Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18961
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Thayla
Ohana Moreira de Sousa
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Thayla Ohana Moreira de Sousa, Brazil
Represented by Daniel Mendes das Virgens Almeida
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
BİTEXEN 1207 ANTALYASPOR KADIN FUTBOL KULUBU, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18961
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Brazilian player, Thayla Ohana Moreira de Sousa (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and the Turkish club, BİTEXEN 1207
ANTALYASPOR KADIN FUTBOL KULUBU (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent /
Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
upon the conclusion of the sporting season, namely, until 13 June 2025.
2.
The Player and the Club agreed on the following provisions under the Contract (quoted
verbatim):
“1- 1200 USD WILL BE PAID TO THE PLAYER AS A SALARY. THE FIRST PAYMENT WILL BE PAID 30
DAYS AFTER THE LICENSE IS GIVEN.
2- THE END DATE OF THE CONTRACT IS THE END DATE OF THE LEAGUES.
3- WHEN THE PLAYER SCORES A GOAL, THEY RECEIVE 100 USD, WHEN THEY MAKE AN ASSISTS,
THEY RECEIVE 50 USD. THE PLAYER DESERVES THESE BONUSES IF THE TEAM WINS.
4- 1000 USD WILL BE PAID TO THE PLAYER FOR THE PLAYOFF CHAMPIONSHIP.
5- IF THE TEAM COMES TO THE SUPER LEAGUE AS SECOND PLACE, THE PLAYER WILL BE PAID
500 USD.
6- THE PLAYER'S ARRIVAL AND RETURN TICKETS TO THEIR COUNTRIES ARE PAID BY THE CLUB.
7- ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE EXPENSES OF THE PLAYERS ARE PAID BY THE
CLUB. (UPON THE REQUESTS OF THE CLUB DIETITIAN)
8- THE PLAYER UNDERTAKES THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY DISABILITY OR ILLNESS.
OTHERWISE, THE PLAYER AGREES TO PAY DOUBLE THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CLUB.
9- THE PLAYER, WITH THIS AGREEMENT, DECLARES AND AGREES THAT SHE ACCEPTS THE
2024/2025 DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS.”
3.
On 10 February 2025, the Player joined the Club.
4.
Between 14 and 18 February 2025, the Player and the coach of the Club (hereinafter: the
Coach) had a conversation via WhatsApp, whereby the Coach asserted that the Player
already had an injury before joining the team to which the Player denied. The Coach further
stated that, since the recovery period would extend beyond the remainder of the season,
a “document” would be signed, and the Club would purchase her a flight ticket.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18961
5.
On 17 February 2025, the Club issued a letter stating that the Contract was mutually
terminated due to the Player’s injury (hereinafter: the Termination Letter), that reads as
follows (quoted verbatim):
“We, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that the Football Player Contract executed
between our football player THAYLA OHANA MOREIRA DE SOUSA and 1207 ANTALYA SPOR
KADIN FUTBOL KULÜBÜ, along with the player's work permit exemption, has been mutually
terminated due to the player's injury as specified in the contract and subsequently
determined. We declare that as of the termination date, none of the provisions of the
aforementioned contract shall have any effect, and that all our rights and receivables,
including the double payment of our expenses such as flight ticket, license fee, and
accommodation costs due to the player's injury arising from the contract, remain reserved.
Furthermore, we agree that the player has no rights or receivables related to the
aforementioned contract as of February 17, 2025.”
6.
On 18 February 2025, the Club issued the following letter to be signed by the Player
(hereinafter: the Consent Form) (quoted verbatim):
“I have no outstanding receivables from the 1207 Antalyaspor club arising from my contract.
I declare.
Thayla Ohana Moreira De Sousa”
7.
On an unspecified date, the Club issued the following letter addressed to the Turkish
Football Federation (TFF) (hereinafter: the Letter to the TFF) (quoted verbatim):
“TO THE WOMEN'S FOOTBALL UNIT DIRECTORATE OF THE TURKISH FOOTBALL FEDERATION
We hereby inform you that a license has been issued for our player THAYLA OHANA MOREIRA
DE SOUSA, but her contract has been mutually terminated due to the mergence of her injury
as per the clause in her contract regarding her health condition. We consent to the
cancellation of the license due to this termination and accept all responsibilities arising from
this termination. 17.02.2025.”
8.
On 18 February 2025, the Player and the Coach exchanged the following messages via
WhatsApp (quoted verbatim):
Player: “What about my release letter?”
Club: “I think you don’t understand what I wrote.. Talk to your manager in Turkey.. He talk to
me..”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18961
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 17 April 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
10. In her claim, the Player submitted that on 13 February 2025 she sustained a muscular injury
while training with the Club.
11. The Player further asserted that she did not receive medical assistance from the Club and
that, as from 15 February 2025, the Club pressured her to mutually terminate the Contract.
12. The Player alleged that the Club provided her with the Termination Letter, Consent Form
and the Letter to the TFF in Turkish, language that she does not understand. The Player
further submitted that she refused to sign these documents.
13. The Player asserted that her stay in Türkiye had become impossible and that she purchased
return tickets to return to Brazil on 19 February 2025.
14. The Player alleged that the Club’s intention to enter into a mutual termination agreement
amounted to a unilateral termination of the Contract and requested to be compensated
accordingly.
15. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Compliant respectfully requests that this Tribunal
issue the following orders:
a) An immediate order decreeing the termination of the Employment Contract entered into
between the Complainant and the Respondent Club.
b) An immediate order releasing the Complainant's registration from the Respondent,
enabling her to register and enter into a new employment contract with any other football
club without hindrance or impediment.
c) An order compelling the Respondent Club to pay the Complainant compensation in the
amount equivalent to three (3) months of her agreed salary, in the total amount of USD
3,600.00, as indemnification for the days worked and the entirety of the detrimental situation
imposed upon her.
d) An order compelling the Respondent Club to indemnify the Complainant in the amount of
USD 1,000.00, as reimbursement for the return air travel expenses to Brazil.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18961
b. Reply of the Club and counterclaim
16. In its reply, the Club alleged that the Player’s claim is entirely devoid of factual and legal
foundation and lodged a counterclaim.
17. In its submission, the Club asserted that the Player had declared in the Contract that she
was free from injuries and physically prepared for competitions.
18. The Club further asserted that during the friendly match held on 12 February 2025, the
Player had to leave the field, which clearly indicated her lack of physical readiness.
19. The Club alleged that the Player had breached the Contract since she admitted that she
had not trained for four months prior to joining the Club. In this respect, the Club submitted
that it was entitled to compensation in accordance with article 8 of the Contract.
20. The Club asserted that it had not made any suggestion for the Player to leave the team and
that such initiative had instead been taken by the Player’s agent. The Club further alleged
that the Player departed from Türkiye on 18 February 2025 on her own initiative, and
should therefore be ordered to reimburse the costs incurred.
21. The Club’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“In this context, our claim amounts to twice the costs detailed below:
• 5,439.35 TRY (flight ticket)
• 20,444.18 TRY (flight ticket)
• 15,000 TRY (license processing fee)
total expenses: 40,883.53 TRY
double amount: 81,767.06 TRY”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
22. In her response to the counterclaim, the Player maintained her position and requested that
the Club’s counterclaim be rejected.
23. The Player asserted she was fit to play upon joining the Club, and that she sustained an
injury on 16 February 2025 while training with the Club.
24. The Player further asserted that article 8 of the Contract, as invoked by the Club, is illegal
and unenforceable under the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18961
25. The Player maintained that the documents presented by the Club constituted a clear
attempt at coercing her into terminating the Contract in order to avoid salary payments
and related obligations.
26. The Payer requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“WHEREFORE, the Player respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal:
a) DISMISS the Club's entire Counterclaim.
b) REJECT the Club's requests for the collection of double expenses and imposition of legal
costs on the Complainant.
c) REITERATE AND GRANT all requests outlined in the Player's Initial Petition, specifically:
o An order compelling the Club to pay compensation to the Player in the amount equivalent
to three (3) months of her agreed salary, a total amount of USD 3,600.00, as indemnification
for the entirety of the detrimental situation imposed upon her.
o An order compelling the Club to indemnify the Player of USD 1,000.00, as reimbursement
for the return air travel expenses to Brazil.
d) IMPOSE any further sanctions or orders deemed appropriate by this Tribunal against the
Respondent Club for its unconscionable conduct and blatant disregard for the player's rights
and well-being.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. 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 17 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
26 November 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 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.
28. 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, 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 Turkish club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18961
29. 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. Burden of proof
30. 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
31. 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
32. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerns a claim and counterclaim for breach of contract between a Brazilian player and a
Turkish club.
33. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the parties dispute the circumstances under
which the contractual relationship came to an end. In particular, the Player maintained that
the Club terminated the Contract without just cause after attempting to pressure her into
signing a mutual termination agreement. Conversely, the Club argued that the Player left
the Club on her own initiative and that no unilateral termination occurred on its part.
34. In this context, the Chamber considered that the central issue in the present matter is to
determine whether the Contract was unilaterally terminated by either of the parties or
whether, alternatively, the employment relationship came to an end by virtue of the
conduct of both parties.
35. Before entering the analysis of this specific case, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to
recall that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18961
termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do
not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between
the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual duties by
the counterparty, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima
ratio measure.
36. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, following the Player’s injury in mid-February 2025,
the Club prepared draft termination documentation, including a termination agreement
and a declaration according to which the Player would confirm that she had no outstanding
receivables from the Club.
37. At the same time, the Chamber took note of the correspondence exchanged between the
Player and the Club’s coach on 18 February 2025, in the course of which the Player
requested the issuance of a release letter.
38. The Chamber considered that the preparation and submission of draft termination
documentation must be regarded as part of normal contractual negotiations and cannot,
in itself, be interpreted as an unequivocal manifestation of intent to unilaterally terminate
the employment relationship.
39. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Player departed from Türkiye on 19 February 2025
without having previously put the Club in default or having formally expressed her
willingness to continue performing her contractual obligations.
40. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player did not send any notice to the Club
requesting medical assistance or confirmation of her continued employment, nor did she
offer her services following her departure.
41. At the same time, the Chamber observed that, after the Player left the Club and returned
to her home country, the Club did not request the Player to return, did not put her in
default for failing to attend training sessions, nor did it initiate any disciplinary proceedings
against her for the alleged abandonment of her contractual obligations.
42. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that neither party undertook any concrete
steps aimed at preserving the contractual relationship or ensuring its continuation.
43. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the unilateral termination of an employment
contract shall always constitute a measure of ultima ratio and that a party intending to rely
on a contractual breach must, in principle, put the counterparty in default and grant a
reasonable deadline for the latter to remedy the alleged breach prior to terminating the
contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18961
44. In the present case, the Chamber found that neither the Player nor the Club complied with
such requirement.
45. Taking into account the very short duration of the contractual relationship, the ongoing
discussions between the parties concerning a potential mutual termination, the Player’s
departure from Türkiye and the absence of any subsequent attempt by either party to
resume the employment relationship, the Chamber was comfortably satisfied that both
parties, by their respective conduct, demonstrated a lack of interest in the continuation of
the Contract.
46. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the contractual relationship between the
parties came to an end on 19 February 2025, when the Player left the country, as a result
of the mutual conduct of the parties and must therefore be deemed to have been mutually
terminated.
47. As a consequence of the above, the Chamber determined that no compensation for breach
of contract is payable to either party.
48. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that the Player rendered her services to
the Club from 10 February 2025 until her departure on 19 February 2025, which was
constructively taken as the date of de facto termination.
49. On account of the aforementioned period of employment, the Chamber considered that
the Player is entitled to receive her salary on a pro rata basis.
50. Taking into account the Player’s monthly salary of USD 1,200, the Chamber calculated the
Player’s daily remuneration at USD 40.
51. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player is entitled to receive outstanding
remuneration in the amount of USD 320, corresponding to eight days of employment. The
Chamber also pointed out that no interest should be awarded as it was not requested by
the Player (ne ultra petita).
52. In continuation, the Chamber addressed the Player’s request for reimbursement of flight
tickets. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Player failed to submit a translation
of the relevant documentation into one of the official languages of the FIFA Football
Tribunal in accordance with the Procedural Rules. Therefore, the Chamber decided that
this request should be rejected.
53. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the claim of the Claimant, Thayla Ohana
Moreira de Sousa, is partially accepted, and the counterclaim of the Counterclaimant,
BİTEXEN 1207 ANTALYASPOR KADIN FUTBOL KULUBU, is rejected.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18961
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due 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.
57. The Respondent shall make full payment to the bank account provided by the Claimant in
the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
58. 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
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18961
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Thayla Ohana Moreira de Sousa, is
partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, BİTEXEN 1207 ANTALYASPOR KADIN FUTBOL KULUBU,
must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the following amount(s):
- USD 320 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account
Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
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 is still not made by the end of the three entire and
consecutive registration periods
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18961
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