Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21431
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 January 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Gustavo Caetano de Sousa
BY:
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ, Costa Rica
CLAIMANT:
Gustavo Caetano de Sousa, Brazil
Represented by Bichara e Motta
RESPONDENT:
Sharq COD, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21431
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties involved in this dispute are:
•
the Brazilian player Gustavo Caetano de Sousa (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
•
the Saudi club Sharq COD (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the Saudi
Arabian Football Federation (SAFF).
2.
According to the Player, in May 2025, the Club sent him a contract titled “Professional
football player contract (non-Saudi players)” (hereinafter: the Contract), which was
subsequently signed and returned to the Club.
3.
Article 3 of the Contract established that:
“The club wishes to enter into a legally binding contractual relationship with the player in
order to obtain his services as a professional footballer and the player wishes to enter
into a legally binding contractual relationship with the club in order to provide his services
as a professional footballer. The parties hereby agree to conclude a legally binding
contractual relationship through this contract and in accordance with its terms and
conditions. The validity of the contract shall not be subject to the successful passing of a
medical examination and/or the granting of a work permit.”
4.
Article 4 of the Contract established that its duration should run from 1 September 2025
until 31 May 2026.
5.
In accordance with article 5 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant (i) monthly salaries of USD 2,800 each; and (ii) a fixed payment of USD 4,300 due
on 1 October 2025.
6.
Article 7.14 of the Contract established that (quoted verbatim):
“The player acknowledges the club's right to extend this contract with the same financial
benefits until the end of May 2027 AD, provided that the club informs the player before
the end of this contract, and upon notification, the player's approval of the extension is
and he must undergo treatment by a doctor/physiotherapist/chiropractor appointed by
the club. However, a player is entitled to a second opinion from an independent medical
professional of his choice if he disagrees with the opinion of the club's
doctor/physiotherapist/chiropractor. In the event of a difference of opinion, the player
and the club agree to accept an independent third opinion (e.g., from a FIFA Medical
Center of Excellence) which is binding on both parties. The club will bear the costs of any
independent third opinion.”
7.
Article 15 of the Contract established that:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21431
“1. This contract is subject to the regulations in force in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
2. This contract shall be drawn up in at least three (3) copies. The player keeps a copy
and the club keeps a copy and a copy is duly delivered to the committee. In the event of
any dispute, the copy of the contract received by the Committee shall prevail.
3. Each copy of the contract must be dated and duly signed by both parties.
4. The club shall place its official seal on the last page of this contract.
5. In the participation of a mediator in the negotiations of any contract, it shall be
mentioned in that contract.
6. The Arabic and English languages shall be the official and approved languages of the
present contract and any correspondence between the two parties. In the event of any
dispute or conflict between the provisions as a result of the drafting, the English language
version shall prevail.”
8.
On 30 June 2025, an individual seemingly representing the Club informed the Player via
WhatsApp that the negotiations had been terminated, as the Club’s president did not
approve the Player’s appointment. It should be noted that the Player only submitted a
screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation translated from Arabic, without proper
identification of the parties involved. However, the Club confirmed the substance of the
message and acknowledged that it was sent by a member of its management.
9.
On 30 July 2025, the Player issued a notice to the Club requesting instructions regarding
the next steps, including flight details and tickets to travel from Brazil to Saudi Arabia, as
well as a countersigned copy of the Contract. The Player also asked the Club to assist him
in obtaining the residence permit and any other required visa or authorization. Finally, the
Player reaffirmed his commitment to comply with the Contract.
10. On 5 August 2025, the Club issued a response to the Player stating that, after the Player
accepted the offer, the Club had discovered several pieces of misleading information.
According to the Club, it had issued a formal notice informing the Player that his name had
not been approved to join the Club on 30 June 2025. In its reply, the Club also asserted that
the Contract was not legally valid due to the absence of the Club's signature and the lack
of signatures from its representatives, which violated article 15.3 of the Contract. The Club
further argued that the Contract had not been “activated” and that treating it as valid would
breach art. 18 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations).
11. On 8 August 2025, the Player issued a notice to the Club regretting the Club’s position,
expressing his willingness to join the Club, and acknowledging “that the employment
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21431
relationship cannot be reasonably and in god faith expected to continue and, therefore,
considers the Employment Contract to have been terminated by the Club without just cause”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 18 October 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
13. In its claim, the Player presented several arguments according to which (i) there was a valid
Contract establishing a contractual relationship between the parties; (ii) the Club lacked
just cause to terminate the Contract; and (iii) the Club should bear the consequences of
having terminated the Contract without just cause.
14. First, and regarding the existence of a contract, the Claimant established that the Contract
“is not an offer, but the employment contract itself, prepared by the Club and signed by the
Player” and that “even if it was an offer (quod non), it contains all essentialia negation of an
employment agreement and, thus, shall be considered as having the same effects as an
employment agreement”.
15. The Claimant noted that in its letter dated 5 August 2025, “the Club expressly acknowledged
the existence and the authenticity of the Employment Contract and admitted that such document
had been agreed between Club and Player.”
16. Additionally, the Claimant established that, in accordance with the practice of the Football
Tribunal, the Club's allegations that the Contract was not valid due to the absence of the
signature of its representatives, and that it never formally communicated or confirmed its
acceptance, must be dismissed.
17. In this sense, according to the Claimant, the Contract itself already constituted an
acceptance by the Club of its own offer, and the Club could not possibly reject the terms it
had itself drafted and sent to the Player.
18. The Claimant also noted that in its letter of 5 August 2025, the Club did not challenge the
existence or the authenticity of the Contract, but limited itself to arguing why the Contract
was invalid.
19. Second, the Player asserted that the Club did not have valid grounds to terminate the
Contract with just cause.
20. According to the Claimant, the Club groundlessly alleged inconsistencies in the information
contained in a resume supposedly submitted by an agent. In any event, the Claimant
rejected any allegation put forward by the Club regarding possible inconsistencies in a
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21431
purported resume and claims not to have knowledge of said document, which if exist, was
neither prepared nor sent by him.
21. Even if this was indeed the case (quad non), the Player claimed that any due diligence
regarding the Player’s career or the Player’s internal approval by the Club should have been
carried out by the Club prior to offering the Contract. Once the offer was made and the
Player accepted it the employment relationship was duly established.
22. According to the Player, the Club's letter of 5 August 2025, demonstrated that the Club had
no intention to fulfil the Contract and that it considered the relationship with the Player
over since 30 June 2025.
23. Third, the Player claimed that the Club should bear the consequences of having terminated
the Contract without just cause, namely a compensation pursuant to art. 17 of the
Regulations.
24. According to the Player, since he did not enter into any other contract following the
termination of the Contract, and as the Contract did not contain any clause specifying the
amount of compensation payable by the parties in the event of breach, he is entitled to the
residual value of the Contract. On the date of termination, the Player claimed that this
amount corresponds to USD 67,400 net, representing the full value of the Contract,
calculated as follows:
•
USD 25,200 net, corresponding to the Player’s fixed monthly wages from 1
September 2025 to 31 May 2026;
•
USD 4,300 net, as fixed payment established in article 5.2 of the Contract;
•
USD 33,600 net, representing the aggregate amount of the Player’s fixed monthly
salaries from 1 June 2026 to 31 May 2027, in accordance with articles 5.1 and 7.14
of the Contract, and by virtue of the Club’s unilateral right to extend the Contract
under the same financial terms until the end of May 2027;
•
USD 4,300 net, as per article 7.14 of the Contract and by virtue of the Club’s
unilateral right to extend the Employment Contract under the same financial terms
until the end of May 2027.
25. Further, the Player requested the application of a 5% interest rate per annum calculated as
from 30 June 2025, which is the date that, according to the Player, the Club considered that
the employment relationship between the parties had terminated.
26. Subsidiarily, the Player submitted that the 5% interest rate per annum should apply from 8
August 2025, the date the Player acknowledged that the Contract was terminated.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21431
27. Finally, the Player requested a ban from registering any new players nationally or
internationally for two registration periods to be imposed to the Club in application of art.
17 par. 4 of the Regulations.
28. In light of the above, the Player submitted the following request for relief:
“a) Admit the present claim and enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute;
b) Declare that the Club breached the Employment Contract without just cause;
c) Order the Club to pay the Player the net amount of USD 67,400.00 (sixty-seven
thousand four hundred US Dollars) as compensation for breach of the Employment
Contract without just cause, plus 5% (five per cent) interest per annum as from 30 June
2025 until the date of effective payment, or, subsidiarily, as from 8 August 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
d) Impose sanctions on the Club under article 17.4 of the FIFA RSTP; and
e) Order the Club to bear all administrative and/or procedural costs related to this
procedure (if any).”
b. Position of the Respondent
29. On 21 October 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat informed the Club that a claim had been
lodged against it before the Football Tribunal and invited it to provide its position on the
matter no later than 10 November 2025.
30. On 18 November 2025, and after the deadline had already expired, the Club filed a late
reply.
31. On 19 November 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the above
correspondence and informed the Club that its submission would be disregarded, based
on art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules).
32. According to the Player, he did not sign any new contract following the termination of the
Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21431
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. 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 18 October 2025 and submitted for
decision on 26 January 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
34. 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 a Brazilian player and a Saudi club.
35. 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
36. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
37. 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.
38. The Single Judge then turned to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for breach of contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21431
39. In particular, the Single Judge observed that according to the Player, there was a valid
employment relationship between the parties, and the Club had no grounds for
termination, and therefore, it should bear the consequences of its actions including
compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations.
40. Since the Club did not provide its position on the claim within the time limit, the Single
Judge also determined that his decision shall be taken based on the documentation already
in the file (i.e., the statements and documents presented by the Player) (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of
the Procedural Rules).
41. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his 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.
42. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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.
43. According to the Single Judge, from the case file, it could be 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. However, the Single Judge also noted that the Player acknowledged that the
Contract was never signed by the Club, thereby casting doubt on the existence of mutual
consent.
44. The Single Judge established 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.
45. The Single Judge further noted 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.
46. With the above in mind, the Single Judge established 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 mutual consent.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21431
47. In this respect, the Single Judge first examined the Contract itself and noted that (i) the
document appeared to be a standard template issued by the SAFF and bore only the
Player’s signature; and (ii) art. 15.3 of the Contract established that, for validity, “The club
shall place its official seal on the last page of this contract”, which was also not done.
48. The Single Judge then reviewed the case file and particularly the Player’s submission for
evidence (or explanations) regarding the issuance of the Contract and by whom. In this
respect, the Single Judge observed that the Player neither explained nor proved how the
Contract was delivered to him, and that his narrative was limited to stating that he received
the Contract “from the Club” in May 2025, without submitting any supporting evidence.
49. For instance, according to the Single Judge, the Player failed to identify his point of contact
within the Club or demonstrate whether the document was transmitted through an
intermediary, such as his agent. He also did not establish when and how he returned the
signed copy of the Contract.
50. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the WhatsApp conversation consisted merely of
brief, isolated messages lacking context, which were ambiguous and – even if admittedly
sent by an affiliated to the Club – did not substantiate the existence of a definitive
contractual link.
51. In continuation, the Single Judge examined the chronology of events. In doing so, he
highlighted that the Player alleged that he received the Contract in May 2025 and
immediately countersigned it. Nevertheless, the Player – or any person acting on his behalf
– only contacted the Club on 30 June 2025, i.e., at least one month after the alleged
signature. Furthermore, it took the Player an additional month following the purported
termination (or nearly 3 months after the alleged signature) to place the Club in default
and request information regarding the execution of the Contract. Immediately thereafter,
the Club confirmed that negotiations had been terminated.
52. Although the Single Judge noted that the Contract was scheduled to commence in
September 2025, the Single Judge equally considered that a Player genuinely convinced of
the validity of the Contract should have exercised greater diligence in requesting a properly
executed version of the document and in providing evidence confirming that the parties
were aligned regarding the next steps for his integration into the Club. In the Single Judge’s
view, the notice sent by the Player at the end of July 2025 – after the Contract had already
been “cancelled” on 30 June 2025 – was insufficient to corroborate the Player’s version.
53. In addition to the above, the Single Judge found no concrete facts or actions, such as salary
payments, flight tickets, visa requests, or any additional communication, that could help
him determine that, despite the missing signature, the Contract operated as a valid and
enforceable agreement between the parties – i.e., that it had ever been executed.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21431
54. Therefore, the Single Judge was not persuaded that the evidence submitted by the Player
sufficiently demonstrated that the parties had entered into an employment relationship.
Even less did it establish that the alleged departure by the Club, at the relevant time,
constituted a breach of contract capable of triggering the severe consequences associated
with premature termination.
55. As a result, the Single Judge decided that the Player’s claim should be rejected.
Consequently, the Single Judge pointed out that any further assessment of the remaining
questions was immaterial and did not affect the outcome of the case
d. Costs
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21431
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Gustavo Caetano de Sousa, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21431
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