in
the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023, on account of the provided service, the Player is
entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 60,600.00 PLN gross (in words: sixty
thousand six hundred zloty).
[…]”
Clause V.1 of the Second Contract:
“a) In the period from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 64,845.00 PLN gross (in words:
sixty four thousand eight hundred forty five zloty).”
69. In addition, the Chamber recalled that clause V.5 of both the First and the Second Contract
reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
"5. Due taxes, social security contributions, fees and other charges will be deducted and
remitted from all remuneration (individual, additional) due to the Player in accordance with
applicable law."
70. The Chamber further noted that the Player alleged that the Handwritten document dated
11 October 2021 constituted a binding addendum to the First Contract, whereby the parties
agreed that his remuneration was to be paid “net” of taxes. The Club, for its part,
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18606
maintained that the Handwritten document was merely a proposal exchanged during the
negotiation stage, prior to the execution of the First Contract.
71. However, the Chamber observed that the Player failed to provide evidence that the
Handwritten document was signed, endorsed or otherwise confirmed after the execution
of the First Contract, or that the parties intended to modify or supplement the latter. To
the contrary, the document was sent to the Player the same date the First Contract was
signed, which supports the conclusion that it was part of the pre-contractual exchanges
rather than a subsequent amendment.
72. In addition, the Chamber observed that neither the First Contract contained any reference
to the Handwritten document, nor did the Handwritten document refer to the formal
employment agreement. In this respect, the Chamber was of the view that any document
intended to supplement or amend a formal employment agreement must be explicitly
incorporated into, or at least expressly referenced in, that agreement. The absence of such
incorporation or reference leads to the conclusion that the Handwritten document was not
part of the parties’ final agreement.
73. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that both the First and Second Contracts
unambiguously provided for gross remuneration and explicitly stated the Club’s obligation
to deduct and remit taxes. The Chamber pointed out that, pursuant to the principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the clear and express wording of the executed contracts prevails over any
prior proposal.
74. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that, even if concurrent in time, the Handwritten
document was superseded by the duly executed First Contract.
75. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also pointed out that the Player produced no
evidence that the Handwritten document was reaffirmed, incorporated, or otherwise
recognised as binding in connection with the Second Contract. In continuation, the
Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and concluded that the Player’s
assertion that the Handwritten document continued to apply beyond the First Contract
remained unsubstantiated.
76. In light of the foregoing evidentiary analysis, the Chamber concluded that the Handwritten
document did not constitute a contractual addendum, nor did it form an integral part of
the binding employment relationship.
77. Consequently, the Chamber held that the Club is under no contractual obligation to ensure
a “net” payment structure, nor to reimburse the Player for income taxes paid in Poland.
78. In light of the above, the Chamber rejected the Player’s claim in its entirety.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18606
e. Costs
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18606
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Thomas Hateley, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18606
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. 16