Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20213
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Lucas Kal Shenfeld Prigioli
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Lucas Kal Shenfeld Prigioli, Brazil
Represented by Aldo Giovani Kurle
RESPONDENT:
Baniyas, United Arab Emirates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20213
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 June 2025, the Brazilian Player Lucas Kal Shenfeld Prigioli (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant) received an employment offer (hereinafter: the Offer) from the Emirati club,
Baniyas (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
The Offer read as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Date: 25 June 2025
To: Mr. Lucas Kal Schenfeld Prigioli
Subject: Official Offer for the player / Lucas Kal Schenfeld Prigioli (DOB: 16 March 1996)
Dear Mr. Lucas,
We are pleased to extend to you an official offer to join Baniyas FC for the upcoming
football season. The details of the proposed employment contract are as follows:
Contract Duration: One (1) football season - 2025/2026
Annual Salary (2025/2026): USD 750,000 (Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand US Dollars)
Renewal Option:
The club shall have the option to renew the contract for an additional football season
(2026/2027).
Annual Salary for 2026/2027 (if renewed): USD 800,000, The club must notify you of the
renewal no later than 1st May 2026.
This offer is valid until 27 June 2025, at 23:55 UAE time, and is subject to final agreement
and signing of the employment contract.
Kindly note that this offer remains confidential and intended solely for your personal
consideration, We look forward to receiving your confirmation.”
3.
At an unspecified date, the Player received a Draft employment contract (hereinafter: the
Draft employment contract) from the Club.
4.
On 30 June 2025, the Player filled in a “Housing Request Form” (hereinafter: the Housing
request form) sent by the Club, requesting a Villa, for him, his family, his parents, and his inlaws.
5.
On 1 July 2025, the Player travelled to the United Arab Emirates.
6.
On 2 and 3 July 2025, the Player completed various medical exams which revealed a
compression at disc L5/S1 level accompanied by a nerve compression.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20213
7.
On 5 July 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of default to the
Club stating that he fulfilled all the formalities to begin training, but that on 4 July 2025, he
was informed by the Club that he had a medical condition, which prevented the Club from
signing an employment contract with him. The Player stated that his former club Al
Riyadh FC (Saudi Arabia) had attested that he was fit to play professional football, and that
in any case the Player was not subject to a medical exam by the Club. The Player contended
that the Club was using the medical issue as subterfuge to withdraw from the contract. The
Player therefore requested a payment of USD 750,000 and granted 3 days to the Club to
proceed with payment.
8.
On 9 July 2025, the Club, through its legal representative, answered the notice of default of
the Player. The Club stated that a contract was never executed and was never registered
with the UAE Football Association (UAEFA), but that until then the Offer functioned solely
as a document to facilitate the Player’s travel and medical screening. The Club contended
that the Offer was subject to the signature of a final and binding employment contract. In
addition, the Club added that there was never a final agreement on all the contractual
elements, as the Player requested a villa as housing which was significantly above the
standard accommodation provided by the Club to its players, thus that there was never a
consensus reached on all the essential items of the contract. Moreover, the Club added
that the Player did not pass the medical exam, which is standard before signing an
employment contract. Thus, it rejected the Player’s requests.
9.
On 11 August 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with the Brazilian club, Sport
Clube Recife – PE, for a monthly salary of BRL 100,000 gross, or BRL 115,000 gross if the
Club was participating in the Brazilian Serie A.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 4 August 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. The Player affirmed that he maintained an impeccable health and performance record
prior to the events at issue, having completed the previous season without injuries. He
stressed that on 25 June 2025, Baniyas FC issued a fully detailed and duly signed “Official
Offer” containing all essentialia negotii of an employment contract, namely the parties,
duration (2025/26 season), and remuneration (USD 750,000). The Player underscored that
he accepted and signed the offer, thereby expressing his unequivocal intention to conclude
a binding employment relationship.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20213
12. The Player further asserted that the Club’s conduct unequivocally confirmed (and indeed
reinforced) its intention to be bound. He emphasised that, at the Club’s explicit request and
expense, he travelled from Brazil to Abu Dhabi with his family and agent on 29 June 2025,
underwent the Club‑mandated medical examinations, and received both the Draft
employment contract and the Housing request form. According to the Player, such conduct
constituted conclusive behaviour, i.e. manifestations of animus contrahendi, which, in line
with consistent DRC and CAS jurisprudence, superseded any preliminary language and
confirmed the binding nature of the agreement.
13. The Player maintained that the Club abruptly withdrew from the agreement without valid
cause, falsely alleging that he had failed the medical examinations. He stressed that the
Club had never presented any medical report to substantiate its allegations. Conversely,
the Player submitted independent medical certification from his previous club attesting
that he was clinically and orthopedically fit. He affirmed that the Club’s argument not only
lacked evidentiary support but also contradicted the prohibition on conditioning the
validity of a contract upon medical examinations.
14. The Player further contended that the Club’s reliance on an alleged “housing dispute” was
entirely misplaced. He insisted that accommodation preferences constituted only an
ancillary contractual element and could not invalidate a contract already concluded. The
Player reiterated that the essential terms were fully agreed upon and that any
disagreement regarding housing could never justify the Club’s refusal to honour the
contract.
15. The Player therefore reaffirmed that Baniyas FC acted in bad faith by withdrawing from a
binding employment agreement, contrary to the principles of contractual stability and
pacta sunt servanda. As a direct consequence, he affirmed suffering substantial financial
loss, the total agreed salary for the 2025/26 season, as well as reputational harm resulting
from the Club’s baseless allegations and abrupt termination of the agreement.
16. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“The Player/Coach therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim”:
**“3.2. Compensation for Breach of Contract:
3.2.1. Due to the Club's unjustified breach of binding agreement, Mr. Lucas Kal is fully
entitled to compensation for the damage suffered, in strict accordance with Article 17,
paragraph 1 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). As the
Player has not signed any new contract following this unlawful termination, the
compensation, generally, shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was
prematurely terminated. The "Official Offer" (Annex 02) clearly outlined a contract for the
2025/2026 season until May 31st, 2026, with an unequivocally agreed remuneration of
USD 750,000.00 (Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand US Dollars).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20213
3.3. Interest:
3.3.1. The Claimant also requests that statutory interest be applied to the abovementioned sum from the date of the breach (July 9th, 2025) until the date of effective
payment, in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
and the established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC and CAS.
3.4. Ancillary Costs:
3.4.1. The Claimant reserves the right to claim any and all ancillary costs incurred as a
result of the Respondent's breach, including but not limited to, legal fees and expenses,
which are typically recoverable in FIFA proceedings where a breach is established.”
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Club affirmed that the claim lodged by the Player must be dismissed in its
entirety, stressing that the document relied upon by the Player, i.e. the Offer dated 25 June
2025, was merely a preliminary proposal, expressly conditioned upon the Player
successfully completing the medical examination and the parties subsequently executing
a formal employment contract. The Club reiterated that such conditions were never
fulfilled and therefore no binding employment relationship ever came into existence.
18. The Club emphasized that it had consistently acted in accordance with FIFA and CAS
jurisprudence, which recognizes that conditional offers do not constitute binding contracts
and that passing a medical examination constitutes a legitimate condition precedent. It
insisted that the Player underwent multiple medical examinations, including at a
FIFA-certified center, and was deemed medically unfit for intensive professional
competition, an assessment the Club asserted was objective, non-arbitrary, and compliant
with industry standards.
19. The Club further maintained that it acted transparently and in good faith, covering travel
expenses and accommodation for the Player and his family, and that all preparatory steps
taken (such as arranging travel and discussing accommodation) were routine and could
not be construed as conclusive evidence of a finalized employment contract. It reiterated
that no contract was signed, no registration was processed, and no contractual
performance commenced, thus rendering any allegation of contractual breach legally
untenable.
20. Finally, the Club asserted that the Player’s request for USD 750,000 lacked any legal
foundation, given the non-existence of a binding contract, and that it did not condition a
contract to a medical exam, as no contract had been concluded between the Player and
the Club. The Club consequently rejected all allegations of bad faith and maintained that it
was merely exercising its freedom of contract after the non-fulfilment of a valid condition
precedent.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20213
21. The Club therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“In light of the foregoing, the Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
- 1. Reject the Claimant's request in its entirety, finding that:
- ▪ No valid and binding employment contract was ever concluded;
- ▪ The Club acted lawfully and in accordance with industry standards;
- ▪ The club showing in all the process of this deal a fully good face manor.
- ▪ The club practicing only its right of the principle of freedom of contract.
- ▪ No compensation or damages are due.
- 2. Order the Claimant to bear the costs of these proceedings, including the Respondent’s
legal fees and expenses, in accordance with FIFA procedural regulations.
In view of all the foregoing, the Respondent humbly requests the honorable Committee to
reject and close the case, Because the club committed with all FIFA regulations,
recommendations and professional industry stander as per mentioned and proofed
above.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20213
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. 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 4 August 2025 and submitted for decision on
9 April 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 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.
23. 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 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.
24. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
25. 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
26. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20213
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
27. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute whether an employment contract was concluded between them,
and whether the Club had breached the contract by sending the Player a letter on 4 July
2025.
28. The Player affirmed that a binding employment relationship had been validly concluded on
the basis of the signed “Official Offer” and the Club’s subsequent conclusive conduct,
including arranging his travel, medical examinations, and providing him the Draft
employment contract, while the Club’s unilateral withdrawal, unsupported by any medical
evidence and contrary to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations as well as the principles of good
faith and contractual stability, amounted to an unjustified breach. The Player further
stressed that any alleged housing issue was merely ancillary and could not affect the
validity of the agreement.
29. The Club affirmed that the claim must be dismissed, reiterating that the Offer was merely
a conditional and non-binding preliminary document, that the Player failed the requisite
medical examinations, and that no final employment contract was ever concluded,
meaning no breach or entitlement to compensation could arise.
30. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether a valid
and binding employment contract was entered into by the parties, and then whether it was
terminated by the Club with or without just cause and then assess the consequences
thereof.
31. The Chamber first noted that both parties admitted that the only document signed
between themselves is the Offer, which included the name of the parties, the object, the
salary, and the term, and included the following condition “subject to final agreement and
signing of the employment contract”, and the additional mention “Kindly note that this offer
remains confidential and intended solely for your personal consideration, We look forward to
receiving your confirmation”.
32. The Chamber then recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal which
states that for a document to be considered a contract, or indicative of an employment
relationship, the document must contain the essentialia negotii, i.e. the essential elements
which are, the salary, the term (duration), the nature of the job, namely the subordination
of the employer and employee to the provision of professional football services, and a
mutual intention to be legally bound.
33. While the first three elements of the essentialia negotii have been met it appears that as
from the Offer, the Club did not have the intention to create an employment relationship
as it specifically mentioned that the Offer was subject to a final agreement, and that a
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20213
“Draft” watermark appeared on the Draft employment contract signed between the
parties, which indicates that the parties had not finalized the complete agreement.
34. Indeed, after carefully looking at art. 4 of the Draft employment contract shared by the
Club to the Player, and provided by the Player in support of his submissions, more
additional elements are included in the draft contract, inter alia, accommodation,
transportation, rewards and bonuses, health insurance and airline tickets, which were not
initially included in the Offer.
35. Indeed, the Chamber observed that as per the Housing request form filled in by the Player,
on 30 June 2025, that he could request the housing he sought to have provided by the Club,
and that an internal committee of the Club would determine whether such a request would
be granted.
36. As per the evidence on file, namely, the communication from the Club’s legal
representative, the Chamber noted that the Player’s request for accommodation of a Villa
capable of hosting at least 6 people, (himself, spouse, parents and in-laws) was deemed
unacceptable, thus preventing a consensus on one of the important elements included in
the draft contract. The Chamber further highlighted that the section pertaining to the Club
in the Housing request form was left blank, further indicating that the parties had not come
to an agreement on this element central to the employment relationship.
37. In regard to the process leading up to the fall-out of the negotiations, the Chamber first
noted has been admitted by the Player that the Club provided him his flight tickets to travel
to the United Arab Emirates, thus not preventing the conclusion of the negotiations to
finalize the employment contract.
38. The Chamber further highlighted that the Club and the Player have not specifically included
the passing of a medical exam in the Offer, but that in practice, it appeared that both
parties agreed to such an exam as per the medical evidence provided by the Club, before
progressing to the finalization of the employment contract.
39. In light of this element, the Chamber recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal which provides that while employment contracts cannot be conditional
to medical exams, medical exams have been recognized as an important part of the
process before entering a formal employment contract. Thus, while the Player contended
that he was sufficiently fit, it appears that the Club was not satisfied with the Player’s
physical condition and thus refused to move forward with the finalization of the
employment contract, including, but not limited to a final determination on the housing
provided.
40. Thus, in light of the specific circumstances of the case at hand, the Chamber concluded
that the Offer did not create an employment relationship between the parties, and that
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20213
thus there was no employment contract between them which would entitle the Player to a
compensation.
41. The Chamber therefore rejected the Player’s claim entirely.
d. Costs
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20213
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lucas Kal Shenfeld Prigioli, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20213
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