Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21084
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ichnygel
Gerzjomir Minguel Thomas
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Peter LUKASEK (Slovakia), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ichnygel Gerzjomir Minguel Thomas, Netherlands
Represented by Gytis Rackauskas
RESPONDENT:
Futebol Clube Paços de Ferreira, SDUQ, LDA, Portugal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21084
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 July 2022, the Dutch player Ichnygel Gerzjomir Minguel Thomas (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Portuguese club Futebol Clube Paços de Ferreira, SDUQ, LDA
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Employment Contract), valid as from 8 July 2022 until 30 June 2025.
2.
Clause 2 of the Employment Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“Second – § 1 - The Club undertakes to pay to the Player, in each of the sporting seasons,
the following net annual gross remuneration, which includes the corresponding holiday
and Christmas allowance:
a) 2022/2023 season: the overall net remuneration of €6.000,00 (eight-six thousand
euros) to be paid in 12 equal and successive monthly installments in the net amount of
€7.000,00 (seven thousand euros) each, the first on August 15, 2022 and the remaining
eleven on the same day of subsequent months;
b) 2023/2024 season: the overall net remuneration of €7.000,00 (seven thousand euros)
to be paid in 12 equal and successive monthly installments in the net amount of
€7.000,00 (seven thousand euros) each, the first on August 15, 2023 and the remaining
eleven on the same day of subsequent months;
c) 2024/2025 season: the net global remuneration of €84.000,00 (eighty-four thousand
euros) to be paid in 12 equal and successive monthly installments in the net amount of
€7.000,00 (seven thousand euros), the first on August 15, 2024 and the remaining eleven
on the same day of subsequent months.
The Club is responsible for the payment of any and all taxes which may arise in Portugal,
both on the monthly salary and on bonus/benefits. Therefore, the Club grants the Player
that all the amounts included in this contract will be received 100% net.”
3.
Clause 5 of the Employment Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“Fifth - § 1. In addition to the remuneration stipulated above, the CLUB also recognizes
to the PLAYER the ownership of 5% (five percent) of the economic rights, here understood
as including the following scenarios:
a) If the CLUB agrees to transfer the PLAYER’s registration to another club (either the
CLUB, whether temporarily or permanently), whether by way of transfer fee, one or more
loan fee(s), lump sum payment, bonuses, future installments, sell on participations, or
contingent payments or any combination of the same, then the CLUB shall pay to the
PLAYER a share equivalent to 5% (five percent) of the actually received monies (net
amounts) without any deduction.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21084
b) The share equivalent to 5% shall be considered also if the PLAYER will be transferred
in exchange of a technical counterpart (in case of exchange of players or registration of
another player it will be considered the whole value recognized to the PLAYER, including
the market value of the technical counterpart) or if the PLAYER is registered for another
club as result of a unilateral breach of contract that will give right to an income for the
CLUB.
c) The share of 5% shall be paid within 10 (ten) working days upon the reception of the
respective amounts or parts thereof by the CLUB.
d) The PARTIES agree to stipulate that the amount to be received by the PLAYER from the
entirety of the 5% share of his economic rights will be gross, and it will be levied on the
net revenue resulting from the assignment to third parties of part or all of the economic
rights relating to the Player, or a temporary or permanent transfer of the Player,
deducted from the sums that the Club has the duty to deliver or shares deducted from it
by virtue of the solidarity mechanism provided for in the Regulations Relating to the
Status and Transfer of FIFA Players and of the intermediation costs of the future transfer
(up to a maximum limit of 10% - VAT excluded - of the amount resulting from the transfer
after deduction of the solidarity mechanism).”
4.
On 17 July 2023, the Player, through his representatives, sent a formal default notice
granting 15 days to cure the overdue payments (i.e., the salaries of May, June, and July
2023).
5.
On 27 July 2023, the Club, the Player, and the Danish club Viborg FF (hereinafter: Viborg)
entered into a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the Transfer Agreement), by means of which
the Player’s federative rights were transferred from the Club to Viborg.
6.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Transfer Agreement provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“2. - TRANSFER COMPENSATION
2.1. Subject to the fulfilment of the Conditions Precedent in consideration of the
Permanent Transfer of the Player's rights and registration, VIBORG undertakes to pay to
[the Club] subject to and in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof the total
amount of EUR 350.000,00 (three hundred and fifty thousand Euro) (‘Transfer Fee’) upon
the conclusion of the present agreement by the Player's registration with the DBU, and
no later than 5 (five) days after the signing of this agreement.
2.2. In further consideration of the Transfer, VIBORG agrees to pay to [the Club] the
following amounts (Contingents Payment's) only in the event that during the Player's
registration with VIBORG:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21084
I. € 50.000,00 if VIBORG qualifies for Champions League/Europa
group/Conference League stage while the player is under contract at Viborg;
League
II. € 50.000,00 if VIBORG qualifies for top 6 in the Danish Superliga in the season
2023/2024;
III. € 25.000,00 when the player has started on the pitch in 30 games for VIBORG in the
Danish Superliga (one time payment);
IV. € 25.000,00 when the player has started on the pitch in 60 games for VIBORG in the
Danish Superliga (one time payment);
2.2.1. Should any of the mentioned conditions are fulfilled, the Contingent Payment shall
be effected within sixty (5) days, after the receiving of the necessary invoice.
2.3. – Sell-On Fee
2.3.1. In addition to the sums referred in Clause 2.1 and 2.2. above, should VIBORG
transfer the PLAYER's registration on a permanent or temporary basis to another club
(‘Future Transfer’), as a result of which VIBORG shall be entitled to receive any
compensation whatsoever (whether in cash or in kind, guaranteed or contingent sums,
including future sell-on fees), then VIBORG shall pay to [the Club] such sum or sums as
represent TWENTY PER CENT (20%) of any net amount(s) (whether in cash or in kind,
guaranteed or contingent sums, including future sell-on fees) received by VIBORG in
respect of such Future Transfer (‘Sell-On Fee’), in accordance with the following
provisions:
i. ‘The net amount(s)’ is defined as the subsequent transfer fee (including all contingent
compensation, bonuses) received by VIBORG from the third club (‘Third-Club’), minus all
sums paid or due by VIBORG in respect of Training Compensation and/or Solidarity
Contributions pursuant to the FIFA Regulations on the Status of Transfer of Players
(RSTP), see more pkt. 2.3.2 .
ii. If the player is sold to a third club for less than Euro 350,000 (or Euro 425,000 if
[VIBORG] makes use of the buyback option of the 10%) [the Club] will not receive anything
in the Sell-on Fee.
For example:
The Player will be sold for a Net Amount of Euro 100.000 to a third club, the Sell on fee
is 0 Euro.
iii. If the player is sold to a third club for over Euro 350,000 (or Euro 425.000 if the
[VIBORG] makes use of the buyback option (2.3.3.) of 10%), [the Club] will have to have
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21084
20% in sell on fee of the entire amount from 0 euros. (If [VIBORG] makes use of the 10%
buyback option, only 10% will have to be paid in sell on fee).
For example:
The Player will be sold for a Net Amount of Euro 1.000.000 to a third club, the Sell on fee
will be 1.000.000 x 20% = 200.000 Euro, or 1.000.000 x 10% = 100.000 Euro if [VIBORG]
has use the buyback option in 2.3.3.
In the event that [VIBORG] should receive any non-monetary counterpart from any other
football Club or third party in respect of the Subsequent Transfer (e.g. a player exchange),
the Parties shall, together and in good faith, evaluate the monetary value of the
compensation for the purpose of calculating the Subsequent Transfer Fee. If any
agreement could not be reach on the value of the compensation, the Parties shall refer
their dispute to a sole CAS arbitrator (Lausanne) appointed jointly by the Parties in
writing.
iv. VIBORG shall disclose to [the Club] the financial and other relevant terms of the
agreement concerning a Future Transfer within ten (10) days after execution of such
agreement.
v. VIBORG shall make payment of the amount(s) due to [the Club] as Sell-On Fee within
ten (10) days after any payment is received by VIBORG in consideration for the Future
Transfer of the PLAYER's permanent registration. If such payments or value are received
in instalments, then the applicable proportion of the Sell-On Fee shall be payable within
ten (10) days of receipt of each instalment.
2.3.2. Under this Agreement ‘Net Amount’ means the amount remaining after deduction
from the future Transfer Fee that VIBORG will receive for the transfer of the Player's
registration of a) the applicable amount of FIFA solidarity contribution and other levies
applicable by the football regulations, and b) any amount payable to Intermediaries for
the subsequent Transfer up to a maximum of 10% of its total value.
2.3.3. In spite of the agreed on the previous clause, [the Club] grants VIBORG a buying
option over the agreed Sell-On Fee. VIBORG can reduce the established Sell-On fee from
20% to 10% making that statement until 15.06.2024, and paying another contingent
payment of 75.000,00 € (seventy five thousand euros) until 20.06.2024. For the avoidance
of any doubt, in case the above option is actioned, [the Club] shall be entitled to receive
10% of any compensation received by VIBORG in terms defined in clause 2.3.1.
3. - TAXES AND DEDUCTIONS
3.1. In relation to any Solidarity payments due under the FIFA RSTP to any club(s)
(including [the Club]) and/or national association(s) following VIBORG' registration of the
Player (the 'Solidarity Liability') it is acknowledged and agreed that VIBORG shall be
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21084
responsible for the Payment of the Solidarity mechanism amounts which shall be due
under Art.21 and Annexe 5 of the FIFA RSTP, and shall be deducted on the transfer fees.
3.2. The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Transfer Fee, Bonus(es) and sell-on Fee
are inclusive of any sums of the Training Compensation and Solidarity Contribution due
under Arts. 20 and 21 and Annexes 4 and 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (RSTP) in connection with transfers of the Player. For the avoidance
of any doubt, no additional sums than the amounts of the Transfer Fee, Bonus(es) and
Sell-on Fee indicated in the Agreement shall be due from VIBORG to [the Club] or to any
other third parties in the relation to Training Compensation and/or Solidarity
Contribution of the Player, unless the part of those transfer fees, bonus(es) or sell-on fee
that will be deducted by VIBORG for distribution for the former clubs.
3.3. VIBORG shall deduct from the Transfers Fee, Bonus(es) and sell-on fee the Solidarity
Contribution of the Player and shall be responsible for the payment of the solidarity
mechanism amounts to the respective Clubs (including the [Club]) and/or Associations
as determined by the FIFA Clearing House in accordance with the FIFA Regulations.
3.4. [The Club] waives to any ‘Training Compensation’ payable in connection with the
Transfer of the Player to VIBORG according to Article 20 and Annex 4 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players.
3.5. Besides the fixed transfer fee, any Contingent Payments or the sell-on-fee, any
payment shall be made, subject to the validly issued invoices containing the relevant
sums and a valid tax residence certificate for each year of the corresponding payments,
send to VIBORG via email.
3.5. Each payment agreed will be made to the following bank account of [the Club] as
agreed.
[...]
3.6. For the avoidance of doubt, any compensation to be paid to [the Club] under this
Agreement (including basic transfer fee, contingent compensation and Sell-on fee) shall
be deemed as fully settled as of the date on which payment is effected by VIBORG to [the
Club]'s bank account.”
7.
On the same date, the Club and the Player concluded a termination agreement
(hereinafter: the Termination Agreement), by means of which: (i) the Club undertook to pay
the Player EUR 7,000 on 5 August 2023, and (ii) the Player expressly waived his entitlement
to his share of the transfer fee agreed between the Club and Viborg.
8.
According to the Player, the parties agreed to a mutual termination and signed a debt
acknowledgement dated 31 July 2023 (hereinafter: the Debt Acknowledgement) in which the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21084
Club recognised it owed the Player 5% of any fee received from the Player’s new club,
Viborg.
9.
The Debt Acknowledgement provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“1. PAÇOS DE FERREIRA irrevocably acknowledges it owes to the PLAYER an amount equal
to 5% (five percent) of the total transfer fee to be paid by Viborg F.F.
2. In particular, PAÇOS DE FERREIRA acknowledges it shall pay to the PLAYER the following
amounts:
- € 17.500 (i.e. 5% of €350.000) net of VAT if applicable, within five days from receipt of
such amount from Viborg F.F.;
- 5% of any bonuses to be paid by Viborg F.F. upon fulfillment of the above conditions,
up to a total amount of €7.500 (i.e. 5% of €150.000) net of VAT if applicable, within five
days from receipt of each payment from Viborg F.F.
3. This acknowledgement of debt is construed in accordance with the FIFA Regulations
and subsidiary Swiss Law. To resolve conflicts arising between them, the parties agree to
submit the respective resolution to the FIFA judicial bodies, with the appeal being
referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne.”
10. However, the copy of the Debt Acknowledgement provided by the Player only contains his
signature and its execution was disputed by the Club.
11. On 2 August 2023, the Player and Viborg entered into a new employment contract
(hereinafter: the Viborg Contract), valid as from 28 July 2023 until 30 June 2026. Accordingly,
the Player is entitled inter alia to the following remuneration:
•
DKK 105,500 (~EUR 14,100) as monthly salary, with an increase for every 25
games played in the national league and a decrease in the event of relegation;
and
•
DKK 500,000 (~EUR 67,000) as signing fee.
12. Also on 2 August 2023, the Club issued an invoice against Viborg for the payment of EUR
332,500, corresponding to the total transfer fee minus the solidarity contribution.
13. On 7 August 2023, Viborg paid the total amount of EUR 332,500 to the Club.
14. On 17 August 2023, a company named “DW SPORTS MANAGEMENT FZE” (hereinafter: the
Company) issued an invoice in the amount of EUR 49,875 against the Club for the
intermediation services provided for the transfer of the Player to Viborg.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21084
15. On 21 November 2023, the Player’s legal representative emailed the Club seeking an
amicable settlement regarding the unpaid 5% share.
16. On 28 November 2023, the Club replied indicating its intention to resolve the matter
amicably but claimed financial difficulties and requested more time.
17. On 29 November 2023, the Club requested an extension until January 2024 to arrange
payment.
18. On 26 April 2024, the Club sent the Player documentation from another FIFA dispute,
stating it expected to receive funds from Türkiye to pay the Player.
19. On 12 February 2025, the Portuguese Players’ Union sent a default notice regarding alleged
unpaid transfer-related amounts.
20. On 14 February 2025, the Club answered rejecting any debt and attaching the Termination
Agreement. The Club acknowledged that the Player had requested to be transferred to
Viborg and expressly agreed to the terms and conditions established thereto.
21. On 27 June 2025, the Player submitted a first claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC), which was registered under ref. no. FPSD-19727.
22. On 16 July 2025, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Player’s claim and
requested that he complete his position with supplementary documentation in accordance
with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules).
23. On 23 September 2025, the FIFA general secretariat ultimately closed this original case due
to the Player’s failure to complete his position accordingly.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 30 September 2025, the Player filed the present claim at hand before FIFA. A summary
of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
25. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club materially breached the Employment Contract
by failing to pay several monthly salaries and by not paying the 5% economic rights owed
following the transfer to Viborg.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21084
26. According to the Player, the Club repeatedly acknowledged the debt, explicitly recognizing
that he was entitled to 5% of the transfer fee. The Player alleged that he acted in good faith
by proposing instalments to ease the Club’s financial situation. However, the Club later
invoked an alleged waiver only after many months of acknowledging the debt and giving
assurances of imminent payment (i.e., the Termination Agreement). This document,
according to the Player, appeared suddenly and contradicted the Club’s previous
behaviour.
27. The Player further submitted that the alleged waiver included in the Termination
Agreement was invalid, as it was drafted solely in Portuguese, a language the Player did
not speak or understand, and was never explained to him. The Player alleged that the Club
intentionally prevented his legal representatives from reviewing the document prior to
signature.
28. The Player argued that the Club’s actions amounted to deception and bad faith, in violation
of the principles of contractual stability and venire contra factum proprium, given that the
Club acted contrary to the legitimate expectations it had itself created. As a result, he
asserted that the Club’s failure to honour the contractual obligation and the subsequent
misleading behaviour constituted aggravating circumstances under art. 12bis of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), therefore
justifying the imposition of sporting sanctions.
29. The Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“1. To accept this Claim against the Respondent.
2. To condemn the Respondent to pay the Player the outstanding payment for a total
amount of €18.750,00 (eightteen thousand seven hundred and fifty Euros).
3. To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of 5 (five) percent per annum
over the entire amount requested from the due date of the payment, i.e. the 2nd of
August 2025 (when the Player was transferred to Viborg FF) until the date of the effective
payment.
4. Impose the Club whatever sporting sanctions this Honourable Court deems fit in
accordance with article 12 bis of the FIFA RSTP.
5. As a consequence of the above, condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs
of the present proceedings, if any.”
b. Reply of the Club
30. On 20 October 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s claim.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21084
31. The Club submitted that the Player acted in bad faith and misrepresented the facts. It
argued that the Employment Contract indeed granted a 5% share of economic rights, yet
such right was expressly waived by the Player upon signing the Termination Agreement on
27 July 2023.
32. The Club stated that the transfer fee effectively received by the Club was EUR 332,500 after
the application of solidarity deductions, and that an intermediation fee of EUR 49,875 was
payable. Even assuming entitlement, the Club calculated the theoretical gross 5% share as
EUR 14,131.25 but stressed that the Player had no entitlement whatsoever due to the
waiver executed.
33. The Club contended that the Player insisted on being transferred after the Club’s relegation
to the Portuguese Second League. The Club initially refused the Viborg proposal, deeming
it insufficient given the Player’s sporting value. However, following the Player’s repeated
requests and his expressed intention to waive the 5% economic rights, the Club eventually
agreed.
34. The Club further alleged that the Player signed the Termination Agreement to facilitate his
departure and to benefit from substantially improved contractual terms at Viborg,
including a salary nearly double and a significant signing‑on fee.
35. The Club submitted that the Termination Agreement was validly executed, with signatures
recognised by a lawyer and duly registered before the Portuguese League and Federation.
It maintained that both the Player and his representatives received the draft before
signature.
36. The Club explained that the “Acknowledgement of Debt” document invoked by the Player
was never signed or accepted by the Club. It argued that all correspondence referenced by
the Player concerned the payment of the agent’s fee (DW Sports Management i.e., the
Company), not any debt owed to the Player.
37. The Club maintained that its financial director never acknowledged any debt toward the
Player. According to the Club, the Player’s representatives mixed communications
concerning the Company’s intermediation fee with the alleged 5% transfer share.
38. The Club invoked the jurisprudence of the FIFA Football Tribunal, arguing that the Player
bore full responsibility for signing the Termination Agreement and must bear the legal
consequences of his voluntary waiver.
39. Finally, the Club argued that the claim was time‑barred under art. 23 of the Regulations,
since more than two years elapsed between the date of the relevant event (the transfer
and termination on 27 July 2023) and the filing of the claim (30 September 2025). Therefore,
the case should not even be admissible.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21084
40. In its requests for relief, the Club requested that the claim be rejected.
c. Replica of the Player
41. On 3 November 2025, the Player submitted his replica on this matter.
42. As to the admissibility of the claim, the Player initially argued that the Club’s objection
regarding prescription was unfounded because the Club used incorrect procedural dates.
According to the Player, the claim was filed on 19 June 2025, not on 30 September 2025 as
alleged.
43. The Player submitted that the relevant limitation period under the Regulations was
interrupted several times due to the Club’s express acknowledgments of debt, in
accordance with Swiss law (art. 135–137 of the Swiss Code of Obligations - SCO), which
applies to fill regulatory gaps in the Regulations.
44. The Player highlighted that FIFA’s own Commentary to the Regulations and consistent
precedents from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirm that acknowledgment of
debt interrupts the two‑year period and causes a new one to begin.
45. The Player referred to several emails in which the Club explicitly recognised the
outstanding obligation, beginning with the message of 28 November 2023, where the Club
stated: “we sincerely ask that you can wait another weeks… we will make the payment.” The
Player argued that this constituted a clear acknowledgment of the debt.
46. The Player further submitted that additional acknowledgments occurred on 29 December
2023, 26 April 2024, and 12 June 2024, each interrupting and restarting the limitation period
and rendering the claim fully admissible.
47. The Player maintained that he acted in good faith by waiting for the deadlines repeatedly
requested by the Club and only proceeded to file the claim when it became clear that
payment would not be made voluntarily.
48. As to the substance of the matter, the Player contested the validity of the Termination
Agreement presented by the Club, which purportedly included a waiver of the 5% economic
rights established in his Employment Contract. He argued that the Club provided no
evidence that this document had ever been shared with or explained to his representatives
before signature.
49. The Player emphasised that the Termination Agreement was drafted only in Portuguese, a
language he does not read or speak. Thus, it was impossible for him to understand that he
was allegedly waiving his 5% entitlement.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21084
50. The Player argued that Swiss mandatory labour law (art. 341 of the SCO) expressly prevents
workers from waiving contractual rights during employment or within one month after
termination. Since the Club claimed the Player signed the document on 27 July 2023, while
still employed, such a waiver would be null.
51. The Player invoked FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, establishing that waivers are only valid
when the parties exchange concessions of comparable value. The Player alleged that he
received no benefit in exchange for allegedly surrendering the 5% fee.
52. The Player further argued that he may have signed under fundamental error under Swiss
law (art. 24 of the SCO), as he never intended to waive the 5% and was misled about the
nature of the document.
53. The Player concluded that the Termination Agreement should be disregarded in its entirety
and cannot extinguish his right to the 5% share of the transfer fee.
54. Furthermore, the Player denied the Club’s allegation that the correspondence exchanged
by email referred solely to an intermediary fee owed to the Company. He submitted that
the emails explicitly mention payments due “to the agent AND THE PLAYER,” confirming that
his entitlement was known to the Club.
55. The Player maintained that the payment at issue corresponded to the 5% sell‑on rights, not
any agency commission. He argued that the Club’s reading of the documents was
inconsistent with the wording, context, and timing of the communications.
56. The Player noted that on 29 November 2023, his representatives again requested 50% of
the amounts due “to the agent and the Player,” which the Club never contested at the time.
57. The Player therefore submitted that the Club’s narrative lacks contractual, documentary,
and legal basis and should be dismissed.
58. The Player reiterated that he acted in good faith throughout, accepted multiple deadlines
proposed by the Club, and only resorted to FIFA proceedings when the Club ceased to
cooperate. He affirmed his original position: the Club owes him the 5% of the transfer fee,
plus interest.
d. Duplica of the Club
59. On 10 November 2025, the Club submitted its duplica.
60. The Club stated that the claim was filed on 19 June 2025, as confirmed in the FIFA Legal
Portal, but submitted that this date was irrelevant because the Club never acknowledged
any debt towards the Player, which could constitute an interruption of the limitation
period.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-21084
61. The Club rejected the Player’s argument that the claim remained admissible due to alleged
recognitions of debt. The Club maintained that no written, verbal, explicit, or tacit
acknowledgment of any 5% payment to the Player was ever made.
62. The Club emphasised that the only debt it ever recognised concerned the intermediary fee
owed to the Company, and that all communications with the Player’s lawyer (who also
represented the Company) referred exclusively to that payment. According to the Club, the
Player incorrectly conflated the intermediary’s situation with his own.
63. The Club stressed that emails cited by the Player used the singular “the payment” rather
than “payments,” demonstrating that they pertained only to the Company’s commission
and not to any entitlement of the Player.
64. The Club insisted that, because the Player had expressly waived his 5% rights in a signed
legal instrument, it would have been logically impossible for the Club to acknowledge a
right that no longer existed. The Club therefore submitted that the Player’s reliance on
“acknowledgment” to preserve admissibility was without any factual basis.
65. As to the substance of the matter, the Club argued that the Player’s entire claim rested on
false assumptions and misrepresentations, particularly regarding the existence of a debt
the Club supposedly owed him. It asserted that the Player was attempting to fabricate a
right he knowingly waived.
66. The Club reiterated that on 27 July 2023, the Player signed the Termination Agreement in
which he expressly, freely, and irrevocably renounced his right to 5% of the transfer fee in
order to facilitate his move to Viborg. This document was allegedly negotiated with the
Player and his representatives, delivered in draft form beforehand, reviewed at the
moment of signature, and executed before a legal authority that verified his identity and
consent.
67. The Club rejected the Player’s claim that he did not understand Portuguese, stating that
the Player had lived in Portugal and was capable of understanding the document he signed.
It therefore maintained that allegations of linguistic misunderstanding were groundless.
68. The Club insisted that none of the Player’s lawyers or representatives could claim ignorance
of the termination agreement, since the negotiations were allegedly conducted between
all parties. According to the Club, the Player’s assertion that the document appeared “for
the first time” in February 2025 was implausible and contradicted by the signing procedure.
69. The Club strongly denied that the Player ever requested payment of the 5% prior to 2025,
asserting that all prior communications related only to the overdue intermediary fee and
the Player’s July 2025 salary, which had since been settled. It maintained that the 5% issue
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-21084
surfaced only when the Player first raised it in February 2025, prompting the Club to
immediately clarify that no such amount was due.
70. The Club further argued that the Player’s waiver was both logical and advantageous: the
Player was set to earn substantially higher remuneration at Viborg, including a signing
bonus of approximately EUR 67,000 and a salary nearly double his previous wage.
Therefore, the Player’s voluntary waiver of a maximum theoretical 5% share (which the
Club calculated as EUR 14,131.25, not EUR 18,750) made financial sense.
71. The Club accused the Player of attempting to exploit the situation in bad faith, proposing
the waiver to secure his release to a more lucrative contract, and later attempting to
reverse that position by claiming he never intended to waive the right. It described the
Player’s behaviour as “deceitful,” “not serious,” and aimed at misleading the Football
Tribunal.
72. The Club concluded that the Player’s claim must be rejected in its entirety, as he had
intentionally waived the right he was now asserting, had benefited from the improved
contract conditions he sought, and had presented a claim unsupported by documents,
communication records, or credible factual basis.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable legal framework
73. First of all, the DRC (hereinafter also referred to as 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 30 September 2025 and submitted for decision on 2 April
2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 edition of the
Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
74. 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 Netherlandish player and a Portuguese club.
75. At this point, the Chamber also noted that the Club disputed the admissibility of the Player’s
claim, based on the statute of limitations per art. 23 par. 4 of the Regulations. In particular,
the Club argued that it never acknowledged any debt towards the Player, as well as it
maintained that any exchange referenced only the intermediary (i.e., the Company). The
Club further confirmed the filing date in June 2025 but argued this was irrelevant since no
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-21084
acknowledgment existed and the Player had waived any 5% right in the Termination
Agreement.
76. Conversely, the Player submitted that the claim was filed within two years and, in any event,
the limitation period was interrupted by the Club’s express acknowledgments of debt (cf.,
emails of 28 November 2023, 29 December 2023, 26 April 2024, and 12 June 2024). The
Player relied on the Commentary to the Regulations and CAS jurisprudence applying art.
135–137 of the SCO, which provide for the interruption by acknowledgment of debt. The
Player also clarified that the first filing in this matter occurred in June 2025.
77. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that the following events remained undisputed
and are relevant to this assessment:
•
7 July 2022: the Player and the Club signed the Employment Contract, granting the
Player 5% of “actual received monies (net amounts)” from any future transfer, payable
within 10 working days after the Club receives the transfer fee;
•
27 July 2023: the Transfer Agreement between the Club and Viborg FF was executed
for a fixed transfer fee of EUR 350,000;
•
27 July 2023: the Club alleged that the Player signed a Termination Agreement
waiving his 5% entitlement; the Player disputed its validity;
•
7 August 2023: Viborg paid EUR 332,500 (after solidarity deductions) to the Club triggering the 10-day deadline for payment of the Player’s 5% share;
•
27 June 2025: Player filed his first claim before the DRC under ref. no. FPSD-19727;
•
23 September 2025: FIFA administratively closed the first claim due to incomplete
documentation; and
•
30 September 2025: Player filed the present claim.
78. In light of this factual chronology, the Chamber first defined that the event triggering the
prescriptive period under art. 23 par. 4 of the Regulations should be the moment when the
claim could first have been brought, i.e., 10 working days after the Club received the
transfer fee from Viborg. Accordingly, the Chamber held that the file showed that the Club
received EUR 332,500 on 7 August 2023, meaning that – absent a valid waiver (arguendo) –
the Player’s contractual entitlement under clause 5 of the Employment Contract became
payable within the following 10 working days.
79. The Chamber observed that even on this basis, and without prejudice to the assessment
of the validity or invalidity of the alleged waiver, the Player originally initiated proceedings
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-21084
before the DRC on 27 June 2025 under ref. no. FPSD‑19727, i.e., within two years of the
expiry of the 10‑day payment deadline that followed the receipt of the transfer fee.
80. Although this first claim was later administratively closed for lack of completion, the
Chamber considered that the act of filing a claim before the competent body in this present
case constituted the initiation of proceedings for the purposes of art. 23 par. 4 of the
Regulations. The Chamber further considered that these initial proceedings had remained
opened for a relevant period before the administrative closure, which the Chamber found
that could not be held against the Player in this particular case. Consequently, the Chamber
was satisfied that the Player’s original filing fell inside the two‑year limitation period
counted from the payment‑triggering date under the Employment Contract. As a result, at
this stage of the analysis, the Chamber concluded that there was no need to assess
whether the Club made any acknowledgment of debt, as the claim was timely even without
interruption. The Chamber further observed that the present claim of 30 September 2025
was lodged right after the first claim was closed and therefore saw no reason to render the
Player’s claim inadmissible.
81. Finally, 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
82. 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
83. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations, it will refer only
to the facts, arguments, and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-21084
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
84. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly disputed the Player’s alleged entitlement to 5% of the transfer
compensation received by the Club following his transfer to Viborg on 27 July 2023.
85. The Chamber began by recalling that the Player’s position was that the Club received the
transfer fee from Viborg but failed to pay him his 5% share. He asserted that the Club
repeatedly acknowledged the existence of this debt in written communications and
requested extensions of time – thus, in his view, confirming the validity of the underlying
obligation. He further submitted that the Club later introduced a Termination Agreement
dated 27 July 2023 in which he allegedly waived his 5% right. Still, he argued that such a
waiver was invalid, as it was drafted only in Portuguese, never explained to him or to his
legal representatives before signature, and contrary to Swiss mandatory labour law and
FIFA/CAS jurisprudence on waivers.
86. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club’s position was that the Player expressly,
freely, and irrevocably waived any right to the 5% share in the signed Termination
Agreement, which the Club considered fully valid and properly executed. The Club argued
that the Player actively proposed this waiver to facilitate his own transfer and secure a
significantly improved financial package at Viborg. The Club also contended that its
post‑transfer communications referenced only the intermediary fee owed to the Company,
not any amount owed to the Player. The Club therefore denied ever acknowledging any
debt toward the Player and maintains that the claim was based on a misunderstanding or
misrepresentation of the correspondence.
87. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (A) the validity
of the Debt Acknowledgement invoked by the Player; (B) the validity of the Termination
Agreement; and (C) whether said Termination Agreement amounted to a valid waiver of
the Player’s 5% entitlement, considering the particular circumstances of the case.
88. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
(A) The validity of the Debt Acknowledgement
89. First, the Chamber noted that the Player relied on a document titled “Acknowledgement of
Debt” dated 31 July 2023 to assert that the Club recognised owing him 5% of the transfer
fee payable upon his move to Viborg. The Club contested the existence and/or execution
of this document, arguing that it was never accepted or signed by the Club.
90. The Chamber reviewed the copy submitted and observed that the version on file bears only
the Player’s signature, with the execution by the Club disputed and unsupported by
corroborating evidence (e.g., countersignature, email transmission confirming acceptance,
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-21084
or contemporaneous Board/League filings). Similarly, the Chamber observed that the
Player did not appear to insist that this document was ever executed by the parties.
91. In these circumstances, the Chamber considered that said document did not meet the
evidentiary threshold required to establish a binding acknowledgment by the Club.
Accordingly, the Chamber decided to set it aside and accord it no probative value in
establishing the existence of a debt.
(B) The validity of the Termination Agreement
92. Subsequently, the Chamber turned to the validity of the Termination Agreement and
observed that the Club produced this document in which the Player expressly waived the
5% entitlement, appending signature recognitions by a lawyer and evidence that the
agreement was processed with the relevant Portuguese bodies. The Player did not dispute
having signed the document; on the contrary, he attacked its legal effectiveness, arguing
he did not understand Portuguese and that the agreement was not shared with counsel in
advance.
93. The Chamber noted, firstly, that the Player never contested authorship of his signature on
the Termination Agreement, and that the document’s formal validity was supported by the
signature certifications placed on the record. Secondly, the Chamber recalled that the
alleged lack of knowledge or insufficient appreciation of the legal consequences, absent
vitiating factors substantiated by evidence (e.g., coercion, misrepresentation, incapacity),
does not, per se, affect the validity of a duly signed instrument, particularly where the
signature was formally recognised.
94. In view of the case file, the Chamber concluded that the Termination Agreement was valid
and binding on the parties.
(C) The legal effects / consequences of the Termination Agreement
95. The Chamber then noted that the Player argued that any waiver should be deemed invalid
given the surrounding circumstances and invoked general principles and Swiss law; and
that the Club maintained that the waiver reflected the Player’s own request to facilitate the
transfer and secure improved remuneration at Viborg.
96. In light of the above, the Chamber firstly confirmed that clause 4 of the Termination
Agreement constituted a clear and specific waiver of the 5% entitlement and that such
clause was unambiguously formulated and signed. The burden therefore shifted to the
Player to demonstrate vitiating circumstances or other grounds rendering the waiver
ineffective.
97. In assessing the context, the Chamber found credible the Club’s submission that the
Player’s move to Viborg yielded materially advantageous financial terms for the Player – a
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-21084
signing-on fee of approx. DKK 500,000 (~EUR 67,000) and a monthly salary roughly double
that received at the Club – circumstances that could reasonably justify an informed
decision to waive a contingent fee share in order to expedite the transfer. The Chamber
found that this finding was supported by the Viborg Contract, the financial terms of which
were never disputed by the Player.
98. With respect to the post‑transfer correspondence, the Chamber considered that the
wording relied upon by the Player was not sufficiently specific to establish, to its
comfortable satisfaction, that the parties were referring in the correspondence to the
Player’s 5% (as opposed to other outstanding items, notably the intermediary’s fee to the
Company, which was simultaneously discussed). According to the Chamber, the Club’s final
comments consistently maintained that the emails referencing “the payment” pertained to
the Company; the case file indeed contained the intermediary invoice and related
exchanges. In this context, the Chamber found that the emails did not displace the clear
waiver contained in the Termination Agreement.
99. Similarly, the Chamber also considered the Player’s prolonged/intermittent inaction after
signing the Transfer Agreement. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Player did
not formally challenge, contest, or question the alleged invalidity of the waiver for almost
two years, only raising the issue in early 2025 when the Club invoked the Termination
Agreement in response to the union’s notice. The Chamber found this extended inactivity
and the Player’s lack of specific reference to his share of the transfer fee incompatible with
the conduct expected of a party who genuinely believed in his entitlement and/or that the
alleged waiver was invalid or involuntary.
100. Ultimately, the Chamber found it decisive that the Player bore the burden of proof to
demonstrate that the waiver was grounded on invalid premises (e.g., proven lack of
consent, defect of will, unlawful pressure, or clear imbalance of concessions). However, the
Chamber found that (i) this burden was even higher in this case in that the amount claimed
did not concern remuneration for work already performed, rather than a share of a future
transfer; and (ii) this high burden was not met: the evidence on file does not establish that
the waiver was void or voidable under the applicable framework.
101. In light of the foregoing determinations, the Chamber concluded that (i) the Debt
Acknowledgement was set aside for lack of proof of conclusion; (ii) the Termination
Agreement was valid and binding; and (iii) the waiver contained therein was valid and
effective in the circumstances. As a result, the Player had no outstanding entitlement
vis‑à‑vis the claimed 5% of the transfer fee, and the Chamber therefore rejected his claim
in its entirety.
d. Costs
102. 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,
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-21084
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
103. 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.
104. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-21084
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ichnygel Gerzjomir Minguel Thomas, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-21084
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. 23