Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19756
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Douglas Damasceno Gomes
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Douglas Damasceno Gomes, Brazil
Represented by Milton Jordão Jordão
RESPONDENT:
City, United Arab Emirates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19756
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 September 2022, the Brazilian player, Douglas Damasceno Gomes (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and, the Emirati club, Al Arabi Sports and Cultural Club (hereinafter:
Al Arabi) entered into an employment agreement valid from 1 September 2022 and 31 May
2023.
2.
On 16 January 2023, the Player, the Al Arabi and the Emirati club, City Football Club
(hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club), entered to a Loan Agreement (hereinafter: the
Loan Agreement), that would see the Player being loaned from Al Arabi to the Club, from 15
January 2023 until 31 May 2023.
3.
In the Loan Agreement, the Al Arabi is referred to as the First Party, the Club is referred to
as the Second Party and the Player is referred to as the Third Party.
4.
Art. 3 of the Loan Agreement provided, quoted verbatim:
“Third Article
(First Party commitments)
A- The first party shall be obliged to enable the third party to register and play for the
second party during this loan period and not to interfere in the affairs of the third party
until the end of the loan period agreed in Article 2 of this Agreement, except as required
by laws and regulations.
B- The First party is obligated to pay the third party a monthly salary of (7,000) AED during
the loan period, which he receives at the end of each calendar.”
5.
Art. 4 of the Loan Agreement provided, quoted verbatim:
“Fourth Article
(Second Party commitments)
A- The Second party is obligated to pay the third party a monthly salary of (5,000) AED
during the loan period, which he receives at the end of each calendar month until the end
of the loan period.
B- The Second party provide the third party fully furnished accommodation during the
loan period.”
C- Insurance coverage to the third party as follows:
1.Insurance covering cases of illness and treatment throughout the contract period.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19756
2.Insurance covering the expenses of treatment and rehabilitation of the third party in the
event of injury during or because of play or training with the second party under a medical
report issued by a government medical institution, up to a maximum of six months after
the end of this agreement.
3.insurance guarantees adequate compensation to the player in cases of disability or
death resulting from injury during or due to play or training with the second party.
4.Insurance guarantees the payment of all the player's dues in case of injury during or
because of playing or training with the second party', as the player remains in this case
enjoy all his rights and financial privileges until the end of this agreement.
5. The second party is obligated to participate in the third party (the player) in the matches
and training of the first team only.
6. The second party is obligated to grant the third party match bonuses as determined by
the regulations of the second party.”
6.
Art. 10 par. 2 of the Loan Agreement provided, quoted verbatim:
“2- The third party (the loaned player) is not entitled to claim the first party (the Lender
club) any amounts or financial dues of any kind during the loan period, nor any future
receivables or amounts arising from this Loan agreement. In general, the First Party shall
not be liable for any claims of any kind and by any party to this Agreement either during
or after the Loan period Except as mentioned in this agreement.”
7.
On 14th March 2023, the Player sent a notice of default, via email, to the Club stating that it
failed to provide him with medical insurance and medical treatment following an injury he
sustained, while he was on loan with it. The Player requested that the Club provide him
with “medical and/or financial support for the expenses of his medical treatment and
rehabilitation period” and granted a 10-day time limit for the Club to answer. The Player
stated that if the Club “persist[s] to terminate the loan agreement without just cause and refuse
to pay to the CLAIMANT any financial compensation for the breach of the employment contract,
there will be no other choice but to submit this matter to the FIFA competent bodies.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 30 May 2025. the Player lodged a joint claim with FIFA against both Al Arabi and the
Club, this initial claim was closed, on 25 June 2025, by the FIFA general secretariat for
administrative reasons.
9.
On 30 June 2025, the Player lodged a claim with FIFA for outstanding remuneration and
financial compensation.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19756
a. Position of the Claimant
10. The Player submitted that at an unspecified date, about a month after the Loan Agreement
was signed, he suffered a “bilateral inguinal hernia”.
11. The Player asserted that the Club refused to provide him the necessary medical care and
allegedly communicated to him their intention of terminating the Loan Agreement and
having him return to Al Arabi.
12. The Player affirmed that City never answered his notice of default sent on 14 March 2023,
and that at an unspecified date he was compelled to return to Brazil, to undergo medical
treatment.
13. The Player`s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“i. Admit the present claim and affirm its jurisdiction as the competent body to adjudicate
this matter in accordance with the applicable FIFA regulations;
ii. Render a decision in favor of the Claimant based on the arguments and evidence
presented, specifically:
a. To acknowledge and declare that the Respondent engaged in abusive conduct towards
the Claimant, in violation of his contractual and regulatory obligations;
b. To order the Respondent to pay the Claimant:
b. 1. Outstanding salaries from approximately 15 February 2023 until 31 May
2023, totaling 3.5 months of unpaid salary from DUBAI CITY FC. The calculated
amount for this component is 3.5 months × AED 5,000/month = AED 17,500
(seventeen thousand five hundred United Arab Emirates Dirhams).
b. 2. Appropriate financial compensation for the harm suffered—arising from their
failure to fulfill contractual duties, including the provision of medical care, financial
support, and salary payments during the relevant period. The compensation
sought for this component is AED 25,000 (twenty-five thousand United Arab
Emirates Dirhams), calculated as five times the Player’s monthly salary at the
relevant time.”
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite being provided with the opportunity to reply, the Club has not responded to the
present claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19756
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 30 June 2025 and submitted for
decision on 8 December 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.
16. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Brazilian player and an Emirati club.
17. 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. Admissibility
18. The Single Judge noted that, in his claim, the Player inter alia requested the payment of
salaries between 15 February 2023 and 31 May 2023.
19. At this point, the Single Judge referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years
have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application of this time limit
shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
20. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the initial claim was lodged in front of FIFA on
30 May 2025. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts fallen
due before 30 May 2023 are affected by the statute of limitations.
21. Since the Loan Agreement did not provide for a payment schedule, the Single Judge
recalled the longstanding practice of the Football Tribunal and determined that this
amount was due on the last day of the month. In that sense, the salaries of February 2023
were due on 28 February 2023, the salaries of March 2023 were due on 31 March 2023,
and the salaries of April 2023 were due on 30 April 2023. Consequently, the specific part of
the Claimant’s claim related to the payment of the salaries of February, March, and April
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19756
2023 are affected by the statute of limitation as these amounts fell due before 30 May 2023.
Consequently, the Single Judge deemed inadmissible the part of the Player’s claim
regarding the salaries of February 2023, March 2023, and April 2023.
22. As for the salary of May 2023, by virtue of the longstanding practice of the Football Tribunal
in absence of a payment schedule, the Single Judge considered it fell due on 31 May 2023
and thus deemed this part of the claim admissible.
c. Burden of proof
23. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
24. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Player is claiming AED 5,000 for the month of May 2023, as well as a compensation of
AED 25,000 for “failure to fulfill contractual duties, including the provision of medical care,
financial support, and salary payments during the relevant period”.
26. Since the Club did not respond to this letter, the Single Judge confirmed that his decision
would be based on documentation on file, i.e. the submissions and evidence filed by the
Player, in accordance with articles 14 par. 1 and 21 par.1 of the Procedural Rules.
27. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his first task was to determine, based
on the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed remuneration had in fact
remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations, and then determine whether the Player is
entitled to compensation for the alleged breach of the Loan Agreement by the Club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19756
Outstanding remuneration
28. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties.
29. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that in absence of an answer by the Club to the
present claim no reasonable justification was presented by the Respondent for not having
complied with the terms of the contract, namely the Player’s salary of May 2023, and
consequently did not discharge its burden of proof.
30. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from
the contract concluded between the parties, namely the salary of May 2023 amounting to
AED 5,000.
Compensation
31. The Single Judge then turned its attention to the Player’s request for compensation.
32. The Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 17 of the Regulations which provides, quoted
verbatim:
“The following provisions apply if a contract is terminated without just cause:
1. In all cases, the party that has suffered as a result of a breach of contract by the counterparty
shall be entitled to receive compensation. Subject to the provisions of article 20 and Annexe 4 in
relation to training compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract.”
33. The Single Judge also recalled the wording of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules which
states: “A party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it.“
34. After careful consideration of all the evidence submitted on file the Single Judge
determined that the Player had not provided evidence that the Loan Agreement had been
terminated by the Club. In absence of evidence regarding the termination of the Loan
Agreement the Single Judge determined that the Player did not discharge his burden of
proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and concluded that he could not award
compensation.
35. In full consideration of the Player’s submissions, the Single Judge also determined that the
claim for compensation by the Player could not be considered as a claim for
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19756
reimbursement of medical expenses, as the Player did not provide evidence that he
incurred expenses for the medical proceedings.
36. Consequently, the Single Judge rejected this part of the claim of the Player.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that 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.
e. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19756
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. 10
REF. FPSD-19756
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Douglas Damasceno Gomes, is partially accepted insofar it is
admissible.
2.
The Respondent, City, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- AED 5,000 as outstanding remuneration
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19756
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. 12