Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16520
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Duarte
Filipe Gomes Ferreira
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Duarte Filipe Gomes Ferreira, Portugal
Represented by Mario Ocana San Roman
RESPONDENT:
Persikabo 1973, Indonesia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16520
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to this dispute are the following:
•
the Portuguese player Duarte Filipe Gomes Ferreira (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
•
the Indonesian club Persikabo 1973 (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
The Player and the Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
3.
On 10 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
4.
In light of the evidence presented, the Dispute Resolution Chamber did not consider the
events alleged by the Player to purportedly have occurred as established facts, but instead
as part of the Player’s allegations, which are detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
5.
The Player alleged that on 20 August 2024, the Club sent him an offer of employment
(hereinafter: the Offer) with the following terms and conditions:
•
Term: “half season of Indonesia League 2 session to the [sic] Agustus 2024 and of
February2025 (6 months) or the end of Indonesia League 2 session”.
•
Remuneration: USD 2,500 net per month, payable in Indonesian Rupiah.
•
Others:
“The contract will be made after the results of the medical check up are declared
healthy and without injury.
We expect you to come to Jakarta no later than [sic] Augustus 20, 2024 to sign the
contract and to start preparation with the team, in which the effectiveness of the
contract is subject to among others your medical test conducted by [the Club]”.
6.
The Player claimed that he received the Offer via WhatsApp from “the agent of the Club”,
accepted and countersigned it on the same day. In support, the Player provided a copy of
the Offer and a screenshot of the messages exchanged via WhatsApp.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16520
7.
The Player then stated that on 25 August 2024, the Club decided to withdraw from the
Offer. The Player submitted a copy of a letter allegedly issued by the Club, stating as follows:
Translated into Spanish by the Player:
“Respecto a jugadores extranjeros
Estimado Señor Yukun Koo
Saludos de futbol
En relación con el inicio de la temporada 2024/2025 de la Liga 2 en septiembre de 2024,
el equipo Persikabo de 1973 realizó una verificación de jugadores extranjeros. PSSI
informó que aquellos que no pasen la verificación no podrán competir en la Liga 2.
Nombre: Gomes Ferreira Duarte Filie
Nombre del país: 15770266 9 ZW1
Así se transmite esta carta, le agradecemos su atención”.
Freely translated into English:
“Regarding foreign players
Dear Sir Yukun Koo,
Football greetings,
In connection with the start of the 2024/2025 League 2 season in September 2024, the
1973 Persikabo team conducted a verification of foreign players. PSSI informed that
those who do not pass the verification will not be allowed to compete in League 2.
Name: Gomes Ferreira Duarte Filie
Country name: 15770266 9 ZW1
This is how this letter is transmitted, thank you for your attention”.
8.
The above letter was issued on the Club letterhead, stamped, and signed by a person
identified as the Club General Secretary.
9.
On 6 September 2024, according to the Player, he sent a notice of default to the Club,
acknowledging the early termination of the Offer without just cause and demanding
payment of compensation in the amount of USD 16,000 net within 15 days.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16520
10. Subsequently, on 10 October 2024, the Player filed the present claim for breach of contract
against the Club.
11. The Player claims that the Offer already constituted a valid and binding contract on the
Parties and should therefore have been complied with. In support of his argument, the
Player referred to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on essentialia
negotii of a contract.
12. The Player further argued that the Club terminated the Offer without just cause. The Player
stated that it was incumbent upon the Club to sign any contracts after carrying out its due
diligence in relation to the registration and not the other way round. As a result, the Player
argued that the Club was liable to pay compensation because of its breach of contract.
13. In particular, the Player pointed out that he was entitled to USD 16,000 for the duration of
the Offer, and that he had mitigated such compensation by USD 7,633.33 by signing a new
contract with the Italian club USD Lavello, which converted to USD 8,361.17.
14. According to the copy of the contract provided by the Player, USD Lavello undertook to pay
him a total remuneration of EUR 9,100 plus an allowance of EUR 1,400 for the period
between 14 September and 30 June 2025.
15. Therefore, the Player requested that the balance of USD 7,638.83 be awarded as
compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. from 20 August 2024.
b. Position of the Club
16. The Club failed to reply to the claim despite having been invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. 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 10 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 3 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.
18. 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 (June 2024 edition), the Dispute
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16520
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese player
and an Indonesian club.
19. 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 (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 October 2024, the June 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
20. 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
21. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The Chamber then proceeded to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim by a player against a club for breach of contract.
23. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed that (i) the Parties entered into a
valid and binding contract (i.e., the Offer); but that (ii) the Club terminated it a few days later
without just cause. Therefore, the Player claimed to be entitled to the mitigated
remuneration under the Offer.
24. On the other hand, the Chamber also observed that the Club did not respond to the claim
and therefore decided that its analysis must be based solely on the evidence submitted by
the Player (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16520
25. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the Parties
had in fact concluded a valid and binding agreement and, if so, what the consequences of
its premature termination would be.
26. In light of the foregoing, the DRC first turned to the Offer and found that it did indeed
contain most of the essentialia negotii recognised by the jurisprudence to ensure the validity
of a contract: (i) the role of the Parties; (ii) the remuneration to be paid by the Club to the
Player; and (iii) the duration of this contractual relationship.
27. In contrast, the Chamber observed that, although the Offer appeared to have been signed
by the Player at the bottom of the page, it appeared to be designed as a unilateral
document without a proper space for the Player’s signature.
28. Similarly, the DRC noted that the Offer was dated 20 August 2024 and stated that the Player
was expected to report to Jakarta (Indonesia) on the same day to undergo medical
examinations and sign the permanent contract. However, the Chamber recalled that the
Player did not provide any explanation or evidence in this regard. In fact, at the time of the
relevant events, the Player was still registered with a Czech club and, only a few days later,
he was registered in Italy.
29. Most pertinently, the Chamber found it decisive that the Player had failed to provide any
convincing evidence as to the origin of the Offer. The Player claimed to have received the
document via WhatsApp from the “agent of the Club”. However, the Chamber noted that
the only evidence provided in this regard was a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation
with an unknown addressee and no indication of the date on which the documents were
exchanged.
30. The DRC wished to outline that although the football market is characterised by a certain
degree of dynamism and informality, the stakeholders are still required to respect and
adopt a reasonable degree of formalism, in particular in matters that have consequences
as severe as those for the breach of an employment relationship.
31. In continuation, the Chamber considered that the Player had failed to prove that the Offer
was made by a representative of the Club, let alone that it was validly concluded.
Furthermore, even if the Chamber accepted that the Offer could be linked in some way to
the Club, it pointed out that the Player had the burden of proving that the breach of
contract for which he claimed compensation actually occurred.
32. Again, however, the only evidence submitted by the Player in support of the premature
termination by the Club of the alleged employment relationship was the letter of 25 August
2024.
33. In addition to the unknown origin of this document, the Chamber also found that the
wording contained therein, as translated by the Player, was inconclusive. While the letter
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16520
suggests that there was some sort of restriction imposed by the Indonesian Football
Association (PSSI) on the registration of foreign players, the DRC found no reference to any
termination of employment.
34. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the letter was addressed to a person who was not
identified by the Player (Mr Yukun Koo) and who was also not listed as an official
representative of the Club in TMS. The DRC was unable to find any evidence in the case file
to confirm how or when this document reached the Player and/or to support the
interpretation of the actual intent behind it.
35. In view of the above and with reference to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according
to which the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective
burden of proof, the DRC concluded that the Player failed not sufficiently substantiate its
claim and arguments.
36. The Chamber therefore decided that the Player’s claim should be rejected in its entirety.
d. Costs
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16520
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Duarte Filipe Gomes Ferreira, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16520
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. 10