Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21266
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 November 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Jeremie
Serge Porsan Clemente
BY:
Stijn BOEYKENS, Belgium
CLAIMANT:
Jeremie Serge Porsan Clemente, France
Represented by Marks Amosejevs
RESPONDENT:
SIA Valmiera FC, Latvia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21266
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 March 2023, the French player, Jeremie Serge Porsan Clemente (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Latvian club, SIA Valmiera FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from the
date of its signature until 30 June 2027.
2.
Article 3 of the Employment Contract provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“3. Rights and Obligations of the Club
3.1. The Club undertakes to pay the Footballer a monthly salary in due time not later
than by the 30th of the following month, in accordance with the laws and regulations of
the Republic of Latvia, as well as to perform other expenses in accordance with this
Agreement and its annexes and other documents, to provide the necessary working
conditions in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Latvia. Agreement.
The Parties agree on the following amount of remuneration:
3.1.1. salary: 1500.00 EUR (one thousand five hundred euro) per month before tax;
[...]”
3.
Article 6 of the Employment Contract provided the following:
“6. Termination of contract
6.1. The Agreement is terminated at the end of its term. Early termination of the
Agreement shall be made on the grounds provided for in the applicable legislation of the
Republic of Latvia in the cases specified in this Agreement. The final settlement is made
on the day of termination of the Agreement. In the event of early termination of the
Agreement, the Parties undertake to comply with the deadlines for mutual notification
laid down in the Labor Law of the Republic of Latvia and this Agreement.
6.2. The Agreement may be terminated in advance in the following cases:
6.2.1. at Club’s initiative:
–
if a Football player fails to observe sports and household discipline or has
been disqualified for a long time due to his or her fault;
–
Club coaches in case of non-compliance with management orders;
–
if the Football Player is sharply undercut;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21266
–
in the event of non-compliance with other provisions of the Agreement.
The above-mentioned circumstances are qualified as a failure of Footballer to perform
the work specified in the Contract due to lack of sufficient professional ability.
Pursuant to Article 103 of the Labor Law of the Republic of Latvia, the Parties shall, by
mutual agreement, set a deadline for a notice of termination - 10 calendar days.
6.2.2. by player initiative:
–
if the Club does not comply with the terms of this Agreement and such
circumstances last more than three month.
Pursuant to Section 103 of the Labor Law of the Republic of Latvia, the Parties shall, by
mutual agreement, set a deadline for a notice of termination - one calendar month.
6.3. After the termination of the Agreement, the Football Player undertakes not to disclose
and use in its interests and in the interest of third parties commercial and other
confidential information regarding the activities of the Club specified in this Agreement
and the laws of the Republic of Latvia.”
4.
On the same date, the same parties also signed an Addendum to the Employment Contract
(hereinafter: the Addendum) providing for additional remuneration to the Player, as follows:
•
•
•
•
5.
EUR 5,000 net after the 5th official match appearance for the Club;
EUR 10,000 net after the 20th official match appearance for the Club;
EUR 15,000 net after the 35th official match appearance for the Club;
EUR 20,000 net after the 50th official match appearance for the Club.
On 9 January 2025, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, claiming outstanding
remuneration broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 1,500 as the October 2024 salary;
EUR 1,500 as the November 2024 salary;
EUR 1,500 as the December 2024 salary;
EUR 5,000 net as bonus after the 5th appearance for the Club;
EUR 10,000 net as bonus after the 20th appearance for the Club;
EUR 15,000 net as bonus after the 35th appearance for the Club.
6.
The Player gave the Club 15 working days to remedy the breach.
7.
On 25 January 2025, the Player notified the Club of the termination of the Employment
Contract. The Player referred to a default notice purportedly sent on 10 January 2025,
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21266
arguing that the Club has not cured its default pursuant to art. 14bis Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). The Player also claimed that
the Club failed to comply with “numerous contractual and regulatory obligations”, notably
that it had failed to provide him with the necessary medical care following an injury,
thereby also justifying the termination under art. 14 of the Regulations. The Player
therefore asked that the Club pay his outstanding remuneration within 10 days.
8.
On 10 April 2025, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, demanding payment of EUR
30,000 “comprising individual performance bonuses of EUR 5,000, EUR 10,000, and EUR 15,000
respectively.” The Player asked that the Club provide a response within 7 days.
9.
On unspecified dates, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages with a contact recorded
as “Uldis ValmieraFC Presid…,” purportedly the president of the Club. The conversation
appears to relate to the payment of a certain amount owed to the Player. During this
exchange, the contact requested additional time to assess what could be done to enable
such payment. The contact further stated an intention to make a partial payment and to
provide a monthly payment schedule to cover the outstanding amount.
10. On 8 August 2025, the Player lodged a claim against the Club seeking payment of
outstanding remuneration.
11. On 15 August 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat requested the Player to complete his claim
and, inter alia, provide additional information regarding his personal details and the relief
sought, including a detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute. The FIFA General
Secretariat further indicated that failure to respond would result in the claim being
considered withdrawn.
12. On 21 August 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat confirmed that no reply had been received
from the Player and, consequently, informed the parties that it would proceed with the
closure of the incomplete case file.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 8 October 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
14. The Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him EUR 30,000 in performance-related fees.
He asserted that, following the termination of the Employment Contract, this amount
remained outstanding. The Player further contended that the Club did not respond to his
default notices.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21266
15. The Player asked that FIFA take the necessary measures against the Club to secure his
entitlement to the bonuses. The Player did not file any request for outstanding salaries or
compensation for breach of contract.
b. Reply of the Club
16. The Club failed to respond to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 8 October 2025 and submitted for
decision on 14 November 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
18. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (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 an French player and a Latvian club.
19. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
20. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21266
c. Merits of the dispute
21. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned
outstanding performance bonuses.
23. The Single Judge noted that the Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him EUR 30,000
in performance bonuses pursuant to the Employment Contract and, in particular, its
Addendum.
24. Notwithstanding the Club’s failure to respond to the claim, the Single Judge acknowledged
that the Addendum expressly stipulated that the payment of bonuses was conditional
upon the Player meeting a specified attendance target. Accordingly, the Single Judge
determined that the burden of proof lied with the Player to demonstrate that he fulfilled
the required target and thereby substantiated his entitlement to the amounts claimed.
25. However, the Single Judge observed that the Player merely asserted that the targets had
been met without submitting any evidence in support of this allegation. Furthermore,
despite being granted a second opportunity to supplement his claim, the Player maintained
the same request and failed to provide any corroborating documentation.
26. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge also examined the WhatsApp message
exchange between the Player and an individual allegedly acting on behalf of the Club. In
this respect, although the conversation appears to allude to a pending payment of an
unspecified amount, the Single Judge found its content to be insufficient to conclusively
determine the precise nature or legal basis of the obligation in question. In particular, the
Single Judge noted that the exchange does not constitute adequate evidence that the
Player met the contractual performance targets required to trigger the bonus, nor does it
demonstrate any acknowledgment by the Club of such achievement.
27. In light of the foregoing, and although the Single Judge emphasized that the Player would
in principle be entitled to the bonuses claimed, he decided that the Player did not discharge
his burden of proof as he failed to substantiate his claim.
28. Consequently, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s claim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21266
d. Costs
29. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
30. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21266
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jeremie Serge Porsan Clemente, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21266
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. 10