Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20786
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Eduardo
Sousa Santos
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Eduardo Sousa Santos, Brazil
Represented by André Oliveira Teodoro Lopes
RESPONDENT:
AYUTD, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20786
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
The Brazilian player Eduardo Sousa Santos (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
•
The Thai club AYUTD, (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the Football
Association of Thailand (hereinafter: the FAT).
2.
According to the Player, on 29 June 2025, the Club sent an offer letter (hereinafter: the Offer)
to an agent named Gance Kov (hereinafter: Gance Kov), who allegedly worked with the Club.
The Player stated that Gance Kov forwarded the Offer to the Player’s agent, who then
transmitted it to him. It must be noted that the Player signed the Offer, and that the Offer
did not contain any signature on behalf of the Club.
3.
The Offer established (quoted verbatim):
“1. Salary 180,000 THB per month, the contract shall be valid for 1 year, from 1 July
2025 to 30 April 2026, or until the end of the 2025/2026 season.
2. Sige fee 180,000 THB shall be paid to the Player on the contract signing date.
3. The Club will also provide accommodation and transportation (vehicle) during the
term of the employment. (A separate contract is required.)
4. The Club shall be responsible for arranging and covering the cost of visa for player,
and work permit fees for the Player.
5. The Club agrees to provide a ticket one round-trip economy class air tickets (for the
football player) on the following routes: Brazil - Bangkok, and Bangkok - Brazil This
proposal is made for the purpose of engaging a professional football player to
participate in the 2025-2026 Thai League Season.
all terms above shall only take effect upon the succesful completion of a medical
examination, satisfactory physical performance test, and fulfilment of all club medical
requirements. The legal relationship between the Club and the Player will be established
only upon execution of a formal employment contract. Until such contract is signed, the
Club is under no obligation to provide any payment or benefit.
If you agree with the above terms, please sign below, and return this letter to the Club
[…]
We appreciate your interest in joining Ayutthaya United Football Club, and we look
forward to your positive response.”
4.
On 10 July 2025, the Player signed another document titled “PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL
PLAYER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT” (hereinafter: the Contract). It must be noted that the
Contract was signed by the Player and by a witness, but it was not signed by the Club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20786
5.
Clause 1.4 of the Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“1.4 The football player must participate in practical training and participate with
dedication in the competition as assigned by the coach.”
6.
Clause 1.5 of the Contract included the following (quoted verbatim):
“1.5 The football player shall comply with any and all requests of the Club in connection
with activities, advertising and public relations, promotion and support of projects or
activities that the Club deems beneficial or important to the Club.”
7.
Clause 4 of the Contract stipulated (quoted verbatim):
“This agreement shall be valid from 10 July 2025 to 15 May 2026 or until the end of the
football Thai league season 2025/2026, unless otherwise terminated earlier by either
party under the terms herein.
The above period is calculated up to the last day of the competition in the program. In
the case that the club receives a quota to compete for promotion or playoff or qualify
for the cup competition (e.g., Chang FA Cup, REVO League Cup) or advances to the next
round in any football competition organized by the Football Association and Thai
League Co., Ltd., in which the club has submitted a team to participate, an additional
employment agreement will be made on a case-by-case basis. The discretion of the club
is up to the club.”
8.
Clause 5 of the Contract established, inter alia, the following(quoted verbatim):
“The club will pay the football player as follows:
5.1 Monthly salary: 180,000 Thai baht (Net)
[…]
5.2 The Club agrees to provide the football player with a house and a car, both of which
must be in Ayutthaya Province only. The Club shall be solely responsible for arranging
and covering all costs related to the accommodation and vehicle throughout the
duration of the contract, The football player shall not transfer, sublease, or modify the
assigned accommodation or vehicle under any circumstances. Further details are
specified in the annex attached to this Agreement.
5.3 The Club agrees to cover the monthly accommodation expenses of the Football
Player throughout the duration of the employment contract, based on the actual
invoiced amounts. This coverage expressly excludes utility charges related to the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20786
accommodation, such as water and electricity bills. Further details are specified in the
annex attached to this Agreement.
5.4 Airfare: The Club agrees to provide a ticket one round-trip economy class air tickets
(for the football player) on the following routes: Brazil - Bangkok, and Bangkok - Brazil
This proposal is made for the purpose of engaging a professional football player to
participate in the 2025-2026. Thai League season.
[…]
5.14 Addition:
• Sige fee 180,000 THB shall be paid to the Player on the contract signing date.”
9.
Clause 8 of the Contract set forth:
“In the event that a club wishes to terminate the contract with the football player before
its expiration, negotiations must take place between the club and the football player,
with a payment to be made as part of the compensation.
[…]
8.8 In the event that the Club, after evaluation and consideration by the Club's
Committee, determines that the football player's performance, fitness, or match form
falls below the standards criteria set by the Club for official competitions, the Club shall
have the right to terminate this contract. Such termination must be notified in writing
no less than two (2) months in advance, together with the reasons for the evaluation
and for the termination, before the effective date of such termination, upon receiving
the notice of termination under this clause, the football player shall be entitled to receive
compensation in the amount equivalent to 1 months of the agreed salary. Payment of
such compensation shall be deemed as full and final settlement under the law, and the
athlete agrees to waive any rights to claim further damages or to take any further action
against the Club arising from or in connection with the termination under this clause.”
10. As to the dispute resolution mechanism, clause 11 of the Contract established that (quoted
verbatim):
“Both parties agree that this Agreement shall be governed solely by the laws of Thailand.
In the event of any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or related to this
Agreement, including any issues of breach, termination or performance of this
Agreement, both parties shall negotiate to resolve the dispute within 30 days from the
date on which the complaining party gives written notice of such dispute to the other
party. If both parties are unable to resolve the dispute within such period, such dispute
shall be submitted to the arbitrator of the Ministry of Justice for decision.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20786
11. The Contract also contained an annex titled “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANIDN ON
ACCOMODATION AND VEHICLE” (hereinafter: the Annex), which established that:
“The parties hereby agree as follows:
1. PROVISION OF VEHICLE
1.1 The Club shall provide the football player with a vehicle or other means of
transportation for travel between accommodation, training ground, and competition
venues throughout the term of employment.
1.2 The value of the vehicle or other means of transportation shall not exceed 8,000
Baht per month.
[…]
2 PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION
2.1 The Club agrees to provide the football player with accommodation throughout the
term of employment, with such accommodation being of a suitable and sufficient
standard for living.
2.2 The value of the accommodation or rental shall not exceed 10,000 Baht per month.”
12. On 6 July 2025, the Player flew from Brasilia (Brazil) to Bangkok (Thailand). At that moment,
the Player was scheduled to return from Bangkok (Thailand) to Brasilia (Brazil) on 24 May
2026.
13. On 9 July 2025, the Player underwent comprehensive medical examinations, the results of
which revealed no cardiovascular abnormalities. In particular, the interpretation summary
indicated a normal left ventricular systolic function with a left ventricular ejection fraction
(LVEF) of 69%, no regional wall motion abnormalities, no left ventricular hypertrophy or left
atrial enlargement, as well as normal diastolic function with normal filling pressures.
Furthermore, the examinations confirmed normal right ventricular systolic function with
no right ventricular hypertrophy, a trileaflet aortic valve, absence of any significant valvular
disease, no evidence of intracardiac thrombus, and no pericardial effusion.
14. From 10 July 2025 until 31 July 2025, the Player received several WhatsApp messages from
alleged members of the Club, inviting him to take part in photoshoot sessions at the
stadium, fitness training at the gym, video analysis session, and a friendly match against
Chainat FC.
15. On 11 July 2025, the Club paid THB 180,000 to the Player.
16. On an unspecified date, the Player engaged in a message exchange with a contact saved
as “NUT” who, according to the Player, was a member of the Club regarding additional
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20786
medical examinations. The Player refused to undergo further tests, stating that he had
already completed them the previous day.
17. On an unspecified date, the Club published a post on Facebook with a picture of the team
for the 2024/2025 season. The Player appeared in the picture.
18. On 7 August 2025, the Club requested the Player to undergo an additional medical
examination for the purpose of confirming his capacity to perform under the contract,
which was, according to the Club, a reasonable and necessary condition prior to
registration in the FIFA Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS) and participation in
Thai League 1. It must be noted that this letter stated that:
“Referring to the professional football employment contract signed between the Club
and yourself on 10 July 2025, you are hereby requested to undergo an additional
medical examination at a hospital appointed by the Club […] The purpose of this
additional medical examination is to confirm your "capacity to perform" under the
contract […] Failure to comply with this request will result in the club relying solely on
the previous medical report as final and may lead to contract termination in accordance
with FIFA regulations”.
19. On 14 August 2025, the Club sent the Player a document titled “TERMINATION OF OFFER FOR
PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER EMPLOYMENT” (hereinafter: the Termination Letter).
According to its terms, the Contract was conditional upon the successful completion of a
medical examination prior to registration with the Football Association of Thailand (FAT)
and in TMS. The Termination Letter stated that the Contract had not been finalized because
the Player allegedly failed to meet the required medical standards. The Club further
demanded that the Player return the amount of THB 180,000 on the grounds that the
medical condition had not been satisfied, warning that, if the amount was not reimbursed,
it would be deemed payment of the Player’s salary for July 2025 and that no additional
salary would be paid thereafter.
20. The Player stated that he did not enter into any contract following the termination of his
employment relationship with the Club.
21. On 26 August 2025, based on the information retrieved from TMS, the Player signed an
employment contract with the Indian club, Real Kashmir FC. The contract was valid from 1
October 2025 until 31 May 2026 and provided for a monthly salary of USD 2,800 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 11 September 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20786
a) Position of the Player
23. The Player argued that the FIFA Football Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the case
notwithstanding the arbitration clause in clause 11 of the Contract. According to the Player,
that clause referred exclusively to an arbitrator of the Ministry of Justice, making no
reference to a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC) recognized by FIFA, and it did
not expressly exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction. The Player therefore requested that the clause be
disregarded. In support, the Player referred to arts. 22 par. 1 lit.b) and 23 par. 1 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) and
submitted that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Chamber or DRC) was competent to hear this international, employment-related dispute
between a player and a club of different sporting nationalities.
24. Although the Player acknowledged that there was no copy of the Contract signed by the
Club, he contended that an employment relationship existed with the Club because the
Contract had been validly concluded and had come into effect. The Player argued that the
Offer and the Contract contained all the essentialia negotii, i.e., date, names of the parties,
duration of the agreement, position of the employee, remuneration, and as the Player
provided his acceptance, it should be considered a valid and binding employment
agreement.
25. In this regard, the Player alleged that the Offer became a valid and binding employment
contract on 10 July 2025, notwithstanding the fact that the Club president did not sign the
Contract.
26. As to the execution of the Contract, the Player noted first that the Club purchased flight
tickets for him to depart from Brazil on 6 July 2025 and return on 24 May 2026, i.e., for the
duration of the season. Second, the Player further pointed to a payment of THB 180,000
that the Club made to him allegedly on 11 July 2025 as a signing bonus. According to him,
this payment was contingent upon the Contract being signed, and it evidenced that the
Club considered the Contract concluded.
27. Third, and as further evidence of the execution of the Contract, the Player established that
he was integrated into the Club’s squad and regular activities, inter alia, being added to the
WhatsApp group where training sessions were scheduled, taking part in training sessions,
friendly pre-season matches, and posing for pictures wearing the Club’s kit. The Player also
noted that the Club published a post on its social media calling for fans to attend the first
match of the season, and that the post included a picture of the team in which he appeared.
28. As to the termination of the Contract, the Player argued that, on 7 August 2025, the Club
representatives started acting in an unusual manner towards him and asked him to
undergo further medical examinations, even though he alleged having passed the initial
examinations. The Player responded that he would attend. The Player also noted that he
was surprised when the Club informed him that he failed the latter exams.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20786
29. According to the Player, on 14 August 2025, the Club sent him the Termination Letter,
terminating the Contract without just cause based on the results of the second round of
medical examinations. The Player mentioned having recorded a short conversation with
the Club’s doctor where he told him that everything was normal.
30. Moreover, the Player highlighted that, according to the art. 18.4 of the Regulations, the
validity of a contract may not be subject to a successful medical examination. The Player
also noted that in accordance with the Regulations, a contract that is terminated because
of the player’s failure in a medical examination has to be considered terminated without
just cause. Finally, and in connection with this, the Player argued that medical examinations
have to be made before signing a contract with a player, and if not, it is at the Club’s own
risk. In any case, the Player alleged that his failure to pass medical examinations was an
invention by the Club, once the employment contract had already been executed.
31. Additionally, the Player added that, under the Regulations, the termination of an
employment contract must always be an ultima ratio measure, and that this was not the
case as the Club did not give him a prior warning and he carried on his work believing his
employer was fully satisfied with his work and health condition.
32. According to the Player, the Club’s position is contradictory, as despite having terminated
the Contract on alleged medical grounds, it nevertheless required him to continue training
with the rest of the squad and to participate in friendly matches. This conduct led to the
conclusion that the Player was fit, healthy, and fully capable of performing his sporting
duties. Consequently, the Player concluded that the Club could not rely on supposed
medical issues to justify the termination of the Contract, as doing so would violate the
principle of venire contra factum proprium, which prohibits a party from acting
inconsistently with its own prior conduct.
33. The Player invoked art. 17.1 of the Regulations, alleging that the Club unlawfully terminated
the employment relationship. On this basis, he claimed to be entitled to compensation for
breach of contract. The Player further submitted that, as he had not entered into any
subsequent employment contract following the termination, the compensation due should
correspond to the residual value of the Contract.
34. As regards his financial entitlements, the Player submitted that his overall monthly
remuneration amounted to THB 198,000, comprised of: (i) a fixed monthly salary of THB
180,000; (ii) a contractual right to the use of a vehicle, with a maximum monthly value of
THB 8,000; and (iii) a contractual right to accommodation, with a maximum monthly value
of THB 10,000.
35. Based on the foregoing, the Player asserted that the total compensation due was equal
THB 1,788,387.10, broken down into THB 108,580.65 as proportional remuneration for
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20786
August 2025, THB 1,584,000 covering the period from September 2025 to April 2026, and
THB 95,806.45 as proportional remuneration for May 2026.
36. Furthermore, the Player submitted that the Club failed to pay his remuneration for the
period running from the execution of the Contract on 10 July 2025 until the receipt of the
termination letter on 14 August 2025. On the basis of the alleged total monthly
remuneration of THB 198,000 (salary, accommodation and vehicle expenses), the Player
claimed THB 134,129.03 as proportional remuneration for July 2025, as well as THB
89,419.35 corresponding to the first fourteen days of August 2025.
37. In light of the above, the Player submitted the following request for relief:
“a) Deems the present claim admissible;
b) Rules that the Parties effectively engaged in a labour relationship, that the
Employment Agreement was fully executed and that, on 14 August 2025, the
Respondent wrongfully terminated it;
c) Orders the Respondent to pay the Player, as an overdue payable (proportional
salary - July 2025), THB 134,129.03 (one hundred and thirty- four thousand Thai Baht
and three cents), plus 5% p.a. interest as from 01 August 2025 until the date in which
the payment is made;
d) Orders the Respondent to pay the Player, as an overdue payable (proportional
salary - August 2025), THB 89,419.35 (eighty-nine thousand, four hundred and
nineteen Thai Baht and thirty-five cents), plus 5% р.a. interest as from 14 August
2025 until the date in which the payment is made;
e) Orders the Respondent to pay the Player, as compensation for wrongful
termination, THB 1,788,387.10 (one million, seven hundred and eighty-eight
thousand, three hundred and eighty-seven Thai Baht and ten cents), plus 5% p.a.
interest as from 14 August 2025 until the date in which the payment is made; and
f) Grants the Respondent 45 days to pay, under penalty of being banned from
registering new players until the relevant amounts are paid.”
b) Position of the Club
38. In its reply, the Club contested the jurisdiction of the FIFA Football Tribunal, arguing that
there was no employment relationship because the Contract had not been duly executed
or registered. In particular, the Club submitted that, as the Player was never registered in
the TMS and no International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued by the Brazilian Football
Federation (CBF), the Chamber lacks jurisdiction pursuant to art. 22, par. 1 lit.b) of the
Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20786
39. As regards the Player’s allegations, the Club contended that no employment relationship
ever came into existence, as the Offer was merely a draft that was never signed by the Club
and, in any event, was expressly subject to the completion of the Club’s internal approval
process and the Player’s medical clearance, without which it could not enter into legal force.
40. In this respect, the Club explained that the Player merely accepted the Club’s proposal on
29 June 2025 to undergo a medical examination and subsequently attended such
examination on 9 July 2025. Although the Player signed the Contract on 10 July 2025, the
Club deliberately refrained from countersigning the document, as it was still awaiting the
final results of the medical assessments.
41. The Club submitted that the amount of THB 180,000 paid to the Player after 10 July 2025
was not remuneration under an employment relationship but, rather, a goodwill gesture,
intended solely to cover the Player’s travel, accommodation and medical testing expenses
while the Club was awaiting the hospital’s final medical report.
42. According to the Club, the medical report revealed a history of prior anterior cruciate
ligament (ACL) surgeries and the existence of muscular imbalances, leading to the
conclusion that the Player faced a high risk of reinjury, estimated between 13.7% and 24%,
and recommending additional MRI examinations to rule out possible meniscal and/or
capsular damage.
43. Despite the identified medical risks, the Club alleged that it provisionally allowed the Player
to participate in training sessions and friendly matches against Bangkok Glass FC and
Buriram United FC to evaluate him. However, the Club maintained that the Player’s
performance was consistently below the required standard.
44. Consequently, the Club submitted that the Player was asked to undergo a follow-up
medical examination, which he allegedly refused. According to the Club, the mandatory
medical tests conducted before any final contractual approval revealed previously
undisclosed pre-existing injuries, including a history of serious knee surgeries. Following
consultations with the Club’s medical staff and its partner hospital, the Club concluded that
the Player failed to meet the Club’s medical standards and, therefore, could not be
approved for registration.
45. In addition, the Club argued that the signature of the alleged witness appearing on the
Offer does not belong to any officer or staff member of the Club and that such individual
was not authorized to act on the Club’s behalf. Furthermore, the Club asserted that the
photographs and social media posts relied upon by the Player merely constitute
promotional materials and, as such, do not amount to evidence of the existence of an
employment relationship between the parties.
46. In light of the above, the Club submitted the following request for relief:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20786
“a) DISMISS THE PLAYER'S CLAIM IN ITS ENTIRETY;
b) DECLARE THAT NO VALID EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS CONCLUDED;
c) CONFIRM THAT THE CLUB ACTED LAWFULLY AND IN GOOD FAITH;
d) RECOGNIZE THB 180,000 AS FULL AND FAIR SETTLEMENT FOR THE TRIAL;
e) ORDER THE CLAIMANT TO BEAR ALL PROCEDURAL COSTS UNDER ARTICLE 25(8) RSTP;
f) GRANT THE CLUB THE RIGHT TO REQUEST LEGAL COSTS UNDER THE FIFA PROCEDURAL
RULES.”
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20786
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
47. First of all, the Chamber 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 September
2025 and submitted for decision on 12 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of
arts. 31 and 34 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.
48. 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 Chamber 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 Thai club.
49. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Club challenged the
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter, arguing that, as there was no
employment relationship between the parties, the Chamber would lack jurisdiction.
50. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Player argued that FIFA has jurisdiction to decide
on this matter, as it is an employment-related dispute between a Brazilian player and a
Thai club.
51. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that, according to the already mentioned
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, FIFA is inter alia competent to hear:
“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 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.”
52. In the present case, the Chamber determined that the dispute primarily fell within the
scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, as it concerned the existence of an
employment relationship and its alleged termination without just cause. The Chamber
remarked that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has already established that the
notion of “employment-related” is broad.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20786
53. The Chamber pointed out that, even if it had subsequently found that no valid and binding
contract existed between the parties, i.e., that no employment relationship existed, this was
a matter that should have been decided on the merits, since a dispute regarding the
existence of an employment relationship is, by its very nature, an “employment-related”
dispute. This approach is also reflected in the Commentary on the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 458), which establishes that:
“A crucial aspect in such disputes, however, can often be whether a dispute is actually
´employment-related´. Generally speaking, it can be held that whenever the origin of a
dispute lies within the contractual employment relationship between a player and their
club, i.e. whenever the relevant employment contract serves as the legal basis for the
claim between the parties, it can be assumed that the dispute is “employment-related”
within the meaning of article 22 paragraph 1 b), Regulations.
(…)
In a recent award, CAS pointed out that the notion of employment-related disputes
includes a wider range of disputes than just simply those arising out of employment
agreements (…)”
54. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that this was an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension and, consequently, that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to
deal with the substance of the claim.
55. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber mentioned that the Club did not raise any
challenge to FIFA’s jurisdiction based on clause 11 of the Contract. Therefore, the Chamber
considered that it was not necessary to make any further analysis in this regard.
56. To conclude, 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
57. 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.
c. Merits of the dispute
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20786
58. 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
59. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the termination of an employment agreement without just
cause.
60. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the parties had a valid and binding
contract and the Club terminated it it without just cause on unjustified medical grounds,
contrary to the Regulations. Consequently, he requested outstanding remuneration and
compensation.
61. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Club alleged that there was no employment
relationship between it and the Player as no valid contract was ever signed or registered..
62. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether a valid
employment relationship existed between the parties, and if so, whether the
Club terminated the Contract without just cause, and its consequences.
63. The Chamber first noted that according to the well-established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, it shall
contain the essentialia negotii elements of an employment contract, such as the parties to
the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship, the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee, and their mutual consent.
64. Based
on
the
case
file,
the
Chamber
established that
most
of
the essentialia negotii elements (the parties, their roles, the duration of the employment
relationship, and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee) were
satisfied both in the Offer and in the Contract. However, the Chamber remarked that the
Player also acknowledged that the Club never signed the Contract, thereby casting doubts
about the existence of mutual consent.
65. At this point, the Chamber also recalled that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
consistently established that the actual signature of the contract is not the sole or even a
necessary element to determine whether there was an existing contractual relationship
between the parties. Instead, the validity and the enforcement of the contract should
be established on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions
taken by the parties within the context of their relationship.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20786
66. The Chamber nevertheless highlighted that (i) the conclusion of a contract can sometimes,
in very specific and limited circumstances, be proved without a formal signature, provided
that such proof meets certain standards of confidence, and (ii) decisions determining that
a contractual relationship was formed, without having a copy of a signed contract on file,
must require a high standard of proof.
67. With the above in mind, the Chamber remarked that the main legal issue in the present
case concerned the absence of the Club's signature and whether other robust
evidence existed in the case file to establish that the Offer and the Contract were executed
and that there was an employment relationship.
68. In this respect, the Chamber first summarized the key contractual clauses of the Contract
which the Player argued were effectively implemented by the Club:
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 1.4: The Player was required to participate in all trainings and official
competitions as instructed by the coach.
Chapter 1.5: The Player had to comply with any and all requests made by the Club in
connection with advertising, public relations, promotional activities, and any other
initiatives deemed beneficial or important by the Club.
Chapter 4: The contract was to run from 10 July 2025 until 15 May 2026, or alternatively
until the end of the 2025/2026 Thai League season, whichever occurred later.
Chapter 5: The Player was entitled to a monthly salary of THB 180,000, and the Club was
obliged to provide a round-trip economy-class ticket for the route Brazil–Bangkok–Brazil
for the purpose of engaging the Player for the 2025–2026 Thai League Season.
Chapter 5.14: The Player was entitled to receive a signing fee of THB 180,000, payable
on the date of contract execution.
69. Therefore, the Chamber proceeded to review the sequence of events in detail.
70. First, the Chamber observed that the Player received the Offer on 29 June 2025 and
travelled to Thailand on 6 July 2025, with a return flight booked for 24 May 2026. In relation
to these flight tickets, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed that the tickets were paid
for by the Club, and the Club did not contest this allegation. This is consistent with Chapter
5 of the Contract and, therefore, the Chamber concluded that this constituted an act
evidencing the Contract’s execution.
71. Second, the Chamber noted that, upon his arrival, the Player underwent medical
examinations focused on cardiovascular aspects, all of which produced satisfactory results.
Immediately thereafter, starting on 10 July 2025, it is undisputed by the Club that the Player
began receiving training instructions, took part in friendly matches, and participated in
photoshoots; he was even featured in a Club post announcing the upcoming season. Based
on this, the Chamber also determined that these acts demonstrated the Contract’s
execution.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-20786
72. Moreover, the Chamber considered it proven that the Player received a payment of THB
180,000, which is consistent with the signing fee included in Chapter 5 of the Contract.
Although the Club alleged that this payment was not remuneration under an employment
relationship but, rather, a goodwill gesture, intended solely to cover the Player’s travel,
accommodation, and medical testing expenses while the Club was awaiting the hospital’s
final medical report, the Chamber emphasized that the Club failed to provide any evidence
in this regard. Hence, considering that the acknowledged payment was for the same
amount as the signing fee, the Chamber interpreted that this payment was made as signing
fee in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, thereby also demonstrating the
Contract’s execution.
73. In this context, the Chamber noted that it was not until 7 August 2025, almost one month
after his arrival in the country, that the Club requested that the Player undergo additional
medical tests on 11 August 2025. More importantly, the Chamber observed that in this
communication, the Club expressly referred to the Contract signed by the parties on 10
July 2025 and informed him that failure to comply with this request could lead to contract
termination. Hence, in addition to all the above facts, the Chamber also noted that the Club
expressly acknowledged an employment relationship with the Player.
74. Lastly, the Chamber remarked that on 14 August 2025, the Club sent the Termination Letter
to the Player. According to the Chamber, this behaviour of the Club was also an
acknowledgement that there was a valid and binding contract, as the Club again referred
to the “professional football player employment contract dated 10 July 2025” as the
Contract, although it then referred to the fact that it had not come into effect as it had not
been signed.
75. Accordingly, the Chamber established that an employment relationship between the
parties was indeed formed, and that the Contract was valid and binding, and executed by
the parties.
76. Having established the above, the Chamber then assessed whether the Club terminated
the employment relationship with or without just cause.
77. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 18.4 of the Regulations which establishes that:
“The validity of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination
and/or the grant of a work permit”
78. With respect to this provision, the Chamber remarked that the Commentary on the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the established practice of the
Football Tribunal confirm that, under this provision, clubs have a specific obligation to
organize and complete the medical examination before concluding a contract with a player.
Should a Club nevertheless decide to execute the contract prior to obtaining confirmation
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-20786
that the player is fit and healthy, it does so at its own risk, as the contract will be deemed
valid and binding. Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that a club cannot unilaterally
terminate the agreement if the player subsequently fails the medical examination or does
not undergo it at all. Any termination carried out in such circumstances is considered a
termination without just cause.
79. In the present case, the Chamber referred to the Termination Letter, in which the Club
established that it had the right to terminate the Contract with just cause under arts. 13
and 14 of the Regulations based on the medical examination that took place on 11 August
2025, its results, and the alleged fact that Player was unable to perform his contractual
duties for medical reasons, which, according to the Club, constituted failure to satisfy the
conditions precedent to his registration.
80. Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that Player had already undergone medical
examinations on 9 July 2025 and that, following those examinations, both parties began
performing the Contract. Accordingly, the Chamber stressed that the Club could not rely
on the medical tests conducted on 11 August 2025 to justify the termination. In the
Chamber’s view, if the initial tests were subsequently deemed insufficient by the Club, then,
in accordance with art. 18 par.4 of the Regulations, this fell squarely within the Club’s own
risk, as the contract is considered valid and binding once the parties commence its
performance.
81. Consequently, the Chamber considered the termination of the employment relationship
as a termination without just cause made by the Club.
ii. Consequences
82. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
83. In this sense, according to the Chamber, given that the employment relationship started
on 10 July 2025, and that the Club only paid THB 180,000, which amounts to the signing
bonus, the Chamber decided to award the Player with the proportional salary for the
month of July 2025.
84. Nevertheless, prior to doing so, the Chamber considered important to establish first the
monthly remuneration of the Player under the Contract.
85. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that his total monthly
remuneration amounted to THB 198,000. The Player based this calculation on a fixed
monthly salary of THB 180,000, together with what he considered additional remunerative
components: namely, a contractual entitlement to the use of a vehicle valued at up to THB
8,000 per month, and a contractual entitlement to accommodation valued at up to THB
10,000 per month.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-20786
86. However, the Chamber considered that the Player’s position could not be upheld as his
contractual entitlement to the use of a vehicle, capped at THB 8,000 per month, and his
contractual entitlement to accommodation, capped at THB 10,000 per month, did not form
part of his monthly fixed remuneration, as he was not entitled to payment of a lump sum
but to a vehicle/accommodation, capped at that value. Consequently, the Chamber
considered that his monthly remuneration amounted solely to THB 180,000, in accordance
with Chapter 5 of the Contract.
87. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the Player’s proportional outstanding salary for
July 2025 amounted to THB 127,742, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as requested by the
Player, from 1 August 2025 until the date of effective payment. Given that the Contract did
not establish a specific due date, the Chamber stressed that, based on the standard
practice of the Football Tribunal, the salary must consequently be deemed payable on the
last day of the month it covers.
88. For the sake of completeness, with respect to the monthly remuneration for August 2025,
the Chamber remarked that since the Contract was terminated on 14 August 2025, and in
line with the established practice of the Football Tribunal, this amount should be
considered as part of the compensation rather than as outstanding salary.
89. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
90. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
.
91. In the present case, the Chamber considered worth noting that a clause of this nature
appeared in clause 8 of the Contract, which established that “In the event that a club wishes
to terminate the contract with the football player before its expiration, negotiations must take
place between the club and the football player, with a payment to be made as part of the
compensation. […] 8.8. [i]n the event that the Club, after evaluation and consideration by the
Club's Committee, determines that the football player's performance, fitness, or match form falls
below the standards criteria set by the Club for official competitions, the Club shall have the right
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-20786
to terminate this contract. Such termination must be notified in writing no less than two (2)
months in advance, together with the reasons for the evaluation and for the termination, before
the effective date of such termination, upon receiving the notice of termination under this clause,
the football player shall be entitled to receive compensation in the amount equivalent to 1
months of the agreed salary. Payment of such compensation shall be deemed as full and final
settlement under the law, and the athlete agrees to waive any rights to claim further damages
or to take any further action against the Club arising from or in connection with the termination
under this clause.”.
92. Nevertheless, the Chamber determined that this clause could not be applied because its
requirements were not fulfilled and, in any event, it would not apply as the termination of
the Contract was without just cause, and the purpose of the clause was not related to this
scenario.
93. In any event, according to the Chamber, even if its conditions had been satisfied, clause 8.8
of the Contract would still not apply as it would be disproportionate vis-à-vis the residual
value of the Contract, as it limits compensation to only one month of the agreed salary.
94. As a consequence, the Chamber 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 Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
95. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber 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.
96. Since the employment relationship was terminated on 14 August 2025, and it was originally
intended to run until 15 May 2026, and given that the Chamber could not ascertain whether
the end of the 2025/2026 Thai football league season would have occurred after that date
had the Club not terminated the contract, the Chamber determined that calculation must
be based on the contractual term as stated. Consequently, in accordance with clause 5 of
the Offer, the Chamber determined that the residual value corresponded to the full salaries
from August 2025 to April 2025 (THB 180,000 times 9) and the prorated salary for May (THB
87,097).
97. Consequently, the residual value of the Contract was THB 1,707,097, which serves as the
basis for compensation.
98. In continuation, the Chamber 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
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-20786
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
99. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the Player concluded a new contract, which was
valid from 1 October 2025 until 31 May 2026 and provided for a monthly salary of USD
2,800 net. Therefore, its total value during the overlapping period with the Contract is USD
20,954.84, i.e., USD 2,800 times 7 from October 2025 to April 2025 and the prorated salary
for May at USD 1,354.84.:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of October 2025;
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of November 2025;
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of December 2025;
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of January 2026;
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of February 2026;
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of March 2026;
USD 2,800 corresponding to the month of April 2026;
USD 1,354.84 corresponding to the first 15 days of May 2026.
100. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in
the total amount of USD 20,954.84, which was equivalent to THB 654,690.
101. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination did not take place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent
and therefore decided that the Claimant shall not receive additional compensation.
102. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
THB 1,052,407 to the Claimant (i.e., THB 1,707,097 minus THB 654,690), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter
103. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 August 2025 until the date of effective
payment..
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-20786
104. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
105. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
106. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay
the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
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.
107. 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.
108. The Chamber 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
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-20786
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Eduardo Sousa
Santos.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, AYUTD, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- THB 127,742 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2025
until the date of effective payment;
- THB 1,052,407 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14
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. 23
REF. FPSD-20786
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. 24