Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17854
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Adilson Gancho Silva
BY:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Adilson Gancho Silva, Portugal
Represented by Mr Alejandro Pascual Madrid
RESPONDENT:
PSM Makassar, Indonesia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17854
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 September 2024, the Portuguese player Adilson Gancho da Silva (hereinafter:
Claimant or player) and the Indonesian club PSM Makassar (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: agreement) mutually terminating the
previously existing employment contract.
2.
According to the agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total amount
of USD 38,500 (sic), “net of any taxes”, as follows:
a) USD 19,500 by no later than 31 December 2024;
b) USD 3,250 by no later than 5 February 2025;
c) USD 3,250 by no later than 5 March 2025;
d) USD 12,000 by no later than 5 March 2025.
3.
On 31 December 2024, the Respondent sent the Claimant a payment order from its bank
for the amount of USD 19,500.
4.
On 9 January 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of paym.ent, requesting the
amount of USD 19,500 to be remitted within 10 days
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 20 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
6.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to make the first payment
under the agreement, in the amount of USD 19,500, by 31 December 2024.
7.
The Claimant specified that although he received a proof of payment of the amount in
dispute on 31 December 2024, the bank account statements under exhibits 4bis and 4ter
of his claim demonstrate that no such payment took place.
8.
The Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda and requested payment of USD
19,500, net of any taxes, plus interest as from 31 December 2024.
b. Reply of the Respondent
9.
Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17854
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 20 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 3 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
11. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
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 an Portuguese player and an Indonesian club.
12. 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 January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
13. 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
14. 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. 4
REF. FPSD-17854
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the basis of the present dispute concerned the alleged non-payment of amounts agreed
under the agreement signed on 29 September 2024.
16. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
amount guaranteed thereunder indeed remained unpaid, and if so, whether or not the
Respondent had a valid justification for defaulting on such payment.
17. Prior to entering into the merits of the case, the Chamber recalled the parties respective
submissions. On one hand, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to pay an
amount of USD 19,500 net, asserting that he had received a proof of payment of said
amount, however, that this had never been credited to his bank account. The Claimant
provided under exhibits 4bis and 4ter extracts from his account that indicated movements
to and from his bank account between 2 December 2024 and 31 December 2024 (sic).
18. The Respondent on the other hand failed to reply to the claim.
19. At this stage, the Chamber wished to recall that usually the burden of proving that a
payment had indeed occurred would fall on the debtor (in this case, the Respondent), since
the assertion to the opposite effect (namely that the payment would have taken place,
unlike the claiming creditor would allege) is presumed.
20. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant had provided a proof
of payment which he confessed to having received from the Respondent.
21. Consequently, the Chamber understood that this proof of payment, on its face,
demonstrated that the payment had indeed taken place. The Chamber therefore deemed
that the burden of proving that the payment had not taken place was reversed, and was
attributed to the Claimant.
22. Having set out the above, the Chamber analysed the evidence on file. In particular, the
Chamber drew its attention to exhibits 4bis and 4ter of the claimant’s dossier, taking note
that, although bank extracts had been provided to corroborate the line of argument that
the amount was never credited to the Claimant, these bank extracts were limited to the
period between 2 December 2024 and 31 December 2024.
23. With this in mind, the Chamber then turned to its analysis of the proof of payment, and
took note that it mentioned 31 December 2024 as the date of the payment order (i.e., the
date foreseen in the agreement).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17854
24. The Chamber considered it particularly relevant that the payment was ordered on the last
day of the disclosed statements, especially since it should presumed that, being an
international payment (from Indonesia to Portugal), it would not be possible for the funds
to arrive on the same day, and most likely only reaching the Claimant’s account at the very
least on the next business day (i.e., on 2 January 2025).
25. In light of this information, the Chamber could not exclude the possibility, based on the
evidence on file, that the payment was not credited as per exhibit 4 of the claim, and
eventually reflected in the Claimant’s ledger after the relevant dates indicated in the
extracts provided.
26. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Claimant failed to meet his requisite burden of
proving that there had been an error with the proof of payment submitted by the Claimant
and initially provided to him by the Respondent.
27. In light of all the above, the Chamber held that exhibit 4 of the claim rendered the payment
obligation of the Respondent, prima facie, complied with, meaning that no further
outstanding amounts could be claimed in the case at hand by the player.
28. Thus, the Chamber decided to reject the claim in full.
d. Costs
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17854
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Adilson Gancho Silva, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17854
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. 8