Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19338
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Joao Pedro
Almeida Machado
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
AFC UTA Arad, Romania
Represented by Anca Mituică
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Joao Pedro Almeida Machado, Portugal
Represented by Jose Miguel Albuquerque
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19338
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 February 2024, the Romanian club Asociația Fotbal Club UTA Arad (hereinafter: the
Club or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Portuguese player João Pedro Almeida
Machado (hereinafter: the Player or the Respondent / Counterclaimant), entered into an
employment contract titled “Sport Activity Contract no. 23” (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
The Contract was initially valid until 30 June 2024, with an automatic extension until 30 June
2025, subject to notification by the Club by 15 May 2024.
3.
Article 4 of the Contract provided the following (quoted verbatim):
“Article 4: Remuneration
i.
The Club undertakes to pay the Player for his professional services a monthly net
amount of 42 500 (in words: forty-two thousand five hundred) lei to be paid at the
latest on 25 of the month for the previous month.
ii.
If the Contract is extended, the monthly remuneration for the period 01.07.2024 –
30.06.2025 will be 47 500 (forty-seven thousand five hundred) lei netto.
iii.
The Player's remuneration and other financial entitlements will be paid to the Player
as follows, always indicating the reason for the relevant payment (eg ‘Payment June
2023’) (please specify the applicable payment method):
a.
Via bank transfer, with the payment details as follows:
[…]
iv.
Other amounts agreed by the parties to be paid to the Player:
o
o
1 500 (one thousand five hundred) lei netto for every goal / assist in official
Superliga matches
75 000 (seventy-five thousand) lei netto for winning the Romanian
Championship
o
50 000 (fifty thousand) lei netto for winning the Romanian Cup or qualifying
in the European cups
o
40 000 (fourty thousand) lei netto – signing bonus, to be paid until
28.02.2024 o The Club will provide the Player 4 round trip fly tickets Portugal
– Romania – Portugal per season for the Player and his wife.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19338
v.
o
Match Bonus: According to the Internal Regulation of the Club. Unless
specified differently, the match/performance bonus payments are paid at
the latest on the last day of the month during which the objectives were
accomplished.
o
The monthly remuneration and other amounts payable by the club to the
player under this contract shall be paid by bank transfer to the account
indicated by the player (opened with a bank in Romania). The Club shall
specify, in respect to each payment, the contract obligation to which it
corresponds (e.g.: ‘Remuneration for June 2022’).
The Club undertakes to calculate, withhold and pay to the relevant government
authorities the taxes and contributions payable in respect of the net income earned
by the player, at the minimum mandatory level stipulated by the applicable
law/equal to ... (in the event that the parties agree on a higher value of contributions
to be withheld).”
1. Article 13 of the Contract provided the following (quoted verbatim):
“Article 13: Termination of the contract
i.
This contract is automatically terminated at the end of the period for which it is
concluded.
ii.
This contract may be terminated before its date of expiry, by mutual agreement of
the parties.
iii.
This contract is terminated if the team relegates in the Romanian second league at
the end of the 2023-2024 season.
iv.
In case of occurrence of a force majeure, this contract shall be terminated in
accordance with the provisions of applicable law.
v.
The player or the club may unilaterally terminate the contract only subject to the
conditions and with the consequences stipulated by the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players of FIFA/FRF (as applicable).
vi.
If the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the contract with just cause, the other
party shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF
in force (as applicable). Similarly, if the Player or Club unilaterally terminates the
contract without just cause, the terminating party shall be sanctioned in accordance
with the provisions of the RSTP of FIFA/FRF in force (as applicable).”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19338
4.
On 10 May 2024, the Club informed the Player of its decision to extend the Contract for the
2024/2025 season. The parties did not dispute that the Player continued to perform his
services thereafter.
5.
On 23 December 2024, the Club played the last official match of the regular season in 2024.
6.
On 28 December 2024, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a formal notice
under art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations), claiming outstanding salaries for September, October and November 2024
(RON 47,500 each), as well as bonuses (RON 9,000), and granting a 15‑day deadline for
payment.
7.
On 9 January 2025, the Club paid the Player an amount of RON 47,500 under the reference
“CONTRACT”. The proof of payment contained no time of processing and was listed as
“normal”.
8.
On 14 January 2025 at 7:04 am in Portugal and 9:04 am in Romania, the Player issued a
termination notice to the Club (hereinafter: the Termination Letter), citing just cause
pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations, due to alleged non‑payment of salaries and
bonuses. In this letter, the Player acknowledged receipt of one salary out of the three
outstanding.
9.
Also on 14 January 2025, the Club paid the Player an amount of RON 95,000 under the
reference “CONTRACT”. The proof of payment contained no reference to the time of
processing and is listed as “Urgent”.
10. On 16 January 2025, the Player’s attorney acknowledged receipt of the payments but
maintained that the termination was valid and that the Player remained entitled to
compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations.
11. On 18 January 2025, the Club contested the validity of the termination, asserting that the
conditions of art. 14bis of the Regulations were not met and requesting the Player’s return.
In this letter, the Club inter alia stated that the payment of the two outstanding salaries was
made “a few hours later” it received the Termination Letter from the Player.
12. By correspondence dated 20 January 2025 (received on 21 January 2025), the Player
reiterated that the termination was valid and refused to return to the Club. The Player
stressed that the Club had only paid him the outstanding salaries after it had already
received the Termination Letter.
13. In the last days of January and beginning of February, the parties’ representative seemingly
exchanged WhatsApp messages concerning a potential settlement, but no amicable
solution was found.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19338
14. On 3 February 2025, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Portuguese
club FC Felgueiras 1932, which was valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2025, and
provided for a monthly remuneration of EUR 2,500.
15. Also on 3 February 2025, FC Felgueiras 1932 initiated a transfer instruction in the FIFA
Transfer Matching System (TMS) in order to engage the Player permanently as out of
contract (Transfer ID: 992985). On the same date, the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF)
requested the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
16. On 6 February 2025, the Romanian Football Federation (FRF) requested the transfer
cancellation, as the Player was still registered with the Club and it had opposed to the just
cause for the termination. The transfer cancellation was subsequently accepted by the FPF,
and the transfer instruction was consequently cancelled.
17. On 18 February 2025, FC Felgueiras 1932 “revoked” the contract previously signed with the
Player due to his misrepresentation of his previous employment relationship. FC Felgueiras
1932 claimed that the Player could no longer be registered and it consequently cancelled
their contract with immediate effects.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 30 May 2025, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Club
19. In its claim, the Club acknowledged that the salaries for October and November 2024 were
outstanding as of 28 December 2024, but emphasised that they were fully paid on 14
January 2025, within the relevant deadline.
20. The Club argued that the art. 14bis conditions were not fulfilled, since:
• The notice of default was sent on a non-working day during the Christmas
holidays;
• The 15-day deadline expired no earlier than 14 January 2025; and
• Full payment was made on that date.
21. The Club submitted that the Player acted in bad faith, as he continued training without
protest, failed to send reminders or warnings and refused to return despite being informed
of the payments.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19338
22. Similarly, the Club alleged that the Player’s termination was not an ultima ratio and was
motivated by personal reasons, including his wish to remain in Portugal. Accordingly, the
Club maintained that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause and should be
liable to the consequence arising therefrom.
23. The Club requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“4.1. We respectfully that the FIFA DRC issue a decision as follows:
Order the [Player] to pay compensation for the unilateral termination of the sport
activity contract no. 23/01.02.2024 in the amount of 263,548.30 RON representing
the residual value of the contract for the period between 14 January 2025 and 30
June 2025;
Impose sporting sanctions on the [Player] in accordance with Article 17 (3) of the
FIFA RSTP.”
b. Parallel claim of the Player
24. On 2 June 2025, and before being notified of the Club’s claim, the Player lodged a parallel
claim against the Club.
25. The Player alleged that on 1 February 2024 he and the Club had concluded the Contract,
initially valid until 30 June 2024 and subsequently extended by the Club’s notice of 10 May
2024 until 30 June 2025. Following the extension, the Player had been entitled to a monthly
net salary of RON 47,500, payable no later than the 25th day of the month following the
one worked, as well as performance-related bonuses under Article 4 of the Contract. He
stated that during the contractual period, he had scored six goals, which entitled him to
goal bonuses amounting to RON 9,000 net, and that these bonuses had remained unpaid.
26. The Player explained that the Club had failed to pay several monthly salaries on their due
dates. Consequently, on 28 December 2024, he sent a written notice to the Club expressly
for the purposes of art. 14bis of the Regulations, requesting payment of the outstanding
salaries for September, October and November 2024, together with the unpaid bonuses,
and granting the Club a deadline of fifteen days to fully comply with its financial obligations.
He emphasised that the notice clearly referred to overdue salaries and to the legal
consequences arising under art. 14bis in case of non-compliance.
27. According to the Player, the Club reacted to that notice by paying only the September 2024
salary on 9 January 2025, while deliberately leaving the salaries unpaid for October and
November 2024 and the goal bonuses. He submitted that this partial payment
demonstrated that the Club had the financial means to settle its debts but chose not to do
so in full within the granted deadline, thereby continuing its contractual breach. In this
context, the Player also alleged that the Club exerted pressure on players and linked the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19338
payment of salaries to sporting results, which had created an atmosphere of uncertainty
and financial insecurity. The Player submitted affidavits of two teammates to support his
position.
28. The Player stated that, upon expiry of the deadline granted in the notice of 28 December
2024, at least two monthly salaries had remained outstanding, together with the unpaid
bonuses. As a result, on 14 January 2025, he notified the Club of the termination of the
Contract with immediate effect, invoking just cause pursuant to art. 14bis of the
Regulations. He argued that all the cumulative conditions required by that provision were
met, namely the unlawful non-payment of at least two monthly salaries, a written notice of
default, and the granting of a deadline of at least fifteen days to remedy the breach.
29. The Player acknowledged that, after receipt of the Termination Letter, the Club paid the
salaries for October and November 2024. However, he contended that such payments
were made after the expiry of the art. 14bis deadline, and only as a reaction to the
termination. He further submitted that, in any event, the Club still failed to fully comply
with its financial obligations, as the bonuses remained unpaid. The Player therefore argued
that these late payments could not retroactively cure the breach nor invalidate the just
cause for termination that had already arisen.
30. Following the termination, the Player maintained that the Club had acted in bad faith by
disputing the effectiveness of the termination and by attempting to force his return. He
further alleged that the Club rejected an ITC request submitted by FC Felgueiras 1932 on 3
February 2025, despite being aware that the employment relationship had already ended.
According to the Player, this conduct prevented him from being registered with a new club
and led to the termination of his new employment contract with FC Felgueiras 1932,
thereby depriving him of the possibility to mitigate his damages.
31. As regards the legal consequences of the termination, the Player claimed entitlement to
compensation calculated on the basis of the residual value of the Contract from the date
of termination until its original expiry on 30 June 2025. In particular, the Player claimed
compensation in the amount of RON 285,000 net, corresponding to the remaining
contractual value, in addition to the unpaid goal bonuses of RON 9,000 net.
32. The Player further claimed interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on all outstanding amounts,
calculated from the day following the date on which each payment had become due until
the date of effective payment, relying on the relevant provisions of Swiss law applicable on
a subsidiary basis. Finally, he requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Club
pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations.
33. The Player requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“In the light of all of the above, the Player respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber to:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19338
i. Declare the present Claim as admissible;
ii. Determine that the Claimant terminated the Employment Agreement with just
cause;
iii. Determine that the Respondent must pay the Claimant a total net amount of Lei
294.000,00 (two hundred ninety-four thousand lei), which corresponds on the one
hand, to the outstanding goal bonuses under the Employment Agreement, plus the
compensation for breach of contract equal to the residual value of the latter;
iv. Order the Respondent to pay 5% interest p.a. calculated over each outstanding
amount, as of the day after each monthly remuneration became due until the date
of effective payment;
v. Impose the appropriate sporting sanctions to the Respondent.”
34. On 9 June 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the parallel claims
lodged by the Club and the Player on 30 May 2025 and 2 June 2025, respectively.
35. By reference to art. 21 para. 3 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that
the proceedings would be merged, and that the most recent claim, namely the claim lodged
by the Player, would be joined to the existing proceedings and treated as a counterclaim.
Furthermore, both parties were invited to submit their respective rejoinders.
c. Rejoinder of the Player
36. On 30 June 2025, the Player submitted his rejoinder on this matter.
37. The Player contested the Club’s assertion that there was a holiday or shutdown period
between 28 December 2024 and 4 January 2025, arguing that this allegation was entirely
unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. He maintained that it was highly
improbable for a professional football club to have no staff working during a period
coinciding with the preparation and opening of the winter transfer window. In any event,
he argued that any alleged internal break could not suspend or limit his right to claim
unpaid salaries that were already overdue.
38. The Player further submitted that, even if the Club was deemed to have been notified of
the default notice on 30 December 2024, the fifteen-day deadline provided under art. 14bis
of the Regulations would have expired on 13 January 2025. In that context, he emphasised
that he terminated the Contract on 14 January 2025, i.e., after the expiry of the deadline.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19338
39. The Player explained that he duly attended the team meeting on 13 January 2025, thereby
fully complying with his contractual and professional obligations. He argued that he had no
duty to discuss legal matters with club officials, as these issues had already been entrusted
to his legal representative, and that such discussions would in any event have been
inappropriate in the context of a team meeting.
40. With regard to the payments relied upon by the Club, the Player pointed out that the Club
itself described the relevant bank transfer as “urgent”, which, in his view, demonstrated
that it was made in reaction to a termination that had already taken immediate effect. He
reiterated that this payment did not correspond to full settlement of all amounts due,
noting in particular that the contractual bonuses remained unpaid.
41. The Player also submitted evidence showing that the funds allegedly paid on 14 January
2025 were not credited to his bank account until 15 January 2025. He argued that this
confirmed that the payment was both late and made in bad faith, i.e. after the termination
had already taken legal effect.
42. Finally, the Player asserted that late and incomplete payments had been a recurring
pattern throughout the contractual relationship. He explained that, after the extension of
the Contract, the Club had continued to pay the lower salary of RON 42,500 on several
occasions instead of the agreed RON 47,500, that no salary had been paid in September
2024, that the July 2024 salary had only been paid in October 2024 with a delay of
approximately two months, that only half of the signing bonus had been paid well after its
contractual due date, and that no salary payments had been made in December 2024.
According to the Player, the Club had only resumed payments on 8 January 2025, after the
default notice had been sent, and had completed the remaining overdue payments on 15
January 2025, which he again characterised as payments made in bad faith and after the
termination.
d. Rejoinder of the Club
43. On 9 July 2025, the Club’s submitted its rejoinder contesting in full the Player’s claim and
maintaining that the Player had unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause.
44. The Club first argued that the Player’s claim had been filed only after he became aware that
the Club had already seized FIFA, and that the Player had otherwise remained passive in
the hope that his contractual conduct would not be reviewed. The Club also disputed the
Player’s allegations regarding post-termination contacts, clarifying that it was the Player’s
attorney who had initiated discussions and that the Club had acted transparently
throughout the exchanges.
45. The Club clarified that the Player had been registered with the Club from 1 February 2024
until 14 January 2025 and that, during this entire period, the Player had never raised any
dissatisfaction or intention to leave the Club prior to the notice sent on 28 December 2024.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19338
According to the Club, that notice was sent on a non-working day, during a period in which
the team, staff, and administrative employees were officially on holiday following the last
official match played on 23 December 2024. As a result, the Club argued that the notice
could not have been received or processed before 5 January 2025, the first working day of
the year.
46. The Club emphasised that the Player himself confirmed having refused to return to the
Club and having wished to remain in Portugal for personal and family reasons, namely the
imminent birth of his twins. The Club relied on the Player’s own submissions to confirm
that the September salary was paid on 9 January 2025 and that the October and November
salaries were paid shortly thereafter. The Club stressed that these payments were
acknowledged by the Player and demonstrated the Club’s willingness and intention to
continue the contractual relationship.
47. According to the Club, by proceeding with the payments on 14 January 2025, it had fully
complied with the amounts requested in the Player’s notice of 28 December 2024 and had
acted in good faith. The Club argued that, despite receiving full payment, the Player chose
to leave Romania on 15 January 2025 and to definitively refuse to return, thereby
confirming that the termination was not an ultima ratio but rather the result of the Player’s
personal decision to end the contractual relationship.
48. The Club further submitted that the Player had misinformed his prospective new club, FC
Felgueiras 1932, by failing to disclose that he had terminated the Contract without just
cause. The Club maintained that, had the Player truly terminated with just cause, FIFA
would have allowed his registration irrespective of the Club’s position on the ITC. Instead,
the termination of the Player’s contract with FC Felgueiras 1932 allegedly resulted from the
Player’s own lack of transparency regarding his contractual status with the Club.
49. The Club rejected the Player’s allegation that it had refused to conclude a termination
agreement, explaining that it had been willing to settle the matter by mutual agreement
and to waive its right to compensation, provided that the Player limited his financial claims
to the period actually worked. According to the Club, the negotiations failed solely because
the Player insisted on being paid salaries beyond 13 January 2025, which the Club
considered unfounded. The Club stated that the Player ultimately refused its last
settlement proposal.
50. The Club reiterated that the conditions of art. 14bis of the Regulations had not been met
on 14 January 2025. It argued that the 15-day deadline, even under the Player’s own
interpretation, expired on 14 January 2025 and that payment was made on that very day.
In the alternative, the Club submitted that the deadline should have expired on 13 January
2025, as the last day fell on a Sunday, and that payment could still be validly made on the
next working day. In both scenarios, the Club maintained that the Player terminated the
Contract prematurely and without just cause.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19338
51. In conclusion, the Club asserted that the Player’s termination was not justified, that the
Player had acted in bad faith by concealing his true intention to leave for personal reasons,
and that the Club had at all times shown its willingness to continue the employment
relationship. On this basis, the Club requested that the Player’s claim be rejected in its
entirety, that the Player be ordered to pay compensation corresponding to the residual
value of the Contract, and that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Player.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
52. 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 originally presented to FIFA on 30 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 26 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
53. 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 a Romanian club and a Portuguese player.
54. 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
55. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
56. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19338
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
57. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
dispute for breach of contract involving a player and a club.
58. The Chamber first recalled that the Player claimed that he terminated the Contract with
just cause on 14 January 2025 under art. 14bis of the Regulations, after (i) the Club
unlawfully failed to pay at least two monthly salaries (October and November 2024); and
(ii) he had put the Club in default on 28 December 2024, granting 15 days to fully comply,
including unpaid goal bonuses (RON 9,000). He maintained that the Club only paid one
month (September) on 9 January 2025, paid the two remaining months only reactively and
late, and still failed to settle the bonuses; moreover, the funds credited on 15 January 2025,
i.e., after termination, could not cure the breach. He requested compensation equal to the
residual value (RON 285,000) plus bonuses (RON 9,000), 5% p.a. interest, and sporting
sanctions against the Club.
59. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club argued the Player terminated without just
cause. It submitted that the 14bis default letter of 28 December 2024 arrived during a
holiday period and could not be processed earlier than 5 January 2025; that the 15‑day
period thus expired at the earliest on 14 January 2025; and that the Club paid the
outstanding October/November salaries on 14 January 2025, evidencing good faith and the
intent to continue the Contract. The Club added that the Player refused to return, acted for
personal reasons (twins expected), and even misled a prospective new club. The Club
requested dismissal of the Player’s claim, compensation from the Player equal to the
residual value (RON 263,548.30) and sporting sanctions on the Player.
60. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to decide on the circumstances
of the termination and the consequences therefrom.
A. TERMINATION
61. The Chamber began its analysis by recalling that the following facts were relevant and
remained undisputed between the parties:
•
The parties concluded the Contract on 1 February 2024, which was validly
extended to 30 June 2025, entitling the Player to a net monthly salary for the
2024/25 season of RON 47,500 and bonuses that included RON 1,500 per
goal/assist.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19338
•
On 28 December 2024, the Player sent a written default notice expressly “for the
purposes of art. 14bis” requesting three salaries (Sep/Oct/Nov 2024) and bonuses
within 15 days.
•
On 9 January 2025, the Club paid September salary.
•
On 12 January 2025 (or ultimately on 13 January 2025), the 15-day deadline
expired.
•
On 14 January 2025, the Player issued the Termination Letter with immediate
effect.
•
“A few hours later” on 14 January 2025, the Club paid the October/November
salaries and the goal-bonus debt remained unpaid.
62. In light of the above and taking into account the content of art. 14bis of the Regulations,
the Chamber highlighted that:
•
Unpaid salaries on their due dates. The October and November 2024 salaries
fell due on 25 November and 25 December 2024 respectively; both were
outstanding when the Player sent the 14bis notice. This circumstance was
acknowledged in substance by the Club and is not disputed on file.
•
Default notice and 15-day period. The Player’s 28 December 2024 notice was
in writing, explicitly invoked art. 14bis, and provided at least 15 days to comply.
The Player further argued that, even if the Club was deemed notified on 30
December 2024, the 15-day period expired on 13 January 2025, and he
terminated on 14 January 2025 - i.e., after the deadline.
•
Full compliance within the deadline. The text of art. 14bis par. 1 requires the
debtor club to “fully comply” within the granted period. Nevertheless, the case
file shows that, by the expiry of the period, the Club had not fully settled the
Player’s claims because the two salaries were only credited to the Player’s
account on 15 January 2025 – and, in any event, admittedly remitted after the
Termination Letter had already been issued.
63. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that the Club’s internal holiday arrangements could
not suspend a Player’s right to seek protection under art. 14bis or to delay the start or
running of the 15-day period, absent a regulatory basis. In any case, the Chamber
emphasised that even under the Club’s most favourable computation (deadline 14 January
2025), full settlement – including bonuses – was not demonstrated within the period, and
value-date evidence suggests funds reached the Player after termination.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19338
64. Similarly, the Chamber pointed out that the Player’s continued participation in training until
13 January 2025 was consistent with good faith while awaiting compliance. Conversely, the
Club’s subsequent payments confirmed the existence of overdue debts.
65. In conclusion, in light of (i) unpaid two monthly salaries on their due dates, (ii) a written
default giving 15 days, and (iii) lack of full compliance within that period (including bonus
arrears and post‑deadline crediting), the Chamber concluded that the Player terminated
the Contract with just cause on 14 January 2025 pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations.
B. CONSEQUENCES
66. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such an unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
67. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, was equivalent to two monthly
salaries.
68. However, the Chamber also noted that the Club paid those outstanding salaries right after
the termination, and for that reason, it decided to limit the outstanding remuneration to
the goal bonuses of RON 9,000 net, which were not specifically disputed by the Club.
69. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the awarded RON 9,000 net as from 14 January 2025, i.e., the date
of the termination of the Contract, until the date of effective payment.
70. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
71. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
72. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19338
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
73. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claims of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of RON 285,000 net (i.e., RON 47,500 * 6 months) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
74. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the Contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional compensation
applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
75. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of RON
285,000 net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
76. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
77. 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.
78. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
79. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Club, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19338
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
80. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
81. The Chamber 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
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-19338
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, AFC UTA Arad, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Joao Pedro Almeida
Machado, is partially accepted.
3.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, must pay to the Respondent / Counterclaimant the
following amount(s):
- RON 9,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- RON 285,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
14 January 2025 until the date of effective payment;
4.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counterclaimant are rejected.
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 Claimant / Counter-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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-19338
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. 19