Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20976
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Welves Santos Damacena
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Welves Santos Damacena, Brazil
Represented by Filipe Orsolini Pinto de Souza
RESPONDENT:
Al Ahli SC, Bahrain
Represented by 14 Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20976
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 August 2025, the Brazilian player Welves Santos Damacena (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant) and the Bahraini club Al Ahli SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2026.
2.
Clause 2 of the Contract established (quoted verbatim):
“2. RENUMERATIONS AND PAYMENT SCHEDULES.
2.1. During the contract, the club pays the player a monthly salary of two thousand five
hundred US dollars (US$2,500) from 01 August 2025 Until 31 May 2026
2.2. Rewards;
The club pays the player rewards as follows:
-The team achieved first place in Nasser Bin Hamad Premier League, the player deserves
a reward of (one salary) only.
- The team achieved first place in the King’s Cup. : The player deserves a reward of (one
salary) only.
2.3. Agent‘s entitlements-:
The club pays the player’s agent (Rodrigo Fernandes do Espírito Santo - 3
CNPJ:345738180001-15) Commission for the contract is 10% of the value of the contract
AMENITIES:
The Club will provide the Player with the following facilities:3.1. airline tickets(Brazil - Bahrain - Brazil) for the player and his friend once in the season
3.2. Suitable fully furnished accommodation for the Player during his residence in
Bahrain. When the Club is participating in any overseas tournament, the Player will be
provided same accommodation as the rest of the team players
3.3. The Club will provide medical treatment for the Player during the contract period.
This treatment will be carried out as deemed necessary either by the Club’s
physiotherapist or local governmental hospitals in the Kingdom of Bahrain, the player
may be treated in private hospitals, provided that the club’s specialist recommends it.
3.4. The Club will provide the Player car during the season.
3.5. All other personal expenses will be paid for by the Player himself.”
3.
Clause 4 of the Contract provided as follows (quoted verbatim):
“(4) CONTRACT TERMINATION TERMS:
The Club will be entitled to terminate this contract and deduct all outstanding payment
balances without any compensation if the Player:-
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20976
5.1. Displays bad and/or immoral conduct and behavior towards any of the technical or
administrative members of the team or Club.
5.2. Disrespects, or is found in breach of, the laws, customs and traditions of the Bahrain
society and in a manner harmful to the reputation, integrity and prestige of the Club.
5.3. Violates any of the terms, provisions and conditions of this contract.
5.4. Violating the regulations of the club or the Bahraini Football Association, or being
absent from exercises or matches without an acceptable excuse.
5.5. The value of penal condition shall be (One Salary) Only on bother parties.”
4.
On 6 September 2025, the parties concluded a document titled “Termination of the
contract & Financial settlement” (hereinafter: the Termination), which stipulated the
following (quoted verbatim):
“Referring to a professional football player contract dated 01/August/2025 between Al
Ahli Bahrain Club, and Mr. WELVES SANTOS DAMACENA passport GH108181 of brazil the
club wishes to terminate the contract by mutual consent with the player on September 6,
2025, pursuant to Clause 5-5 of the player's contract, which stipulates a penalty clause
for termination of the contract in the amount of (one month's salary). Accordingly, the
club is obligated to pay the penalty clause to the player. This constitutes the termination
of the aforementioned contract, a financial settlement, and the termination of the
contract with the player. The player is not entitled to claim any other financial dues from
the club, and the player may be transferred to any other club in the world.”
5.
Also on 6 September 2025, the parties concluded a document titled “Quittance & Clearance
financial” (hereinafter: the Clearance), by means of which the Player made the following
statement (quoted verbatim):
“I acknowledge and admit that I have received all my financial dues and the value of the
penalty clause for terminating my contract with the club, and I confirm that I have no
other financial dues with Al Ahli Club and my contract was terminated on (September 6,
2025) between me and the club, and the club acknowledges that the player has become
free and can transfer to any club.”
6.
On 6 September 2025, the Club paid the Player BHD 945.
7.
On 17 September 2025, the Player flew from Bahrain to Brazil, with a stopover in Qatar.
8.
On 26 December 2025, the Player concluded a new contract with the Brazilian club Clube
Atlético Carlos Renaux, valid as from 16 December 2025 to 30 March 2026. Pursuant to this
contract, the Player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of BRL 1,518. On 11 March
2026, a request for termination of the contract was issued.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20976
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 22 September 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
10. In his claim, the Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract, by means of which
he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 2,500 from 1 August 2025 to 31 May 2026,
accommodation, flight tickets and bonuses. However, the Player stated that on 29 August
2025, the Club lost a match 5-2 and, as of that moment, he and another foreign player
started to be treated differently.
11. In this regard, the Player alleged that the Club informed him of its disappointment with
regard to his performance and that, for that reason, a termination of the Contract would
be formalized. Hence, the Player affirmed that on 6 September 2025, the Club paid him
BHD 945, equivalent to USD 2,500, i.e., one salary, alleging the wording of clause 5.5 of the
Contract. However, the Player asserted that clause 5.5 was not applicable as it was not
drafted for termination without just cause. The Player also argued that the Club provided
him with the flight tickets.
12. In this regard, the Player indicated that the payment made by the Club, limited to the
amount corresponding to only one monthly salary, was insufficient and inconsistent with
art. 17 par. 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations). According to the Player, the Club’s conduct was contradictory, as it
acknowledged that an amount was to be paid for the Contract termination, but limited it
to one salary. Based on the above, and considering that the Club has already paid two
salaries, the Player affirmed that the Club must pay him compensation for the unilateral
termination without just cause, in the amount of USD 20,000.
13. The Player made the following requests for relief:
“1. In view of all above, the Claimant requests:
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 retrieve the signed Contract from the TMS, in accordance with Article 13.4
of the FIFA Procedural;
c. the DRC to send this claim to the Respondent Alahli Club (Bahrain) with a time limit
for a statement or a reply, pursuant article 21.1 the FIFA Procedural;
d. the DRC to accept this claim and declare that the Contract was terminated without
just cause by the Respondent on 6 September 2025, according to the article 18.4 of the
FIFA RSTP;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20976
e. the DRC to accept this claim and order the Respondent Alahli Club (Bahrain) to pay
the Claimant the total net amount of USD 20,000 (twenty thousand dollars), plus interests
of 5% p.a. as from the termination date on 7 September 2025;
f. the DRC to accept this claim and sanction the Respondent Alahli Club (Bahrain) in
accordance with article 17.4 of FIFA RSTP.
g. 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 Club
14. In its reply to the Player’s claim, the Club argued that, following the commencement of the
sporting season, it became clear to both parties that it was in their respective benefit that
the Contract be mutually and prematurely terminated, as the Club realized that the Player’s
skillset was not the one it was searching for and the Player was not satisfied with the
general conditions in Bahrain.
15. Therefore, the Club stated that the parties concluded the Clearance and the Termination,
with the latter document expressly deciding to terminate the Contract by mutual consent.
In this respect, the Club acknowledged that it undertook to pay an amount equivalent to
one monthly salary and provide him with the flight tickets to Brazil.
16. According to the Club, the parties signed two separate documents certifying their common
intention to prematurely terminate the employment relationship with mutual consent. The
Club remarked that it was undisputed that the Player signed both documents, with his
signature constituting an irrefutable confirmation and acceptance of the terms. The Club
further stated that it was not even necessary to interpret the documents, but if that were
the case, the common intention of the parties was evident.
17. In this regard, the Club affirmed that, had the Player not wished to consent to the mutual
termination of the employment relationship, he should have refrained from signing a
document such as the Termination. In fact, the Club asserted that the Player failed to
substantiate his allegations that the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract without just
cause and failed to provide a copy of the Termination.
18. Finally, the Club stated that, even arguendo that the Club proceeded with a unilateral
termination, the Player unequivocally declared that he held no further financial dues
and/or claims against the Club. In any event, the Club affirmed that the legal principle of
venire contra factum proprium should apply.
19. The Club made the following requests for relief:
“51. In the light of the above, AL AHLI SPORT CLUB respectfully requests the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal to entirely reject the Statement of Claim at
hand.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20976
c. Replica of the Player
20. In his replica, the Player stated that he was never consulted or asked about his willingness
to terminate the Contract and that the decision to do so was taken unilaterally and
exclusively by the Club, which attempted to change the facts in its answer.
21. First, the Player alleged that the reasoning that his technical abilities and skills did not meet
the Club’s expectations could not, under any circumstances, be deemed a valid justification
for terminating the employment without just cause. In addition, the Player argued that he
never expressed dissatisfaction regarding the conditions in Bahrain.
22. Then, the Player indicated that although the Club insisted that the termination was made
by mutual agreement, it failed to provide any evidence or document expressly indicating
the Player’s will to terminate the Contract. According to the Player, the wording of the
Termination demonstrated that it was the Club’s will to terminate the Contract and not the
Player’s, with the document acknowledging that the decision originated solely from the
Club and with no other document on file demonstrating that the Player expressed his will
to terminate.
23. The Player admitted having signed the Termination but stated that he only acknowledged
that he was aware of the termination imposed by the Club and that he would receive one
monthly salary. However, he stated that this could not be interpreted as consent to
terminate the Contract and argued that he could not continue working if the Club had
already terminated the Contract.
24. In this sense, the Player affirmed that the Club has also failed to present any other valid
contractual justification for unilaterally terminating the Contract and paying only one
monthly salary. According to the Player, this clause was unjust and disproportionate, and
in any case art. 20 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (hereinafter: SCO) should apply,
deeming the clause null and void.
25. Based on the above, the Player reiterated its requests.
d. Duplica of the Club
26. In its duplica, the Club again pointed out that the Player freely and unconditionally signed
the Termination and the Clearance, certifying the provisions and content included therein.
The Club alleged that, in particular, the Player confirmed that the Contract was mutually
terminated and that he retained no claims against the Club.
27. The Club further reiterated that, even arguendo that the Club terminated the Contract, it
was unambiguous that the parties mutually decided to amicably settle the dispute in light
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20976
of the payment of an amount equivalent to one monthly salary. The Club stated that art.
20 of the SCO could not apply to this case.
28. Hence, the Club restated its request for the claim to be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 22 September 2025 and submitted for
decision on 26 March 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
30. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Brazilian player and a Bahraini club.
31. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
32. 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
33. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20976
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
34. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract.
35. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club unilaterally terminated the
Contract without just cause and, therefore, must pay him compensation.
36. The Chamber also noted that the Club, conversely, alleged that the Contract was mutually
terminated via the Termination and the Clearance, with the Player acknowledging that the
Club did not owe him anything. In any case, the Club asserted that, had there been a
unilateral termination, the documents would serve as a settlement.
37. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
termination was mutual or unilateral on the part of the Club and, in that case, whether the
Player was entitled to compensation.
38. First, the Chamber noted that it was undisputed that both parties concluded the
Termination and the Clearance. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the Player
did not deny having signed these documents, nor did he argue that he did so because he
was forced or coerced. However, he stated that with his signature, he only acknowledged
the unilateral termination made by the Club, which allegedly failed to provide any evidence
of his will to terminate the Contract.
39. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the wording of the Termination provided as follows:
“Referring to a professional football player contract dated 01/August/2025 between Al
Ahli Bahrain Club, and Mr. WELVES SANTOS DAMACENA passport GH108181 of brazil the
club wishes to terminate the contract by mutual consent with the player on September 6,
2025, pursuant to Clause 5-5 of the player's contract, which stipulates a penalty clause
for termination of the contract in the amount of (one month's salary). Accordingly, the
club is obligated to pay the penalty clause to the player. This constitutes the termination
of the aforementioned contract, a financial settlement, and the termination of the
contract with the player. The player is not entitled to claim any other financial dues from
the club, and the player may be transferred to any other club in the world.”
40. While the Chamber acknowledged that the wording of the Termination could give the
impression that it was the Club’s initiative to end the contractual relationship, it
emphasised that such initiative alone was not incompatible with a termination by mutual
agreement, provided that the other party expressly agreed to the termination. In this
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20976
regard, the Chamber underlined that the decisive element was not which party initiated
the termination, but whether both parties freely and unequivocally consented to it.
41. In this respect, the Chamber considered that, by signing a document in which it was
expressly established that the termination was made by mutual consent, it could only be
interpreted that the Player also agreed with the termination. The Chamber considered that,
otherwise, he would not have freely and voluntarily signed this document had he not
agreed to terminate the Contract by mutual consent.
42. While the Player expressed that, by signing these documents, he only acknowledged the
unilateral termination made by the Club, the Chamber considered that there were no
elements to establish that his signature was only given in this respect.
43. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that, according to the well-established jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal, a contractual party signing a document of legal significance, as a
general rule, does so under its own responsibility and is liable to bear the legal
consequences of such signature.
44. Furthermore, although the Player stated that the Club failed to provide evidence
demonstrating that the termination was mutual, the Chamber considered that, taking into
account that there was a document explicitly providing for a termination by mutual
consent, duly signed by both parties, it was for the Player to prove that the termination was
unilateral based on art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. However, the Chamber
considered that he failed to discharge his burden of proof.
45. Despite the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the wording of the Termination was
imprecise, as it referred to clause 5.5, which, also with imprecise wording, stipulated a
penalty clause in the case of unilateral termination. However, the Chamber interpreted that
the parties’ intention was to mutually terminate the Contract, with the Club paying one
monthly salary to the Player and with the parties being released from any other claims. In
other words, the Chamber found that the mere reference to such clause did not, in itself,
alter the legal nature of the termination, particularly in light of the explicit wording of the
Termination.
46. The Chamber highlighted that this interpretation was consistent with the Clearance, which
was also signed by both parties and consisted of a statement made by the Player
establishing (quoted verbatim):
“I acknowledge and admit that I have received all my financial dues and the value of the
penalty clause for terminating my contract with the club, and I confirm that I have no
other financial dues with Al Ahli Club and my contract was terminated on (September 6,
2025) between me and the club, and the club acknowledges that the player has become
free and can transfer to any club.”
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20976
47. In this context, by making a global interpretation of both documents, the Chamber
considered that the parties, by mutual agreement, terminated the Contract and agreed
upon the payment of one additional salary to the Player. Since the Player acknowledged
that there was no outstanding remuneration, the Chamber found that he did not waive any
remuneration for work already performed and, in the Chamber’s opinion, the transaction
was also permissible because the Player was released and received one additional salary,
the payment of which was undisputed.
48. In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that there was no unilateral termination
and that the Player was not entitled to any compensation in this regard.
49. Hence, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
50. 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.
51. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20976
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Welves Santos Damacena, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20976
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13