Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20532
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Elivelton
Martins Borges
BY:
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Elivelton Martins Borges, Brazil
Represented by Filipe Orsolini Pinto de Souza
RESPONDENT:
Birzebbuga St. Peter's, Malta
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20532
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Brazilian player, Elivelton Martins Borges (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Maltese club, Birzebbuga St. Peter's (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from 1 September 2024 for 3 football seasons until the last match of the 2027/2028 season,
“provided that the team participates in the Premier league, i.e. the Maltese Seria A. Should the
team not compete in the Maltese Seria A during the 2027/2028 season, the player shall be
automatically released from the contract at the end of the 2026/2027 season, with no further
obligations on either party.”
2.
In particular, the Contract provided the following:
“This contract shall be valid for a period of three (3) football seasons, commencing on 1st
September 2025. The first term will conclude upon the final competitive match of the 2025/2026
season. The contract will automatically renew for the second season on 1st September 2026,
ending with the final competitive match of the 2026/2027 season. The third and final term shall
commence on 1st September 2027 and terminate upon the final official match of the 2027/2028
season, provided that the team participates in the Premier League, i.e., the Maltese Serie A.
Should the team not compete in the Maltese Serie A”
3.
According to clause 2.1 of the Contract, the parties agreed on a monthly net salary of EUR
1,300.
4.
According to clause 3.5 of the Contract, the parties agreed on the following:
“This Contract may be terminated either upon the expiry of its natural termination, by mutual
agreement between the parties, or unilaterally by one of the parties for reasons of just cause or
sporting just cause according to the regulations of the Malta Football Association and/or FIFA.
Provided that in the eventuality of termination due to a just cause as abovementioned, the party
claiming just cause or sporting just cause shall file a complaint with the Complaints Board of
the Malta Football Association claiming such just cause or sporting just cause. This Contract
shall be deemed terminated only upon the publication of a decision of the competent Malta
Football Association judicial body decreeing such termination.”
5.
On 21 August 2025, the Player sent to the Club the following notice:
“[…] Although the commencement of the Contract is scheduled for 1 September 2025, the Player
has been training at the Club’s facilities since 25 July 2025. On 18 August 2025, during a
conversation with the President of the Club before a training session, the Player was informed
that he should return to Brazil, without being presented with any lawful grounds to justify the
termination of the Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20532
Considering the above, the Player did not understand the reason for such a statement, especially
after having already commenced his professional activities with the Club. Also, despite that
statement, he has been working normally.
In addition, the Player hereby clarifies that he has not engaged any agent or intermediary in
connection with the negotiations leading to the execution of the Contract, nor in relation to any
discussions concerning its potential termination.
The Player further confirms that he remains fully available and willing to perform the duties for
which he was signed by the Club, for the duration and under the terms and conditions expressly
set forth in the Contract.
In view of the above, the Player serves notice to the Club to request the necessary clarifications
regarding the statements made by its President and requests that any position concerning
the termination of the Contract without just cause, taking into account all provisions on
the matter contained in article 17 of the FIFA RSTP, be formalized through official written notice.”
6.
On 22 August 2025, the Club responded and clarified that the Contract was conditional
upon the Player passing a medical examination. According to the Club, this condition was
clearly stated in the Contract and was a legal prerequisite for the agreement to take effect.
The Club argued that it arranged a medical examination with a sports physician, who
determined that the Player had a pre-existing injury. As a result, the Club considered that
the Player did not pass the medical exam, and the condition for the Contract to become
valid was not fulfilled.
7.
The Club also contended that according to the Maltese law and international football
regulations, this failure renders the Contract void from the outset, meaning no legal
employment relationship was formed. Despite this, the Club argued that it acted in good
faith by providing the player with access to training facilities, housing, and support,
anticipating a successful medical outcome. However, these actions do not override the
contractual requirement of a successful medical exam. In this regard, the Club denied any
allegations of unlawful conduct.
8.
On 23 August 2025, the Player flew back to Porto, Portugal.
9.
On 24 August 2025, the Player replied to the Club’s email alleging that he did not suffer any
injury and that according to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the validity of the Contract may not be subject to a successful medical examination.
Therefore, the Player claimed that the termination was without just cause and against the
FIFA regulations.
10. On an unspecified date, the Player registered as an amateur with the Portugueuse club,
Futebol Clube de Pampolhosa for the 2025/2026 season.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20532
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 26 August 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
12. The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for breach of contract.
13. The Player alleged that the Club’s termination was without just cause as the Contract
cannot be conditioned upon successful medical examination.
14. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“a. the FIFA general secretariat to issue a proposal according to the Article 20 of the FIFA
Procedural, given that the case does not raise complex factual or legal issues;
b. the DRC to send this claim to the Respondent […] with a time limit for a statement or a reply,
pursuant
article
21.1
the
FIFA
Procedural;
c. the DRC to accept this claim and declare that the Contract was terminated without just cause
by the Respondent on 22 August 2025, according to the articles 17 and 18.4 of the FIFA RSTP;
d. the DRC to accept this claim and order the Respondent […] to pay the Claimant the total net
amount of EUR 46,800 (forty-six thousand, eight hundred Euros), plus interests of 5% p.a. as
from
the
termination
date
on
22
August
2025;
e. the DRC to accept this claim and sanction the Respondent […] in accordance with article 17.4
of
FIFA
RSTP;
f. the DRC to accept this claim and include the consequences of the failure to pay the relevant
amounts in due time, pursuant article 24 of the FIFA RSTP.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
15. In its reply, the Club disputed FIFA’s competence invoking clause 3.5 of the Contract.
16. In addition, the Club alleged that the evidence submitted by the Claimant shall be declared
inadmissible as the Club in its correspondence of 22 August 2025 had clarified that it was
“without prejudice.” According to the Club, the Player’s reliance on such correspondence is
procedurally improper and therefore, it shall be excluded from the case.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20532
17. Furthermore, the Club disputed having terminated the Contract and alleged that the Club
offered the Player to stay at the Club, train and receive his salaries. The Club argued that
the Player was provided with accommodation, training facilities and full access to medical
examinations.
18. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“Declare the claim inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction, as disputes were contractually
required to be referred to the MFA.
In the alternative, dismiss the claim as unfounded, given that no termination without just
cause occurred.
Exclude “without prejudice” communications improperly presented as evidence.
Subsidiarily, should compensation be awarded (which is denied), apply Art. 17 RSTP in full,
including strict adherence to the duty to mitigate damages and the principle of
proportionality.
Reject all requests for sporting sanctions, as unwarranted and disproportionate”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20532
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 August 2025 and submitted for
decision on 9 November 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.
20. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), he is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and a Maltese club.
21. The Single Judge noted that the competence of FIFA has been disputed by the Club, citing
that “the employment contract signed between the parties contains an explicit dispute
resolution clause, stipulating that disputes relating to termination of contract shall be brought
before the competent body of the Malta Football Association (MFA).”
22. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge first recalled that in January 2024, FIFA introduced
a new regulatory framework for national disputes resolution chambers in order to provide
clarity and the necessary legal certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable
requirements and possible formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing National
Dispute Resolution Chambers (NDRC).
23. Most importantly, the aforementioned rules have been incorporated into art. 22, par.1, lit.
b) of the Regulations and is applicable to cases brought before FIFA as from 1 January 2025
(cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
24. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 26 August 2025, the jurisdiction of
the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the following provision:
”Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress before
a civil court for employment- related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension; the
aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be decided
by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national dispute resolution body
operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20532
with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction
clause must be exclusive and included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining
agreement applicable to the parties.”
25. As this dispute has an international dimension (i.e. Brazilian player vs. Maltese club) and is
employment related (i.e. claim for breach of an employment contract), it falls within FIFA’s
jurisdiction which in principle, would only be prevented in the hypothesis of (1) a clear and
exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Contract in favour of the civil courts; or (2) a clear and
exclusive jurisdiction clause included in the Contract or in an applicable CBA in favour of a
NDRC “that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
26. It follows that in order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested
party challenging the Football Tribunal’s must demonstrate that the parties have validly
agreed to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such body
is recognised by FIFA. These conditions are cumulative and must all be met at the time a
party submits a claim to FIFA.
27. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge first turned to the analysis of the Contract and
recalled that its Clause 3.5 provided as follows:
“This Contract may be terminated either upon the expiry of its natural termination, by mutual
agreement between the parties, or unilaterally by one of the parties for reasons of just cause or
sporting just cause according to the regulations of the Malta Football Association and/or FIFA.
Provided that in the eventuality of termination due to a just cause as abovementioned, the party
claiming just cause or sporting just cause shall file a complaint with the Complaints Board of
the Malta Football Association claiming such just cause or sporting just cause. This Contract
shall be deemed terminated only upon the publication of a decision of the competent Malta
Football Association judicial body decreeing such termination.”
28. The Single Judge noted that the clause would only apply in cases of termination with just
cause, and the complaint must be lodged before the Maltese NDRC by the party claiming
just cause. Accordingly, the Single Judge considered that the above provision does not
apply to the present case, as the claim was lodged by the Player, who alleges termination
without just cause by the Club, a scenario not covered by Clause 3.5 of the Contract.
29. Notwithstanding the above, and assuming that Clause 3.5 of the Contract was applicable
to the present case, the Maltese NDRC was not included in the official list of recognized
NDRCs at the time the claim was submitted- and has not been included since.
30. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction
to hear the present claim.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20532
31. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
32. The Single Judge noted that the Club requested to disregard the letter sent on 22 August
2025, as it mentioned that it is “without prejudice.”
33. However, the Single Judge considered that it does not have to disregard a piece of evidence
for the mere fact that a party added said disclaimer. The Single Judge recalled that
according to art. 13 of the Procedural Rules, “Any type of evidence may be produced. A
chamber has ultimate discretion as to the weight it gives to evidence.”
34. Therefore, the Single Judge considered the letter sent on 22 August 2025 which stated that
the Contract had become invalid, is admissible in the present proceedings.
c. Burden of proof
35. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
36. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether the Club had just cause to terminate the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20532
38. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to establish whether the
Club had just cause to terminate the Contract and the consequences thereof.
39. The Single Judge noted that the Player alleged that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause, claiming that he had not successfully passed the medical examination.
The Player submitted a letter from the Club stating that his failure to pass the medical exam
rendered the Contract invalid and, therefore, “no binding employment relationship has come
into existence between the Club and the Player”.
40. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge observed that the Club argued that it did not
terminate the Contract and had offered the Player the opportunity to remain at the Club,
receive his salary, and use the training facilities.
41. Despite the Club’s assertion that it did not terminate the Contract, the Single Judge
considered that it is evident from the letter dated 22 August 2025 that the Contract was, in
fact, terminated by the Club.
42. In this regard, the Single Judge reminded that according to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations,
“The validity of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination and/or
the grant of a work permit.”
43. In addition, the Single Judge recalled that according to well established DRC and CAS
jurisprudence, clubs are required to conduct medical examination before finalizing a
contract with a player. If a club disregards this essential requirement and signs the contract
without confirming the player’s fitness, it assumes full responsibility for that decision. In
such cases, the contract will be deemed valid and binding, and the club cannot unilaterally
terminate it if the player later fails the medical test or does not undergo one. Terminating
a contract under these circumstances is considered termination without just cause (DRC
decision of 9 June 2022, Barbosa).
44. Furthermore, as stated in the FIFA Commentary of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Player (page 236), “A club wishing to employ a player has to exercise due diligence
and carry out all relevant medical examinations prior to entering into an employment contract
with that player. It is, and has always been, the hiring club’s duty to satisfy itself that the player
they intend to contract is in good physical condition. It is for the club taking on the player, not
the club releasing them, to assess whether the player is fit to play football” (DRC decision of 31
January 2020, Betila, CAS 2008/A/1593 Kuwait Sporting Club v. Z. & FIFA CAS 2013/A/3314
Villareal CF SAD v. SS Lazio Roma SpA).
45. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause, in breach of art. 14 and 18 par 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20532
ii. Consequences
46. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
47. The Single Judge observed that the Player claimed that there was no outstanding
remuneration at the time of the termination and therefore the Single Judge concluded that
no outstanding remuneration was to be awarded to the Player.
48. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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.
49. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
50. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge 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).
51. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 46,800 (i.e., EUR 1,300 x 36 months or
3 football seasons) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
52. For the avoidance of doubt, the Single Judge recalled that Clause 1.1 of the Contract
provided that that in case the team does not participate in the Maltese Serie A during the
2027/2028 season, the Player shall be automatically released from the Contract at the end
of the 2026/1017 season. However, the Single Judge considered that, despite the presence
of this suspensive condition, the overall duration of the Contract remains three seasons,
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20532
with an option for early termination after two seasons, contingent upon the Club’s league
participation. This clause does not alter the initial agreed term but rather introduces a
conditional exit mechanism. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not
dispute its duration as interpreted by the Player in his statement of claim.
53. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Football Tribunal 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 compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
54. The Single Judge further observed that the Player did not secure new employment
following the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or
additional compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
55. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 46,800 to the Claimant (i.e., the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
56. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 August 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
58. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
59. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20532
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
60. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
61. The Single Judge 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.
e. Costs
62. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
63. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
64. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20532
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Elivelton Martins
Borges.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Birzebbuga St. Peter's, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- EUR 46,800 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23
August 2025 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
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 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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20532
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. 15