Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16564
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luiz Adriano
Ferreira da Conceicao
BY:
Tarek BRAUER, Germany
CLAIMANT:
Luiz Adriano Ferreira da Conceicao, Brazil
Represented by Tiago Patrick de Araujo Marciano
RESPONDENT:
Chainat Hornbill, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16564
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Brazilian player Luiz Adriano Ferreira da Conceicao (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
•
the Thai club Chainat Hornbill (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to
the Football Association of Thailand (FAT).
2.
The Player and the Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties.
3.
On 29 March 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player, stating as follows:
“Dear [Player]
[The Club] invite the [Player], Passport BG922632, from Brasil to sign a contract with the
club after the medical exame is complete.
The contract will start 10th June 2024 and finish until 30 April 2025.
• The salary will be 185,000 bath
• Sign fee 0,00 bath
• Club will provide an apartment”.
4.
On 1 June 2024, the Parties signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from 10 June 2024 until 30 April 2025.
5.
According to clause 2.1 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay a monthly salary of THB
185,000 to the Player, payable by the 5th day of the following month.
6.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Contract provided as follows:
“4 The Club has the right to cancel the contract immediately and does not have to pay
any payment or compensation to the [Player] in the following cases:
4.1 In the event of his death or at the end of the contract.
4.2 If he wishes to resign he must have permission from the Club
4.3 The [Player] does not folow the guarantees according to clause 3 which includes
any miss behavior as stated in the rules and regulations or causes damage to the
Club's reputation or acts in any way that are not normal behavior for a good
football player.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16564
4.4 He causes quarrels and fights or problems which cause splits in the team or
conflict among the other football players.
4.5 He does not pay respect to the football coach or team staff or the team manager
or the executives of the club.
4.6 In case that [the Player] refuses to play in a match unless he is injured or unfit,
Club will issue a written warning for the first time and Club will termination [the
Contract] without any compensation if [the Player] refuses to play in the second
time.
5. If players are not in the plan of the club. The club can cancel the contract with players
with compensation as follows
5.1 In the event that the contract is terminated during an open market in which
players can find a new team, the club shall pay compensation of 50% of the latest
salary received.
5.2 In the event that the contract is terminated while the football market is closed,
the footballers cannot find a new team. Have the club pay 100% of the latest salary
received”.
7.
On 28 August 2024, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, demanding payment of
his salaries for June and July 2024. The Player requested that the default be remedied
within 10 days, “failing which [he] would take the necessary legal and administrative measures,
including, but not limited to, filing a complaint with FIFA and seeking compensation for the
damages suffered”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 14 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
9.
In his claim, the Player explained that the Club failed to pay him his salaries for June and
July 2024, therefore violating art. 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
the Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). The Player alleged that this breach amounted to
just cause for the termination.
10. The Player then alleged that he faced “damages and prejudice” because of the above, in
particular:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16564
“As a result of the club‘s non-payment, [the Player] has faced severe financial and
professional harm. Financially, the player has been left in a dire situation, nearly starving
and without a place to live due to the lack of resources.
Professionally, [the Player] is currently unemployed and has been unable to secure a
new club to work for, further worsening his situation”.
11. The Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the Club's breach of contract, we respectfully request that the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber:
•
Order [the Club] to immediately pay the outstanding amount of 370.000 Baht
to [the Player].
•
Impose sanctions on [the Club] for violating its contractual obligations,
including any relevant fines or restrictions.
•
If the situation is not resolved, recognise [the Player’s] right to terminate his
contract with just cause, allowing him to seek new employment without financial
or contractual repercussions.
•
Grant [the Player] compensation for the damages suffered as a result of this
breach”.
b. Position of the Club
12. The Club has failed to provide an answer to the claim, despite having been invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. 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 14 October 2024 and submitted for
decision on 20 December 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March
2023 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.
14. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16564
Regulations (October 2024 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 Thai club.
15. 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. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations (October 2024 edition) and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 14 October 2024, the June 2024 edition of the Regulations is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. 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
17. 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
18. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for outstanding remuneration and “damages”.
19. The Player claimed that he had just cause to prematurely terminate the Contract due to
overdue payables. In support of his claim, the Player submitted a copy of aforementioned
Contract and an e-mail allegedly addressed to the Club demanding the payment of two
salaries within 10 days.
20. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that the Club, for its part, did not submit any
response to the Player’s claim, despite having been invited to do so.
21. The Single Judge therefore recognised that (i) he should decide on the just cause and
consequences of the premature termination by the Player; and that (ii) such a decision
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16564
should be taken solely on the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted by the Player
(cf., art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
22. In light of the above, the Single Judge first emphasized that it was for the Player, as the
party claiming outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, to
prove that there was an employment relationship between the Parties; and that such
employment relationship was terminated – by one of the Parties – through the fault of the
Club.
23. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Single Judge found almost no evidence in the case file
supporting the Claimant’s allegations, making it difficult to reconstruct the factual
background of the case.
24. After careful consideration of the documents submitted by the Player, the Single Judge
observed that:
•
In March 2024, the Club made an offer to the Player, which appeared to have
been concluded together with the Contract;
•
On 28 August 2024, the Player demanded payment of the salaries for June and
July 2024 within 10 days; and
•
There have been no further communications since that date.
25. Although the Single Judge was satisfied that the contractual relationship existed, he was
unable to establish the date or circumstances of its termination.
26. The Single Judge noted that, notwithstanding the fact that the Player allegedly put the Club
in default, the Player gave a shorter notice period than that required by the Regulations
(i.e., 10 days instead of 15 days) and then failed to effectively terminate the Contract. The
Single Judge also found it impossible to determine whether the Player continued to provide
services to the Club and, if so, for how long.
27. Indeed, the Single Judge noted that the only evidence provided by the Player was that he
had requested the funds. Furthermore, the e-mail provided by the Player was sent to an
unofficial e-mail address (i.e., not listed in TMS), and to no avail.
28. In this regard, the Single Judge found that, although it could be established that the date of
the termination would be the date of the claim, he was not convinced that the withdrawing
from the Contract occurred as an ultima ratio measure, as (i) the requirements of art. 14bis
of the Regulations were not met; and (ii) the Player did not provide any further evidence in
addition to the default notice, in particular a notice of termination.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16564
29. In the same vein, the Single Judge considered that, even if it were assumed that the notice
of default was actually sent to the Club, the Player did not provide any documentation to
show what actually happened between August 2024 and the date of the claim.
Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that FIFA is not in a position to terminate the claim
on behalf of the Parties.
30. In conclusion, the Single Judge found that the Player had failed to substantiate his claim for
compensation based on the (lack of) documentation on file. Similarly, the Single Judge
determined that the Player had also failed to quantify the damages he allegedly suffered,
which again prevented any assessment in this regard.
31. The Single Judge therefore decided not to award compensation in this case.
32. Notwithstanding the foregoing and in the absence of a response from the Club, the Single
Judge considered that the Player would in any event be entitled to his outstanding
remuneration as claimed, i.e., the THB 370,000 for the months of June and July 2024.
33. The Single Judge stressed that default interest would be applicable in accordance with the
general practice of the Football Tribunal. However, as this concept was not claimed by the
Player, the Single Judge refrained from making an award on the basis of the general legal
principle of ne ultra petita.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
34. 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 his 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.
35. 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.
36. 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 Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16564
37. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
38. 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
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded rejected any other requests for relief made by any of the
Parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16564
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luiz Adriano Ferreira da Conceicao, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Chainat Hornbill (CNHB), must pay to the Claimant THB 370,000 as
outstanding remuneration.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-16564
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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. article 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