Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22912
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Daniel
Henrique Parreiras Aleixo
BY:
Calum Beattie, Scotland
CLAIMANT:
Daniel Henrique Parreiras Aleixo, Brazil
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
Alytaus futbolo klubas Dainava, Lithuania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22912
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 June 2025, the Brazilian player, Daniel Henrique Parreiras Aleixo (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), received a contract proposal (hereinafter: the Contract Proposal)
from the Lithuanian club Alytaus futbolo klubas Dainava (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), that read as follows:
“By this letter, DFK Dainava, proposes to professional football player Daniel Henrique
Parreiras Aleixo, born on 09.04.1999 to sign a professional contract with the following
conditions:
i) Term – until the end of 2026 season.
ii) Monthly salary – 1500Eur after taxes for the 2025 season and 2000Eur after taxes
for the 2026 season.
iii) Additional bonuses under internal club rules.
iv) Club shall provide accommodation in Alytus or 350Eur accommodation
compensation (whichever the player chooses).
v) Lunch once per day on after training.
vi) Two flight tickets between Lithuania and the requested country every season.
vii) The Contract may be terminated if DFK Dainava is relegated to the Lithuanian
Pirma Lyga.
viii) Contract shall be signed after a successful medical trial.
We are looking forward to hearing your decision.”
2.
On 4 July 2025, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract), valid as from its date of signature until 30 November 2026.
3.
Clause 4 of the Contract provided as follows:
“Parties agree that for a proper performance of contractual obligations the Club pays the
Player a monthly salary in the amount of 1500 EUR (one thousand five hundred Euros) net
during the year 2025 and 2000 EUR (two thousand Euros) net during the year 2026
(hereinafter the "Salary").
Parties agree that salary payments should be affected by the Club until the 15th calendar day
of the month for the previous month.
Parties agree that the Player shall be paid the Salary between the date that this Agreement is
signed until the end of the season.
The Club shall compensate one return ticket from Lithuania to a chosen Brazilian
international airport after the end of each season.
Parties agree, that the Salary shall not be paid during December and January, this period will
be an unpaid vacation. If the team starts the preparation for the season earlier than the 1st
of February, the Salary shall be calculated from the start of the preparation.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22912
4.
On 17 November 2025, the Club terminated the Contract following its relegation from the
Lithuanian First Tier Division.
5.
On 20 January 2026, the Player put the Club in default of payment of EUR 2,900 and USD
1,391.78, corresponding to: (i) EUR 1,400, as the housing allowance from August to
November 2025, (ii) EUR 1,500 as the monthly salary of November 2025, and (iii) USD
1,391.78 as the flight ticket costs from Lithuania to Brazil, setting a time limit of 10 days in
order to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 5 February 2026, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
7.
According to the Player, apart from his salary, he was entitled to receive a monthly home
allowance of EUR 350 along with two flight tickets between Lithuania and Brazil per season
from the Club. In this regard, the Player further submitted that while the EUR 350 monthly
home allowance was not included in the Contract due to tax-related reasons, it was set out
in the Contract Proposal.
8.
The Player further argued that the Club failed to pay him the salary corresponding to the
month of November 2025, home allowances corresponding to the months from August to
November 2025 and reimbursement of the flight tickets, despite being put in default of the
payments.
9.
The Player’s requests for relief, were the following:
“In the light of the above, Mr. Daniel Henrique Parreiras Aleixo respectfully requests the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal to:
(i) Enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute at stake;
(ii) Order the Respondent, FC Dainava Alytus, to proceed to the effective payment of EUR 2.900
(two thousand nine hundred euros) net corresponding to the monthly salary of November
2025 as well as to the house allowance from August to November 2025, to Mr. Daniel
Henrique Parreiras Aleixo;
(iii) Order the Respondent, FC Dainava Alytus, to proceed to the reimbursement of USD
1.391,78 (one thousand three hundred ninety one US dollars and seventy eight cents) net
corresponding to the flight ticket from Lithuania to Brazil, to Mr. Daniel Henrique Parreiras
Aleixo;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22912
(iv) Determine that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall apply over the payable amounts
in accordance with the supra submission IV.D;
(v) Impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, FC Dainava Alytus, as considered
appropriate;
(vi) Order the Respondent, FC Dainava Alytus, to bear any and all legal costs as to the present
dispute.”
b. Position of the Club
10. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club did not reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. 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 5 February 2026 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.
12. 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 Lithuanian club.
13. 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
14. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22912
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
15. 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
16. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim for overdue payables lodged by a player against a club arising from a
contractual offer and an employment contract concluded between the parties.
17. The Single Judge noted that the Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him the salary
corresponding to the month of November 2025, home allowances corresponding to the
months from August to November 2025 and reimbursement of the flight tickets, due under
the Contract.
18. The Single Judge further noted that the Club has not responded to the claim and, therefore,
any award must be made solely on the basis of the evidence provided by the Player (cf.,
art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts under the Contract
and the Contract Proposal were in fact due and remained unpaid by the Club and, if so,
whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied with its financial
obligations.
a. November 2025 salary
20. The Single Judge first turned to analyse the claim of the Player with respect to the unpaid
salary corresponding to the month of November 2025 due under the Contract.
21. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22912
22. The Single Judge further observed that the Club failed to respond to the claim and,
therefore, it remained uncontested that the claimed amount had not been paid.
23. Therefore, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and in accordance with
the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Club is
liable to pay the outstanding remuneration to the Player.
24. Taking into account that the termination of the Contract occurred on 17 November 2025,
the Single Judge determined that the Claimant is entitled to outstanding remuneration in
the amount of EUR 850 net, calculated on a pro rata basis as follows:
-
(1,500 / 30) * 17 = 850
25. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 17 November 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
b. Home allowances
26. In continuation, the Single Judge moved to analyse whether the monthly home allowance
claimed by the Player was in fact due and payable by the Club.
27. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the Player argued that he was entitled to
receive a monthly home allowance of EUR 350 for the period between August and
November 2025, based on the Contract Proposal extended by the Club on 12 June 2025.
28. In this regard, the Single Judge emphasised that the Contract Proposal constituted a
preliminary document subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, notably the successful
completion of a medical trial and the execution of a definitive employment contract. The
Single Judge further noted that subsequently, on 4 July 2025, the parties concluded the
Contract, which governs the employment relationship between them until 30 November
2026.
29. In this context, the Single Judge observed that the Contract did not include any provision
entitling the Player to receive a monthly home allowance or accommodation
compensation. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed that the Contract, duly signed by both
parties, supersedes any prior contractual negotiations and/or proposals, including the
aforementioned Contract Proposal dated 12 June 2025 and as a consequence, any
entitlement allegedly arising from the Contract Proposal cannot be upheld in the absence
of a corresponding clause in the subsequently executed Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22912
30. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that the Player submitted screenshots
of WhatsApp conversations in support of his allegation that the home allowance was
agreed upon between the parties for tax-related reasons. However, the Single Judge
deemed that the said screenshots, on their own, do not unequivocally establish either the
authorship of the messages or whether the sender effectively acted as a duly authorised
representative of the Club.
31. In view of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s claim
for payment of the alleged home allowances.
c. Flight tickets reimbursement
32. The Single Judge noted that the Player further requested the reimbursement of USD
1,391.78 corresponding to flight ticket costs allegedly incurred in connection with his return
from Lithuania to Brazil.
33. The Single Judge observed that, in support of his request, the Player submitted
documentation intended to demonstrate the payment of the relevant flight tickets.
34. However, in this regard, the Single Judge observed that the proof of payment provided by
the Player was in Portuguese. The Single Judge concluded that, as the document had not
been translated into an official FIFA language by the Player, such piece of documentation
must be disregarded in accordance with art. 13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
35. Consequently, the Single Judge rejected the Player’s request for reimbursement of the
flight ticket costs.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
36. 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.
37. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
38. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent 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.
39. 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. On account of the above
and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22912
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
40. 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.
iii. 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
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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22912
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. 10
REF. FPSD-22912
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Daniel Henrique Parreiras Aleixo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alytaus futbolo klubas Dainava, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 850 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 November
2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning 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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22912
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. 12