Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-21938
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Silvio Alejandro Martínez
BY:
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina)
CLAIMANT:
Silvio Alejandro Martínez, Argentina
Represented by Octavio Antelo
RESPONDENT:
Ceará Sporting Club, Brazil
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-21938
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 February 2025, the Argentinian player Silvio Alejandro Martínez (hereinafter, the
Player or the Claimant) and the Brazilian club Ceará Sporting Club (hereinafter, the Club or
the Respondent) concluded a pre-contract (hereinafter, the Pre-contract) setting out the
main terms of their employment relationship.
2.
Also on 1 February 2025, the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the
Parties) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 4
February 2025 until 31 December 2025, under which the Club undertook to pay the Player
a total fixed remuneration of BRL 121,700.
3.
On the same date, the Player, the Club and the company G3 Consultoria Esportiva LTDA.
signed the so-called “Instrumento Particular de Sublicenciamiento de Direitos de Imagem e
Outros Conexos” (hereinafter, the IRA), under which the Player, through the company,
assigned his image rights to the Club for the duration of the Contract in exchange for USD
75,000 and BRL 121,700.
4.
Also on 1 February 2025, the Parties concluded the so-called “Contrato para Pagamento de
Prêmio para Assinatura de Contrato de Trabalho” (hereinafter, the Signing fee Agreement),
under which the Club undertook to pay the Player an additional USD 75,000.
5.
On 18 July 2025, the Parties concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter, the
Termination Agreement), under which:
“Segundo.- Que las partes llegan al acuerdo de rescindir anticipadamente el “Contrato”, el
“Contrato Especial de Trabalho Desportivo”, el "Contrato para Pagamento de Prêmio par
Assinatura de Contrato de Trabalho", y el "Instrumento Particular de Sublicenciamento de
Direitos de Imagem e Outros Conexos" y sus adendas, que les unía”.
Freely translated into English:
“Second.- The parties agree to the early termination of [the Pre-contract], [the Contract],
[the Signing fee Agreement] and [the IRA], together with their respective addenda, which
bound them”.
6.
Clause 3 of the Termination Agreement provides:
“De acuerdo con los respectivos documentos de rescisión firmados en la presente fecha, las
partes acuerdan la existencia de una deuda total neta de R$ 1.060.166,64 (un millón,
sesenta mil, ciento sesenta y seis reales e sesenta y cuatro centavos), pagaderos en 6 (seis)
cuotas iguales, mensuales y consecutivas de R$ 176.694,44 (ciento setenta y seis mil,
seiscientos e noventa e cuatro reales y cuarenta y cuatro centavos) cada, en los días 30
(treinta) de los meses de julio hasta diciembre de 2025. En caso de un retraso superior a 15
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-21938
(quince) días, es decir, previa notificación a cualquiera de los domicilios físicos o
electrónicos arriba indicados (sin necesidad de conformación de recepción), a la deuda
serán acrecidas multa de 10% (diez por ciento) e intereses de 1% (un por ciento) al mes. Si
2 (dos) o más cuotas estuvieren retrasadas, las demás cuotas que aún no estuvieren
canceladas serán también automáticamente consideradas vencidas y exigibles”.
Freely translated into English:
“In accordance with the respective termination documents executed on this date, the parties
agree to the existence of a total net debt of BRL 1,060,166.64 (one million, sixty thousand,
one hundred sixty-six reais and sixty-four centavos), payable in 6 (six) equal, monthly, and
consecutive instalments of BRL 176,694.44 (one hundred seventy-six thousand, six hundred
ninety-four reais and forty-four centavos) each, on the 30th day of the months from July
through December 2025. In the event of a delay exceeding 15 (fifteen) days —i.e., after prior
notification to any of the physical or electronic addresses indicated above (without the need
for confirmation of receipt)— a penalty of 10% (ten percent) and interest of 1% (one percent)
per month shall be added to the debt. If 2 (two) or more instalments are overdue, the
remaining instalments that are not yet paid shall also be automatically deemed due and
payable”.
7.
On 29 September 2025, the Player emailed the Club requesting payment of the amounts
due under the Termination Agreement.
8.
On 16 October 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 10 days to
pay BRL 883,472.20 under the Termination Agreement, corresponding to the second, third,
fourth, fifth and sixth instalments, together with the contractual penalty and default
interest as agreed. In his correspondence, the Player referred to Clause 3 of the
Termination Agreement and the acceleration mechanism provided therein.
9.
On 3 November 2025, the Player emailed the Club reiterating his previous demands and
granting the Club a 15-day deadline to pay BRL 883,472.20.
10. On 5 January 2026, the Club paid BRL 176,694.44.
11. On 12 January 2026, the Club paid BRL 176,694.44.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-21938
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 15 November 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
13. In his claim, the Player asserted that, at the Club’s initiative, the Parties agreed on 18 July
2025 to terminate their employment relationship by entering into several termination
instruments: one related to the Contract, one related to the IRA, and one related to the
Signing fee Agreement. The Player further stated that the financial consequences of the
termination were consolidated and regulated in the Termination Agreement, through
which the Club expressly acknowledged the outstanding amounts owed to him.
14. In this regard, the Player submitted that, under the Termination Agreement, the Club
undertook to pay him the total amount of BRL 1,060,166.64, in six equal monthly
instalments of BRL 176,694.44, payable on 30 July, 30 August, 30 September, 30 October,
30 November and 30 December 2025. The Termination Agreement also contained an
acceleration clause, provided for interest of 1% per month, and stipulated a contractual
penalty of 10% in case of default exceeding 15 days.
15. The Player argued that the Club only paid the first instalment under the Termination
Agreement and failed to pay the instalments due in August, September and October 2025.
He further submitted that, after placing the Club in default on 29 September, 16 October
and 3 November 2025, the acceleration clause was triggered. As a consequence, the Player
claimed entitlement to the accelerated amount corresponding to the second, third, fourth,
fifth and sixth instalments, i.e., BRL 883,472.20, a contractual penalty of BRL 88,347.20, and
interest at 1% per month, accruing as follows:
o With respect to the August 2025 instalment, from its due date until effective
payment; and
o With respect to the accelerated amount, from the due date of the September 2025
instalment until effective payment.
16. Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“Por lo expuesto, a este Honorable Tribunal solicito:
1. Se declare la competencia de la FIFA para conocer en la presente disputa.
2. Se admita la demanda y se tenga por acreditado el incumplimiento contractual del Ceará
Sporting Club de Brasil.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-21938
3. Se condene al club demandado a abonar al jugador Silvio Alejandro Martínez la suma
total de R$ 971.819,42 (novecientos setenta y un mil ochocientos diecinueve con cuarenta
y dos centavos) o el monto que se determine en sede arbitral, correspondiente a capital
y multa.
4. Al monto antes referido, se le aplique la tasa de interés mensual del uno por ciento (1%),
conforme lo siguiente: (i) respecto de la cuota correspondiente al mes de agosto de 2025,
los intereses se devengarán desde su fecha de vencimiento hasta el efectivo pago; y (ii)
respecto del resto del saldo pendiente, éstos se devengarán desde la fecha de
vencimiento de la cuota correspondiente al mes de septiembre de 2025 y hasta el efectivo
pago, ello en virtud de la caducidad de plazos contractualmente pactada, que torna
exigible la totalidad de las sumas reconocidas.
5. Se disponga la aplicación de las sanciones disciplinarias previstas en el art. 12 bis, ap. 4,
del RETJ.
6. Se condene al club al pago de costas y gastos procesales.
7. Se ordene el pago dentro del plazo de 45 días desde la notificación de la decisión”.
Freely translated into English:
“In light of the above, I respectfully request this Honorable Tribunal to:
1. Declare that FIFA has jurisdiction to hear the present dispute.
2. Admit the claim and consider the contractual breach by Ceará Sporting Club of Brazil to
be duly established.
3. Order the respondent club to pay the player, Silvio Alejandro Martínez, the total amount
of BRL 971,819.42 (nine hundred seventy-one thousand eight hundred nineteen reais and
forty-two centavos), or the amount determined in the arbitral proceedings,
corresponding to principal and penalty.
4. Apply a monthly interest rate of one percent (1%) to the aforementioned amount, as
follows:
(i)
with respect to the instalment corresponding to August 2025, interest shall accrue
from its due date until effective payment; and
(ii) with respect to the remaining outstanding balance, interest shall accrue from the
due date of the instalment corresponding to September 2025 until effective payment,
by virtue of the contractually agreed acceleration clause, which renders the entirety
of the acknowledged sums immediately due.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-21938
5. Order the application of the disciplinary sanctions provided for in art. 12 bis, para. 4, of
the RSTP.
6. Order the club to pay the legal costs and procedural expenses.
7. Order the payment to be made within 45 days from the notification of the decision”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
17. On 26 November 2025, the FIFA general secretariat issued a proposal pursuant to art. 20
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules),
inviting the Parties to either accept or reject it by 11 December 2025.
18. On 10 December 2025, the Club informed FIFA that it rejected the aforementioned
proposal. At the same time, the Club requested a 10-day extension to submit its position
on the claim.
19. On 11 December 2025, the FIFA general secretariat granted the Club an extension until 7
January 2026 to file its position.
20. On 7 January 2026, the Parties submitted a co-signed correspondence informing FIFA that
they were engaged in negotiations to settle the matter amicably. In addition, they
requested an additional extension of seven days for the Club to submit its position on the
claim.
21. On 9 January 2026, the FIFA general secretariat, taking into account that the
aforementioned request was co-signed by the Player, exceptionally granted the Club an
extension of the deadline until 14 January 2026.
22. On 14 January 2026, the Club submitted a further request seeking a five-day extension of
the deadline.
23. On 15 January 2026, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Parties that the Club had
already been granted an exceptional additional extension to provide its position on the
claim and that, therefore, a third extension could not be granted. The FIFA general
secretariat further informed the Parties that, as a result, the submission phase of the
proceedings was closed.
c. Further correspondence from the Parties
24. On 21 January 2026, the Club submitted a letter co-signed by the Parties, informing FIFA
that it had made two payments to the Player, namely:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-21938
o BRL 176,694.44 on 5 January 2026; and
o BRL 176,694.44 on 12 January 2026.
25. In their joint correspondence, the Parties submitted the following request:
“In view of the above, for the sake of good procedural order and in the interest of
transparency, both Parties hereby expressly request the FIFA Players’ Status to (i) accept,
and acknowledge the contents of, this correspondence despite the closure of the submission
phase; and hence (ii) take the same into account when calculating any amounts due by the
Respondent to the Claimant under the decision to be passed by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal in the present matter”.
26. On 16 March 2026, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to confirm whether he
had received the aforementioned amounts by no later than 20 March 2026.
27. On the same date, the Player confirmed having received the aforementioned amounts, but
stated that they correspond only to the principal amount and do not cover the interest and
contractual penalty agreed under the Termination Agreement.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-21938
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether she was
competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took note that the present
matter was presented to FIFA on 15 November 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 Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
29. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, 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 Argentinian player and a Brazilian club.
30. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that, during their contractual
relationship, the Parties entered into several agreements, including the IRA. In this respect,
the Single Judge recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal,
according to which FIFA is, in principle, not competent to adjudicate disputes arising
exclusively from agreements relating to the exploitation or licensing of image rights, as
such agreements are not employment-related in nature.
31. Nevertheless, the Single Judge observed that, on 18 July 2025, the Parties concluded a
Termination Agreement by means of which they mutually terminated all agreements
entered into between them, including the IRA. Under the Termination Agreement, the
Parties comprehensively settled the financial consequences of the termination of their
employment relationship and expressly stipulated the amounts the Club undertook to pay
directly to the Player. The Single Judge therefore noted that the claims lodged in the present
proceedings arise solely from the alleged non-compliance with the Termination
Agreement. In light of the foregoing, and considering that the Termination Agreement
constitutes a settlement instrument intrinsically linked to the employment relationship and
intended to regulate its financial consequences, the Single Judge determined that the
present dispute falls within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
32. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-21938
b. Burden of proof
33. 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 she 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
34. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for overdue payables arising from the
Termination Agreement concluded between the Parties on 18 July 2025.
36. The Single Judge first observed that the Player initially maintained that the Club had only
paid the first instalment under the Termination Agreement. On this basis, the Player
claimed entitlement to the accelerated amount of BRL 883,472.20, corresponding to the
second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth instalments under the Termination Agreement, each
in the amount of BRL 176,694.44, originally due on 30 August, 30 September, 30 October,
30 November and 30 December 2025, respectively. In addition, the Player claimed a
contractual penalty of 10% of the overdue amount, corresponding to BRL 88,347.20, as well
as interest at a rate of 1% per month.
37. The Single Judge also noted that, for its part, the Club failed to submit its position on the
claim, despite having been duly invited to do so and despite having been granted two
extensions. Accordingly, the Single Judge determined that the decision will be made based
on the arguments and evidence on file, namely those submitted by the Player (cf. art. 21
par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
38. The Single Judge further noted that, in a letter co-signed by the Parties dated 21 January
2026, as well as in the Player’s subsequent correspondence of 16 March 2026, the Player
acknowledged having received to additional payments of BRL 176,694.44 each on 5 and 12
January 2026. However, the Player specified that these payments covered only part of the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-21938
principal amount and did not include the contractual penalty or the default interest due
under the Termination Agreement.
39. Against this background, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine
whether the Player is entitled to any of the amounts claimed.
Principal amount claimed — acceleration clause
40. The Single Judge noted that the Player argued that, after having repeatedly placed the Club
in default on 29 September, 16 October and 3 November 2025, and in the absence of timely
payment, the acceleration mechanism provided for under Clause 3 of the Termination
Agreement was triggered, thereby rendering the remaining instalments immediately due
and payable as of 1 October 2025.
41. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, according to which the acceleration of subsequent payments upon the nonpayment of an amount previously due as principal is a practice traditionally recognised and
considered proportionate, insofar as it constitutes a security in benefit of the creditor, since
it encourages the debtor party to respect its financial obligations towards the creditor party
(in this regard, inter alia, DRC Decision of 16 October 2025, Conceiçao do Rosario; DRC
Decision of 18 July 2025, Hevel; DRC Decision of 18 July 2025, Rodrigues Gouveia).
42. Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Single Judge observed that, pursuant to Clause 3 of the
Termination Agreement the Club undertook to pay the Player the total sum of
BRL 1,060,166.64 in six equal instalments of BRL 176,694.44 each, payable on the 30th day
of each month from July to December 2025.
43. The Single Judge further noted that the same clause expressly stipulates, inter alia, the
following:
“If 2 (two) or more instalments are overdue, the remaining instalments that are not yet paid
shall also be automatically deemed due and payable”.
44. On the basis of this contractual wording, the Single Judge found that the Parties
unequivocally agreed that the failure to pay at least two instalments on their respective
due dates would result in the automatic acceleration of all remaining unpaid instalments.
45. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and considering that at least the August
and September 2025 instalments were not paid on their respective due dates, the Single
Judge concluded that, as of 1 October 2025, the Club had failed to comply with its payment
obligations in respect of two instalments. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that
the contractual conditions expressly agreed by the Parties for the activation of the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-21938
acceleration clause were fulfilled, and the acceleration of the remaining instalments
occurred as of that date.
46. Furthermore, taking into account that the Player subsequently acknowledged having
received two additional payments corresponding to two instalments under the
Termination Agreement, and in the absence of any evidence indicating that further
payments were made, the Single Judge determined that three instalments remain unpaid.
Accordingly, the outstanding principal amount still due to the Player totals BRL 530,083.32,
corresponding to three instalments of BRL 176,694.44 each.
Contractual penalty & Interest
47. The Single Judge subsequently examined the Player’s claim for a contractual penalty in the
amount of BRL 88,347.20.
48. At the outset, the Single Judge recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, pursuant to which penalty clauses may be freely entered into by the contractual
parties and may be considered acceptable if the pertinent written clause meets certain
criteria such as proportionality and reasonableness based on the circumstances of the case
(in this respect, inter alia, DRC Decision of 16 October 2025, Conceiçao do Rosario; DRC
Decision of 24 July 2025, Da Silva Fabinho; DRC Decision of 11 July 2024, Klonaridis).
49. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that Clause 3 of the Termination Agreement
further provides as follows:
“(...) In the event of a delay exceeding 15 (fifteen) days —i.e., after prior notification to any
of the physical or electronic addresses indicated above (without the need for confirmation
of receipt)— a penalty of 10% (ten percent) and interest of 1% (one percent) per month shall
be added to the debt”.
50. The Single Judge observed that, in accordance with the aforementioned contractual
provision, any delay in the payment of the agreed amounts would, following the expiry of
a 15-day cure period granted by the Player through notifications sent to the designated
email addresses, trigger the application of a contractual penalty of 10% as well as default
interest at a rate of 1% per month.
51. In this regard, the Single Judge took note that the Player produced documentary evidence
showing that the Club was formally placed in default on three separate occasions —namely
on 29 September, 16 October and 3 November 2025— by means of notifications sent to
the email addresses expressly designated in the Termination Agreement.
52. As no evidence was submitted by the Club to demonstrate compliance with the financial
terms of the Termination Agreement within the contractually agreed 15-day cure period
following the default notices, the Single Judge concluded that the requirements for the
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-21938
application of the contractual penalty and default interest were met and, consequently,
validly triggered.
53. Therefore, the Single Judge determined that the Player is entitled to a contractual penalty
corresponding to 10% of the “debt”, as defined in the Termination Agreement. In this
respect, the Single Judge observed that, at the time the penalty was triggered and following
the acceleration of the principal amount, such debt amounted to BRL 883,472.20.
Accordingly, the contractual penalty payable by the Club amounts to BRL 88,347.20, which
the Single Judge considered proportionate and reasonable in line with the jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal and, therefore, fully enforceable pursuant to the principle of pacta
sunt servanda.
54. Finally, the Single Judge examined the Player’s request for default interest at a rate of 1%
per month (i.e., 12% per annum), as contractually agreed, noting that the Player sought
interest as follows:
o On the August 2025 instalment, from its due date until the effective payment; and
o On the accelerated amount, from the due date of the September 2025 instalment
until effective the payment.
55. In this respect, considering that the Player acknowledged having received two payments
after the initiation of the present proceedings, but that they do not cover the penalty or
the interest, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest of 12% p.a. as follows,
bearing in mind Clause 3 of the Termination Agreement:
o 12% interest p.a. on the amount of BRL 176,694.44, paid late on 5 January 2026, as
from 31 August 2025 until 5 January 2026;
o 12% interest p.a on the amount of BRL 176,694.44, paid late on 12 January 2026, as
from 1 October 2025 until 12 January 2026; and
o 12% interest p.a on the outstanding principal amount of BRL 530,083.32, as from 1
October 2025 until the date of effective payment.
56. Lastly, the Single Judge decided that no interest shall accrue on the contractual penalty, in
application of the legal principle of ne bis in idem.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
57. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-21938
58. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the Club
with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
59. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
60. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. The Single Judge also
highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and
lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
61. On account of the above, and bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Club
within the last two years, the Single Judge decided to impose a reprimand on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. 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
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.
63. 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.
64. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club 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.
65. The Club 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-21938
66. 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
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-21938
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Silvio Alejandro Martínez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ceará Sporting Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o BRL 530,083.32 as outstanding amount plus 12% interest per annum as from 1 October
2025 until the date of effective payment.
o 12% interest per annum on the late payments as follows:
- On the amount of BRL 176,694.44, as from 31 August 2025 until 5 January 2026; and
- On the amount of BRL 176,694.44 as from 1 October 2025 until 12 January 2026.
o BRL 88,374.20 as contractual penalty.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-21938
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-21938
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. 18