Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19195
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Gaius Abraham Jered Makouta, France
Represented by Franck Nicolleau
RESPONDENT:
Boavista FC, Portugal
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19195
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 27 July 2021, the French player Gaius Abraham Jered Makouta (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Portuguese club Boavista FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its
signature until the end of the 2023/2024 season.
2.
According to clause 5 of the the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant
the following conditional bonuses:
“Each season, every time the player plays more than 45 minutes as a starter in the first division
of Portugal, he will receive (net of taxes):
- If he plays 10 matches: EUR 5,000
- If he plays 20 matches: EUR 10,000
- If he plays 30 matches: EUR 15,000”.
3.
On 5 July 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of EUR
27,766 net, corresponding to the 20-match bonus payment stipulated in the Contract and
various salaries which had, at that time, not yet been paid, setting a deadline of 8 days to
remedy the default.
4.
4. On 28 October 2024, the Respondent applied for insolvency proceedings to be opened
before the Commercial Court of Vilanova in Portugal.
5.
On 11 November 2024, the court appointed judicial administrator in the abovementioned
insolvency proceedings issued a suspension order in line with the Portuguese Insolvency
and Company Recovery Code.
6.
6. On 10 February 2025, the Claimant sent a further default notice whereby he requested
payment of EUR 10,000, corresponding to the abovementioned bonus, within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 12 May 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
8.
The Claimant requested the payment of EUR 10,000, corresponding to the bonus for
participating in at least 20 matches for 45 minutes or more as a starter.
9.
The Claimant invoked the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda and emphasised
that he had put the Respondent in default, to no avail.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19195
10. As a result, the Claimant submitted a request for relief of EUR 10,000 as overdue payables.
11. Finally, the Claimant requested EUR 1,500 as a contribution to his legal fees for filing the
present claim.
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent requested to reject the claim.
13. The Respondent did not challenge the non-payment of the amount at stake. It confirmed,
however, that it was unable to comply with any financial obligation imposed on it as it was
subject to insolvency proceedings before the Commercial Court of Vila Nova de Gaia since
28 October 2024.
14. Hereby, the Respondent emphasised that it was restricted by the order issued by the
judicial administrator appointed by the Commercial Court of Vila Nova in Portugal to
comply with any payments that are not expressly indicated in the suspension order,
otherwise risking the imposition of criminal sanctions under the relevant national
legislation.
15. The Respondent invoked the application of art. 24 par. 3 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and to the extent that the
enforcement of any amount awarded shall be excluded, provided that the debtor is subject
to an insolvency-related-event and thus legally unable to comply with a decision.
16. Consequently, the Respondent requested that art. 24 par. 3 lit. b) of the Regulations apply
in the present matter, and that no sporting sanctions be imposed in case of failure to pay
the amount awarded by the Football Tribunal.
17. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“FIRST – To reject the claim lodged by the Player in its entirety; and
SECOND – To reject the proposal issued by the FIFA general secretariat on 24 June 2025, in light
of the Club’s legal inability to comply with any payment obligation due to the ongoing insolvency
procedure.
THIRD – To confirm that no sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the Club, pursuant to Article
24(3)(b) of the FIFA RSTP.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19195
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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, it took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 12 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 31 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
19. 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 (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 French player and a Portuguese club.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
it considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19195
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note that this is a claim of a player against a club concerning outstanding
amounts corresponding to EUR 10,000.
24. The Single Judge further noted, based on (i) clause 5 of the Contract – which grants the
Player EUR 10,000 if he plays more than 45 minutes as a starter in 20 matches, (ii) the
evidence submitted and (iii) the absence of any dispute from the Respondent; that the
amount of EUR 10,000 remained unpaid. Nonetheless, the Single Judge acknowledged the
argumentation of the Respondent concerning its inability to pay due to the on-going
insolvency proceedings. At this point, the Single Judge recalled the longstanding
jurisprudence of FIFA as well as the CAS, establishing that insolvency proceedings do not
affect procedures in front of the FIFA deciding bodies as long as the relevant club remains
affiliated to its association, but only, under certain circumstances, the enforcement of the
potential decision.
25. Taking into account that the Respondent actively participates in the competition and is
currently affiliated to the Portuguese Football Federation, the Single Judge rejected the
arguments of the Respondent and decided to award the Claimant the outstanding amounts
as per his request.
ii. Consequences
26. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
claimed as outstanding under the contract, in total EUR 10,000, as detailed above.
27. Furthermore, noting that the Claimant did not request interest on the outstanding
amounts, and in adherence to the principle of ne ultra petita, the Single Judge did not award
any interest on the aforementioned amount.
iii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
28. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
29. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19195
30. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
31. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the 4th offense by the Respondent within the last two years,
the Single Judge decided to impose a warning and a fine of USD 3,000 on the Respondent
in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) and c) of the Regulations.
32. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
33. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
34. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
35. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge observed that the arguments put forward by
the Respondent could, if proven, in principle justify the non-application of art. 24 of the
Regulations due to the alleged insolvency proceedings (cf. art. 24 par. 3 lit. b) of the
Regulations).
36. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to the 2023 edition of the Commentary on the
Regulations (p. 492), which indicates that, in order for art. 24 par. 3 lit. b) to apply, the
following must apply: (i) the insolvency related event (e.g., bankruptcy proceedings,
entering administration or appointment of a liquidator) must have occurred prior to the
issuing of the decision; (ii) proof of the matter must be provided to the deciding body of
the Football Tribunal; and (iii) as a result of this event, the debtor club must be legally
restricted from settling its debts.
37. After a due analysis of the evidence on file, the Single Judge considered that the club failed
to discharge its burden of proof and moreover, decided that he was unable to corroborate
that the debtor (i.e., the Respondent) is indeed legally unable to comply with any financial
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19195
decision by the Football Tribunal. Although it appears that a judicial administrator has been
assigned to oversee the reorganisation process outlined by the club, the Single Judge
stressed that he did not receive any evidence that any payment (such as one in line with
the present decision) would result in any penalties or criminal charges, as suggested,
consequently, the Single Judge concluded that art. 24 of the Regulations indeed applies in
this matter.
38. Additionally, the Single Judge noted that this conclusion is in line with recent findings of the
FIFA Disciplinary Committee, in which the latter has – following decisions by the Football
Tribunal against the Respondent – concluded that the burden of proving inability to legally
comply with said decision(s) has not been met.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that art. 24 of the
Regulations is applicable and thus, 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.
40. 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.
41. The Single Judge 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19195
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Gaius Abraham Jered Makouta, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Boavista FC, must pay to the Claimant EUR 10,000 as outstanding
remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning and a fine in the amount of USD 3,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which
must be paid to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be
paid to the following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-19195:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) 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
(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.
7.
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19195
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19195
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. 11