Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20068
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Matheus
Bonifacio Saldanha Marinho
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Matheus Bonifacio Saldanha Marinho, Brazil
Represented by CCLA Advogados
RESPONDENT:
JEF United Ichihara Chiba, Japan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20068
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 November 2021, the Brazilian player, Matheus Bonifacio Saldanha Marinho
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant), and the Japanese club, JEF United Ichihara Chiba
(hereinafter: JEF, the Club or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Employment Contract).
2.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Employment Contract provided the following regarding its duration:
“Clause 1: Contract Term
Loan Transfer:
2022 Season, from 1 February 2022 and ending on 31 December 2022.
Permanent Transfer:
2023 Season, from 1 February 2023 and ending on 31 December 2023
2024 Season, from 1 February 2024 and ending on 31 December 2024.
Clause 2: Extension of Contract
The Club has the right to extend the permanent transfer term for one more season from
1 February 2025 until 31 December 2025. The deadline for the execution of the right to
extend this contract will be until 31th of June 2024. In case the Club executes the right to
extend this contract, the conditions will be agreed upon negotiation between the Club
and the Player.
3.
Clause 4 of the Employment Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“Clause 4: Exit Clause
1. In case of terminating the contract before the term mentioned hereof, the following
amount shall be paid to the Club as compensation for breach of the contract.
•
•
•
Within Japan: 3,000,000 USD (net)
Outside Japan: 5,000,000 USD (net)
For the Player to be received: 5% of each compensation
2. In case of terminating the contract by the Club, before the term mentioned hereof, the
Club shall pay to the Player the proportional pro rata amount of Basic Salary to which
the Player would be entitled until the end of the Contract.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20068
4.
Between 25 and 27 July 2023, the Player, the Club, and the Serbian club, Football Club
Partizan (hereinafter: Partizan), entered into a loan / temporary transfer agreement
(hereinafter: the Transfer Agreement) by means of which the Player’s registration was
temporarily transferred from the Club to Partizan until 1 February 2024.
5.
The copy of the Transfer Agreement submitted by the Player was dated 25 July 2024 and it
contained, inter alia, the following provisions:
•
Pursuant to clause 2.4 of the Players’ version of the Transfer Agreement, Partizan
undertook to pay the Club a loan fee of USD 100,000 net by 28 July 2023.
•
Clause 3 of the Players’ version of the Transfer Agreement also provided for a
permanent transfer option, as follows:
“3. Permanent transfer option
3.1 Partizan shall have obligation to purchase economic and federative rights of
the player on a permanent basis until 1st February 2024 and JEF shall transfer
on a permanent basis the Player’s federative and economic rights to Partizan at
the end of the Loan Period and not later than 5th February 2024.
3.2 Once the loan period is ended and Partizan purchase economic and
federative rights of the player on a permanent basis, Partizan commits to pay JEF
the sum of 1,160,000.00 US dollars net (one million one hundred and sixty
thousand US dollars net) (‘Transfer Amount’).
3.3 The Transfer Amount shall be paid by Partizan to JEF as follows:
•
360,000.00 US dollars (three hundred sixty thousand US dollars) until
5th February 2024
•
400,000.00 US dollars (four hundred thousand US dollars) until 1st
October 2024
•
400,000.00 US dollars (four hundred thousand US dollars) until 1st July
2025
3.4 In case that Partizan is playing qualification matches for UEFA competition
and the player performs in at least 50% of those matches as member of starting
eleven and Partizan qualifies for any UEFA competition group stage phase, then
Partizan shall pay to JEF, within 5 days from the condition verification, the
amount of 100,000 US dollars (one hundred thousand US dollars). This clause
can be triggered a maximum of one time, i.e. a maximum total conditional
transfer fee of 100,000.00 US dollars can be payable.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20068
3.5 In case Partizan fail to exercise the obligation to purchase the economic and
federative rights of the player within as per clauses above it shall be liable to pay
a penalty clause to JEF equal to 1,160,000.00 US. In the same way, in case JEF
refuses to definitively transfer the Player to Partizan as per the abovementioned
clauses, it shall be liable to pay a penalty clause to Partizan equal to 1,160,000.00
US.”
•
Clause 4 of the Players’ version of the Transfer Agreement provided the following:
“4. Player’s consent
By signing this Agreement, the Player irrevocably:
a) acknowledges and agrees to the terms of this Agreement and to perform all
his obligations arising from it;
b) consents to his transfer to Partizan on a temporary basis from 21st July 2023;
c) states and acknowledges that he has no outstanding sum or financial claim
pending towards JEF;
d) consents to suspend the Employment Contract with effect from the signature
of this Agreement until 31st January 2023;
e) consents to his transfer to Partizan on a permanent basis after the end of
loan period with article 3.”
6.
The Player’s version of the Transfer Agreement was not signed by either party.
7.
Notwithstanding the above, in January 2024, both the Club and Partizan uploaded another
version of the Transfer Agreement into the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS) (Transfer
ID no. 706701/803824), dated 27 July 2025 and containing the following provisions:
•
Pursuant to clause 2.4 of the TMS Transfer Agreement, Partizan undertook to pay
the Club a loan fee of USD 100,000 net by 31 July 2023.
•
Clause 3 of the TMS Transfer Agreement also provided for a permanent transfer
option, as follows:
“3. Permanent transfer option
3.1 Partizan shall have obligation to purchase economic and federative rights of
the player on a permanent basis until 1st February 2024 and JEF shall transfer
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20068
on a permanent basis the Player’s federative and economic rights to Partizan at
the end of the Loan Period and not later than 5th February 2024.
3.2 Once the loan period is ended and Partizan purchase economic and
federative rights of the player on a permanent basis, Partizan commits to pay JEF
the sum of 1,250,000.00 US dollars net (one million one two hundred and fifty
thousand US dollars net) (‘Transfer Amount’).
3.3 The Transfer Amount shall be paid by Partizan to JEF as follows:
•
360,000.00 US dollars (three hundred sixty thousand US dollars) until
5th February 2024
•
400,000.00 US dollars (four hundred thousand US dollars) until 1st
October 2024
•
400,000.00 US dollars (four hundred thousand US dollars) until 1st July
2025
•
90,000.00 US dollars (four hundred thousand US dollars) until 31st
January 2026
3.4 In case that Partizan is playing qualification matches for UEFA competition
and the player performs in at least 50% of those matches as member of starting
eleven and Partizan qualifies for any UEFA competition group stage phase, then
Partizan shall pay to JEF, within 5 days from the condition verification, the
amount of 100,000 US dollars (one hundred thousand US dollars). This clause
can be triggered a maximum of one time, i.e. a maximum total conditional
transfer fee of 400,000.00 US dollars can be payable.
3.5 In case that the amount(s) stipulated in this Agreement are not paid by the
contractual payment date and provided a valid invoice has been provided, a 5%
(five percent) per annum interest will accrue to the relevant sum, in accordance
with FIFA Regulations on status and transfer of the players.”
•
Clause 4 of the TMS Transfer Agreement was the same as the one contained in
the Players’ version of the same document.
8.
The TMS Transfer Agreement is signed by all parties. Furthermore, Partizan uploaded proof
of payment of the first two instalments under this version of the Transfer Agreement.
9.
On 21 February 2025, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, demanding payment of
USD 58,000 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to his percentage of the transfer
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20068
fee under the Transfer Agreement. The Player did not refer to a specific deadline for
payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 24 July 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
11. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club breached its contractual obligations by failing
to pay the agreed sell-on fee following his permanent transfer to Partizan.
12. The Player argued that, according to Clause 4.1 of the Employment Contract, the Club had
committed to pay the Player 5% of any net transfer fee received from a third club. When
the permanent transfer to Partizan was executed on 1 February 2024 for a net fee of USD
1,160,000, the condition for the sell-on fee was fulfilled, entitling the Player to USD 58,000.
13. Despite receiving the full transfer amount, the Club did not make the required payment,
leaving him no choice but to initiate legal proceedings.
14. The Player relied on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, emphasizing that contracts must
be honored in good faith. He further cited art. 151 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO)
to support the enforceability of conditional contracts, asserting that the transfer
constituted the triggering event for the sell-on clause.
15. The Player also invoked art. 104 of the SCO to claim 5% annual interest on the unpaid
amount from the date the permanent transfer was completed. Furthermore, he referenced
art. 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) and requested that disciplinary sanctions be imposed on the Club.
16. The Player requested the following relief:
“Based on all the foregoing, the Player hereby requested:
a) Acceptance of the present claim against the Respondent;
b) An order for the Respondent to pay the amount of USD 58,000 (fifty-eight thousand
US dollars net) to the Player, as sell-on fee;
c) An order for the Respondent to pay interest at a rate of 5% per annum, in accordance
with Article 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, from 1 February 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20068
d) The imposition on the Respondent of further sanctions at the DRC’s discretion, as
provided in Article 12.bis.4 of FIFA RSTP;
e) The imposition on the Respondent of sanctions provided in Article 24.2.a of FIFA RSTP.”
b. Position of the Club
17. The Club failed to respond to the claim despite being invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 24 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 4
September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
19. Furthermore, the 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 Japanese club.
20. 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. 26 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the TMS.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20068
c. Merits of the dispute
22. 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
23. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for outstanding payables brought by the Player against the Club.
24. The Chamber noted that the Player asserted entitlement to 5% of the transfer fee agreed
between the Club and Partizan, allegedly due upon his permanent transfer (akin to a sellon fee).
25. On the other hand, the Club failed to respond to the claim. Consequently, the DRC
determined that its decision should be based solely on the documentation available in the
case file, in accordance with art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
26. In this context, the DRC recognized that its task was to determine whether the Player was
entitled to the amount claimed, considering that (i) the burden of proof lied with the Player
to establish his entitlement, while (ii) the Club bore the burden of demonstrating
compliance with the confirmed financial obligations, if any.
27. Having established the above, the Chamber then recalled that the Player relied on Clause
4 of the Employment Contract, which referred to an entitlement of “5% of each
compensation” in the event of premature termination, as follows:
“Clause 4: Exit Clause
1. In case of terminating the contract before the term mentioned hereof, the following
amount shall be paid to the Club as compensation for breach of the contract.
•
•
•
Within Japan: 3,000,000 USD (net)
Outside Japan: 5,000,000 USD (net)
For the Player to be received: 5% of each compensation
2. In case of terminating the contract by the Club, before the term mentioned hereof, the
Club shall pay to the Player the proportional pro rata amount of Basic Salary to which
the Player would be entitled until the end of the Contract.” (emphasis added by the DRC)
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20068
28. However, the Chamber found that this provision was ambiguous and open to multiple
interpretations.
29. The DRC considered that the clause did not mention a sell-on fee or any entitlement of the
Player to a percentage of a future transfer fee. According to the Chamber, the term “each
compensation” was undefined and could refer to different fees, including the buy-out fees
mentioned above, rather than the subsequent transfer fee, as claimed by the Player.
30. In the Chamber’s view, this clause lacked any indication of the timing of payment or a
specification that the 5% applies exclusively to permanent transfers. There was also no
express obligation on the Club to pay such an amount to the Player or proof that a given
buy-out had been ever triggered.
31. Furthermore, the DRC considered that paragraph 2 of Clause 4 introduced a different
concept altogether, namely the Player’s entitlement to a pre-fixed compensation
equivalent to the residual value of the Employment Contract. This further undermined the
interpretation advanced by the Player, casting doubt over the legal nature of the amount
claimed.
32. Beyond the unclear wording of the Employment Contract, the DRC found it decisive that
the Player had not submitted any supplementary evidence to clarify the parties’ mutual
intent. The DRC emphasized that the Player did not provide any correspondence or
documentation in connection with the signing of the Employment Contract or the Transfer
Agreement.
33. Indeed, the Chamber noted that the version of the Transfer Agreement submitted by the
Player was unsigned and differed from the executed version. However, in both documents
(i.e., the one provided by the Player and the one uploaded into TMS), the wording of clause
4 remained unchanged: the Player expressly acknowledged that he had no residual claims
against the Club, and there was no reservation of rights or reference to any sell-on fee.
34. The Chamber again recalled that the Player had not presented any other evidence
suggesting that he retained financial claims against the Club. The transfer instructions,
which were handled exclusively by the clubs, were also silent on the matter of a sell-on fee.
35. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that there was insufficient evidence to
support the Player’s claim. In the DRC’s view, recognizing an entitlement to a sell-on fee
based on the vague and inconsistent contractual language would be speculative. Similarly,
the Chamber noted that there was no indication that the transfer was initiated by the Club,
nor that there was a breach of contract, or that the Player was contractually entitled to a
percentage of any subsequent transfer fee.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20068
36. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that the Player failed to discharge his burden of proof
and rejected his claim.
d. Costs
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by the Player.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20068
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Matheus Bonifacio Saldanha Marinho, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20068
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. 13