Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19757
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:
Al Arabi, United Arab Emirates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19757
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:
the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment agreement valid from 1 September
2022 and 31 May 2023.
2.
On 16 January 2023, the Player, the Club and the Emirati club, City Football Club
(hereinafter: City), entered to a Loan Agreement (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement), that
would see the Player being loaned from the Club to City, from 15 January 2023 until 31 May
2023.
3.
In the Loan Agreement, the Club is referred to as the First Party, City 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-19757
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
City was not providing the appropriate medical care despite its contractual obligations
under the Loan Agreement. The Player stated that since City was “no longer interested to
maintain the loan agreement”, the Club had to reintegrate the Player.
8.
In the notice of default, the Player requested that the Club provide him with “medical and
financial support for the expenses of his medical treatment and rehabilitation period” and
granted a 10-day time limit for the Club to provide him with an answer. The Player added
that if City “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.”
9.
On 17 March 2023, the Club answered stating that the Player was still registered with City,
and that they had no authority on the matter. It asked to receive a copy of any termination
letter that City may have sent to the Player, and evidence of any breach of the Loan
Agreement by City.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19757
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 30 May 2025. the Player lodged a joint claim with FIFA against both the Club and City,
this initial claim was closed, on 25 June 2025, by the FIFA general secretariat for
administrative reasons.
11. On 30 June 2025, the Player lodged a claim with FIFA for outstanding remuneration and
financial compensation.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. The Player submitted that at an unspecified date, about a month after the Loan Agreement
was signed, he suffered a “bilateral inguinal hernia”.
13. The Player asserted that City 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 the Club.
14. The Player affirmed that the Club refused to provide him support or medical assistance
despite his request, but that since City refused to assist him, the Club was under the
obligation to reintegrate him and provide him with the medical assistance he requested.
15. 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 Al Arabi engaged in abusive conduct
towards the Claimant, in violation of their contractual and regulatory obligations;
b. To order Al Arabi to pay the Claimant appropriate financial compensation for
the harm suffered—arising from his failure to fulfill his duties, including the
provision of medical care during the relevant period. The compensation sought for
this component is AED 35,000 (thirty-five thousand United Arab Emirates Dirhams),
calculated as five times the Player’s monthly salary which was the mount paid (AED
7.000) by Al Arabi at the relevant time.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19757
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. Despite being provided with the opportunity to reply, the Club has not responded to the
present claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. 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.
18. 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 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.
19. 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
20. 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).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19757
c. Merits of the dispute
21. 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
22. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Player is claiming AED 35,000 equivalent to 5 monthly salaries due by the Club under
the Loan Agreement as compensation for the Club`s alleged failure of its contractual duty,
mostly due to the absence of medical assistance.
23. 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.
24. The Single Judge took note of the allegations of the Player that the Loan Agreement was
terminated by City, and that by virtue of this alleged termination art. 10 par. 4 of the
Regulations was triggered which rendered the Club responsible for providing him medical
assistance.
25. In the present case, aside from a monthly remuneration of AED 5,000 provided by art. 3 of
the Loan Agreement, the Club did not have any further obligations towards the Player as
per art. 10 par. 2 of the Loan Agreement, as all other obligations would be assumed by City.
26. 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 City.
27. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to the Commentary on the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of players (2023 edition, p. 96) according to which (quoted verbatim):
“The player and the new club must sign an employment contract covering the period of the loan
and shall clearly acknowledge that the professional player is on loan. During that loan period,
unless the player and the parent club agree otherwise in writing, the employment contract
between the player and the parent club is automatically suspended.”
28. Thus, in absence of evidence that the Loan Agreement had been terminated, the Single
Judge determined that the Player had not met his burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19757
the Procedural Rules, that the Club had become responsible for providing him medical
assistance, as from the evidence on file the Loan Agreement remained in force until its
natural conclusion.
29. The Single Judge noted that under the Loan Agreement the only obligation of the Club
towards the Player was to pay him a monthly salary of AED 7,000 and that the Player never
claimed that the Club had defaulted on this obligation.
30. Considering all the above the Single Judge rejected entirely the claim of the Player.
d. Costs
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19757
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Douglas Damasceno Gomes, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19757
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. 10