Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20021
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Geovane
Montanari
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Geovane Montanari, Brazil
Represented by Evandro Luis Rezende Forte
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Portimonense Sporting Clube – Futebol SAD, Portugal
Represented by João Filipe Lobão
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20021
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are the following:
• The Brazilian player Geovane Montanari (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent); and
• The Portuguese club Portimonense Sporting Clube – Futebol SAD (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent / Counterclaimant) affiliated to the Portuguese Football
Federation (FPF).
2.
On 23 July 2024, the Club issued a document titled “Term of Responsibility” (“Termo de
Responsabilidade” in the original Portuguese), in which it acknowledged its responsibility
for the Player’s travel to Portugal and assumed liability for all related expenses. The Club
also provided the Player with the necessary travel documents, including a flight ticket to
Portugal.
3.
On 26 July 2024, the Player arrived in Portugal and signed the employment contract with
the Club (hereinafter: the Employment Contract), valid until 30 June 2027.
4.
Pursuant to clauses 3 to 6 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to remunerate
the Player as follows (quoted verbatim from the Player’s free translation):
“3. For the above-mentioned provision, [the Club] undertakes to pay the PLAYER, during
the term of the contract, the following net monthly remuneration, which includes the
proportional amounts corresponding to the holiday and Christmas bonuses, and which
are due on the 5th of the month following the month to which they refer, i.e., the payment
of the first salary, relating to the month of July, will be made on the 5th of August, under
the following terms:
a) Season 2024/2025: €4,000.00 (four thousand euros);
b) Season 2025/2026: €5,000.00 (five thousand euros);
c) Season 2026/2027: €6,000.00 (six thousand euros);
4. The PLAYER has the right to have a furnished apartment for the use of the PLAYER and
his family, in addition to a car, with the PLAYER being responsible for paying for fuel as
well as any traffic violations that may be attributed to him.
5. Upon signing this Contract, [the Club] will pay the PLAYER, as a signing-on fee, the net
amount of EUR 10,000 (ten thousand EUROS), due upon registration of the sports
employment contract.
6. At its sole discretion and initiative, [the Club] may also pay the PLAYER performance
bonuses established by it for the senior first team, if he is actually in it, depending on the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20021
results obtained, as defined at the start of each season or match by match.
5.
Clauses 9 and 10 of the Employment Contract provided (quoted verbatim from the Player’s
free translation):
“9. The PLAYER has the right to unilaterally terminate this contract without having to
invoke just cause, and is immediately released from the employment and sporting
relationship with PORTIMONENSE SAD, under the following conditions:
a) Termination can only take place when [the Club] receives notice at least 15 (fifteen)
days before the date on which it is due to take effect;
b) With that communication, [the Club] must make an immediate payment of EUR
40,000,000.00 (forty million euros) net (excluding amounts owed to third-party
training clubs as part of the solidarity mechanism under the applicable regulations);
c) Once the notice has been given and within the time limits set out in point a) above
and the amount mentioned in point b) above has been paid, [the Club] undertakes
to release the PLAYER from his employment and sporting obligations.
10. In the event that one of the parties terminates this contract, the party that gave rise
to the unlawful termination shall be obliged to indemnify the other party for the damage
caused, with a penalty clause to be established as follows:
a) In the event that [the Club] terminates the contract unlawfully, it is obliged to pay the
PLAYER compensation corresponding to the amount of unpaid remuneration
accruing up to the end of the contract, although it may deduct from the
compensation any amounts that the PLAYER may receive for providing the same
activity to another sports organisation;
b) In the event that the PLAYER is unlawfully terminated, [the Club] is entitled to require
the PLAYER to pay compensation of no less than EUR 40,000,0000.00 (forty million
euros).”
6.
Clause 11 of the Employment Contract provided the following (quoted verbatim from the
Player’s free translation):
“11. The parties hereby agree to confer exclusive and final jurisdiction to settle any and
all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Contract on FIFA’s dispute resolution
bodies, with appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, based in Lausanne. The
language of the proceeding shall be English, and the panel shall be composed of a single
arbitrator.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20021
7.
Also on 26 July 2024, the Player and a company named “Sun International General Trading
DWC-LLC” (hereinafter: the Company) allegedly entered into an image rights agreement
(hereinafter: the IRA), which was valid from 20 July 2024 until 30 June 2027.
8.
Pursuant to clause 1.3 of the IRA (quoted verbatim from the Player’s free translation):
“1.3. [The Player] agrees that, apart the purposes of this Agreement, [the Company] shall
have the right to exercise the Image Rights on its own or in collaboration with any third
parties, or to authorize the third parties to exercise the Image Rights.”
9.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the IRA, the Company undertook to remunerate the Player as
follows (quoted verbatim from the Player’s free translation):
“Article 3 License Fee Regarding the Use of Image Rights
3.1 For the purpose of this agreement, [the Company] shall pay [the Player] the amount
up to EUR 350,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand EUROS NET), in 35 instalments of
EUR 10,000 (ten thousand Euros NET) each, being the first on 5th Semptember 20224 and
the next every 5th of the following months on which the Player has a sport labor contract
with [the Club] the payment methods shall be to the account to be identified by [the
Player]. If the Player does not have a sport employment contract with [the Club] at the
time of payment of any instalment no amount shall be due and [the Player] hereby
expressly relinquish any payment of [the Company] on such period.
10.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the IRA established the following (quoted verbatim from the Player’s free
translation):
“Article 4 Termination of the Contract
4.1 [The Company] is entitled to terminate this Agreement unilaterally with just cause
under any of the following circumstances, and therefore is not obliged to pay [the Player]
any compensation nor the remaining license fee since the date of termination:
(a) [The Player]'s reputation or image is adversely affected by any of his illegal activities
or acts contravening the social morality or law, which in turn causes the Employment
Contract is terminated and the value of the Image Rights to be materially diminished;
(b) [The Player] violates any of the provisions hereunder so that [the Company] is
incapable of exercising the Image Rights; or
(c) [The Player] breaches the non-disclosure or confidentiality clauses.
4.1. [The Company] is entitled to terminate this Agreement unilaterally without just cause
if the contract of the Player with [the Club] expires or comes to its end before 30th June
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20021
2027, and therefore is not obliged to pay [the Player] any compensation nor the
remaining license fee since the date of termination.
Article 5 Miscellaneous
5.1 [The Player] shall keep in strict confidentiality the execution of this Agreement and
the agreed matters and terms herein and shall not disclose or disseminate such
information to any person in any manner (publicly or privately) or inform any person of
such information in any manner (publicly or privately) without the prior written consent
of [the Company].
The confidentiality provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force during the term of
this Agreement and survive the termination hereof for five years.
5.2 Any dispute arising from or related to the application or interpretation of this
Agreement, if not settled through friendly consultation by the Parties, will be submitted
to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne Switzerland in accordance with
Swiss Law.
5.3 [The Company] shall have the right to assignat any moment and without any need
for further authorization all the rights and obligations under this Agreement, [the
Company] shall inform [the Player] in written form when assigning this Agreement as
above stated.”
11.
The copy of the IRA submitted by the Player is not signed by either party.
12.
On 31 July 2024, the Club publicly announced the signing of the Player on its Instagram
account.
13.
On 1 August 2024, the Club concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter: the Lease Agreement)
for the Player’s accommodation, assuming full responsibility for the monthly rental fee of
EUR 1,750.
14.
On 2 August 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 5,000 corresponding to half of the
signing‑on fee.
15.
On 3 August 2024, the Player participated in a friendly match against Clube Desportivo
Feirense.
16.
On 9 September 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 2,500 relating to the days worked in
July 2024.
17.
On 10 September 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 5,044.02 (EUR 1,045.93 + EUR
3,998.09) as the remaining part of the signing‑on fee.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20021
18.
On 11 September 2024, the Player’s wife gave birth to the Player’s daughter.
19.
On 19 September 2024, the Player and the Club signed an “Addendum to the Employment
Contract” (hereinafter: the Addendum), whereby they established that the clause 3 of the
Employment Contract should be replaced as follows (quoted verbatim from the Player’s
free translation):
“3. For the above-mentioned provision, [the Club] undertakes to pay the PLAYER, during
the term of the contract, the following net monthly remuneration, which includes the
proportional amounts corresponding to the holiday and Christmas bonuses, and which
are due on the 5th of the month following the month to which they refer, i.e., the payment
of the first salary, relating to the month of July, will be made on the 5th of August, under
the following terms:
a) Season 2024/2025: €14,000.00 (fourteen thousand euros);
b) Season 2025/2026: €15,000.00 (fifteen thousand euros);
c) Season 2026/2027: €16,000.00 (sixteen thousand euros);”
20. Clause 2 of the Addendum established the following (quoted verbatim from the Player’s free
translation):
“2. [The Club] recognises the PLAYER’s right to receive the single net prize of €12,727.00
(twelve thousand seven hundred and twenty-seven euros), which will be paid within 5
(five) days after the signing of this addendum as a performance bonus for performance
in the month of August 2024.”
21.
All other provisions of the Employment Contract remained unchanged, and the parties also
clarified that the salary increase would only take effect with the remuneration for
September 2024 paid on 5 October 2024.
22.
Also on 19 September 2024, the Club purportedly provided the Player with a document
titled “Termination of Image Rights Agreement” (hereinafter: the IRA Termination), which
contained, inter alia, the following:
“1. [The Company] and [the Player] agree to terminate, on this date, the Image Rights
License Agreement concluded between them on 26 July 2024, including all its
amendments and extensions.
2. [The Company] and [the Player] declare to each other that they have nothing to receive
or claim between them and therefore, relinquish for all effects of all sums dues and future
arising out of the contract hereby terminated (including its amendments) and its
cessation.”
23.
The copy of the IRA Termination submitted by the Player only contains his signature.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20021
24.
On 24 September 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 12,727 as part of the August 2024
salary.
25.
Also on 24 September 2024, an individual identified as the Player’s landlord, Mr Claudio
Manoel (hereinafter: the Landlord) informed him that the Club had not paid the rent.
26.
Still on 24 September 2024, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,254, allegedly
corresponding to EUR 1,750 as the full rental fee and further costs for living of EUR 504.
27.
On 30 September 2024, the Landlord again notified the Player of unpaid rent, this time for
the month of September 2024. The Landlord also informed the Player that the payment
should be made through the Club’s bank account per the Rental Agreement.
28.
On 7 October 2024, the Landlord asked the Player for updates about rent payment.
29.
On 9 October 2024, the Club paid the Player the September 2024 salary (EUR 13,988.86).
30.
On 21 October 2024, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,166 for October’s rent (EUR 1,750)
and expenses (EUR 416).
31.
On 7 November 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 13,864.50 for October 2024 salary.
32.
On 10 November 2024, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,216.12 for November 2024 rent
(EUR 1,750) and expenses (EUR 466.12).
33.
On 13 December 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 17,862.31 for November 2024 salary
and “partial costs of the rent”.
34.
On the same date, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,174.03 for December 2024 rent (EUR
1,750) and expenses (EUR 424.03).
35.
On 22 January 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 14,871.48 for December 2024 salary.
36.
On 23 January 2025, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,205.56 for January 2025 rent (EUR
1,750) and expenses (EUR 455.56).
37.
On 7 February 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 15,291.48 for the January 2025 salary.
38.
On 12 February 2025, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,210.96 for February 2025 rent
(EUR 1,750) and expenses (EUR 460.96).
39.
On 28 February 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 14,833.41 for the February 2025 salary
in advance.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20021
40.
On 12 March 2025, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,234.75 for March 2025 rent (EUR
1,750) and expenses (EUR 484.75).
41.
On 8 April 2025, an individual identified as the Sports Supervisor of the Club’s Professional
team, Mr Nuno Paiva, informed the Player via WhatsApp that as of the following day the
Player would join the Club’s Team B, as well as that he would soon receive further
information about his new schedule.
42.
Also on 8 April 2025, an individual identified as the Under-23 Supervisor, Mr Delgado
(hereinafter: the U-23 Supervisor), sent the Player via WhatsApp a training schedule for the
following day.
43.
On 9 April 2025, the U‑23 Supervisor also sent the Player a training location.
44.
On 10 April 2025, the Player was added to the U‑23 / Team B WhatsApp group.
45.
On 11 April 2025, the Player informed the U‑23 Supervisor that he had not received training
materials.
46.
On 16 April 2025, the U‑23 Supervisor informed U‑23 / Team B players that gym access was
prohibited as of that day.
47.
On 24 April 2025, the Player contacted the U-23 Supervisor regarding the absence of
supplements.
48.
On 24 April 2025, the Player wrote to an individual identified as the Club’s Financial
Director, Mr Edgar Vilaça (hereinafter: the Financial Director) regarding the unpaid March
2025 salary.
49.
In response, the Financial Director suggested that the Player had not been paid due to a
national holiday. Furthermore, the Financial Director stated that last month the Player was
paid in advance, as well as that the delay was due to “others” default.
50.
On 26 April 2025, the Player was removed from the first‑team WhatsApp group.
51.
On 28 April 2025, the Player contacted the Financial Director via WhatsApp, acknowledging
that his salary had not yet been paid. The Financial Director shared a screenshot from a
social media post, stating that Portugal, Spain and Morocco had no electricity.
52.
Also on 28 April 2025, the U-23 Supervisor informed the Player that he was dispensed from
the training session the following day and should meet with a person identified as the
Club’s Vice-President, Mr Robson Ponte (hereinafter: the Vice-President) instead.
53.
On 29 April 2025, the Player asked the U-23 Supervisor about his next steps and planning
for the day. The U-23 Supervisor confirmed that he should meet the Vice-President later
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20021
that day. According to the Player, he was informed in this meeting that he would be placed
on early vacation and excluded from plans for the 2025/2026 season.
54.
On 30 April 2025, the Player again contacted the Financial Director regarding unpaid March
2025 salary.
55.
On 30 April 2025 and 2 May 2025, the Club made partial payments to the Player totalling
EUR 14,882.48 (EUR 3,720.62 + EUR 11,161.86) for the March 2025 salary.
56.
On 2 May 2025, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,166.05 for April 2025 rent (EUR 1,750)
and expenses (EUR 416.05).
57.
On 27 May 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 14,883.48 for the April 2025 salary.
58.
On 28 May 2025, the Player paid the Landlord EUR 2,178.25 for May 2025 rent (EUR 1,750)
and expenses (EUR 428.25).
59.
On 1 July 2025, the Player contacted the Vice‑President via WhatsApp seeking information
about his delayed salary and his reinstatement to the first team.
60.
On 8 July 2025, the Club’s first team played a friendly match against Aberdeen FC, but the
Player was not part of the squad.
61.
Also on 8 July 2025, the Portuguese press reported that the Player was no longer part of
the Club’s squad.
62.
On 12 July 2025, the Player issued a notice of termination (hereinafter: the Termination
Notice) with immediate effect. The Player recalled the repeated payment delays, the lack of
infrastructure, and his demotion to the U-23 team, claiming just cause in accordance with
art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations).
63.
On 16 July 2025, the Club paid the Player EUR 14,857.57, seemingly relating to the May 2025
salary.
64.
On 2 September 2025, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Ukrainian
club, FC Epicenter, valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2027. Accordingly, the
Player would be entitled to a monthly salary of UAH 25,000 (approx. EUR 513.85).
65.
On 15 January 2026, the Player was loaned from FC Epicenter to the Brazilian club, Clube
de Regatas Brasil (AL), from 13 January 2026 to 30 November 2026. According to the
Player’s new employment contract, he would be entitled to a monthly salary of BRL 5,000
(approx. EUR 797.55).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20021
66.
Furthermore, the Player acknowledged having signed an image rights agreement with
Clube de Regatas Brasil (AL) and a company by means of which he was entitled to a monthly
fee of BRL 70,000 (approx. EUR 11,165.80) for the duration of his employment relationship
with the Brazilian club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
67.
On 22 July 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
68.
The Player alleged that the Club persistently failed to pay his agreed salaries on time from
the beginning of the contractual relationship. He claimed that payments were delayed,
incomplete, or missing altogether for several months. The Club also failed to provide the
fully furnished apartment it contractually owed him and refused to pay the agreed rent,
forcing him to cover these costs despite recently becoming a father for the second time.
These irregularities accumulated into a continuous pattern of financial disregard that
undermined basic contractual obligations and placed the Player in financial difficulty.
69.
The Player further claimed the Club subjected him to abusive and coercive measures
intended to pressure him into modifying his contract or leaving the Club. This included a
sudden demotion to the U-23 squad without justification, exclusion from professional
training sessions and matches, denial of nutritional supplements, prohibition from using
the gym, and the failure to register him for youth competitions, thereby preventing him
from participating in any official matches. The Club also removed him from the professional
team’s WhatsApp group, which the Player considered a clear indication that the Club no
longer recognized him as part of the squad.
70.
The Player alleged that while his teammates received their salaries on time, the Club
selectively withheld only his payments for March and April 2025, further evidencing
targeted and discriminatory conduct. The Club repeatedly ignored his requests for
clarification and allegedly joked about his salary during discussions about late payments.
71.
The Player further alleged that the Club openly communicated, both internally and to the
press, that he was no longer part of their plans for the following season. He was placed on
early vacation, excluded from training, prevented from participating in matches, and not
provided with travel arrangements for the pre-season. The Club ignored his messages
requesting clarification regarding his status and return to Portugal.
72.
The Player alleged that the combination of (i) systematic non-payment, (ii) purposeful
exclusion from team activities, (iii) denial of professional conditions essential for a football
career, and (iv) open communication of his exclusion from the team project constituted a
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20021
severe and irremediable breach of trust. According to the Player, these events, individually
and collectively, gave him just cause to terminate the Employment Contract.
73.
In light of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“FIRST – To uphold the present Claim in full;
SECOND – To confirm that the Player had grounds to breach the Employment Contract
with just cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 1,273 due as the remaining part of the
outstanding salary due for August 2024, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 29
September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 1,534.33 due as rent refund due for
the Rent of October, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 21 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 878.52 due as rent refund due for the
Rent of December, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 13 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
SIXTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 458,52 due as rent refund due for the
Rent of January, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
SEVENTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 916.69 due as rent refund due for the
Rent of February, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 February 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
EIGHTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 867.52 due as rent refund due for the
Rent of March, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 March 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
NINETH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 866,52 due as rent refund due for the
Rent of April, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 2 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
TENTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 892.43 due as rent refund due for the
Rent of May, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 28 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20021
ELEVENTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 14,000 due as outstanding salary
due for June 2025, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
TWELFTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 372,000 due as compensation for the
breach of the Employment Contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 July 2025
until the date of effective payment;
THIRTEENTH – To ban the Club from registering any new players, either national or
internationally, for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods;
FOURTEENTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the
Club immediately;
FIFTEENTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
74.
On 21 August 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the Player’s claim and lodged a
counterclaim against him.
75.
The Club began by confirming the existence of the Employment Contract signed on 26 July
2024 and the Addendum executed on 19 September 2024 but stressed that the Addendum
only took effect with the remuneration relating to September 2024, payable on 5 October
2024. Accordingly, the Club argued that for August 2024, only the original monthly salary
of EUR 4,000 was applicable, not EUR 14,000 as alleged by the Player. It asserted that the
Player incorrectly identified the EUR 12,727 amount as salary when, in fact, this figure was
the performance bonus agreed in the Addendum. As a result, the Club maintained that the
entire August 2024 salary was duly paid and no amount remains outstanding.
76.
The Club further claimed that the IRA was not signed by either party and therefore has “no
validity and has produced no effect”. It also stressed that the only outstanding payment was
the salary for June 2025.
77.
Regarding rent, the Club submitted that the lease agreement was executed exclusively
between the Club and the Landlord, creating no legal relationship with the Player. It
asserted that it fulfilled all obligations arising from the lease and denied instructing the
Player to cover any part of the rent. The Club therefore argued that the Player’s alleged
personal payments cannot be reimbursed, as he lacked standing and his documents did
not prove the payments correspond to rent or related expenses. For these reasons, the
Club rejected the Player’s claim for rent reimbursement in full.
78.
On the issue of salary delays, the Club acknowledged occasional late payments but argued
that no delay exceeded 30 days, meaning the legal requirements under Portuguese law
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20021
and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter: the Portuguese CBA) for just-cause
termination were not met. It stressed that the Player never issued a formal notice of
default, which was a mandatory procedural step under both Portuguese law and art. 14bis
of the Regulations. The Club argued that the Player instead proceeded directly to
termination without granting any cure period, violating principles of good faith,
proportionality, and the ultima ratio nature of unilateral termination.
79.
The Club also disputed any allegation of abusive demotion or discriminatory treatment. It
argued that the Employment Contract nowhere guaranteed first-team status and that the
assignment to the U-23/B team was temporary, motivated solely by sporting reasons
related to the Player’s physical and psychological form. The Club contended that the Player
was never isolated, denied facilities, or punished; rather, the reassignment was meant to
protect him during a period of interpersonal conflict within the first team. It further claimed
the Player accepted this temporary integration and that reintegration into the first team
was planned.
80.
Concerning the Player’s absence from pre-season, the Club stated that the Player failed to
report for duty and did not answer calls from the Vice-President. It stressed that the Club
had no contractual obligation to cover the Player’s travel from Brazil, as all players are
responsible for presenting themselves at the beginning of the season. The Club denied ever
stating the Player was not part of the squad for the next season and suggests that media
reports might have originated from third parties or even from the Player himself.
81.
The Club next challenged the validity of the Termination Notice, highlighting that the
document was signed not by the Player but by his lawyer, who lacked any express authority
to terminate the contract on the Player’s behalf. Under Portuguese, Brazilian, and Swiss
law, the Club argued that such authority must be explicit. Because it was not, the Club
argued the termination was legally ineffective and the Player remained bound to the
Employment Contract.
82.
On the merits, the Club denied that any grounds for just cause existed, arguing that neither
the salary delays nor the temporary assignment to the B/U-23 team constitute sufficiently
serious breaches. The Club asserted that it always acted in good faith and that termination
was disproportionate and premature. Consequently, the Club contended that no
compensation is owed to the Player and that the claim for EUR 372,000 must be rejected.
83.
The Club then filed a counterclaim, invoking the penalty clause in the Employment
Contract, which stipulates that if the Player unlawfully terminates the Employment
Contract, he must pay EUR 40,000,000 to the Club. Alternatively, and only in the
hypothetical case that the clause is disregarded, the Club claims EUR 372,000 as residual
salary value. The Club further argued that because the Player terminated within the
protected period, a sporting sanction must be imposed.
84.
The Club submitted the following relief:
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20021
“FIRST: To accept and uphold the present response to claim in full.
SECOND: To confirm that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Employment
Contract, as he did.
THIRD: To confirm that the Club does not owe the amounts claimed by the Player in
respect of salaries and rents.
FOURTH: cannot be held liable for any of the amounts claimed herein, given the absence
of just cause to terminate the Employment Contract prematurely.
FIFTH: To order the Player to pay to the Club €40.000.000,00 (forty million euros) net,
plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% annually as from 29 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment, as compensation. Or, in alternative, and only purely as a
matter of legal argument, €372.000,00, corresponding to the value of the remuneration
due to the Player from the communication of termination by the Club.
SIXTH: To confirm that the player should be banned for at least a four-month period
from participating in official matches.
SEVENTH: To absolve the Club from the claims for outstanding remuneration,
compensation, and sporting sanctions, presented by the player, since the contract was
terminated without just cause by the Player and the claims are unfounded and
disproportionate to this case.
EIGHTH: To confirm that the ongoing proceedings is free of costs.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the Player
85.
On 27 September 2025, the Player submitted his reply to the counterclaim.
86.
The Player argued that the Club’s allegations had no factual or legal basis and that the
counterclaim could not prejudice his rights under the Employment Contract. He recalled
that, under the Employment Contract concluded on 26 July 2024, he was to be employed
until 30 June 2027, during which period the Club had undertaken to pay him a total fixed
remuneration of EUR 526,000. He stated that, throughout the employment relationship,
from 26 July 2024 until his Termination Notice on 12 July 2025, the Club had consistently
failed to comply with essential contractual obligations. In particular, he claimed that he had
been forced to bear the rental costs, had been demoted to the U-23 squad, had been
prevented from playing official matches, had been placed on early vacation, had not
received salaries on time – unlike the remaining players - and had not been informed of
the date or place of return for the pre-season period. He emphasized that these premises
were not disputed by the Club.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20021
87.
Regarding the applicable law, the Player argued that the parties had expressly elected FIFA
jurisdiction under clause 11 of the Employment Contract, and that, accordingly, the FIFA
Statutes and Regulations had to apply pursuant to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules Governing
the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). He stressed that by choosing FIFA
as the competent forum, the parties had also chosen the FIFA regulatory framework as the
applicable law on the merits, an interpretation confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). For these reasons, he rejected the Club’s contention that
Portuguese law prevailed, insisting instead that the Regulations governed the dispute.
88.
On the validity of the Termination Notice, the Player denied the Club’s assertion that his
lawyer lacked authority to terminate the Employment Contract. He stated that the “ad
judicia et extra” clause in the power of attorney had granted broad representative powers,
including authority to terminate. He further submitted that neither Brazilian nor Swiss law
required specific wording to empower such termination, and therefore the termination
notice had been fully valid. He added that art. 14 of the Regulations clearly defined the
circumstances in which a party could no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected
to continue an employment relationship, particularly in cases involving abusive conduct by
the counterparty, and that his case met this standard.
89.
Addressing the demotion to the U-23 team, the Player argued that neither the Employment
Contract nor the Addendum contained any clause allowing the Club to unilaterally reassign
him to a lower category. He stated that such a reassignment lacked any contractual or legal
basis, particularly given that his bonuses depended exclusively on participation in the
professional team. He also emphasised that the Club had offered two contradictory
explanations for the demotion: first alleging issues with his physical and psychological
condition, and later alleging behavioural issues; yet failed to present any evidence for either
scenario. He pointed out that he had played 90 minutes in 26 consecutive matches,
contradicting any argument regarding poor physical condition. He further argued that the
registration window for the U-23 category had already closed, making it impossible for him
to participate in official matches and thereby preventing him from maintaining fitness and
competitive form.
90.
The Player also stated that the Club had not provided a valid explanation for its failure to
provide nutritional supplements, for its prevention of his access to the gym, or for its
decision to remove him from the professional team’s WhatsApp group. He highlighted that
removing him from this communication channel had prevented him from receiving
information about training schedules, including the date and location for the return to the
professional team’s pre-season activities. He submitted that, despite messaging the
Vice-President on 1 July 2025, seeking clarification on overdue salaries and representation,
the Club had not responded. Nonetheless, the Club had accused him of being absent. The
Player considered this contradictory and indicative of the Club’s bad faith.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20021
91.
Regarding the rent issue, the Player rejected the Club’s argument that he lacked standing
to request reimbursement. He noted that the only rent-related document submitted by the
Club was dated 11 days after the termination and lacked clear specification, making it no
more reliable than his own evidence. He asserted that the Club had failed to provide him
with the contractually required furnished apartment from 1 August 2024 until 12 July 2025,
thus breaching the Employment Contract.
92.
The Player concluded that the Club’s behaviour (i.e., demotion without legal basis, exclusion
from professional activities, failure to provide accommodation, irregular salary payments,
and persistent silence in response to his queries) had created an environment in which he
could no longer reasonably maintain the employment relationship. He stressed that the
Club provided no evidence that: (a) he had accepted demotion, (b) he had requested a
transfer, or (c) the Club had asked for his return. He further submitted that he had
repeatedly notified the Club of the breaches, yet the Club had remained silent and only
issued its response/counterclaim after his termination notice. Under these circumstances,
he stated that his loss of trust had been justified and that he had terminated the Contract
with just cause.
93.
The Player therefore echoed his requests for relief and requested that the counterclaim be
rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
94.
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 22 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 5
March 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.
95.
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 Brazilian player and a Portuguese club.
96.
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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20021
b. Burden of proof
97.
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).
c. Merits of the dispute
98.
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
99.
The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by a player against a club, and a counterclaim involving the
same parties.
100. The Chamber noted that the Player submitted that, from the outset of the contractual
relationship (26 July 2024 – 12 July 2025), the Club repeatedly failed to pay salaries on their
due dates, did not honour the contractual obligation to provide housing (forcing him to
cover rent and utilities), and engaged in a course of abusive conduct: demotion to the U-23
group without justification or registration to compete, exclusion from official matches and
team communications, restrictions on facilities and support (including supplements and
gym access), and silence regarding pre-season reporting logistics. On this basis, he claimed
to have terminated the Employment Contract with just cause on 12 July 2025, and claimed
outstanding remuneration, rent reimbursement, and compensation.
101. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club denied any systematic non-payment,
argued that only June 2025 salary was outstanding, and that EUR 12,727 paid in September
2024 related to a performance bonus (not salary). It contested the Player’s standing to seek
rent reimbursement (the lease being between the Club and the Landlord) and contended
that the temporary assignment to train with U-23 was lawful, accepted by the Player, and
aimed at sporting reintegration. It further argued that the Termination Notice was invalid
because the lawyer lacked express authority and that the Player failed to issue any formal
default (art. 14bis of the Regulations / Portuguese CBA formalities). The Club
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-20021
counterclaimed EUR 40,000,000 under a penalty clause (or EUR 372,000 alternatively), plus
sporting sanctions for termination during the protected period.
102. In light of the above, the DRC established that its task was to determine (A) whether the
Player’s lawyer held sufficient authority to issue the Termination Notice on 12 July 2025; (B)
if so, whether the Player had just cause to terminate the employment relationship; and (C)
the ensuing consequences.
103. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
A. VALIDITY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE
104. The Chamber began by recalling that the Club argued the Termination Notice was invalid
because the Player’s legal representative allegedly lacked express powers to terminate the
Employment Contract. However, the Chamber held that there are no legal or regulatory
obstacle preventing a lawyer from issuing a termination notice on behalf of a player,
particularly where the representative acted under a broad “ad judicia et extra” mandate,
which empowers counsel to execute both judicial and extrajudicial acts in the Player’s
name. According to the Chamber, neither applicable domestic legislation nor FIFA
jurisprudence supported the Club’s restrictive interpretation of the authority required for
such communications.
105. In addition, the Chamber outlined that the Player’s intention to terminate the Employment
Contract was clear, unequivocal, and fully understood by both parties. In the Chamber’s
view, the Termination Notice expressly communicated the Player’s decision to end the
contractual relationship, and immediately thereafter, the Player ceased rendering services.
The Club, for its part, did not request his return nor treat the Player as if he remained
bound. Instead, the Club relied on the Termination Notice as the foundation of its
counterclaim for EUR 40,000,000, which presupposes that the Employment Contract had
indeed been terminated.
106. The Chamber therefore found it illogical and contrary to contractual reality to claim that
the employment bond somehow persisted solely due to the signature format of the
Termination Notice. The DRC pointed out that both parties clearly behaved in a manner
consistent with the Employment Contract having ended, and in such circumstances, the
legal effect of the communication could not be negated on the basis of a formalistic
argument, especially when the Club produced no evidence that the Player lacked intent or
that he repudiated the actions of his lawyer.
107. Given the above, the Chamber dismissed the Club’s argument in its entirety; thus,
confirming that the Player actually terminated the Employment Contract on 12 July 2025.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-20021
B. JUST CAUSE FOR THE TERMINATION
108. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Player submitted detailed evidence
demonstrating that the Club persistently failed to comply with the timely payment of his
remuneration.
109. According to the DRC, the case file showed that, from the very beginning of the relationship,
the Club paid nearly every monthly salary late, often in incomplete instalments and
sometimes only after the Player made repeated interventions. By examining the
chronology of payments submitted by the Player, the Chamber noted the following pattern
of delays:
Month (2024–25)
July 2024 (pro-rata)
Due Date
5 August 2024
Date Paid
9 September 2024
August 2024
5 September 2024
24 September 2024
September 2024
October 2024
November 2024
December 2024
January 2025
5 October 2024
5 November 2024
5 December 2024
5 January 2025
5 February 2025
February 2025
5 March 2025
March 2025
5 April 2025
April 2025
May 2025
June 2025
5 May 2025
5 June 2025
5 July 2025
9 October 2024
7 November 2024
~11 December 2024
22 January 2025
7 February 2025
28 February 2025
(advance)
30 April + 2 May
2025
27 May 2025
16 July 2025
Outstanding
Delay
~35 days
19 days + purported
unpaid balance
4 days (partial)
2 days (partial)
~6 days
17 days
2 days
Paid early (isolated
occurrence)
~25 days (two
instalments)
22 days
41 days
110. In light of the above, the Chamber confirmed that the Club systematically delayed the
fulfilment of its financial obligations, with only one exception over an eleven-month period.
Such repeated breaches, particularly when affecting core remuneration, in the Chamber’s
view, could reasonably amount to a loss of the financial security expected in a professional
relationship.
111. The Chamber further noted that, in addition to payment failures, the Club formally and
expressly demoted the Player to the U-23 squad without any convincing justification.
Although the Club claimed that sporting reasons or behavioural issues led to the temporary
reassignment, it provided no evidence whatsoever to substantiate these allegations. On
the contrary, the Club could not counter the Player’s allegations that he had been hired as
part of the first team, that he did not meet the U-23 age requirements, that the registration
window for that category had already closed, and that the U-23 training conditions were
diminished – including limited gym access and the absence of nutritional supplements. The
Club did not rebut these points in any meaningful manner.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-20021
112. Conversely, the Chamber also acknowledged that the Player did not send a formal written
notice of default, which is expected as evidence of good faith, as its purpose is to notify the
non‑compliant party of its failure and to grant it the opportunity to remedy such breach.
However, the Chamber considered that the ample evidence provided by the Player –
through WhatsApp messages, direct requests for explanations, and repeated complaints –
outweighed his procedural flaw and demonstrated that he had consistently alerted the
Club about unpaid salaries, rent, training conditions, and exclusion from the professional
structure. According to the DRC, this became all the more important when considering that
these numerous informal warnings were ignored by the Club, which failed to rectify the
breaches, offer explanations, or even acknowledge the Player’s concerns.
113. Similarly, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Club’s reference to conditions for
termination under the Portuguese CBA did not prevent a lawful termination for consistent
abusive behaviour vis-à-vis the Regulations and the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
114. All the above considerations taken together, the Chamber considered that the persistent
and systematic salary delays, the unjustified and unilateral demotion to a non-competitive
squad, the failure to provide adequate professional conditions, and the Club’s silence (or
inconclusive responses) in the face of the Player’s repeated calls for compliance formed a
pattern of behaviour that fundamentally destroyed the relationship of trust. The Chamber
therefore concluded that such cumulative breaches made it unreasonable to expect the
Player to continue performing under the Employment Contract.
115. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the Player terminated the Employment Contract
with just cause pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
116. Having stated that the Player had just cause to terminate the Employment Contract, the
Chamber decided that the Club’s counterclaim against the Player must be rejected in its
entirety.
117. Then, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the Player’s requests and noted that he
requested outstanding remuneration, reimbursement and compensation for breach of
contract..
ii.A. Outstanding salaries
118. The Chamber initially observed that the Player claimed:
•
•
EUR 1,273 as the balance of the salary for August 2024; and
EUR 14,000 as the full salary for June 2025.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-20021
119. Regarding the salary for August 2024, the Chamber nonetheless concurred with the Club
that it was governed by the Employment Contract (and the IRA), instead of the Addendum.
120. Given that the Club has proved that it paid the share provided for in the Employment
Contract, and the Player did not advance any further evidence to confirm the IRA’s
execution, let alone that the Club was the ultimate debtor of the fees therein established –
the Chamber decided that this part of the claim should be rejected.
121. Conversely, the Chamber determined that the Player remained entitled to EUR 14,000 as
the full salary for June 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 July 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
ii.B. Rent
122. The Chamber then noted that the Employment Contract expressly obligated the Club to
provide the Player with a furnished apartment for the duration of the employment
relationship. Furthermore, the Lease Agreement executed on 1 August 2024 confirmed
that the Club was the responsible party for rent payments.
123. In this respect, the Chamber held that the Player submitted clear evidence that, beginning
in September 2024, the Club failed to honour this obligation, forcing him to pay rent and
ancillary housing costs directly. He provided evidence of monthly payments – October,
December 2024, January, February, March, April and May 2025 – and the Club did not
provide convincing proof that it had paid those rents during the period when the Player
was living in the apartment.
124. The Chamber was mindful of the Club’s argument that the Player lacked standing because
the Lease Agreement was signed between the Club and the Landlord, but it considered this
position unfounded: according to the Chamber, if a club fails to supply the
contractually‑promised accommodation, and the player covers those expenses to avoid
eviction, this player retains the right to reimbursement of actual expenses incurred in
substitution of the club’s breached obligation. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the
Player could not be prejudiced by the Club’s non‑performance.
125. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Player quantified the reimbursement owed as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 1,534.33 (October 2024 portion)
EUR 878.52 (December 2024)
EUR 458.52 (January 2025)
EUR 916.69 (February 2025)
EUR 867.52 (March 2025)
EUR 866.52 (April 2025)
EUR 892.43 (May 2025)
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-20021
126. The Chamber decided to fully accept the Player’s claim as these amounts were
substantiated and not specifically disputed by the Club. Similarly, the Chamber decided
that each sum accrues 5% annual interest as of the dates specified in the Player’s request
for relief until the date of effective payment.
ii.C. Compensation for breach of contract
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. In this regard, the Chamber referred to clause 10 of the Contract but found that it did not
specifically address the situation at hand, namely the Player’s termination of the Contract
with just cause. Furthermore, even assuming that clause 10 were applicable, the Chamber
considered that the amount of compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be
in any event assessed based on the same parameters also set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the
Regulations.
130. 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).
131. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim 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 EUR 372,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
132. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-20021
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
133. Indeed, the Player found employment with FC Epicenter and was subsequently loaned to
Clube de Regatas Brasil (AL). While assessing the pertinent contracts, the Chamber
concluded that the Player mitigated his damages as follows:
Employer
FC Epicenter
Clube de Regatas
Brasil (AL)
FC Epicenter
TOTAL
Component
Amount (EUR)
September 2025
513.85
October 2025
513.85
November 2025
513.85
December 2025
513.85
January 2026
11,963.35
February 2026
11,963.35
March 2026
11,963.35
April 2026
11,963.35
May 2026
11,963.35
June 2026
11,963.35
July 2026
11,963.35
August 2026
11,963.35
September 2026
11,963.35
October 2026
11,963.35
November 2026
11,963.35
December 2026
513.85
January 2027
513.85
February 2027
513.85
March 2027
513.85
April 2027
513.85
May 2027
513.85
June 2027
513.85
137,249.20
134. The Chamber further clarified that the Player’s remuneration with Clube de Regatas Brasil
(AL) encompassed both his fixed salary per the employment contract and the image rights
fee he admittedly received from the third party.
135. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-20021
136. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
42,000, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
137. 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 EUR
276,750.80 to the Player (i.e., EUR 372,000 minus EUR 137,249.20 plus EUR 42,000), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
138. 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 12 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
139. 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.
140. In this regard, the DRC 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, 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.
141. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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 Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
142. 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.
143. The DRC 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
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-20021
144. 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.
145. 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.
146. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-20021
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Geovane Montanari, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Portimonense Sporting Clube – Futebol SAD, must pay
to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 1,534.33 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 878.52 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 458.52 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 January 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 916.69 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 February 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 867.52 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 March 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 866.52 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 May 2025 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 892.43 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 May 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 July 2025 until
the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 276,750.80 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
12 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-20021
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 / Counterclaimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, 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 / CounterRespondent 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. 28
REF. FPSD-20021
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. 29