Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19135
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luiz
Fernando Gomes Da Silva
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Luiz Fernando Gomes Da Silva, Brazil
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT:
AL-BAHRI SPORT CLUB, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19135
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Brazilian player Luiz Fernando Gomes da Silva (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
•
the Iraqi club AL-BAHRI SPORT CLUB (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the Iraqi Football Association (IFA).
2.
On 4 February 2025, the Player allegedly entered into an employment contract with the
Club (hereinafter: the Alleged Contract), purportedly valid as from 4 February 2025 until 30
June 2025.
3.
Under the terms of the Alleged Contract, the Club allegedly undertook to remunerate the
Player as follows (quoted verbatim):
“1. The Contract has a total value of 30000$
In words: Thirty thousand US dollars
2. Concerning the season 2024/2025, the Player shall receive from the Club the total
amounts as follow:
a. Signing-on fee:
15000$ Fifteen thousand US dollars. dinars to be paid in appearance monthly
instalments of each 3000$ Three thousand US dollars. at the end of each
Gregorian month for the period from 11/2/2025 until 30/6/2025. The Player
agrees and accepts that as per IFA Regulations no advance payment of a
signing-on fee is possible.
b. Monthly salary:
3000$ Three thousand US dollars to be paid at the end of each Gregorian
month for the period from 11/2/2025 until 30/6/2025”
4.
In addition, clause 9 of the Alleged Contract established as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Article 9
Termination by the Club or the Player
1.
IFA regulations governing this matter and, where applicable, FIFA regulations
in force from time to time apply.
2.
This Contract may be terminated before its expiry by mutual agreement.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19135
3.
This Contract may be terminated by either party, without consequences for the
terminating party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract
termination.
4.
If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Club shall
pay to the Player compensation equal to the total amount of: 25000000 Twenty-five
million Iraqi dinars.
5.
If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall
pay to the Club compensation equal to the total amount of: 25000000 Twenty-five
million Iraqi dinars.
6.
The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under
the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the
principles of parity and reciprocity of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances
related to the Contract’s conclusion and execution.”
5.
On 24 January 2025, the Player entered into a termination agreement with his previous
employer, the Iraqi club Naft Alwasat Sport Club (hereinafter: Naft Al-Wasat).
6.
Between 26 January 2025 and 6 February 2025, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages
with a contact saved as “Coch Bahri,” who was allegedly, according to the Player, the Club’s
Head Coach (hereinafter: the Alleged Head Coach). In these messages, the Alleged Head
Coach expressed interest in hiring the Player, while the Player conveyed his willingness to
join the Club. The conversation also addressed practical matters such as the termination
of the Player’s previous employment, visa and work permit arrangements, and onboarding
formalities.
7.
Between 4 February 2025 and 6 February 2025, the Player also exchanged WhatsApp
messages with a contact saved as “Coch 2 Bahri,” who was allegedly, according to the
Player, the Club’s Fitness Coach (hereinafter: the Alleged Fitness Coach). In this exchange,
the Alleged Fitness Coach sent physical training programs for the Player to follow, and the
Player responded with videos demonstrating his compliance.
8.
On an unspecified date in February 2025, the Player exchanged messages with a contact
saved as “Abu Haidar Shadhar,” who was allegedly, according to the Player, the Club
President (hereinafter: the Alleged Club President). The exchange included an unrecorded
34-second voice call, followed by the Player forwarding a PDF document and receiving
another PDF document in return, the content of which could not be verified.
9.
On 20 February 2025, the Player issued a formal notice (hereinafter: the Notice) to the Club.
In the Notice, the Player granted the Club a period of 15 calendar days to: (i) issue a valid
entry visa enabling his travel to Iraq; (ii) provide a specific reporting date for his arrival; and
(iii) fully comply with all contractual obligations through to the expiration of the Alleged
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19135
Contract. Within the same Notice, the Player stated that failure to comply with the above
demands would trigger immediate legal action, including the filing of a formal claim before
the Football Tribunal, pursuant to Articles 14 and 17 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
10. On 18 July 2025, the Player confirmed that he remained unemployed as of that date.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 6 May 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. The Player asserted that, on 24 January 2025, he terminated his employment contract with
Naft Al-Wasat by mutual agreement, relying on assurances provided by the Respondent
regarding a new contractual engagement. On 30 January 2025, he purportedly submitted
the executed termination agreement to the Respondent, thereby fulfilling all procedural
requirements necessary to formalise a new employment relationship.
13. The Player further contended that the Club, through its representatives: (i) confirmed its
intention to employ him; (ii) authorised his temporary stay in Brazil due to his mother’s
health condition; (iii) assured him that the Alleged Contract would be sent during his stay
in Brazil; (iv) delivered a copy of the Alleged Contract to him on 4 February 2025; (v) received
the signed copy of the Alleged Contract from him on the same day; and (vi) explicitly
instructed him to follow a rigorous and structured training regimen, which was actively
enforced throughout his stay in Brazil.
14. The Player then argued that the Alleged Contract constituted a valid and binding
agreement, establishing a fixed term until 30 June 2025 and providing for a total
remuneration of USD 30,000 (comprising a sign-on fee and monthly salaries).
Notwithstanding, he asserted that the Club failed to fulfil any of its contractual obligations.
In short, the Player argued that the Club incurred the following breaches:
•
Failure to provide a countersigned copy of the Alleged Contract: The Player
argued that the Club did not return a duly signed copy of the Alleged Contract.
•
Misrepresentation and bad faith conduct: The Player argued that, despite
repeated assurances and instructions to prepare for integration, the Club failed
to act in accordance with its commitments.
•
Refusal to register the Claimant under false pretexts: The Player argued that the
Club claimed that the transfer window had closed, even though: (i) the Alleged
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19135
Contract was signed on 4 February 2025; (ii) the window closed on 5 February
2025; and (iii) the Player was a free agent and eligible for registration beyond the
window.
•
Total non-performance of financial obligations: The Player argued that the Club
failed to pay any portion of the agreed USD 30,000 compensation, amounting to
a complete violation of the contract.
•
Failure to cure after formal notice: The Player argued that, even after receiving
the Notice, the Club did not respond or take corrective action within the 15-day
deadline, nor did it engage in the proposed amicable settlement.
15. Considering the above, the Player requested FIFA the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“VII. Prayer for Relief
31. Declaration of Breach: The Claimant respectfully requests that this Honorable
Tribunal declare that the Respondent has breached the terms of the employment
contract in bad faith, including but not limited to the non-payment of the sign-on fee
and salaries totaling USD 30,000 and the failure to issue the return airfare, among
other material violations.
32. Monetary Judgment: The Tribunal is requested to order the Respondent to pay:
a.
USD 15,000 in unpaid sign-on fees;
b.
USD 15,000 in unpaid contractual salary;
32. Interest: The Claimant requests the imposition of interest at a rate of 5% per
annum on the amounts due, commencing from February 4, 2025, until full and final
payment is executed.
33. Disciplinary Measures: The Claimant requests that the Tribunal consider imposing
appropriate disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent for its bad faith conduct and
repeated violations of FIFA RSTP and the employment agreement, in order to uphold
contractual discipline and prevent future recurrence.
34. Ancillary Relief: The Claimant further requests that the Tribunal grant any other
relief it deems just and proper in light of the circumstances, including the publication
of a private copy of the final decision for jurisprudential purposes.”
b. Position of the Respondent
16. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim within the
granted deadline, i.e., no later than 2 June 2025.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19135
17. On 11 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged that no reply had been
received from the Respondent and informed the parties that the submission-phase was
therefore closed (cf., art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal;
hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
18. On 22 July 2025, the Club filed a late response.
19. On the same date, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the above
correspondence and informed the Club that its submission would be disregarded, based
on art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 6 May 2025 and submitted for decision on 21
August 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable
to the matter at hand.
21. 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 (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 an Brazilian player and a Iraqi club.
22. 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 (July 2025 edition), the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
23. 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).
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19135
c. Merits of the dispute
24. 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
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract.
26. The DRC noted that, in summary, according to the Player, although the Club never provided
him with a duly signed copy of the employment contract, the Alleged Contract was
nonetheless a valid and binding document. In this context, the Player argued that the Club
failed to register him or to undertake the necessary arrangements to enable him to
perform his professional duties.
27. Also, the DRC highlighted that, as per art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, since the
Respondent did not provide its position on the Player’s claim in a timely manner, the
decision shall be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the statements
and documents presented by the Claimant).
28. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the Alleged
Contract constituted a valid and binding agreement, and, if so, to determine whether a
breach occurred on the part of the Club and the resulting legal consequences.
Did the Alleged Contract constitute a valid and binding agreement between the parties?
29. First, the majority of the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, which has determined on previous occasions that the actual signature of
a contract is not the sole or even a necessary element to determine whether there was an
existing contractual relationship between the parties. Instead, the validity and the
enforcement of a contract should be established based on a comprehensive understanding
of all the facts and actions taken by the parties within the context of their relationship.
30. Nonetheless, the majority of the Chamber recalled that the well-established jurisprudence
has also stipulated that the Chamber must be very careful with accepting documents other
than the employment contract duly signed by the parties, as evidence for the conclusion
of a contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19135
31. Specifically, the majority of the Chamber observed that the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal has established that: (i) the conclusion of a contract can sometimes, in very specific
and limited circumstances, be proved without a formal signature, provided that such proof
meets certain standards of confidence; and (ii) decisions determining that a contractual
relationship was formed, without having a copy of a signed contract on file, must require a
high standard of proof.
32. The majority of the DRC noted that, in the case at hand, it is undisputed that the case file
does not contain a signed copy of the Alleged Contract. Nevertheless, the Player submitted
several factual elements that, in his view, support the existence of a contractual
relationship with the Club, which are summarised as follows:
•
According to the Player, the Club confirmed its intention to employ him,
authorised his temporary stay in Brazil due to his mother’s health condition, and
assured him that the Alleged Contract would be sent during his time there. In
support of this, the Player submitted a WhatsApp message history exchanged
between 26 January 2025 and 6 February 2025 with a contact saved as “Coch
Bahri,” the Alleged Head Coach. In these messages, the Alleged Head Coach
expressed interest in hiring the Player, while the Player conveyed his willingness
to join the Club. The conversation also addressed practical matters such as the
termination of the Player’s previous employment, visa and work permit
arrangements, and onboarding formalities.
•
The Player further claimed that he was instructed to follow a structured training
program provided by the Club while in Brazil. To support this, he submitted
WhatsApp messages exchanged between 4 February 2025 and 6 February 2025
with a contact saved as “Coch 2 Bahri,” this time the Alleged Club’s Fitness Coach.
In this exchange, the Alleged Fitness Coach sent physical training programs for
the Player to follow, and the Player responded with videos demonstrating his
compliance.
•
The Player stated that he received a copy of the Alleged Contract on 4 February
2025 and returned it, duly signed, to the Club on the same day. In this regard, he
submitted a WhatsApp message history from an unspecified date in February
2025 with a contact saved as “Abu Haidar Shadhar”, the Alleged Club President.
The exchange includes a 34-second unrecorded voice call, followed by the Player
forwarding a PDF document and receiving another PDF document in return.
•
Lastly, the Player claimed that he sent a formal notice on 20 February 2025, which
remained unanswered by the Club. In support of this, he submitted a copy of the
Notice and the corresponding email sent by his legal representative to Mr. “Alaa
Saber Hajim”, who was also identified by the Player as the Club President in this
occasion.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19135
33. Considering the above, the majority of the Chamber concluded that, while the contents of
the message exchanges appear to align with the Player’s version of events, the Player failed
to sufficiently establish the authenticity and identity of the individuals involved in those
communications.
34. Firstly, regarding the messages exchanged with the Alleged Head Coach and the Alleged
Fitness Coach, the majority of the Chamber noted that the Player did not provide their full
names, phone numbers, or any corroborating evidence to confirm that these individuals
held official positions within the Club. According to the majority of the Chamber, the Player
merely submitted screenshots and videos of the online chats, without offering any
supporting documentation to verify their legitimacy.
35. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber highlighted that the Alleged Head Coach is
identified only as “Coch Bahri,” and the Alleged Fitness Coach as “Coch 2 Bahri,” without
any supporting evidence confirming their identities or linking the associated WhatsApp
numbers to actual Club personnel.
36. Secondly, with respect to the messages exchanged with the Alleged Club President, the
majority of the Chamber found that the Player failed to demonstrate that the individual
identified as “Abu Haidar Shadhar” was, in fact, the President of the Club. Moreover, the
majority of the Chamber highlighted that the formal notice sent by the Player was
addressed to a different individual, Mr. “Alaa Saber Hajim”, who was also identified as the
Club President. According to the majority of the Chamber, this inconsistency further
undermines the credibility of the Player’s claims.
37. Thirdly, the majority of the Chamber found that the evidence provided by the Player is also
insufficient to establish that he actually received a draft of the Alleged Contract from the
legitimate Club President, or that the exchanged PDF documents contained the Alleged
Contract, let alone in what version or under what terms. In this regard, the majority of the
Chamber found it decisive that the Player could also not prove that the conditions
established under the Alleged Contract represented a final agreement between the parties.
38. After this analysis, the majority of the Chamber again remarked that although the
conclusion of a contract can be proved without a formal signature, the standard of proof
required is high, considering that it would entail that an employment relationship was
formalised without an explicitly proof of consent: the signature. In the opinion of the
majority of the Chamber, the evidence provided by the Player in this case does not meet
the required standard. In particular, the majority of the Chamber was not convinced that
there was sufficient evidence to establish that there had been mutual acceptance of both
parties.
39. In light of the above, and having carefully assessed the documents submitted with the
claim, the majority of the Chamber concluded that the Player could not discharge his
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19135
burden of proof, meaning that he failed to corroborate the existence of the contractual
relationship.
40. Therefore, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Player’s claim must be rejected.
d. Costs
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19135
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luiz Fernando Gomes Da Silva, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19135
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