Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22623
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Patrick
Carvalho dos Santos
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI, Argentina & Italy
CLAIMANT:
Patrick Carvalho dos Santos, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
Al Nahda, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22623
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 September 2024, the Brazilian player Patrick Carvalho dos Santos (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Saudi club Al Nahda (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 28 September
2024 until 19 March 2025.
2.
Article 5.1 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any taxes,
bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Monthly Salary
3.
Currency
Amount
US Dollar (5,000) five thousand U.S. dollars”
Article 5.2 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“5.2 Fixed financial payments
The Club shall pay the following fixed financial payments to the Player (net of any taxes, bank
fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Currency
Amount
Payment deadline (DD.MM.YYYY)
Advance payment U.S. dollars 5,300 USD 30-09-2024”
4.
Article 12.1 of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“Article 12. Termination
1. In the case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate this Contract,
provided that he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15
days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).”
5.
On 18 December 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent (hereinafter:
the Default Notice) requesting the payment of the monthly salary for November 2024
amounting to USD 5,000 and granting 15 days to the Respondent to proceed with payment.
Although, in the Default Notice, the Claimant mentioned that he had not received his salary
for December 2024, he only requested USD 5,000.
6.
On 28 December 2024, the Respondent played a match against the Saudi club Munief SC
without the Claimant in the list of eligible players for said match.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22623
7.
On an unspecified date, which according to the Claimant was 29 December 2024, the
Executive Director of the Club’s first team sent a Report to the Club’s Chairman (hereinafter:
the Report) stating inter alia:
“We hereby submit to Your Excellency a report concerning the Brazilian professional player of
the first team, Patrick. Based on the technical assessments and the data derived from the GBS
monitoring devices for the first round—attached to this report—it has been concluded that the
player does not provide technical, administrative, or psychological benefit to the team.
We have attempted, through all available technical and administrative means, to support the
player, including facilitating the arrival of his family, completing all of his requirements related
to accommodation and transportation, in addition to providing him with a contract and salary
approved by Your Excellency.
However, the player has demonstrated a very negative technical attitude through his match
performances. During matches, he becomes a burden on the team on the field of play and is
consistently substituted. His presence on the pitch has been technically ineffective.
Moreover, he has become a burden on the entire system and a source of negative energy in the
dressing room, which has adversely affected the other players.
Accordingly, and by unanimous decision of the first-team management, we have resolved to
exclude the player from our upcoming match against Munif in the city of Taif, due to the lack of
benefit from his participation.
We further recommend that he be replaced with a foreign striker who would be more beneficial
to the team, in order to support the squad in the second round, given the team’s need for a
strong striker.”
8.
On 2 January 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract for outstanding remuneration
(hereinafter: the Termination Letter). In this regard, the Claimant only mentioned the
monthly salaries of December 2024 and January 2025.
9.
After the alleged termination, on 6 January 2025, the Claimant signed a new employment
contract with the Brazilian club Juazirense valid as from the date of its signature, i.e. 6
January 2025 until 30 July 2025 with a monthly salary of BRL 2,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 13 January 2026, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22623
a. Position of the Claimant
11. The Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA for compensation following a termination of contract
for outstanding remuneration.
12. The Claimant submitted that the Parties concluded an employment contract valid from 28
September 2024 to 19 March 2025, under which the Club committed to pay a monthly
salary of USD 5,000, an advance of USD 5,300, and a conditional bonus. Despite these clear
financial obligations, the Claimant maintained that the Club failed to pay the salaries for
November and December 2024, totaling USD 10,000. The Player issued the Default Notice
on 18 December 2024, granting a 15-day period for the Club to proceed with a payment of
USD 5,000, but the Club did not react or settle its overdue payables.
13. According to the Claimant, the Club’s behavior went beyond mere financial default and
amounted to an abusive pattern evidencing its lack of intention to continue the
employment relationship. He refers in particular to (i) his exclusion from the official match
list on 26 December 2024, (ii) the Report in which the Club unjustifiably labelled him as a
“burden” and “source of negative energy”, and (iii) the Club’s recommendation to replace
him with another foreign striker. These actions, combined with the non-payment of
salaries, allegedly destroyed the mutual trust required to maintain the contractual
relationship.
14. In light of the Club’s persistent failure to fulfil its essential obligations and its conduct
indicating an intention to force an early separation, the Claimant argued that he had just
cause to terminate the contract on 2 January 2025. He stresses that the Club’s payment of
USD 9,147 on 27 February 2025 was both late and incomplete, confirming the seriousness
of the Club’s breaches and the impossibility of continuing the employment relationship in
good faith.
15. The Claimant requested the payment of his outstanding remuneration (USD 853 net
remaining from the unpaid salaries), default interest on the belated amounts, and
compensation for breach of contract. The compensation claim equals the residual value of
the contract (USD 13,166.67), as this amount is lower than the sum that would result from
applying mitigated compensation plus additional compensation under art. 17 of the
Regulations.
16. Finally, the Claimant requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) to
uphold the claim in full, order the Club to pay all outstanding amounts with interest, award
compensation for breach with just cause, confirm that the proceedings are free of charge,
and notify the Respondent accordingly. The Claimant maintained that the Club’s repeated
financial failures, combined with its abusive and exclusionary conduct, fulfil all criteria for
just cause under the Regulations and relevant CAS jurisprudence.
17. Consequently, the Claimant requested (quoted verbatim):
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22623
“In view of the above, the Player hereby submits the following requests for relief to the attention
of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST – To accept and uphold the present Claim in its entirety;
SECOND – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 853 (eight hundred
fifty-three US dollars) net as outstanding salary for the month of December 2024, plus default
interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 1 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay to the Player default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five
percent) annually on the amount of USD 5,000 (five thousand US dollars) as from 1 December
2024 to 27 February 2025;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player default interest at the applicable rate of 5%
(five percent) annually on the amount of USD 4,147 (four thousand one hundred fortyseven US
dollars) as from 1 January 2025 to 27 February 2025;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 13,166.67 (thirteen
thousand one hundred sixty-six US dollars and sixty-seven cents) net as compensation for the
unilateral termination of the Employment Contract with just cause, plus default interest at the
applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 3 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
SIXTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club immediately
(cf. Art. 21, par. 1 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); and
SEVENTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of costs.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
18. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its answer 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 13 January 2026 and submitted for
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22623
decision on 19 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 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
a Brazilian player and a Saudi club.
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 Transfer Matching System (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 and took note of the fact that
the Claimant argued that the Club’s abusive conduct excluding him from the team, and its
constant breaches led him to terminate the Contract on 2 January 2025 due to outstanding
remuneration.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22623
25. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence on file, whether the claimed amounts remained unpaid by the Respondent as
well as whether the Player had just cause to terminate his Contract and assess the
consequences thereof.
26. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Single Judge considered
that its decision should be taken based on the evidence already in the file, i.e., the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant (cf. article 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
27. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the events leading to the termination of the
Contract occurred according the following timeline:
•
On 18 December 2024, the Claimant sent the Default Notice demanding the
payment of USD 5,000 for the salary of November 2024; and
•
On 2 January 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract arguing that the formal
perquisite of art. 14bis of the Regulations, was met due to the nonpayment of
two salaries amounting to USD 10,000.
28. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the Contract did not establish a due date for the
payment of the Player’s salary. Therefore, based on the longstanding practice of the
Football Tribunal, the Single Judge determined that the due date of the salary was the last
day of the month.
29. In this context, the Single Judge considered that on the date of the Default Notice, i.e. 18
December 2024, only the salary for November 2024 was due.
30. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the termination of the Contract occurred on
the 15th day of the deadline provided by the Claimant to the Respondent.
31. In light of the above, the Single Judge determined that the formal prerequisites of article
14bis of the Regulations were not met.
32. At this point, the Single Judge recalled that according to the well-established jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal, a premature contractual termination may only arise in the event
of a substantial or repeated breach of contract by the relevant counterparty. Furthermore,
if there are more lenient measures available to the parties to remedy their contractual
relationship, these measures should be exhausted before unilaterally terminating an
employment contract. Therefore, a premature unilateral termination can only be an ultima
ratio measure, occurring in a situation “in which a party can no longer reasonably and in good
faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22623
33. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that while the Claimant provided evidence on file
that the Club allegedly had the intention to exclude him from the first team, he did not
raise it in the Termination Letter.
34. Moreover, the Single Judge was of the opinion that if the Player considered that the alleged
exclusion was sufficient cause to terminate his Contract, he would have raised it in the
Termination Letter which he did not.
35. In light of the above, the Single Judge determined that the ultima ratio threshold was not
met in this case.
36. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant did not have just cause to
terminate the Contract.
ii. Consequences
37. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
I.
Outstanding remuneration:
38. Firstly, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant acknowledged that on 27 February 2025,
he received a payment of USD 9,147 from the Respondent.
39. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that in his request for relief the Claimant requested,
inter alia:
“SECOND – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 853 (eight hundred
fifty-three US dollars) net as outstanding salary for the month of December 2024, plus default
interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 1 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay to the Player default interest at the applicable rate of 5%
(five percent) annually on the amount of USD 5,000 (five thousand US dollars) as from 1
December 2024 to 27 February 2025;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player default interest at the applicable rate of 5%
(five percent) annually on the amount of USD 4,147 (four thousand one hundred fortyseven
US dollars) as from 1 January 2025 to 27 February 2025;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of USD 13,166.67 (thirteen
thousand one hundred sixty-six US dollars and sixty-seven cents) net as compensation for the
unilateral termination of the Employment Contract with just cause, plus default interest at
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22623
the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 3 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.”
40. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge observed that in his request for relief, the
Claimant allocated USD 5,000 from the total amount of USD 9,147 paid by the Respondent
on 27 February 2025 to the outstanding monthly salary of November 2024 and USD 4,147
to the outstanding monthly salary of December 2024.
41. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 853
net (i.e., the remaining outstanding salary for December 2024).
42. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the said outstanding amount as from 1 January 2025 until
the date of effective payment.
II.
Interest:
43. In continuation, in addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request for relief as
well as the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided
to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 5,000 (i.e. the
salary for November 2024) as from 1 December 2024 until 27 February 2025.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge decided to award interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of
USD 4,147 (i.e. the salary for December 2024) as from 1 January 2025 until 27 February
2025.
III.
Compensation:
45. Regarding the Claimant’s request for compensation, the Single Judge recalled that since the
Claimant did not have just cause to terminate the Contract, no compensation for breach of
contract shall be awarded.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22623
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22623
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Patrick Carvalho dos Santos, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Nahda, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
-
USD 853 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2025
until the date of effective payment;
-
Interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 1 December 2024
until 27 February 2025;
-
Interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over the amount of USD 4,147 as from 1 January 2025 until
27 February 2025.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-22623
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