Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6667
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 September 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Pedro Leonardo Goncalves Mateus
BY:
Gonzalo de Medinilla, Spain
CLAIMANT:
Pedro Leonardo Goncalves Mateus, Portugal
Represented by Loizos Hadjidemetriou
RESPONDENT:
Olympias Lympion, Cyprus
Page 2
REF FPSD-6667
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 August 2021, the Portuguese player, Pedro Leonardo Goncalves Mateus
(hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player), and the Cypriot club, Olympias Lympion
(hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from 1 September 2021 until 31 May 2022.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant
inter alia EUR 100 as monthly net remuneration until 30 April 2022.
3.
Furthermore, by means of separate document labelled by the Respondent as “Official
Proposal” and dated 29 August 2021, the parties stipulated an actual remuneration
of EUR 1000 per month from September 2021 until 30 April 2022.
4.
On 2 May 2022, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent to put the latter in
default of the salaries due for March and April 2022.
5.
On 9 May 2022, the Respondent sent a letter to the Cyprus Football Association (CFA)
to notify the unilateral termination of the Contract by the Respondent due to the
alleged misconduct held by the Claimant, who, according to the Respondent, did not
attend any training session nor football match as from the end of April 2022.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 9 July 2022, 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
7.
According to the Claimant, at the time of the termination of the Contract by the
Respondent, a total of EUR 6,000 was outstanding as remuneration.
8.
In this context, the Claimant argued that the sum indicated in the letter of default
dated 2 May 2022 was incorrect, namely because the Respondent had failed to pay
six salaries due from November 2021 to April 2022
9.
In this respect, the Claimant referred of a quarrel within the Respondent’s club due to
the perspective of relegation of the team.
10. In particular, the Claimant reported that on 02 May 2022 the Respondent told the
Claimant and the other players of the team that they would have been paid their due
Page 3
REF FPSD-6667
payables after the end of the last match, scheduled for the “mid of May” and only if
the team would have succeeded in avoiding the relegation to the lower category.
11. Consequently, as the Claimant declared to have contested the Respondent’s position
and demanded his outstanding salaries, the Respondent’s president allegedly gave an
ultimatum to the Claimant and his roommate, another Portuguese player, to leave
the accommodation provided to them by the Respondent and return the keys of the
granted cars. Moreover, according to the Claimant, the Respondent’s president would
have also prohibited the Claimant to attend the team’s training sessions while
contextually communicating that he would have never played again for the team.
12. In this context, the Claimant argued that the reason for the termination of the
Contract held by the Respondent was to merely find an escamotage to escape its
contractual obligations.
13. The requests for relief of the Claimant, accordingly, were the following:
i.
EUR 1,000 net as due payables, plus legal interest from 30/11/2021 until full payment.
ii. EUR 1,000 net as due payables, plus legal interest from 31/12/2021 until full payment.
iii. EUR 1,000 net as due payables, plus legal interest from 31/01/2022 until full payment.
iv. EUR 1,000 net as due payables, plus legal interest from 28/02/2022 until full payment.
v. EUR 1,000 net as due payables, plus legal interest from 31/03/2022 until full payment.
vi. EUR 1,000 net as due payables, plus legal interest from 30/04/2022 until full payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. In spite of having invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit its position to the
claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also
referred to as 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 09 July 2022 and submitted for decision on 14 September 2022. Taking into
account the wording of art. 31 of the June 2022 edition of the Procedural Rules
Page 4
REF FPSD-6667
Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
16. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 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
Portuguese player and a Cypriot club.
17. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 09 July 2022, the July 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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
19. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of
the matter, and took note of the fact that on 29 August 2021 the parties stipulated
two separate agreements having as object the same employment relationship.
21. In this context, the Single Judge ascertained both agreements to be valid and binding
as they both included all the essentialia negotii, i.e. all the relevant information at the
Page 5
REF FPSD-6667
basis of an employment relationship between contractual parties, such as the parties
to the contract, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee as well as the signature of both parties.
22. Accordingly, the Single Judge acknowledged that under the employment relationship
established by the parties, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total
remuneration of EUR 1,000 net per month.
23. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that on 9 May 2022, the Respondent sent a
letter to the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) to notify the unilateral termination of
the Contract with just cause by the Respondent due to the alleged misconduct held
by the Claimant, who, according to the Respondent, did not attend any training
session nor football match as from the end of April 2022.
24. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent failed to present its
response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not
presenting its position to the claim, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the
Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the
Claimant.
25. As a consequence, the Single Judge assessed that the Respondent failed to pay the
Claimant’ salaries between November 2021 and April 2022 (included), hence it carries
on an outstanding remuneration corresponding to six salaries.
26. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge 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. EUR 6,000 (i.e. 6 times EUR 1,000).
27. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due
dates until the date of effective payment.
28. Having stated the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that by waiving its right
to defence, the Respondent also failed to justify the unilateral termination occurred
on 9 May 2022, hence the Claimant shall be entitled, in principle, to compensation,
insofar as the Single Judge determined that the grounds of the termination were not
valid and thus took place without just cause.
29. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge observed that by the time of the
termination, the Contract signed by the parties did not foresee any further
remuneration in favour of the Claimant, therefore having exhausted its residual value.
Page 6
REF FPSD-6667
30. As a consequence, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant did not suffer
any loss from the mentioned termination and no compensation shall be awarded.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
31. 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 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.
32. 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.
33. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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.
Page 7
REF FPSD-6667
37. 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.
Page 8
REF FPSD-6667
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Pedro Leonardo Goncalves Mateus, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Olympias Lympion, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 1,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December
2021 until the date of effective payment.
EUR 1,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2022 until the date of effective payment.
EUR 1,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2022 until the date of effective payment.
EUR 1,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022
until the date of effective payment.
EUR 1,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022
until the date of effective payment.
EUR 1,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2022
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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 the ban shall be of 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.
Page 9
REF FPSD-6667
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
6. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10
REF FPSD-6667
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).
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
Page 11