Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17157
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Jean Victor Gonçalves
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Jean Victor Gonçalves, Brazil
Represented by Filipe Orsolini Pinto de Souza
RESPONDENT:
FC Dinamo Batumi, Georgia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17157
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 January 2024, the Brazilian player Jean Victor Gonçalves (hereinafter, the Claimant or
the Player) and the Georgian club FC Dinamo Batumi (hereinafter, the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 15
January 2024 until 15 December 2024.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the equivalent in Georgian Lari of USD 5,000 net per
month.
3.
Furthermore, according to Clause 6 of Annex I of the Contract, the Player was also entitled
to the following:
“6. Other emoluments: 6.1. [The Club] ensures [the Player] round trip flight ticket for Brazil year
during the term of the Contract”.
4.
According to the Player, on 14 August 2024 he suffered an injury in his knee during an
official game with the Club.
5.
Also on 14 August 2024, the Player underwent a magnetic resonance and was diagnosed
with a “Complete post-traumatic injury of the anterior cruciate ligaments. Chronic posttraumatic injury of medical meniscus body and posterior horn. Signs of bone contusion in the
lateral calculi of the femur and tibia. More likely hemorrhagic fluid in the suprapatellar bursa”.
6.
On 11 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default and denounced having been
abandoned by it after the injury. Furthermore, the Player granted the Club a deadline of
fifteen days to proceed with the payment of USD 13,200, corresponding to his partial
remuneration for February to August 2024 as follows:
- USD 700 for February 2024;
- USD 2,000 for March 2024;
- USD 2,500 for April 2024;
- USD 2,000 for May 2024;
- USD 2,000 for June 2024;
- USD 2,000 for July 2024; and
- USD 2,000 for August 2024.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17157
7.
On 27 September 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
8.
On 3 October 2024, the Player traveled from Tbilisi to Rio de Janeiro, incurring in a cost of
USD 1,091.20 for his flight ticket.
9.
On 1 November 2024, the Player was operated in Brazil at the Hospital Icaraí. According to
the medical report, “The total estimated cost of the surgery is approximately USD 4,300,
including hospital fees, surgical materials and medical team”.
10. On 4 November 2024, the “Fisio Sport Center – Centro de Reabilitaçao” in Brazil issued a
budget in the following terms:
“This document aims to establish an investment estimate for Mr. Jean Victor to carry out the
physiotherapy plan for his complete recovery after ACL reconstruction of the left knee.
• Physiotherapy: BRL 1,300.00 per month – estimated 4 months – Total: BRL 5,200.
• Muscle Strengthening: BRL 195.00 per month – estimated 4 months – Total: BRL 780.00.
• Transition to Physical Preparation: BRL 195.00 per month – estimated 1 month – Total:
BRL 195.00.
Total cost for 9 months of recovery: BRL 6,175.00 (approximately USD 1,090.00)”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 19 November 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
12. According to the Player, the Club failed to remit more than two monthly salaries in their
due dates during the term of the Contract. Consequently, the Player claimed having just
cause to terminate the Contract on 27 September 2024 after having put the Club in default,
to no avail.
13. In particular, the Player sustained that the following amounts and concepts, which
amounted to USD 13,200 net, remained unpaid at the time of termination:
- USD 700 net for February 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for March 2024;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17157
- USD 2,500 net for April 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for May 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for June 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for July 2024; and
- USD 2,000 net for August 2024.
14. Based on the above, the Player claimed being entitled to USD 13,200 net as outstanding
remuneration, as well as to compensation in the amount of USD 20,000 net, corresponding
to the residual value of the Contract, and to USD 15,000 net as additional compensation.
15. In addition, the Player argued that the Club abandoned him after suffering the injury on 14
August 2024, and did not provide him with the necessary surgery and treatment.
16. Finally, the Player also claimed to be entitled to the reimbursement of the cost of his flight
ticket from Tbilisi to Rio de Janeiro and of the medical expenses he allegedly incurred, in
the amounts of USD 1,091.20 and USD 5,390, respectively.
17. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of all the above, the Claimant requests:
a. The DRC to send this claim to the Respondent with a time limit for a statement or a reply,
pursuant to art. 21.1 the FIFA Procedural;
b. The DRC to accept this claim and declare that the Employment Contract signed by and
between the parties was terminated with just cause by the Respondent on 27 September
2024, according to article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP;
c. The DRC to accept this claim and order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the following
amounts:
i. The outstanding salaries in the net amount of USD 13,200 plus interest of 5% p.a. as
from the due date of each payment;
ii. A compensation equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated in the total net amount of USD 20,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
September 2024;
iii. An additional compensation in the total amount of USD 15,000, plus interest of 5%
p.a. as from 27 September 2024;
iv. The reimbursement of the flight tickets from Georgia to Brazil, in the net amount of
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17157
USD 1,091.20, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the date of the payment;
v. The reimbursement of the medical and physiotherapy expenses in the net amount of
USD 5,390, plus 5% interests of 5% p.a. as from the date of each payment.
d. The DRC to accept this claim and sanction the Respondent in accordance with article
17.4 of FIFA RSTP.
e. The DRC to accept this claim and include the consequences of the failure to pay the
relevant amounts in due time, pursuant to article 24 of the FIFA RSTP”.
b. Position of the Club
18. Despite being invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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, the
Single Judge took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 19 November
2024 and submitted for decision on 29 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of
art. 31 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.
20. 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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), he 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 Georgian club.
21. 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. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17157
b. Burden of proof
22. 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
23. 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
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
it concerned a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract.
25. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that, according to the Player, the Club failed to
remit several of his monthly salaries. As such, the Player claimed having just cause to
terminate the Contract on 27 September 2024 after having put the Club in default, to no
avail, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations. The Single Judge observed that the
Player also argued that the Club abandoned him after suffering the injury, and that he had
to bear the costs of his operation and treatment, as well as the flight ticket to return to his
country. Based on the foregoing, the Player claimed reimbursement of those costs.
26. The Single Judge also noted that the Club failed to reply to the claim despite being invited
to do so. Consequently, the Single Judge underscored that the decision will be made based
on the arguments and evidence on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
27. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal
pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
28. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis 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,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17157
provided that he has put the club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least
fifteen days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligations.
29. With the above in mind, the Single Judge noted that the Player claimed not having received
his full remuneration corresponding to the months from February to August 2024. In
particular, the Single Judge observed that, according to the Player, the following monthly
instalments remained unpaid by the Club at the time of termination:
- USD 700 net for February 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for March 2024;
- USD 2,500 net for April 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for May 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for June 2024;
- USD 2,000 net for July 2024; and
- USD 2,000 net for August 2024.
30. Therefore, and considering that pursuant to the Contract the agreed salary was USD 5,000
net per month, the Single Judge noted that the alleged outstanding remuneration (i.e., USD
13,200 net) amounted to more than two monthly salaries (i.e., USD 10,000 net).
31. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Player provided written evidence of having
put the Club in default on 11 September 2024, i.e., at least fifteen days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 27 September 2024.
32. The Single Judge also outlined that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract. Nonetheless, the Single
Judge noted that the Club failed to reply to the claim and, therefore, failed to provide any
evidence of compliance with the financial terms of the Contract.
33. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge ruled that the Player had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, and that the
Club is therefore liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
34. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
35. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, covers the months from
February to September 2024, amounting to a total sum of USD 18,200 net.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17157
36. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD 18,200 net.
37. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the
Player interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from their
relevant due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
- February 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 700 net, as from 1 March 2024;
- March 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 2,000 net, as from 1 April 2024;
- April 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 2,500 net, as from 1 May 2024;
- May 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 2,000 net, as from 1 June 2024;
- June 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 2,000 net, as from 1 July 2024;
- July 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 2,000 net, as from 1 August 2024;
- August 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 2,000 net, as from 1 September 2024; and
- September 2024 salary, in the amount of USD 5,000 net, as from 27 September 2024.
38. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge 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, taking into account the damages suffered,
according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
39. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable in the event of
breach of contract.
40. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such compensation clause was included
in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
41. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17157
42. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
until its term. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 15,000 net
(i.e., USD 5,000 net for the months of October, November and December 2024) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
43. In continuation, the Single Judge verified 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
Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
44. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
45. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
46. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided to award the Player compensation for breach
of contract in the amount of USD 15,000 net as the residual value of the Contract
(i.e., USD 5,000 net times 3).
47. At this point, the Single Judge took note of the Player’s request for additional compensation
in the amount of USD 15,000. In this respect, the Single Judge made reference to art. 17
par. 1 lit. i) and ii) of the Regulations to emphasise that the compensation granted was
equivalent to the residual value of the Contract and that the overall compensation may
never exceed the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract.
48. Accordingly, the Single Judge rejected the additional request of the Player.
49. Taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player
interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of the date of termination,
i.e., 27 September 2024, until the date of effective payment.
50. Finally, the Single Judge noted that the Player also requested (i) the reimbursement of the
cost of his flight ticket to travel back to his country, and (ii) the reimbursement of the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17157
medical expenses he allegedly incurred in Brazil, in the amounts of USD 1,091.20 and USD
5,390, respectively.
51. As to the reimbursement of the flight ticket, the Single Judge observed that, pursuant to
Clause 6 of the Appendix I of the Contract, “[The Club] ensures [the Player] round trip flight
ticket for Brazil year during the term of the Contract”.
52. In view of the clear wording of the foregoing provision, and also considering that the Player
presented the relevant evidence of the expenses incurred, the Single Judge decided to
award him the reimbursement of USD 1,091.20 net plus the requested interest of 5% per
annum as from 3 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
53. The Single Judge, however, found that the above conclusion could not be applied in relation
to the reimbursement of the alleged medical expenses. In this regard, the Single Judge
noted that the evidence submitted by the Player purporting to prove such expenses
consisted of estimates and budgets of them, which therefore do not confirm that the Player
indeed incurred in the alleged expenses.
54. In light of the foregoing, and referring to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single
Judge decided to reject the Player’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. In continuation, and 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. In this regard, he highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
principle, of a ban from registering new players, either nationally or internationally, up until
the due amounts are paid.
56. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded
where the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of art. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
57. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 16 January 2025 and notified on 24 January 2025, a transfer ban has been
imposed on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the
case FPSD-16994.
58. Accordingly, the Single Judge established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17157
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
59. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and a formal decision.
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.
d. Costs
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17157
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jean Victor Gonçalves, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Dinamo Batumi, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 18,200 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 700 net as from 1 March 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 net as from 1 April 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,500 net as from 1 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 net as from 1 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 net as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 net as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 net as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,000 net as from 27 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
- USD 15,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum
as from 27 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 1,091.20 net as reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as from 3 October
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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17157
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17157
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. 15