DRC - Preliminary Decisions
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-23374
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Guilherme
Da Gama Zimovski
BY:
Frans de Weger, The Netherlands, Chairperson
CLAIMANT:
Guilherme Da Gama Zimovski, Poland
Represented by Fernando Augustus Teixeira
RESPONDENT:
Radomiak S.A., Poland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-23374
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Polish player, Guilherme Da Gama Zimovski (hereinafter: the Claimant), and
•
the Polish club, Radomiak S.A. (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent);
2.
On 5 February 2024, the Player was transferred in the Transfer Matching System (TMS)
from the Brazilian club, Capivariano Fc Saf - SP, to the Polish club, Radomiak S.A. In this
transfer instruction, the Player was listed as a Polish citizen, as per the passport provided
in support of the transfer.
3.
On 1 February 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract).
4.
On 12 November 2025, the parties signed a termination agreement (hereinafter: the
Termination Agreement).
5.
The Player was identified under the Termination Agreement with his Polish passport.
6.
Clause 3 of the Termination Agreement provided the following, quoted verbatim:
“3. The Parties hereby agree that, due to the early termination of the Contract, the sole
payments resulting from the Contract that the Club is required to make to the Player are the
remunerations for October and 10 days of November 2025 and all bonuses. The Player
acknowledges and confirms that no remuneration is due, and his irrevocably and
unconditionally waives his entitlement to any payments for this month. The payments shall
be made as follows:
a) PLN 17.819,00 net (seventeen thousand eight hundred and nineteen zlotys 02/100)
payable by 20.11.2025
b) PLN 9819,00 net (nine thousand eight hundred and nineteen zlotys 02/100) payable
by 20.12.2025
1.1. Without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, if the Club fails to pay any amounts
set out in Clause 3(a) or 3(b) when due, the Club shall, in addition to the principal
amounts overdue, pay: (i) a contractual penalty equal to 15% (fifteen percent) of the
unpaid amount;”
7.
On 12 December 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of PLN
17,819 plus the corresponding contractual penalty of 15%, totalling PLN 20,491.85, and
granted 3 business days to remedy the default.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-23374
8.
On 29 December 2025, the Claimant issued a second notice to the Respondent and
requested the payment of a total of PLN 27,638 plus the corresponding contractual penalty
of 15%, totalling PLN 31,783.70 net, and granted 10 days to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 14 January 2026, the Claimant submitted a first claim against the Respondent, which
was registered under ref. no. FPSD-22643.
10. On 19 January 2026, the FIFA general secretariat, as part of the investigation regarding the
aforementioned case, requested the Polish Football Association (PZPN) to provide
confirmation of the nationality under which the Player was registered, together with any
relevant supporting documentation.
11. On 20 January 2026, the FIFA general secretariat also noted that the claim was incomplete
and requested the Claimant to provide the following by no later than 23 January 2026:
•
•
•
the Claimant’s personal email address for registration on the FIFA Legal Portal;
confirmation of all the Claimant’s nationalities, along with a copy of the relevant
passports/IDs;
a copy of the employment contract duly signed by all parties concerned.
12. On the same date, the PZPN confirmed that the Player had been registered with the Polish
affiliated club Radomiak on 5 February 2024 on the basis of his Polish citizenship and
provided the Player’s Polish passport.
13. On 26 January 2026, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Claimant that he had failed
to complete his claim in accordance with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing
the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) and therefore proceeded with the
closure of the file.
14. On 25 February 2026, the Claimant submitted a second claim against the Respondent,
which was registered under ref. no. FPSD-23161.
15. On 2 March 2026, after a thorough analysis of the documentation provided, the FIFA
general secretariat informed the Claimant vide a letter that FIFA does not appear to be
competent to deal with the claim and therefore, closed the matter. The letter stated,
quoted verbatim (emphasis in the original):
“[…]
In particular, we noted that you intend to lodge a claim as a Polish/ Brazilian player against
the Polish club Radomiak S.A.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-23374
In this respect, we inform you that pursuant to art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) the jurisdiction of the FIFA
Football Tribunal, in particular the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), is limited to
employment-related disputes between a player and a club with an international
dimension.
Furthermore, this scope of jurisdiction is exhaustive and cannot be derogated from by the
FIFA general secretariat and/or by the members of the Football Tribunal.
Therefore, we regret to inform you that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over
a dispute between a Polish player and a Polish club due to the lack of an international
dimension.
We will therefore proceed with the closure of this case file.
[…]”
16. On 12 March 2026, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
17. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay the amounts under the
Termination Agreement, and he was therefore entitled to said amounts plus a contractual
penalty of 15%.
18. Despite the issuance of default notices, the Respondent neither responded nor paid within
the granted deadlines.
19. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the previous administrative assessment, in which
the FIFA general secretariat classified the matter as domestic dispute between a Polish
player and a Polish club, was premature and failed to consider the full documentary and
registration record.
20. The Claimant emphasized that, while he does hold a Polish nationality and passport, he
was born in Brasília, Brazil, holds Brazilian civil documentation (including birth certificate,
identity card, and passport), and is therefore not exclusively Polish.
21. The Claimant argued that that any jurisdictional issue related to dual nationality must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the nationality used for registration and the
administrative framework of the employment relationship.
22. The Claimant requested FIFA to examine, and if necessary, obtain ex officio, all relevant
records from the Respondent, the member association, TMS, or any documents revealing
the nationality used for regulatory purposes.
23. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-23374
“7.1. The Claimant respectfully requests that FIFA DRC declare the present claim admissible
and confirm its jurisdiction to hear and decide the present dispute.
7.2. In the alternative, and prior to any finding of inadmissibility, the Claimant requests FIFA
to revoke the administrative closure of Ref. No. FPSD-23161 and to reopen the matter for the
limited purpose of conducting a complete jurisdictional assessment based on the full
documentary record, including the examination of TMS, Platform, federation and club
registration data concerning the nationality used for the Player’s registration.
7.3. The Claimant respectfully requests that FIFA DRC issue a decision ordering the
Respondent to pay the Claimant the following amounts, in net terms:
7.3.1. PLN 17,819.00 as outstanding principal due on 20 November 2025;
7.3.2. PLN 9,819.00 as outstanding principal due on 20 December 2025;
7.3.3. PLN 4,145.70 as contractual penalty (15%) on the overdue amounts;
7.3.4. Interest at 5% p.a. on PLN 17,819.00 from 21 November 2025 until effective
payment, and on PLN 9,819.00 from 21 December 2025 until effective payment (or
such interest rate as FIFA DRC deems appropriate).
7.4. The Claimant further requests that FIFA DRC impose the relevant consequences for
overdue payables under art. 12bis RSTP, as applicable.
7.5. The Claimant further requests that, in the event of non-payment of the decision within
the relevant deadline, the applicable consequences for failure to comply with FIFA decisions
be imposed, including a registration ban until full payment, if and to the extent applicable
under the FIFA regulations.
7.6. The Claimant requests that any other relief deemed appropriate be granted.”
24. On 30 March 2026, the FIFA general secretariat informed the Claimant that the matter in
question raised a preliminary procedural issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Football
Tribunal and would therefore be submitted for an expedited decision in accordance with
art. 19 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-23374
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. First of all, the Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Chairperson) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
26. In doing so, he noted that this matter had been presented to FIFA on 12 March 2026 and
submitted for a preliminary decision on 31 March 2026. Taking into account the wording
of art. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules, the Chairperson
determined that this edition of the Procedural Rules was applicable to this matter.
27. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 19 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, the
Chairperson confirmed his competence to decide, in an expedited manner, whether this
case is affected by any preliminary procedural matter (i.e., whether the Football Tribunal
obviously lacks jurisdiction or if the claim is time-barred). Likewise, the Chairperson
highlighted that if the claim is not affected by any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA
general secretariat would be ordered to continue the procedure (cf., art. 19 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
28. The Chairperson then 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 (hereinafter: DRC) is competent to hear employment-related
disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension. The wording of the
article in question clearly implies that the first condition that needs to be compulsorily
fulfilled in order for FIFA to be competent to hear an employment-related dispute between
a club and a player is that said dispute has an international dimension.
29. In particular, the Chairperson noted that the present dispute does not appear to have an
international dimension, since the claim at hand is a contractual dispute between a Polish
player and a Polish club.
30. The Chairperson further noted that the abovementioned fact was confirmed by the Player
in his statement of claim.
31. In this sense, the Chairperson first highlighted that, regarding to the competence of FIFA in
general, the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition, p. 444) states:
“First and foremost, FIFA’s jurisdiction is focused on disputes with an international dimension. As
a fundamental principle, an international element is required for any dispute to fall within FIFA’s
jurisdiction. Article 22 then provides an exhaustive list of the types of disputes FIFA is competent
to hear. It is important to emphasise that the scope of FIFA’s jurisdiction is not open to the parties’
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-23374
discretion; it derives from the FIFA Statutes and regulations, and not from private agreements
between parties.”
32. Additionally, the Chairperson noted that, according to the well-established jurisprudence of the
DRC, this means that FIFA is only competent to hear an employment-related dispute between
a player and a club when the parties have different nationalities. Without this, the international
element of the dispute is not fulfilled.
33. Taking the above into consideration, and since it is evident that the parties at stake share the
same nationality as both the Claimant and the Respondent are from Poland, which as
highlighted before has also been acknowledged by the Claimant, the Chairperson concluded
that the relevant dispute must be considered a purely national matter.
34. Although the foregoing would already suffice to deny jurisdiction, for the sake of completeness
the Chairperson also addressed the arguments of the Claimant.
35. In this sense, the Chairperson emphasised that, the Commentary on the Regulations (2023
edition, p. 445) states:
“If the player holds dual nationality, the dispute will be deemed to have an international
dimension if the player is registered by their club under their “foreign” nationality (e.g. a
Brazilian/Italian player playing for a Brazilian club is registered to play as an Italian). This is
because players registered as locals as a result of their “shared” nationality with the club
cannot be deemed to be international players.”
36. With the above in mind, the Chairperson recalled that (i) the Player was identified under
the Termination Agreement with his Polish passport; and (ii) the PZPN confirmed that the
Player was registered with the Club on the basis of his Polish citizenship.
37. Consequently, and in line with the Chamber’s consistent jurisprudence on this particular
issue, the Chairperson considered that the nationality under which the Player was formally
registered constitutes the decisive criterion for determining whether the dispute carries an
international dimension.
38. The fact that the Player may possess multiple nationalities is not, in itself, sufficient to
establish an international element when the Club and the relevant federation has identified
and registered him as a local player. In view of the registration data confirming categorically
that the Player’s Polish nationality was used and recognised throughout the employment
relationship, is it evident that he shared the same nationality as the Respondent, and
therefore the international dimension required by the Regulations is not fulfilled.
39. Accordingly, the Chairperson ruled that the Football Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to
hear the dispute in question, as it fell outside the scope of art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the
Regulations.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-23374
b. Costs
40. Having established the above, the Chairperson 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”. Consequently, the Chairperson decided that
no procedural costs were to be imposed on the Claimant.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-23374
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant,
Guilherme Da Gama Zimovski.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-23374
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11