Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21647
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Pedro Henrique Dos Santos Santana
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE, Brazil
CLAIMANT:
Pedro Henrique Dos Santos Santana, Brazil
Represented by Leonardo Welter Winck
RESPONDENT:
CA Macedo Cavaleiros, Portugal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21647
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
• the Brazilian player Pedro Henrique Dos Santos Santana (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and;
• the Portuguese club CA Macedo Cavaleiros (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated to the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF).
2.
On 24 August 2024, the Player paid EUR 1,100 to the Club.
3.
On 11 September 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2025.
4.
According to clause 2 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a gross monthly
remuneration of EUR 820, payable by the 5th day of the following month.
5.
On 13 September 2024, the Club initiated an instruction for the Player’s transfer in the FIFA
Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS).
6.
On 4 October 2024, the Club cancelled the transfer in TMS, stating as reason: “Devido a
Federação Portuguesa de Futebol nos informar inconsistências na documentação apresentada
pelo atleta”, freely translated into English as “Due to the Portuguese Football Federation
informing us of inconsistencies in the documentation submitted by the athlete”.
7.
On 14 July of an unspecified year, the Player and a contact saved as “Diogo Costa Chairs…”,
whom the Player identifies as the Club’s president, exchanged WhatsApp messages. The
Player asked about the “money situation”. The contact replied by asking where the Player
had stayed during the 10 months he was in Portugal and informed him that the matter had
been forwarded to the treasurer, who was on vacation but, upon return, his priority would
be to locate, identify, and explain the transactions.
8.
Between 14 August and 16 September of an unspecified year, the Player sent several
messages to the contact, without receiving any reply.
9.
On 20 October 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club stating that he had been hired as
a professional player from 11 September 2024 until 30 June 2025, for a monthly salary of
EUR 820. The Player argued that the Club failed to pay all salaries and dismissed him on 28
May 2025 without any notice. Therefore, the Player granted the Club 10 days to pay EUR
7,380, corresponding to the contractual obligations assumed by the Club and not fulfilled.
10. On 30 October 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s letter. The Club first argued that on 22
July 2024, it had issued an invitation letter to the Player stating that the eventual signing of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21647
a contract was conditional upon the prior obtention of a valid work visa and residence
permit in Portugal. The Club emphasised that the Player chose to enter Portuguese
territory without applying for a visa, which made it impossible for him to regularise his
migratory situation and to obtain essential documents for his professional activity. The
Club further noted that, although the Contract was signed on 11 September 2024 and
uploaded to TMS, the transfer was cancelled on 4 October 2024 due to inconsistencies in
the documentation submitted by the Player. In this respect, the Club asserted that the
Player was never registered with the FPF, never took part in official competitions, and did
not provide services to the Club. Nevertheless, the Club alleged that it acted in good faith
by providing accommodation and logistical support. Consequently, the Club argued that
art. 12bis and art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations) do not apply, as there was no valid and ongoing contractual relationship,
and any issue was solely the responsibility of the Player. Lastly, the Club expressed its
openness to an amicable resolution.
11. On 18 September 2025, the Player concluded a new amateur contract with the club
Juveforce - ADC Ponte Vagos for the 2025/2026 season. The contract did not provide any
remuneration in favour of the Player.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 30 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. The Player argued that the parties concluded the Contract, under which he was entitled to
EUR 820 per month, but the Club failed to pay his salary from the outset. Moreover, the
Player stated that on 28 May 2025, without any justification, the Club dismissed him and
failed to pay any compensation. In addition, the Player claimed that the Club requested
EUR 1,100 from him, allegedly for the purpose of registering him, which ultimately did not
occur.
14. The Player alleged that he requested the Club to make the relevant payments, but the Club
merely justified its conduct by stating that it had provided him with housing during the
period of the Contract. Thus, the Player argued that he sent a notice of default to the Club,
which replied with unfounded arguments that did not extinguish its duty to indemnify and
refused to make any payment.
15. Based on the above, the Player requested payment of the entire value of the Contract and
reimbursement of the amount he paid for his registration.
16. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21647
“In view of the above, the claimant requests:
a. The receipt of this lawsuit by this Dispute Resolution Chamber for judgment, as it is
a dispute within FIFA's jurisdiction;
b. That the defendant club be ordered to pay the unpaid wages during the employment
relationship and the compensation provided for in Article 17.1 of the RSTP (Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players), for the unilateral early termination of the
contract, to the claimant athlete, in the amount of €7,380.00 (seven thousand, three
hundred and eighty euros), under penalty of application of the applicable sanctions;
c. That the defendant club should be ordered to reimburse the amount of €1,100 (one
thousand one hundred euros) paid by the athlete to the club for his registration, which
did not occur (receipt attached).
d. That the defendant club be condemned to pay the lawyer’s fees up to 10% of the
amount paid to the claimant.
Total value of the case: €8,480.00 (eight thousand, four hundred and eighty euros) or
CHF 7,870.43 (seven thousand, eight hundred and seventy Swiss francs and forty-three
centimes).”
17. The Player clarified that the amount of EUR 7,380 corresponded to the salaries from
October 2024 to June 2025.
b. Position of the Respondent
18. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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 30 October 2025 and submitted for
decision on 17 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.
20. 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 Portuguese club.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21647
21. 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
22. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
23. 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
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim lodged by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration, compensation for
breach of contract and reimbursement of expenses.
25. The Single Judge noted that, according to the Player, the parties concluded the Contract,
under which the Club failed to pay him several salaries. Moreover, the Player stated that
the Club dismissed him before the expiration date and requested from him an amount
allegedly for his registration, which never occurred.
26. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Single Judge pointed
out that the decision should be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e.,
the statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
27. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player was entitled to the amounts he claimed.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21647
28. First, the Single Judge recalled that, although the Club did not reply to the claim, the Player
provided the Club’s response to the notice of default, in which it raised several allegations
regarding the validity and execution of the Contract. Therefore, the Single Judge considered
that he must first assess these allegations in order to determine whether the parties had a
valid and binding employment contract.
29. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the Club asserted that the Player was never
registered with the Club due to his own fault, allegedly arising from visa and migration
issues, and that he never provided services to the Club. Hence, the Club argued that it had
no responsibility towards the Player, as the Contract was not valid and binding.
30. In this sense, while the Single Judge noted that the parties concluded the Contract on 11
September 2024 and that it was uploaded to TMS, he further observed that the transfer
was cancelled by the Club, alleging that the FPF had informed it of several inconsistencies
in the Player’s documentation.
31. At this point, the Single Judge recalled that a party asserting a fact has the burden of proving
it. However, the Player stated in his claim that these allegations were unfounded, and the
Club, by not replying to the claim, did not provide any evidence demonstrating that the
non‑registration of the Contract was due to the Player’s fault. For example, the Single Judge
stressed that he was not in possession of any visa or migration records of the Player, nor
was there any evidence demonstrating that the Club informed or communicated to the
Player that the non‑registration was due to his fault.
32. The Single Judge also wished to recall that, based on the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, while a player is expected to cooperate in completing processes associated with
obtaining visas and work permits, or in facilitating his registration, it is ultimately the Club’s
responsibility to register a player on time or to obtain the relevant visa and work permit in
due time. Based on this, the Single Judge stated that he could not determine that the
non‑registration occurred due to the Player’s fault.
33. In any event, the Single Judge considered that the failure to register a player or to obtain
his visa or work permit does not render a contract invalid. In such cases, the affected party
- i.e., the one that complied with its responsibilities - is entitled to request that the other
party comply with its part of the contract and, in the absence of such compliance, may be
entitled to terminate the contract with just cause. Therefore, while the circumstances
raised by the Club could have been raised by the affected party to terminate the Contract
with just cause, they did not invalidate the Contract.
34. Consequently, the Single Judge considered that, despite the non‑registration and the
cancellation of the transfer, the Contract remained valid, as there was no evidence of a
unilateral or mutual termination.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21647
35. In addition, the Single Judge noted that in its response to the notice of default, the Club
argued that it provided accommodation to the Player, which demonstrated that he was in
the country during the term of the Contract. This was also consistent with the WhatsApp
messages submitted by the Player, in which the contact he identified as the Club’s
president asked him where he stayed during the 10 months he was in Portugal - implying
that this was covered by the Club. Hence, the Single Judge considered that, despite the
non‑registration and the impossibility of playing official matches, the Contract was
executed by the parties, in the absence of any further evidence to the contrary.
36. In this context, the Single Judge considered that the Player was entitled to EUR 820 per
month from 11 September 2024 to 30 June 2025. Although the Player argued that he was
dismissed on 28 May 2025, he failed to provide any evidence thereof. Therefore, the Single
Judge could only consider that on 28 May 2025 both parties departed from the Contract,
as the Player acknowledged that he left the Club on that date.
37. Hence, the Single Judge considered that the Player was entitled to salaries from 11
September 2024 to 28 May 2025 and, in the absence of evidence of a unilateral termination,
no compensation was payable.
38. Since the Player claimed the salaries for October 2024 to June 2025, and since the Club
failed to provide any evidence of payment, the Single Judge decided to award the Player all
salaries due during October 2024 – 28 May 2025, namely: EUR 5,740 for the period October
2024 – April 2025 and EUR 740.64 for the prorated salary for May 2025, totalling EUR
6,480.64. As the Player did not request interest, the Single Judge decided not to award any,
based on the principle ne ultra petita.
39. Lastly, regarding the claim for reimbursement, while the Player argued that he paid the
Club EUR 1,100 for his registration and submitted evidence of such payment, the Single
Judge noted that the receipt did not indicate the cause of the payment. Furthermore, the
Single Judge emphasised that there was no contractual basis establishing that the Player
had to pay the Club any amount for his registration, nor that such amount would be
reimbursed - even in the case of non-registration. Moreover, the Single Judge pointed out
that this reimbursement was not requested in the notice of default, and this claim was only
raised a year later, which generated doubts about its origin.
40. Therefore, since the Single Judge could not establish that this payment was made for
registration purposes - and acknowledging that it could have been made for any other
arrangement between the parties - and because there was no contractual basis for
reimbursement, the Single Judge decided not to award it.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21647
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
42. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
43. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
44. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
45. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21647
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Pedro Henrique Dos Santos Santana, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, CA Macedo Cavaleiros, must pay to the Claimant EUR 6,480.64 as
outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21647
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. 11