Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18873
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Wendel Nery Da Conceicao
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Wendel Nery Da Conceicao, Brazil
Represented by Filipe Orsolini Pinto de Souza
RESPONDENT:
Bylis, Albania
Represented by Arsen Selmanaj
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18873
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 August 2024, the Brazilian player, Wendel Nery Da Conceicao (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Albanian club, Bylis (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid for 3 seasons as from
8 August 2024 to the end of the 2026-2027 season.
2.
Art. 2 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
”Article 2 The Payment and its Conditions
1. Club undertakes to pay football Player for all the football duration of this contract
the value of 400 Euro a month.
2. Bonus 200 Euro per goal scored in domestic championship.
3. Bonus 100 Euro per each assist in domestic championship.
4. Bonus 4000 Euro if team win Cup of Albania.
5. Bonus 7000 Euro if team win domestic championship SUPER LEAGUE.
6. Bonus 3000 Euro if club is top 3 ranking in Super League.
7. Bonus 5000 Euro if player is Top Scorer in Super League.
8.
The club provides the player with Apartment (for player and his family), food and
ticket Brasil - Albania / Albania-Brasil
9.
The monthly payment is valid only for the time the championship. Cup or UEFA
Competition is played.
10. The player acknowledges that the financial effects of this contract will begin not
before the date on which the club will receive the confirmation for the
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) from FIFA, when the player is transferred
from a foreign country and / or the date on which the approval will come from the
Albanian Football Association when the player is registered near the AFA, but
always not before the official date for the start of the football season or Phase of
Football Season approved by the Albanian Football Association (AFA).
11. During the duration of the contract, the President of the Club may give premium
to the Player according to the results and according to the importance of the
match.
12. The player acknowledges that in case of suspension of the football season
by the AFA, the official Albanian authorities or any other authority whose
decisions are binding on the Club, the parties to this contract agree that the Club
will not make any payment to the Player until the date the suspension is lifted and
the football activity resumes.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18873
13. The monthly payment will be made every 10th of the next month”
3.
Art. 18 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“Article 18 Final Provisions
After the signature of this contract, all previous agreements or contracts signed between
the above parties are void.
In case of possible disputes, the parties of this contract undertake/commit in their
resolution by consensus, otherwise competent to address them as the first degree will
be the respective committees of the Albanian Football Association and as a degree of
appeal will be the Sports Court in Switzerland (CAS).
The contract was drafted in 3 copies with the same legal value. A copy of this contract
shall be deposited at the Club, a copy is held by the Player and a copy shall be deposited
near the Albanian Football Association.
Player accepts that this contract has been made available 48 hours prior to sign, and
after having read and consulted it with a legal expert, decided to sign it on every page
without any remarks and with his own free and full will.
After the contract was read and was found to be according to the free will of the parties,
it was signed on each page by them without remarks. This contract shall enter into force
on 08/08/2024.”
4.
On 18 December 2024, the Player purchased flight tickets to return to Brazil.
5.
On 20 December 2024, the Club and the Player (hereinafter: the Parties) signed a
termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement) that provides, quoted
verbatim:
“ Preliminary terms of the agreement:
• The parties have signed an employment contract on date 08/08/2024 with duration
until 31/05/2027.
Article 1 Object of the agreement:
Parties declare that after signing this agreement all contract or any kind of agreement
signed between them will be sealed without any mutual financial or legal obligation
toward each other.
Player declares that the Club has paid to the player all financial obligations.
The Player declares that he is in very good physical sportive condition.
Article 2 Signature and Legalization:
The agreement is drafted in 3 copies with the same legal value.
A copy of this Agreement shall be deposited at the Club, a copy is held by player and a
copy shall deposited to Albanian Football Association”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18873
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 7 April 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
7.
The Player claimed that the conditions at the Club were not adequate, that the
accommodation and the food provided by the Club were bad.
8.
The Player submitted that the Club informed him that it would not be able to pay the
November 2024 salary as it allegedly faced a financial crisis.
9.
The Player mentioned that the Club then approached him regarding the signature a
termination agreement, offering to release him in exchange for forfeiting his entitlement
to his November and December 2024 salaries.
10. The Player affirmed that he signed the Termination Agreement under duress as he wanted
to get out of the poor conditions allegedly ongoing at the Club.
11. The Player stated that he was not paid his salary for the month of August, November and
December 2024, and that he had to buy himself his flight tickets to return to Brazil.
12. The Player’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“ a) the outstanding salaries in the net amount of EUR 1200 (one thousand and two
hundred Euros), plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the due date of each payment;
b) the reimbursement of the flight tickets from Albania to Brazil in the net amount of
BRL 6.276,00 (six thousand, two hundred and seventy-six Brazilian Reais), plus interests
of 5% p.a. as from 18 December 2024.”
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Club disputed the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal stating that art. 18 of
the Contract grants jurisdiction to the respective committees of the Albanian Football
Association. The Club mentioned that the jurisdiction clause of art. 18 of the Contract was
clear and exclusive, as it grants full jurisdiction to the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
of the Albanian Football Association (hereinafter: the Albanian NDRC).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18873
14. The Club submitted that the Albanian NDRC complies with the requirements of FIFA circular
no. 1010 of 20 December 2025, namely that it provides for fair proceedings, and providing
extracts from the Statute of the Albanian Football Federation, as well as of the regulations
of the Albanian NDRC, in support of its submissions.
15. The Club therefore affirmed that the Albanian NDRC “is an independent tribunal that
guarantees fair proceedings and respect for the principle of equal representation of players and
clubs”, and that therefore it had jurisdiction over the present dispute.
16. As to the substance of the matter, the Club disputed the Player’s claims depicting them as
unfounded and false, and that, contrary to the submissions of the Player, the Club argued
that it paid the salaries in question.
17. First, the Club stated that in combination of art. 2 par. 1 and art. 4 par. 15 of the Contract,
the Player was entitled to a salary of EUR 400 gross or EUR 355.52 net (after deductions as
per Albanian tax law), and that the salary for the month of August 2024 should be prorated
as the Player only worked 13 days, and that the salary for December 2024 should also be
prorated as the Player only worked 20 days. The Club therefore asserted that the Player
was entitled to EUR 1,430 for the salaries of September 2024, October 2024, and November
2024, as well as for the 13 days of August 2024 and 20 days of December 2024.
18. The Club claimed to have paid the Player EUR 800 on 8 October 2024 and ALL 80,000 (which
the Club stated was equivalent to EUR 800) on 25 November 2024 and thus that it complied
with its contractual obligations.
19. The Club also alleged that it paid the Player EUR 830 in cash on the date of the signing of
the Termination Agreement effectively settling the outstanding remuneration as well as the
cost of the flight tickets.
20. The Club argued that the Player failed to provide evidence showing he did not receive his
salaries, nor did he submit proof of the alleged duress he experienced when signing the
Termination Agreement or of the poor conditions he claimed existed at the Club.
Accordingly, the Club maintained that the Player had not met his burden of proof under
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
21. In any event, the Club submitted that the Termination Agreement should be considered as
the “cash receipt” of the EUR 830 amount the Club allegedly paid the Player on 20 December
2024 when the Termination Agreement was signed.
22. The Club maintained that the Termination Agreement remained binding on the parties,
and that the Player was not acting in good faith. The Club claimed that the FIFA Football
Tribunal had already acknowledged the enforceability of a termination agreement that
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18873
includes acknowledgment of payment, even in the absence of separate receipts (cf. DRC
decision of 16 February 2022, Leiria dos Santos).
23. The Club’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“
I.
The Claim filed by the Player against the Club is rejected, insofar as it is
inadmissible.
II.
The costs of the proceedings, if any, shall be entirely born by the Player.
III.
The Player shall be ordered to pay any procedural and legal costs to KF Bylis.
IV.
The Player shall be ordered to pay to the Club a total amount of CHF 2,000 as a
contribution towards its legal expenses incurred in connection with these
proceedings.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
24. Invited by the FIFA general secretariat to comment on the Club’s allegation that the
outstanding amounts were paid, the Player maintained that the amounts claimed
remained outstanding.
25. In regard to the jurisdiction, the Player submits that the Football Tribunal is competent to
hear the present dispute, stating that the Contract did not provide for the exclusive
competence of the Albanian NDRC. In addition, the Player raised that the Club had not
demonstrated the existence of the Albanian NDRC, that it met the requirements “published
by FIFA in February 2024” or that the regulations pertaining to the Albanian NDRC allowed
for this forum to hear employment-related disputes.
26. The Player submitted that as per art. 4 par.15 of the Contract, that while the Player`s salary
was gross, it was the Player`s responsibility to pay his own taxes and that the Club should
not have made the deductions and instead paid him the full EUR 400.
27. The Player recognized that he already received EUR 400 from the Club but challenged the
validity of the proofs of payment submitted by the Club, affirming that he never received
“cash” from the Club and that in any case the Club owed him the reimbursement of his
flight tickets.
28. The Player stated that he would never agree to terminate a 3-year contract if it were not
for the poor conditions at the Club, providing pictures of food, and of the changing room.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18873
29. The Player concluded by stating, quoted verbatim:
“The Claimant objects the Respondent’s allegations that he has received almost
everything, and also objects the argument related to the competence of the FIFA DRC to
hear the employment dispute at hand. The claims of the Claimant shall be accepted in
its entirety”.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
30. Invited to comment the Player’s replica, the Club restated its position that the Albanian
NDRC had jurisdiction over the Football Tribunal and that it had full competence to hear
the employment dispute as per the Contract.
31. The Club also reaffirmed that it had paid the Player’s salaries, as follows:
-
EUR 800 via bank transfer on 8 October 2024;
EUR 800 via bank transfer on 25 November 2024; and
EUR 830 in cash 20 December 2024 at the signing of the Termination Agreement.
32. In addition, the Club recalled that the Termination Agreement included the mention,
quoted verbatim: “The Player declares that the Club has paid to the Player all the financial
obligations”.
33. In that sense, the Club submitted that the Termination Agreement served as a cash receipt
34. The Club affirmed that the Player denied the validity of the bank transfers without proof,
and that it claimed the reimbursement of his flight tickets without providing an invoice or
a receipt of payment and restated that it paid him EUR 830 in cash for the reimbursement
of flight tickets on the date of signature of the Termination Agreement. The Club explained
that it had made a prepayment of EUR 170 on 25 November 2024, and that it therefore
deducted that amount from the EUR 1,000 it had to reimburse the Player for the flight
tickets.
35. The Club raised that the allegation of the Player that the Termination Agreement was
signed under duress was unsubstantiated, and that the photos provided by the Player
allegedly evidencing the inhumane and degrading conditions ongoing at the Club, have no
probative value.
36. As to the tax withholdings, the Club mentions that art. 3 of the Contract defined the salary
as gross and states that art. 4 par. 15 of the Contract provided “Payments to the Player are
gross. If this clause is contrary to another provision, would prevail gross value clause”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18873
37. In that sense, the Club asserted that this provision confirmed that the salaries were gross
and all taxes and contribution were borne by the Player, and that this provision trumped
all other provisions in the Contract. Considering the foregoing, the Club stated that the
Player cannot claim net salaries, and that the Club duly withheld the applicable amounts
mandatory under Albanian law, and that the Player had received all his entitlements in the
evidenced bank transfers.
38. The Club concluded by making the following requests for relief:
“Based on the above, KF Bylis respectfully requests FIFA to:
I.
Dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety;
II.
Confirm that the Club fulfilled all financial obligations, including flight
reimbursement;
III.
Recognize the Mutual Termination Agreement as valid and binding;
IV.
Acknowledge the Club’s compliance with tax withholding obligations under
Albanian law;
V.
Reject the jurisdiction of FIFA DRC in favor of the Albanian NDRC;
VI.
Instruct the Claimant to submit a bank statement (Sep–Dec 2024);
VII.
Appoint a Swiss-qualified expert to assess the Club’s banking evidence, and
VIII.
Set a 5-day deadline for the Claimant to consent to expert verification.”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18873
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 7 April 2025 and submitted for
decision on 15 September 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
40. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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), that he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and an Albanian club.
41. However, the Single Judge noted that the Club challenged the competence of the Football
Tribunal to hear the present dispute.
42. The Club indeed submitted that Art. 18 of the Contract contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the Albanian NDRC, which the Club stated was compliant
with the requirements of FIFA’s circular 1010.
43. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge recalled that in January 2024, FIFA introduced a
new regulatory framework for national disputes resolution chambers in order to provide
clarity and the necessary legal certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable
requirements and possible formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
44. Most importantly, the aforementioned rules have been incorporated into art. 22, par. 1, lit.
b) and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases brought before FIFA as from 1
January 2025 (cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18873
45. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 19 March 2025, the jurisdiction of the
Football Tribunal had to be assessed based on art. 22 par. 1. lit b), which states, quoted
verbatim:
“22. Competence of FIFA
1. Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
[…]
b) Employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international
dimension; the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such
disputes to be decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national
dispute resolution body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially
recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either
directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties; “
46. As this dispute has an international dimension (i.e., Brazilian player vs. Albanian club) and
is employment-related (i.e., outstanding remuneration), it falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction in
principle, would only be prevented in the hypothesis of (i) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in the Contract in favour of the civil courts; or (ii) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause included in the Contract or in an applicable CBA in favour of a NDRC “that has been
officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles”.
47. It follows that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested
party challenging the Football Tribunal’s must demonstrate that the parties have validly
agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such body
is recognised by FIFA. These conditions are cumulative and must all be met at the time a
party submits a claim to FIFA.
48. In light of the foregoing, the relevant provision of art. 18 of the Contract is recalled as
follows:
“In case of possible disputes, the parties of this contract undertake/commit in their
resolution by consensus, otherwise competent to address them as the first degree will be
the respective committees of the Albanian Football Association and as a degree of appeal
will be the Sports Court in Switzerland (CAS).”
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18873
49. In the Single Judge’s view, (1) the provision in the Contract was indeed a clear and exclusive
clause in favour of the Albanian NDRC and therefore that the first prong of the above
analysis was satisfied.
50. Nevertheless, the Single Judge also assessed the recognition of the Albanian NDRC vis-à-vis
the FIFA regulations. In doing so, he noted that Albanian NDRC was not included in the
official list of recognized NDRCs at the time the claim was submitted.
51. In considering the above, the Single Judge determined that the Football Tribunal had
jurisdiction to hear the present claim.
52. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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.
53. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
54. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
55. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18873
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
56. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute that the Club effectively paid the Player his salaries of
November and December 2024 as well as reimbursed him for his flight ticket.
57. The Single Judge noted that the Player alleged he had not received his salaries for August,
November and December 2024, nor reimbursement for his flight tickets, and claimed that
he signed the Termination Agreement under duress due to the poor conditions he was
experiencing at the Club.
58. To the contrary, the Club affirmed that it paid the salaries of the Player via bank transfers,
on 8 October 2024 and 25 November 2024, as well as the residual amounts claimed by the
Player for the flight ticket in cash following the signature of the Termination Agreement on
20 December 2024.
59. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Club indeed complied with its payment obligations under the employment agreement, if
any amounts remained outstanding, and assess the consequences thereof.
60. The Single Judge noted that as per the wording of art. 2. par. 1. And art. 4 par. 15 in fine of
the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly remuneration of EUR 400 gross, and that
as per art. 2 par. 8 of the Contract he was also entitled to a return flight from Albania to
Brazil.
61. The Single Judge observed that art. 1 of the Termination Agreement signed by both Parties
on 20 December 2024 stated quoted verbatim, “Player declares that the Club has paid to the
player all financial obligations”, but that despite this declaration the Player claimed that the
Club failed to him pay the salaries of August 2024, November 2024, December 2024 and
his flight tickets to return to Brazil.
62. In consideration of the above, the Single Judge noticed that all the salaries claimed were
due before the signature of the Termination Agreement in which the Player acknowledged
that there were no outstanding amounts due by the Club. The Single Judge also remarked
that the flight tickets for which the Player claimed reimbursement were purchased prior to
the signature of the Termination Agreement.
63. In that sense, the Single Judge recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal under which the terms of a contract are binding on its signatories, unless it can be
evidenced that the signature was obtained under duress or that one of the signatories’
consent was vitiated.
64. To this effect the Single Judge considered the Player’s allegation that he signed the
Termination Agreement under duress to escape the poor conditions ongoing at the Club.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18873
65. However, after careful examination of the evidence submitted in support of this allegation,
the Single Judge came to the determination that the Player had not sufficiently
demonstrated that his signature of the Termination Agreement was obtained under
duress.
66. Notably, the Single Judge observed that the Player did not provide evidence of duress in
his initial claim, and that in his replica, he only provided pictures of the changing room and
of food items, which are insufficient to meet the burden of proof that his signature was
obtained under duress as per art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
67. In this context, the Single Judge emphasized that the Termination Agreement did not
constitute a waiver of the claimed amounts, but rather that it was an acknowledgement
that the Club complied with its obligations.
68. In considering the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the claim of the Player.
d. Costs
69. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
70. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
71. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18873
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Wendel Nery Da
Conceicao.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Wendel Nery Da Conceicao, is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18873
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