Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14060
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Bruno Gomes Barroso
BY:
Clifford HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Angela COLLINS (Australia), member
Laurel VAURASI (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Bruno Gomes Barroso, Brazil
Represented by Victor de Sordi
RESPONDENT:
Singida Fountain Gate FC, Tanzania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14060
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 July 2022, the Brazilian player Bruno Gomes Barroso (hereinafter the Claimant or the
Player) and the Tanzanian club Singida Fountain Gate Football Club (hereinafter the
Respondent or the Club) signed and employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment
Agreement) valid as from 7 July 2022 until 6 July 2025.
2.
The Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter the Parties) established the following
financial conditions in said Employment Agreement:
−
−
−
a signing fee bonus of USD 25,000
a monthly salary of USD 2,000
a buy-out clause in the amount of USD 800,000.
3.
Allegedly, on 20 November 2022, the Parties concluded a new employment agreement
(hereinafter the New Employment Agreement), yet the Respondent allegedly would not
provide a signed copy of said document.
4.
In line with the New Employment Agreement, the contractual terms were adapted as
follows:
−
−
−
−
−
5.
the contract would be valid for three seasons, starting as per 2022/2023 season until
the end of 2024/2025 season;
a remuneration of USD 120,000 per year;
a round trip flight ticket for the Player and his wife;
accommodation; and
a buy-out clause on the amount of USD 1,000,000.
It shall be noted that the New Employment Agreement specified that “since the Player has
already received 33 thousand dollars this season, the remaining amount will be divided as
follows:
−
25,000 upon signing and another 25,000 on January 31, 2023 being these values
designated fees;
−
the remaining value will be paid to the athlete as a monthly salary on 4,600”.
6.
In support of his argumentation concerning the validity of the New Employment
Agreement, the Player provided a contract on an official paper of the Club, signed by him
only, as well as receipt of payments corresponding to USD 4,500 for monthly salaries.
7.
Allegedly, the payments for the first season (2022-2023) were not duly made.
8.
In various correspondences between November and January, the Claimant followed up
with the Respondent via WhatsApp regarding the payments of the outstanding amounts.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14060
9.
In the relevant messages, the Respondent stated, inter alia, “we are limiting salaries to 3000”.
10. On 5 February 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting:
“a) A copy of his New Employment Agreement dully signed by the Club’s representatives;
b) The payment of USD 94.750 (ninety thousand and seven hundred and fifty dollars)
as outstanding salaries.”
11. In the said notice letter, the Claimant granted the Respondent 15 days to comply with the
request.
12. On 20 February 2024, the Claimant sent a final warning to the Respondent.
13. On 21 February 2024, the Claimant terminated the contractual relationship.
14. On 22 February 2024, the Respondent sent the following correspondence to the Claimant:
“(…) 1. That "Our Client" informed us that on 07th day of July 2022, Bruno Gomes Barroso
("Player") and Singida Fountain Gate Football Club [Formerly Singida Big Stars Football Club]
"the Club" signed an employment agreement valid as from the day of the signature until
06 July 2025.
2. That "Our Client" informed us further that in the aforesaid contract "the Club" has to pay
"the Player" the followings; USD 25,000 each season total of USD 75,000 for entire three
seasons as per the contract and Monthly Salary of USD 2,000.
3. That "Our Client" informed us further that they paid the player as per contract and other
bonus without failure.
4. That "Our Client" further told and informed us that soon after the change of management
the Player informed the Club that there is unknown contract with the Club containing
conditions that are unknown to the Club. And the Club held number of meetings with the
Player and requested a copy of the purported new contract so as to be familiar with, but the
Player did not produce to the Club to date.
5. That to the wonders of the century "Our Client" received a Notice from your good office and
still makes reference to the Contract that you said was signed on 20th day of November, 2022
without even attaching the same. Rather you opted to create un-warranting allegation that
the Club was reluctant to give back the said new Contract while the Club is not familiar on the
presence of that contract at all.
6. That in your Notice dated 5th day of February, 2024 you stated that the Player has to be
paid by the Club to the tune of USD 94,750 (Ninety Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifty
Dollars) to the Player as outstanding salaries within 15 (fifteen) days as from receipt of this
notice. And also you requested the Club to provide to the Player a copy of the New
Employment Agreement dully [sic] signed by the relevant representative of the Club.
7. That we are pretty sure and of settled mind that your Client one Mr. Bruno is an
International Footballer who is familiar with contractual issues, hence to adhere to the rules
thereof.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14060
8. That the Club has no bad issues with the Player rather than helping him to reach his goals
in our beautiful game of Football elsewhere.
9. That Mr. Bruno informed the Club during one of the meetings with the Club that he is no
longer interested to work with the Club. Later on "Our Client" received your Notice; this means
that Mr. Bruno is finding a way to defend from his ill motive. And the only way is to rely on
the contract that does not exist. We advice him to follow the contract dully [sic[ signed by the
parties on 7th day of July, 2022 and not otherwise.
10. That you have to inform Mr. Bruno to join his team at Mwanza and if he is in need of
terminating the contract tell him to present his request to the Club in writing and not
otherwise.
NOW WE HEREBY make FORMAL REPLY upon you Sordi Law as legal representative of
MR. BRUNO GOMES BARROSO, to provide us with detailed information on how you arrived to
the tune of USD 94,750 (Ninety Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars) as
outstanding salaries that Mr. Bruno owes the Club. This will help us to make follow up and
know the exactly actual salaries debt if at all present, so as to settle the matter as we are not
here to deny anyone's right. Also you Sordi Law as legal representative of MR. BRUNO GOMES
BARROSO, to provide to us or to "Our Client" a copy of the New Employment Agreement that
you said was dully [sic] signed by the relevant representative of the Club within three days
from the date of receipt of this reply to your notice.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that unless Mr. Bruno report to the camp at Mwanza to join with other
players to play for the Club as per the contract, we have full mandate to trigger legal battle
against him before the competent sports tribunal(s) thereof. (…)”
15. On 23 February 2024, the Player signed a new contract with the Brazilian club, Athletic Saf
– MG, valid until 31 October 2024. The total remuneration of the Player amounted to
BRL 79,172.41.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 14 March 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the Parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
17. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“(i) To enforce FIFA’s Football Tribunal jurisdiction as competent to rule on the matter;
(ii) To concluded that the New Employment Agreement was valid and binding;
(iii) To rule that the Player had just cause to terminate the employment relationship;
(iv) To rule that the Club shall pay to the Player a compensation calculated from the residual
value of the Employment Agreement in the amount of USD 210,000 (two hundred and ten
thousand dollars)- for having just cause to the early termination of the Employment
Agreement;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14060
(v) To additionally include to the Compensation of the Player the amount of USD 92.750,00
(nine two thousand and seven hundred and fifty dollars), corresponding to the overdue
payments that were due when the New Employment Contract was in force and also the
amount of USD 2,000(one hundred dollars) as flight tickets;
(vi) To order the Respondent to pay interest on the said amounts of 5% p.a, calculated pro
rata;
(vii) To impose a sporting sanction on the Club pursuant to Article 17, par. 3 of the FIFA RSTP;
(viii) To order the Club to cover all costs of the proceedings and to bear all the legal fees and
costs incurred by the Player in connection with the present matter.”
18. The Claimant argued that the New Employment Contract should be considered for the
present matter as he also provided supportive evidence that the Respondent adhered to
this contract (i.e. payments of salaries as per the account statements).
19. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that “Singida Big Stars clearly acted with bad faith (i) by
not sending a copy of the New Employment Agreement dully [sic] signed by the Club after being
formally requested to do so; (ii) by not registering the New Employment Agreement before the
Tanzanian Football Federation; and (iii) by lying about the New Employment Agreement on their
Notice Reply.”
20. Taking into account that he sent a default notice, granting the Respondent 15 days to
comply with its contractual obligations, the Claimant argued that he terminated the
contract with just cause in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
21. In its calculation, the Claimant asserted that the following amounts remained outstanding
at the date of the termination:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14060
22.
Regarding the payment of compensation, the Claimant calculated the following:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14060
b. Position of the Respondent
23. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 14 March 2024 and submitted
for decision on 7 May 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.
25. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, February 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 an Brazilian player
and a Tanzanian club.
26. 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 May 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. 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).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14060
c. Merits of the dispute
28. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this is a claim of a Player against a Club concerning a
termination of a contract.
30. In this respect, the Chamber also noted that it firstly has to establish which employment
contract should be considered in the present matter, i.e. if the New Employment
Agreement was duly concluded as asserted by the Player.
31. Recalling that the Respondent failed to submit a response to the claim, the Chamber turned
its attention to art. 21 para. 1 of the Procedural Rules and established that a decision will
be made based on the file.
(a) Was the New Employment Agreement duly concluded and should it be considered in the
present matter?
32. In this context, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to the jurisprudence of FIFA as well as
CAS, an employment agreement only needs to contain the following essentialia negotii to
be valid: duration of the agreement, subordination of the employee to the employer,
personal performance, wages and signature of both parties. Also, the employment
agreement is valid without registration by a sports authority.
33. After a careful study of the evidence on file concerning the New Employment Agreement
presented by the Claimant, the DRC noted that the signature of the Respondent is missing
on said contract, and that no further evidence was adduced by the Claimant pertaining to
the negotiation of the said contract.
34. The Chamber however observed that the Claimant, in support of his allegations, provided
evidence establishing that the following payments were made to him:
Date
Payment (USD)
03/10/2022
2,000
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14060
31/10/2022
2,000
28/11/2022
4,500
03/01/2023
4,500
01/02/2023
4,500
02/03/2023
4,500
28/04/2023
4,500
02/06/2023
4,500
04/09/2023
3,600
04/10/2023
3,600
04/12/2023
4,500
TOTAL
42,700
35. In this regard, the Chamber noted that said payments are not consistent with the either of
the contracts on file. Furthermore, the DRC recalled that as per the Respondent’s
communication of 22 February 2024, the latter disputed the existence of the New
Employment Agreement.
36. In view of the above and considering the evidence on file (cf. art. 13 para. 5 of the
Procedural Rules), the Chamber concluded that the Player had not met the burden of proof
as to the validity of the New Employment Agreement. Consequently, the DRC concluded
that the Employment Agreement signed by the Parties on 7 July 2022, with its total value of
USD 147,000, should be considered as the valid contract in the matter at hand.
(b) Did the Claimant terminate the Employment Agreement with just cause?
37. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the Claimant argued that he terminated the
employment relationship with just cause, based on the alleged non-payment of certain
financial obligations by the Respondent, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that their task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
39. 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).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14060
40. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
amounting to USD 43,300 (i.e. more than two monthly salaries). Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in
default on 5 February 2024, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract
on 21 February 2024.
41. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
42. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
43. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent USD 45,300 (i.e., all
outstanding amounts until February 2024).
44. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination,
i.e. USD 45,300.
45. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 14 March 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
46. Concerning the request for the allegedly incurred travel costs (flight tickets), the Chamber
established that there is no contractual basis for such claim and, consequently, rejected
Claimant’s request.
47. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club 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, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14060
48. 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 the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
49. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
50. 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 USD 59,000 (i.e. the residual value of the Employment
Agreement) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
51. 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 Player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
52. Indeed, the Player found employment with Athletic Saf – MG. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to BRL 79,172.41 during the
relevant overlapping period. In conversion, the Chamber concluded that the Player
mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 15,916.7.
53. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
54. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
USD 6,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14060
55. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount
of USD 49,083.3 to the Player (i.e. USD 59,000 minus USD 15,916.7 plus USD 6,000), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
56. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 March 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
d. Costs
62. 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,
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14060
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14060
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bruno Gomes Barroso, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Singida Fountain Gate FC, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 45,300 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 March 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 49,083.3 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 14 March 2024 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. 15
REF. FPSD-14060
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 16