Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22929
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 April 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
José Wallace Sacramento dos Santos
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
José Wallace Sacramento dos Santos, Brazil
Represented by Maciel & Maciel Advogados Associados
RESPONDENT:
Aurora, Bolivia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22929
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 July 2025, the Brazilian player José Wallace Sacramento dos Santos (hereinafter, the
Player or the Claimant) and the Bolivian club Aurora (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 11
July 2025 until 31 December 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 5 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a total fixed remuneration of BOB 50,000, payable in five
equal monthly instalments of BOB 10,000 each from August to December 2025.
3.
According to Clause 7 of the Contract, the Club undertook to cover all medical expenses
incurred by the Player —whether surgical or related to recovery— if the Player is injured in
the course of Club-related activities, including matches or training sessions. Additionally,
the Club agreed to provide the Player with medical insurance against illness and accidents
for the entire duration of the Contract.
4.
Clause 8 of the Contract stipulates the following:
“En caso de resolución anticipada del plazo de vigencia del presente contrato por cualquiera
de las partes, ésta deberá abonar a la otra como indemnización por ruptura anticipada del
contrato, la suma de 250.000 (dos cientos cincuenta mil bolivianos) a ser cancelados en
forma inmediata, sin necesidad de requerimiento judicial o extrajudicial”.
Freely translated into English:
“In the event of early termination of the term of validity of this contract by either party, that
party shall pay the other, as compensation for early termination of the contract, the sum of
250,000 (two hundred fifty thousand bolivianos), to be paid immediately, without the need
for judicial or extrajudicial demand”.
5.
On 16 July 2025, the Player sustained an injury to the meniscus of his right knee during a
training session with the Club.
6.
On 18 July 2025, the Player sent the Club’s president his medical report via WhatsApp.
7.
On 8 September 2025, the Player underwent an MRI scan following the instructions of the
Club’s physiotherapist.
8.
According to the Player, during September and October 2025, he requested on several
occasions, via WhatsApp to the Club’s president, financial support to cover the costs of his
injury and subsequent surgery.
9.
On 31 October 2025, the Player underwent surgery.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22929
10. On 4 November 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a 15-day deadline to (i)
provide him with a signed copy of the Contract and the insurance policy taken out on his
behalf; (ii) pay BOB 30,000 in outstanding remuneration for August, September and
October 2025; and (iii) reimburse BOB 10,410 in medical expenses related to his injury.
11. On 20 November 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract for outstanding
salaries.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 5 February 2026, 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, shortly after joining the Club, he sustained a knee
injury during a training session. He argued that the Club’s physiotherapist instructed him
to undergo an MRI scan, which he completed on 8 September 2025. Ultimately, the
physiotherapist recommended surgery. However, despite repeated requests, the Club
refused to provide any support, thereby completely abandoning him.
14. The Player explained that he lacked the financial means to pay for the surgery because the
Club had not paid him any of the amounts due under the Contract. As a result, he was
forced to request a loan from his agent to cover the costs. The Player stated that the
expenses associated with his injury amounted to BOB 11,701.83, detailed as follows:
o BOB 2,200 paid on 9 September 2025 by a friend for the MRI scan;
o BOB 260 paid on 27 September 2025 by the Player for blood tests;
o BOB 8,000 paid on 1 November 2025 by the Player for the surgery;
o BOB 150 paid on 1 November 2025 by another person for the rental of crutches;
o BOB 291.83 on 1 November 2025 by the Player for medication; and
o BOB 800 paid on an unspecified date by the Player for physiotherapy.
15. The Player further claimed that the Club failed to provide him with a copy of the insurance
policy despite its contractual obligation to do so, which prevented him from understanding
the applicable terms and the scope of his coverage.
16. In addition, the Player maintained that he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract due to outstanding salaries, after having placed the Club in default, to no avail, in
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22929
accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter, the Regulations).
17. On this basis, the Player also claimed entitlement to BOB 316,666.66, broken down as
follows:
o BOB 36,666.66, corresponding to the salaries for August, September and October
2025, as well as the pro-rata salary for November 2025;
o BOB 250,000 as compensation for breach of contract pursuant to Clause 8 of the
Contract; and
o BOB 30,000 as additional compensation equivalent to three monthly salaries.
18. Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, we hereby request the FIFA DRC to accept this claim and:
a) Recognize that the player had just cause to terminate the contract.
b) Comply with the payments of the salaries of August, September and October 2025
(10.000,00 bolivianos each), as well as the pro-rata salary of November 2025 (6.666,66
bolivianos) in the total amount of 36.666,66 bolivianos.
c) Comply with the payment of the compensation defined on the clause “Octava” of the
Employment contract, in the amount of 250.000,00 bolivianos.
d) Reimburse the Player with the expenses of his surgery and recovery, as defined: Surgery
(8.000,00 bolivianos), MRI Scan (2.200,00 bolivianos), blood tests (260,00 bolivianos)
crutches rental (150,00 bolivianos), physiotherapy (800,00 bolivianos), medications
(291,83 bolivianos). Total amount: 11.701,83 bolivianos.
e) Comply with the payment of the ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION defined by Article 17, para.
1, ii, in the amount of three monthly salaries, which is equivalent to 30.000,00 bolivianos.
f) Comply with the payment of any eventual indemnification defined by the insurance
policy.
g) The total amount in debt shall be cumulated with the relevant interest until the date of
the effective payment”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
19. Despite being invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22929
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 February 2026 and submitted for decision
on 9 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.
21. Furthermore, the Chamber 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 DRC 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 Bolivian club.
22. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it 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
23. The Chamber 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 Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it 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
24. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22929
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and noted that it concerned a
claim lodged by the Player against the Club for breach of contract in accordance with art.
14bis of the Regulations and its legal consequences.
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
27. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
28. The Chamber noted that the Player claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the salaries for August, September and October 2025. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Player provided written evidence of having placed the Club in
default on 4 November 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the
Contract on 20 November 2025.
29. The Chamber also 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.
Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Club failed to reply to the claim despite having
been duly invited to do so, and therefore no proof of compliance with the aforementioned
financial terms was submitted.
30. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations, and
that the Club is therefore liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
31. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
Outstanding remuneration
32. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to BOB 40,000,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22929
corresponding to four monthly salaries of BOB 10,000 each for the period from August to
November 2025.
33. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., BOB 40,000 as
detailed ut supra.
34. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s generic request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player
interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the date of the
claim (5 February 2026) until the effective date of payment.
Reimbursement of medical expenses
35. The DRC then proceeded to analyse the Player’s claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses in the amount of BOB 11,701.83, incurred in connection with an injury sustained
in the service of the Club.
36. As a preliminary point, the DRC recalled its well-established jurisprudence, according to
which clubs have a general duty of care towards their players. As a principle, a club is
responsible for the costs associated with the medical treatment of an injury or illness
sustained during the course of the contract (in this respect, inter alia, DRC Decision of 3
April 2025, van Iperen; DRC Decision of 12 December 2024, Santos Junior).
37. In addition, the Chamber emphasised that not only clubs have a general duty of care
towards their players, but in the present case the Parties expressly agreed in Clause 7 of
the Contract that the Club would bear all medical expenses—whether surgical or related
to recovery—incurred by the Player in the event of an injury sustained during Club-related
activities, including training sessions and matches. The Chamber found that the wording of
the aforementioned clause is clear and unequivocal, as it expressly obliges the Club to
reimburse all medical expenses arising from injuries sustained in the course of the Player’s
professional activity.
38. It being undisputed that the Player sustained an injury during a training session —an
element further corroborated by the documentary evidence submitted by the Player— the
DRC proceeded to assess the evidence submitted by the Player to determine the precise
amount of medical expenses that the Club will be liable to reimburse.
39. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed reimbursement of medical
expenses in the total amount BOB 11,701.83, broken down as follows:
o BOB 2,200 paid on 9 September 2025 by a third party for the MRI scan;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22929
o BOB 260 paid on 27 September 2025 by the Player for blood tests;
o BOB 8,000 paid on 1 November 2025 by the Player for the surgery;
o BOB 150 paid on 1 November 2025 by a third party for the rental of crutches;
o BOB 291.83 on 1 November 2025 by the Player for medication; and
o BOB 800 paid on an unspecified date by the Player for physiotherapy.
40. While the Chamber acknowledged the Player’s situation and noted that the Club not only
failed to provide any financial support regarding the injury, surgery, and subsequent
treatment but also failed to comply with its remuneration obligations under the Contract,
it emphasised that it nevertheless must apply the fundamental principle that
reimbursement may only be granted for actual, proven financial loss suffered by the Player.
In the Chamber’s view, a party seeking reimbursement must demonstrate that it personally
incurred the expenses claimed. In the absence of proof that the Player himself effected
certain payments —specifically those paid by third parties— the Player cannot be
considered to have suffered a direct patrimonial loss in relation to those amounts.
Consequently, such expenses fall outside the scope of recoverable expenses, as awarding
them could amount to unjust enrichment.
41. Accordingly, after reviewing the documentary evidence, the Chamber concluded that the
Player is entitled to reimbursement only for the expenses effectively borne by him, in the
total amount of BOB 9,351.83, corresponding to:
o BOB 260 for blood tests;
o BOB 8,000 for surgery;
o BOB 291.83 for medication; and
o BOB 800 for physiotherapy.
42. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s generic request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player
interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the reimbursement as from the date of the claim
(5 February 2026) until the effective date of payment.
43. Having determined this, the DRC further noted that, in his request for relief, the Player
additionally requested that the Club “Comply with the payment of any eventual
indemnification defined by the insurance policy”.
44. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that, although it also remained undisputed that
the Club failed to provide an insurance policy, the DRC’s scope is limited to assessing claims
that are both contractually grounded and properly quantified.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22929
45. The Chamber observed that the Contract does not establish any specific consequences
arising from the Club’s failure to procure insurance for the Player. As a result, the DRC
determined that it cannot infer obligations or impose remedies that the Parties themselves
did not stipulate.
46. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player did not quantify this part of his request,
nor did he establish any concrete financial damage arising directly from the absence of
insurance coverage. It is a well-established principle of the Football Tribunal that claims
must be substantiated in terms of both legal basis and amount. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that indeterminate or hypothetical claims —especially those dependent on
unspecified “eventual indemnification”— do not meet the requirement of proving actual,
present damage and therefore cannot be adjudicated.
47. On this basis, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s request relating to any potential
insurance indemnification could not be entertained.
Compensation
48. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
49. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by them in
the event of breach of contract. The DRC recalled that, in accordance with the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, clauses stipulating a pre-determined amount of
compensation are held valid if they satisfy the requirements of reciprocity and
proportionality, so as not to result in the performance (and stability) of an employment
contract being purely in control of one party.
50. Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Chamber noted that Clause 8 of the Contract provides
as follows:
“En caso de resolución anticipada del plazo de vigencia del presente contrato por cualquiera
de las partes, ésta deberá abonar a la otra como indemnización por ruptura anticipada del
contrato, la suma de 250.000 (dos cientos cincuenta mil bolivianos) a ser cancelados en
forma inmediata, sin necesidad de requerimiento judicial o extrajudicial”.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22929
Freely translated into English:
“In the event of early termination of the term of validity of this contract by either party, that
party shall pay the other, as compensation for early termination of the contract, the sum of
250,000 (two hundred fifty thousand bolivianos), to be paid immediately, without the need
for judicial or extrajudicial demand”.
51. After careful analysis of the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber held that,
although it is reciprocal, it does not meet the requirement of proportionality under the
consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal. In particular, the DRC emphasised that
the amount stipulated in Clause 8 (BOB 250,000) is manifestly disproportionate when
compared with both the residual and total value of the Contract. At the moment of
termination, the only salary still outstanding under the Contract was BOB 10,000. Thus, the
pre-agreed compensation represents 2,500% of the residual value. Even when compared
to the full value of the Contract (BOB 50,000), the compensation amounts to 500% of the
entire Contract value. Therefore, the Chamber determined that such disproportion
deviates from the principle of positive interest, as it bears no reasonable relation to the
Player’s actual expected financial position had the Contract been properly executed.
52. Consequently, the Chamber determined that Clause 8 of the Contract cannot be taken into
account to determine the amount of compensation payable to the Player, and therefore
compensation must be assessed in accordance with the parameters set out in art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, the
compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
53. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of BOB 10,000 (corresponding to the December 2025 salary)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
54. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
55. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22929
compensation applied (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations) and, therefore, the
Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for additional compensation in the amount of
BOB 30,000.
56. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of
BOB 10,000 to the Player (i.e., the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
57. Finally, taking into consideration the Player’s generic request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player
interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the compensation as from the date of the claim (5
February 2026) until the effective date of payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
58. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
59. In this regard, the DRC 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.
60. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
61. 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.
62. The DRC 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22929
d. Costs
63. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
64. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
65. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22929
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, José Wallace Sacramento dos Santos, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Aurora, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
o BOB 40,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 5
February 2026 until the date of effective payment.
o BOB 9,351.83 as reimbursement of medical expenses plus 5% interest per annum as
from 5 February 2026 until the date of effective payment.
o BOB 10,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 5 February 2026 until the date of effective payment.
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. 14
REF. FPSD-22929
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. 15