Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18728
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luis
Fernando Haquin Lopez
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Luis Fernando Haquin Lopez, Bolivia
Represented by Joao Henrique Chiminazzo
RESPONDENT:
Associacao Atletica Ponte Preta, Brazil
Represented by Talita Garcez
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18728
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 January 2024, the Bolivian player, Luis Fernando Haquin Lopez (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Brazilian club, Associacao Atletica Ponte Preta (hereinafter:
the Club or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from 9 January 2024 until 31 December 2024.
2.
In accordance with clause 3.1 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary
of BRL 75,000 until 30 April 2024 and as of 1 May 2024, to a salary of BRL 100,000.
3.
In addition, the parties agreed on a monthly housing allowance of BRL 3,000.
4.
Finally, clause 16.1 of the Contract states as follows:
“For any matter that may arise from the interpretation or application of this contract, the
parties, waiving their jurisdiction or any jurisdiction that may be applicable to them, expressly
submit to the FIFA and CAS/CAS Courts, being domiciled for all purposes arising from this
contract, in those indicated in the title.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 24 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
6.
The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for overdue payables.
7.
The Player claimed that he did not receive the monthly salary of BRL 100,000 for December
2024, nor any of the entitlements owed to him under the Brazilian labour law.
8.
In particular, the Player asserted that, in addition to the amounts agreed upon in the
Contract, the Player was entitled to the following amounts arising from the Brazilian labour
law:
“a) R$ 100.000,00 (one hundred thousand reais) – 13th month salary.
b) R$ 100.000,00 (one hundred thousand reais) – paid vacation.
c) R$ 33.000,00 (thirty-three thousand reais) – as a vacation bonus - additional 1/3 of vacation
pay.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18728
d) R$ 100.000,00 (one hundred thousand reais) – fine under article 477 of the Labor Law,
applied when the company fails to pay the severance pay within 10 days of terminating the
employment contract.
e) R$ 116.500,00 (one hundred and sixteen thousand and five hundred reais) – as the Article
467 of the Labor Law guarantees workers the right to a 50% fine on the amount of
uncontroversial severance pay in the event of late payment”.
9.
The Player alleged that art. 477 of the Brazilian Labor Code provides the following:
“Art. 477. Upon termination of the employment contract, the employer must make a note
on the Work and Social Security Card, notify the competent bodies of the dismissal and
pay the severance pay within the period and in the manner established in this article.
§ Paragraph 6 - The delivery to the employee of documents proving the communication of
the termination of the contract to the competent bodies, as well as the payment of the
amounts contained in the termination instrument or discharge receipt, must be made
within ten days of the end of the contract.
§ Paragraph 8 - Failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph 6 of this article shall
subject the offender to a fine of 160 BTN per worker, as well as payment of the fine in
favor of the employee, in an amount equivalent to their salary, duly corrected by the BTN
variation index, unless the worker demonstrably causes the delay.”
10. According to the Player, the fine under art. 477, par.8 of the Brazilian Labour Code is a
penalty imposed on employers who delay the payment of severance pay for more than 10
days, which applies in this case. The fine corresponds to one monthly salary, in addition to
other amounts due, such as overtime and bonuses.
11. In addition, according to art. 467 of the Brazilian Labour Code, “In the event of termination
of an employment contract, if there is a dispute over the amount of the severance pay, the
employer is obliged to pay the worker, on the date of appearance before the Labor Court, the
undisputed part of these sums, under penalty of paying them plus fifty percent.”
12. The Player explained that the compensation stipulated in art. 467 of the Brazilian labour
code corresponds to a penalty imposed on employers who delay paying uncontroversial
severance pay and is equivalent to 50% of the value of such severance.
13. The Player also clarified that the severance pay stipulated under the Brazilian law includes
the following payments:
“▪ Salary balance;
▪ Prior notice, worked or indemnified;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18728
▪ Proportional 13th salary;
▪ Due vacation, if any, and proportional vacation plus the constitutional 1/3;
▪ 40% fine on the FGTS (warranty fund) balance.”
14. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“a) The claim of the Player is admissible and upheld.
b) PONTE PRETA is ordered to pay the PLAYER the amount of R$ 549.500,00 (five hundred and
forty-nine thousand, five hundred reais), which must be duly updated, plus a fine defined by
the DRC.
c) PONTE PRETA shall bear all costs of these claim before DRC.
d) PONTE PRETA shall compensate the PLAYER for the legal costs incurred in connection with
this claim, the amount of which shall be determined by this DRC.
e) In the event that PONTE PRETA fails to make the payments due, the Claimant requests that
any transfers be banned as a measure of justice”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
15. In its reply, the Club argued that it has not received any default notice from the Player
regarding the alleged outstanding salaries.
16. Regarding the salary of December 2024, the Club acknowledged that this salary remains
outstanding, however it argued that it is subject to deductions and the net amount for
December 2024 is BRL 16,666.67. In particular, the Club alleged that the Player was on
holidays the month of December 2024 and therefore the salary has to be calculated pro
rata. However, the Club did not provide the calculation.
17. Regarding the amount requested as vacation bonus, the Club acknowledged that the
amount that remains outstanding corresponds to BRL 83,333.33 and BRL 27,777.77, which
are the net amounts after the mandatory deductions.
18. Regarding the 13th salary, the Respondent acknowledged that the amount corresponding
to the 13th salary remains outstanding. However, the Club disputed the amounts claimed
by the Player as they refer to gross sums, not net sums, whereas only net amounts—after
mandatory Brazilian legal deductions such as social security (INSS) and income tax (IR) —
may be considered as effectively due. Therefore, the final amount corresponding to the
13th salary for 2024 is BRL 100,000.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18728
19. Concerning the payment of the fines requested under the Brazilian labour law, the Club
argued that these fines cannot be imposed by the FIFA DRC but only by the competent
Brazilian labour courts.
20. The Club argued that “the fine under Article 467 of the Labor Code is due when, at a labour
hearing, the employer fails to pay the amounts it admits are due. In the case of this court, there
is no labour hearing. Accordingly, it is impossible to apply these sanctions, especially the fine
provided for in Article 467 of the Labor Code.”
21. Finally, the Club requested the following relief:
“Based on the foregoing, the Club respectfully requests the DRC to:
A) Dismiss the Claimant’s claim, as the allegations are unsubstantiated or inaccurate.
B) Declare that any outstanding amount shall not exceed R$ 227,777.75 (two
hundred twenty-seven thousand, seven hundred seventy-seven reais and seventyfive centavos), as calculated and acknowledged by the Club.
C) Order the parties to a mediation hearing, where the Club will formally resent the
payment plan for amicable resolution.
D) Reject the Claimant’s request for attorney’s fees, which are not applicable under
the current circumstances.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
22. The Player claimed that he worked the entire month of December 2024 and therefore he
shall receive the total amount of his salary (referring to the statement that “although the
Club claims that the Player took his December vacation, the truth is that he worked the entire
month, a fact that corroborates the need to receive the full amount for the month of December
2024, in addition to the compensated vacation pay”). However, the Player also alleged that he
was on holidays the month of December 2024 (referring to the statement that the
document “was issued on December 2, 2024, i.e. when he was already on vacation”).
23. Regarding the other amounts requested, the Player provided that according to art. 477 of
the Brazilian labour law, the Club shall pay a fine equivalent to one monthly salary.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
24. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide its final comments within
the time limit established by the FIFA general secretariat.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18728
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. 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 24 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
15 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2026
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.
26. 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 Bolivian player and a Brazilian club.
27. 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.
28. The Chamber also took note of the fact that the Player requested the application of the
Brazilian labour law for the calculation and imposition of fines as well as for the salary
entitlements that arose from the national law.
29. In this regard, the Chamber reminded that according to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules, “In
their application and adjudication of law, the chambers shall apply the FIFA Statutes and FIFA
regulations, whilst taking into account all relevant arrangements, laws, and/or collective
bargaining agreements that exist at national level, as well as the specificity of sport.”
30. From the above, the Chamber deemed that ‘taking into account’ does not imply that the
Football Tribunal must ‘apply’ all national laws. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that,
when resolving a dispute, FIFA regulations take precedence over any national legislation
chosen by the parties, since the main objective is to create a set of standard rules to which
all actors in the football community are subject and on which they can rely. This objective
would not be achieved if the Football Tribunal had to apply the national legislation of one
of the parties in each dispute brough before it.
31. In this particular case, beyond the limitation regarding the application of national law to
international disputes before the Football Tribunal, the Chamber also identified a
contractual limitation, given that the parties had not established the law applicable to their
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18728
employment relationship in the Contract. The Chamber noted that even though the
Contract punctually mentions the Law n. 9.615/98 (Lei Pele), Law 8.213/91 (Social Security)
and the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) in relation to certain topics, it does not contain
a specific provision stating that this legislation was applicable in general to the Contract.
32. Therefore, by submitting his dispute to the Football Tribunal, the Player had accepted that
his claim will be decided in accordance with the FIFA regulations. Consequently, the
Chamber decided that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a national law or
regulations, but rather the Regulations, the general principles of law and, where applicable,
the established case law of the Football Tribunal.
b. Burden of proof
33. 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
34. 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
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly disputed the amount corresponding to the outstanding salaries
allegedly owed under the Contract, as well as the amounts claimed on the basis of Brazilian
labour law.
36. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the outstanding
amounts.
37. The Chamber first noted that the Player requested the following amounts:
-
BRL 100,000 for the salary arising from the Contract corresponding to the month
of December 2024;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18728
-
BRL 100,000 as paid vacation
-
BRL 33,000 as the additional 1/3 of vacation bonus;
-
BRL 100,000 for the 13th salary.
38. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Club acknowledged that the above
entitlements remained outstanding but disputed the exact amounts due. Specifically, the
Club alleged that the amounts due are the following:
-
BRL 16,666.67 for the salary of December 2024 calculated pro rata due to the
vacation taken by the Player during said month;
-
BRL 83,333.33 as paid vacation;
-
BRL 27,777.75 as the additional 1/3 of vacation bonus;
-
BRL 100,000 as the 13th salary.
39. With regard to the salary of December 2024, the Chamber noted that it was undisputed
that this amount remained outstanding.
40. The Club, however, contended that the amount payable was subject to a deduction
corresponding to days allegedly not worked, on the basis that the Player was on vacation
during that period.
41. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Player’s submissions were inconsistent.
While he initially indicated that he was on vacation during December 2024, he subsequently
asserted that he had worked throughout the entire month of December 2024.
42. In view of the above, the Chamber found itself unable to establish with certainty whether
the Player was on vacation during December 2024, given the contradictory nature of the
Player’s submissions and the absence of corroborating evidence from either party.
Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that, irrespective of whether the Player was on vacation,
as alleged by the Club, or worked throughout the entire month, as claimed by the Player,
the amount payable for December 2024 would in any event correspond to BRL 100,000. In
fact, the Chamber noted that this is the amount recognized by the Club itself as
remuneration due for the month of December 2024, i.e. BRL 16,666.67 for the worked days
plus BRL 83,333.33 for the days during which the player was allegedly on vacation.
43. Having established the above, the Chamber noted that the Player requested amounts that
arose directly from the Brazilian labour law, including the additional 1/3 vacation bonus
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18728
and the 13th salary. None of these entitlements were agreed upon in the Contract, however,
the Player alleged that he is entitled to them based on the national law.
44. The Chamber recalled that the DRC is in principle prevented from awarding amounts that
purely arise from national law and are not expressly stipulated in the relevant employment
contract. However, in the case at hand, the Club acknowledged that part of the amounts
requested were outstanding. Specifically, the Club acknowledged that the following
amounts remain outstanding:
-
BRL 27,777.75 net as additional 1/3 of vacation bonus;
BRL 100,000 as the 13th salary.
45. Consequently, and exclusively due to the Club’s express acknowledged of debt, the
Chamber decided to award the total amount of BRL 127,777.75, in addition to the
December salary also acknowledged by the Club in the amount of BRL 100,000.
46. The Chamber further noted that the Player requested the imposition of fines based on the
Brazilian labour law. However, the Chamber decided to reject this claim as such request
lacks contractual and regulatory basis and the Club disputed them as well.
47. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided to award the total amount of BRL 227,777.75
corresponding to the salary of December 2024 as well as the amounts acknowledged by
the Club.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18728
51. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
52. 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
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18728
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luis Fernando Haquin Lopez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Associacao Atletica Ponte Preta, must pay the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- BRL 227,777.75 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. 12
REF. FPSD-18728
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. 13