Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20296
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Guilherme Araújo Soares
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Guilherme Araújo Soares, Portugal
Represented by Jorge Meira Costa
RESPONDENT:
ACSM Politehnica Iași, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20296
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 17 June 2024, the Portuguese player Guilherme Araújo Soares (hereinafter, the Player
or the Claimant) and the Romanian club ACSM Politehnica Iași (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 17
June 2024 until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with Clause 4 lit. i) of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties), inter alia, a fixed monthly remuneration of
RON 36.320 net (equivalent to EUR 7.300 net) for the period from 17 June 2024 to 30 June
2026, payable in arrears on the 15th day of each month.
3.
Pursuant to Clause 13 lit. vi):
“The Player and the Club mutually agree that on 30.06.2025 the contract will be
automatically terminated if the Club will relegate from Romanian First League of Football at
the end of the season 2024-2025. In this case the Club will pay the Player, on 15.07.2025 at
the latest, any outstanding debts due according to the contract until 30 June 2025 and the
termination will be made automatically, without any notification and without intervention
of any court of competent jurisdiction”.
4.
On 8 July 2025, the Club issued a notice to the Player (hereinafter, the Notice) in accordance
with which:
“WHEREAS
A. The Club relegated from the Romanian Football Championship – Liga 1 at the end of the
2024-2025 season.
B. The provisions of Article 13.vi of [the Contract], registered under no. 554/26.06.2025,
whereby the parties agreed that: “The Player and the Club mutually agree that on
30.06.2025 the contract will be automatically terminated if the Club will relegate from
Romanian First League of Football at the end of the season 2024-2025. In this case the
Club will pay the Player, on 15.07.2025 at the latest, any outstanding debts due according
to the contract until 30 June 2025 and the termination will be made automatically,
without any notification and without intervention of any court of competent jurisdiction”.
We hereby issue the following:
NOTICE REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF [the Contract]
With the following consequences:
1. As of 30.06.2025, [the Contract] has been terminated by mutual agreement, as
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20296
stipulated in Article 13.vi of [the Contract], and no longer produces any legal effects
between the parties. The Player is free to transfer to any club, with no claims of any kind
from [the Club].
2. As of 30.06.2025, the Club owes the Player the amount of 145,280 (one hundred fortyfive thousand two hundred eighty) Lei net, representing the monthly remuneration due
under [the Contract] for the months of March 2025, April 2025, May 2025 and June 2025.
According to the provisions of Article 13.vi of the contract, the payment shall be made no
later than 15.07.2025”.
5.
On 1 August 2025, the Player and the Romanian club Fotbal Club Petrolul Ploiești signed
an employment contract valid until 15 June 2027.
6.
Pursuant to this new employment contract, the Player is entitled to a monthly
remuneration of EUR 6,500 net from August 2025 to June 2026, and of EUR 8,000 net from
July 2026 to June 2027.
7.
On 6 August 2025, the Romanian national courts granted the Club’s request to initiate
insolvency proceedings.
8.
On 20 August 2025, the Club informed the Player about the insolvency proceedings.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 11 August 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
10. In his claim, the Player asserted that, on 30 June 2025 and following the Club’s relegation
from the Romanian First League, the Contract was automatically terminated as per its
Clause 13 lit. vi). The Player further argued that, under the same provision, the Club was
required to settle all outstanding payments by no later than 15 July 2025.
11. In this respect, the Player argued that the Club has not remitted his monthly remuneration
for March, April, May and June 2025, as explicitly acknowledged by the Club in the Notice
of 8 July 2025. According to the Player, his outstanding remuneration amounts to
EUR 29,900 net.
12. Furthermore, the Player contended that the Club’s default in payment of his remuneration
for 4 consecutive months constitutes a persistent and material breach of the Contract and
meets the threshold of art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20296
13. Based on this, the Player asserted that he had just cause to consider the Contract
terminated on 30 June 2025 and sought payment of the outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract without just cause, representing the residual value of
the Contract.
14. The Player submitted that the Club is currently under insolvency proceedings in Romania
and that said insolvency proceedings do not exempt it from complying with its contractual
obligations towards him.
15. The Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the above facts and legal grounds, the Claimant respectfully requests the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the total outstanding remuneration of EUR
29,200 net, corresponding to the salaries for March, April, May, and June 2025, plus
interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment;
2. Order the Respondent to pay compensation for breach of contract without just cause, in
accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(RSTP), corresponding to the residual value of the employment contract from 30 June
2025 until its original expiry date of 30 June 2026, less any amounts mitigated through
subsequent employment.
3. Declare that the Respondent’s participation in the Romanian Liga II and the existence of
ongoing insolvency proceedings do not exempt it from fulfilling its contractual
obligations towards the Claimant.
4. Order the Respondent to bear all procedural costs related to these proceedings, in
accordance with the FIFA Procedural Rules.
5. Impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent in the event of non-compliance with the
decision within the deadline set by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, pursuant to Article
24bis of the RSTP.
6. Grant any other relief the Dispute Resolution Chamber deems appropriate in the
circumstances of the case”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20296
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club initially submitted that, on 6 August 2025, the national courts formally
admitted the Club’s request for opening of insolvency proceedings in accordance with the
corresponding Romanian law.
17. The Club further asserted that the Player had been officially notified of the above on 20
August 2025. It also emphasised that any payment orders were suspended.
18. As a result, the Club requested that “FIFA proceedings be immediately and unconditionally
suspended, in compliance with the legal effects arising from the opening of insolvency
proceedings under Romanian law, duly notified to the parties as of 20 August 2025”.
19. In the alternative, the Club argued that Clause 13 lit. vi) of the Contract is a resolutory
condition that was agreed between the Parties ab initio, and not a discretionary right of
either party exercised ex post. The Club asserted that these types of clauses have been
accepted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as they protected mutual interests.
20. The Club argued that the Notice only acknowledged that the Contract had already ceased
to have effect on 30 June 2025, and therefore it was not constitutive of a termination.
21. The Club asserted that the Player had never challenged the validity of Clause 13 lit. vi) of
the Contract, and also failed to comply with the formal requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. As a result, he cannot invoke just cause
for early termination on the basis of unpaid salaries. According to the Club, even if it were
assumed that compensation is payable to the Player, said compensation should be
mitigated as the Player has been employed by another club.
22. The Club lastly acknowledged the outstanding remuneration claimed in the amount of
EUR 29,200, which was payable no later than 15 July 2025.
23. Based on the above, the Club requested the following:
“The Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA Tribunal:
Primarily:
o To suspend the present proceedings ex officio, due to the initiation of general insolvency
proceedings against the Respondent, as ordered by the Iași Tribunal in Ruling No.
82/2025 of 06 August 2025, rendered in Case No. 3748/99/2025.
Subsidiary:
o To Declare the Claimant’s request for compensation from 30 June 2025 until June 2026
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20296
as inadmissible and limit any financial liability of the Club strictly to the acknowledged
outstanding salaries up to June 2025;
o To Reject all further claims as unfounded”.
c. Information provided by the FRF
24. On 8 September 2025, at the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Romanian Football
Federation (FRF) confirmed that the Club is still affiliated with the FRF and participates in
competitions organised under its auspices.
d. Claimant’s comments regarding insolvency
25. On 12 September 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
comments regarding the opening of insolvency proceedings and denied the Club’s request
for suspension of the FIFA proceedings. For the sake of good procedural order, the FIFA
general secretariat also invited the Player to comment on this issue, if he wished to do so.
26. On 15 September 2025, the Player submitted additional comments regarding the Club’s
reply, but failed to address the allegations regarding the insolvency proceedings.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20296
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 11 August 2025 and submitted for decision
on 23 October 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.
28. 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 DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese player
and a Romanian club.
29. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Club had requested a suspension of the present
proceedings, citing the existence of ongoing insolvency proceedings in its local jurisdiction.
30. While the Chamber recognized that the initiation of insolvency proceedings may have
implications for the enforcement of financial decisions, the Chamber also established that
these proceedings do not, in and of themselves, preclude FIFA’s jurisdiction to adjudicate
the matter or the admissibility of the claim. In this regard, the Chamber found it particularly
relevant that the Club remains affiliated with its national association, the FRF, and
continued to actively participate in competitions organized under its auspices.
31. Accordingly, the Chamber ruled that the Club’s request to pause the proceedings based on
insolvency lacked regulatory basis and must be rejected. According to the Chamber, the
matter shall proceed in accordance with FIFA’s regulatory framework, without prejudice to
any future considerations regarding enforcement.
32. 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. 8
REF. FPSD-20296
b. Burden of proof
33. 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
34. 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
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerns a
claim filed by the Player against the Club for outstanding remuneration and alleged breach
of contract.
36. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, according to the Player, the Contract was
automatically terminated on 30 June 2025 following the Club’s relegation, pursuant to
Clause 13 par. vi) of the Contract. The Player further argued that, under the same provision,
the Club was obliged to settle all outstanding payments by no later than 15 July 2025, which
he claimed amount to EUR 29,200 net for the salaries of March, April, May and June 2025.
In addition, the Player contended that the Club’s failure to comply with its financial
obligations constitutes a breach of contract meeting the threshold of art. 14bis of the
Regulations. Accordingly, he requested compensation for breach of contract, representing
the residual value of the Contract.
37. The Chamber also noted that, for its part, the Club acknowledged its failure to pay the
claimed outstanding of EUR 29,200. However, the Club rejected the Player’s entitlement to
compensation, arguing that the Contract simply expired on 30 June 2025 following the
Club’s relegation, in accordance with Clause 13 lit. vi) of the Contract.
38. In this context, the Chamber observed that there was no dispute between the Parties
regarding the content of Clause 13 lit. vi) of the Contract, the fact that the Contract
automatically terminated on 30 June 2025, or that the Club remains liable to pay the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20296
outstanding remuneration due at the time of termination, amounting to EUR 29,200 net
for the months of March, April, May and June 2025.
39. In view of the above, and in line with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the undisputed amount of EUR
29,200 net.
40. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request, Clause 13 lit. vi) of the Contract
and the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the DRC decided to award
the Player interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforementioned outstanding amount
as from 16 July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
41. Having established the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the Player’s claim for
compensation, which was strongly contested by the Club.
42. The Player argued that the Club’s failure to pay his remuneration for four consecutive
months constituted a material breach of contract, thereby meeting the threshold set out
in art. 14bis of the Regulations. Consequently, he claimed to have had just cause to
consider the Contract terminated as of 30 June 2025.
43. Conversely, the Club maintained that Clause 13 lit. vi) of the Contract —never contested by
the Player— constituted a resolutory condition mutually agreed upon by the Parties from
the outset, rather than a discretionary right exercised unilaterally at a later stage. The Club
further contended that the Player failed to comply with the formal requirements stipulated
under art. 14bis of the Regulations, and therefore could not validly invoke just cause for
early termination based on unpaid remuneration.
44. After having carefully analysed the arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties, the
members of the Chamber noted that the Player himself acknowledged in his claim that the
Contract expired on 30 June 2025 due to the Club’s relegation from the Romanian first
division. Moreover, at no time did the Player place the Club in default and grant it a deadline
of 15 days to remedy its breach, as required under art. 14bis of the Regulations, nor did he
unilaterally terminate the Contract prior its expiration.
45. Accordingly, the DRC concluded that, in the absence of any unilateral termination before
30 June 2025, the Contract is deemed to have expired naturally on that date. As a result,
no breach of contract took place, and the Player’s claim for compensation is therefore
unfounded and must be dismissed.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20296
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.
47. 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, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
48. The Chamber further recalled that art. 24 par. 3 lit b) of the Regulations establishes:
“Such consequences may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has:
[…]
b) been informed that the debtor club was subject to an insolvency-related event pursuant
to the relevant national law and is legally unable to comply with an order.”
49. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that two cumulative conditions should
be satisfied for a debtor club to benefit from the exemption provided under art. 24 par. 3
of the Regulations, namely: (i) the debtor club must be subject to an insolvency-related
event under the applicable national legislation; and (ii) it must be legally prevented from
complying with the relevant payment order.
50. In this context, the Chamber carefully examined the documentation submitted by the Club,
which includes: (i) a copy of the decision issued by the competent Romanian court initiating
insolvency proceedings against the Club; (ii) evidence of notification of said proceedings to
the Player; and (iii) references to the Romanian Law no. 85/2014, seemingly governing
insolvency matters.
51. The Chamber then noted that the Club had successfully demonstrated the initiation of
insolvency proceedings in Romania, thereby satisfying the first condition under art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations. However, the DRC considered that the second condition —i.e., the
legal impossibility to comply with the payment order— remained unfulfilled.
52. Specifically, the Chamber pointed out that the decision of the Romanian court confirmed
the opening of general insolvency proceedings and instructed the Club to undertake
further steps, including the convening of a creditors’ assembly. However, the DRC found
no indication that this decision contained any express provision prohibiting the Club from
making payments and the Chamber was also unconvinced that this interpretation was
unconditional vis-à-vis Romanian national law. In the absence of a clear legal impediment,
the Chamber found that it could not be concluded that the Club was legally barred from
fulfilling its financial obligations. On the contrary, the Chamber found it telling that, based
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20296
on the information available in TMS, the Club was seemingly actively engaged in footballrelated operations, which further undermines the assertion that it was unable to make
payments due to insolvency.
53. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the Club had failed to provide any evidence
indicating that either the judicial administrator or the competent court had issued an
enforceable order explicitly prohibiting payment of the debt in question. In the absence of
such evidence and considering the international employment-related nature of the credit,
the Chamber decided that the Club failed to demonstrate that it was legally incapable of
complying with the payment order as required under art. 24 par. 3 of the Regulations.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20296
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Guilherme Araújo Soares, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ACSM Politehnica Iași, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o EUR 29,200 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 16
July 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20296
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. 14