Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16862
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yony
Alexander Gonzalez Copete
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Yony Alexander Gonzalez Copete, Colombia
Represented by Evandro Luis Rezende Forte
RESPONDENT:
Paysandu Sport Club, Brazil
Represented by Felipe Macedo
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16862
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Colombian player, Yony Alexander Gonzalez Copete (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant); and
•
The Brazilian club, Paysandu Sport Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
which is affiliated to the Brazilian Football Federation (hereinafter: CBF).
2.
On 22 August 2024, the Club sent a letter addressed to a company named “ARF Assessoria
Esportiva Ltda” (hereinafter: the Company), offering to employ the Player on loan until 31
December 2024 (hereinafter: the Offer).
3.
Pursuant to the Offer, the Player would be entitled to the following remuneration
(stipulated in Brazilian Reais – hereinafter: BRL):
•
•
•
•
•
4.
BRL 36,487.08 net (BRL 50,000 gross) as salary;
BRL 50,000 net for image rights;
BRL 20,000 net as allowance;
BRL 20,000 net as a signing fee;
BRL 3,000 net for accommodation.
Clauses 8-10 of the Offer provided that, quoted verbatim:
“8. THE DEADLINE FOR THE OFFER
24 hours from the date of 22 August 2024.
9. OBSERVATIONS
OBSERVATION 1: This proposal will only be valid if the player passes the medical
examinations carried out by [the Club’s] Medical Department.
OBSERVATION 2: This offer will only be valid if the player obtains his release from Atlético
Clube Goianiense-RJ and Fluminense Football Club-RJ within a period that allows [the
Club] to register his Special Sports Employment Contract (CETD) with the Brazilian
Football Confederation (CBF) BEFORE THE CLOSING OF THE 2nd NATIONAL TRANSFER
WINDOW OF THE YEAR 2024.
OBSERVATION 2: The information contained in this offer is confidential. In the event of
sharing and/or disclosure by third parties, the offending party shall indemnify the
innocent party against damages.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16862
OBSERVATION 3: Upon expiry of the period of validity of this offer, and in the absence of
an official response from [the Club], this document becomes null and void and all the
conditions mentioned in it become null and void.
10. FINE
In the event of acceptance (signature of the parties) of this instrument, a Penalty Clause
of R$ 500,000.00 (five hundred thousand reais) is hereby established, applicable to the
offending party responsible for failure to fulfil any of the clauses of this proposal.”
5.
The Player provided a copy of the Offer bearing the Club’s signature, as well as his own and
that of the Company’s representative, Mr Alex Rodrigo Firmino.
6.
On 23 August 2024, the Player and the Club also signed a federative employment contract
(hereinafter: the Federative Contract), which was valid from this date until 31 December
2024.
7.
The Federative Contract provided for a monthly salary of BRL 50,000.
8.
Furthermore, clause 1 under the heading “Extra Provisions” provided as follows (freely
translated into English by the Player):
“CLAUSE ONE: The value of the sports compensation clause is R$ 213,333.33 (TWO
HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THREE REAIS AND
THIRTY-THREE CENTS), which corresponds to the total value of the contract, however, in
the event of any termination of the contract, it will correspond to the amount equivalent
to the total monthly wages to be paid, to which the [PLAYER] would be entitled, in the
period between the date of termination of the Special Sports Employment Contract
(CETD) and the end date of said instrument”.
9.
The general provisions of the Federative Contract stipulated that the Player (and his new
club) would be liable to the payment of BRL 5,000,000 to the Club as a buy-out, both for
national and international transfers.
10. On 23 August 2024, the Player’s registration was also announced on the CBF’s official
website.
11. Around the same time, a Club representative and the Player’s intermediary (i.e., the
Company’s owners) exchanged WhatsApp messages regarding the contracts to be
concluded between them. The parties also exchanged draft contracts, including the
Federative Contract and the following two documents:
•
“Private Term of Commitment” (original in Portuguese, “Termo Particular de
Compromisso”) (hereinafter: the Private Employment Contract), which contained
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16862
inter alia the following terms and conditions:
(i)
Parties: The Player and the Club.
(ii) Term: From 23 August 2024 until “the end of the employment
relationship”.
(iii) Remuneration: The Club undertook to pay the Player (i) BRL 23,000
net as a monthly allowance; and (ii) BRL 85,161.29 as sign-on fee.
(iv) Jurisdiction: Any disputes would be referred to the civil courts of the
city of Belém, Pará.
•
“Civil Contract for License to Use Image of Professional Soccer Player” (original in
Portugues, “Contrato de Natureza Civil de Licença de Uso de Imagem de Atleta
Profissional de Futebol” (hereinafter: the IRA), which contained inter alia the
following terms and conditions:
(i)
Parties: The Club and the Company, with the Player as consenting
party.
(ii) Term: From 23 August 2024 to 31 December 2024.
(iii) Image Rights: The Club undertook to pay the Company a monthly
instalment of BRL 50,000 by the 30th of the following month.
(iv) Jurisdiction: Any disputes would be referred to the civil courts of the
city of Belém, Pará.
12. On 26 August 2024, 1 September 2024, 5 September 2024 and 14 September 2024, the
Player participated in official matches for the Club, valid for the second tier of the Brazilian
national championship.
13. On 20 September 2024, the Club paid the Player BRL 16,057.39.
14. On 27 September 2024 and 4 October 2024, the Player again participated in official
matches for the Club.
15. On 8 October 2024, the Club paid the Player BRL 13,333.33.
16. On 11 October 2024, the local media reported that the Club had terminated the
employment of several players, including the Player. This termination was also announced
on the Club’s official website on the same day, without further explanation.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16862
17. On 21 October 2024, the Player’s representatives exchanged WhatsApp messages with a
contact identified by the Player as “Tiago Paysandu”, who confirmed, on behalf of the Club,
that they intended to exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction in favour of a civil court or, alternatively,
the National Dispute Resolution Chamber within the CBF.
18. The Player stated that he had remained unemployed since his employment with the Club
was terminated.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 31 October 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
20. The Player claimed that he had entered into a pre-contract with the Club (i.e., the Offer),
which contained all the essential elements required by jurisprudence. Furthermore, he
claimed that the parties had also signed the Federative Contract, and that the CBF had
announced his registration on its official website.
21. Nevertheless, the Player stated that the Club had decided to terminate his employment
without just cause. Furthermore, he claimed that the Club allegedly paid him his prorated
remuneration for the days worked, but not in full.
22. In light of the above, the Player argued that he is entitled to compensation for breach of
contract, corresponding to the residual value of the Offer, namely BRL 429,000, plus 5%
interest p.a. from 12 October 2024.
23. The Player also claimed that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the Club in
accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
24. The Player requested the following relief:
“In line with the above, the Player herein submits to the attention of the members of the
DRC the following requests for relief:
FIRST – To uphold the present Claim in full;
SECOND – To confirm that the Club breached the Pre-Contract and the Employment
Contract without just cause within the ‘Protected Period’;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16862
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player R$ 13,509.04 (thirteen thousand, five
hundred and nine Brazilian Real, and four cents) due as outstanding remuneration due
for August, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay the Player R$ 143,000 (one hundred and forty-three
thousand Brazilian Reals) due as outstanding remuneration due for September, plus
interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay the Player R$ 429,000 (four hundred twenty-nine
thousand Brazilian Reals) due as compensation for the breach of the Pre-Contract and
the Employment Contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
SIXTH – To ban the Club from registering any new players, either national or
internationally, for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods;
SEVENTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately; and
EIGHTH –To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
b. Reply of the Club
25. On 4 December 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s claim.
26. The Club first denied entering into a pre-contract with the Player. It argued that it had sent
an employment offer to both the Player and the Company, whose owners were handling
the negotiations on the Player’s behalf.
27. The Club explained that it had been negotiating with the Player’s representative (i.e., the
Company’s owners), but that the conversations had ultimately been unsuccessful since the
Player had not signed the Private Employment Contract or the IRA.
28. The Club claimed that the only properly concluded document was the Federative Contract,
and therefore that this was the only remuneration owed to the Player. Furthermore, the
agreement was for the period from 23 August 2024 to 31 December 2024.
29. The Club then explained that it had partially paid the Player’s prorated remuneration under
the Federative Contract, as follows:
•
•
BRL 16,057.39 as the prorated salary for August 2024;
BRL 16,057.39 as the prorated salary for September 2024.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16862
30. The Club also claimed that both payments concerned salary and that it was unable to pay
the full amount due to financial difficulties.
31. Next, the Club claimed that it had reached a verbal agreement with the Player to terminate
his employment, to which the Player did not oppose.
32. In light of the above, the Club disputed the Player’s claim as follows:
•
Lack of jurisdiction over the Private Employment Contract and the IRA: the
parties did not sign either the Private Employment Contract or the IRA, but both
contained jurisdiction clauses in favour of the civil courts. Furthermore, both
contracts were of a civil nature and not employment-related.
Furthermore, the beneficiary in the IRA was the Company, not the Player, thereby
confirming that it was of a civil nature.
Consequently, the Club claimed that the FIFA Football Tribunal did not have
jurisdiction over these documents.
•
Outstanding payments claimed by the Player: the Federative Contract was the
only binding document for the parties involved. The Club made two partial salary
payments for August and September. The correct outstanding amount was BRL
20,609.28.
•
Compensation claimed by the Player: the Offer was superseded by the
Federative Contract. The Club attempted to conclude the Private Employment
Contract and the IRA, but the Player refused to accept the terms and conditions
contained therein.
In the absence of duly formalized documents, the Club claimed that the Player’s
claim for compensation should be rejected.
33. Furthermore, the Club also referred to the liquidated damages clause contained in the
Federative Contract (clause 1), stating that any award should be limited to the BRL
213,333.33 established therein. The Club also added that this amount should be reduced
“to the lowest amount possible in accordance with the DRC understanding of the case in regard
to the Player’s posture”.
34. The Club also made the following remarks regarding with the consequences of this case: (i)
the sums mentioned in the Federative Contract were gross, not net; (ii) no sporting sanction
should be imposed, as the Club is not a repeat offender and acted in good faith.
35. The Club requested the following relief:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16862
“Therefore, in light of the above and pursuant to the Procedural Rules, the Club
respectfully requests the DRC to:
A) Accept this response as a valid defense against the claim issued by the Claimant;
B) Recognize that the FIFA DRC does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, or parts
thereof;
C) Acknowledge that the FIFA DRC is not competent to adjudicate the portions of this
claim related to any amounts claimed by the Player in connection with the Proposal, the
Civil Contract, or the Image Rights Contract;
D) Dismiss, or partially dismiss, the Claimant’s claims regarding overdue payables, based
on the arguments presented herein;
E) Dismiss, or partially dismiss, the Claimant’s claims for compensation requested by the
Player, based on the arguments presented herein;
F) Refrain from imposing any sporting sanctions on the Respondent;
G) Order the Claimant to bear any and all costs associated with this proceeding;
H) Order the Claimant to pay a significant contribution towards the legal fees and other
expenses incurred by [the Club] in connection with this proceeding”.
c. Replica of the Player
36. On 16 December 2025, the Player submitted his rejoinder on this matter.
37. According to the Player, the Club’s allegation that the Offer was not a contract was
groundless. He reiterated his position that the Offer contained all the essential elements
and should therefore be considered valid and binding.
38. He then explained that the signing of the Federative Contract was a prerequisite for his
registration with the Club. He explained that the Federative Contract did not replace the
Offer but rather demonstrated that the parties had already begun to execute it.
39. The Player also highlighted that the Federative Contract did not contain a jurisdiction clause
that excluded FIFA’s jurisdiction, and that it recognised the applicability of its regulations.
40. Regarding the liquidated damages clause, the Player accepted that the Federative Contract
provided for a compensation of BRL 213,333.33. However, he alleged that this amount did
not take into account the full residual value set out in the Offer.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16862
41. Here, the Player referred to Swiss Law, arguing that such an amount of compensation
would be disproportionate given his global remuneration and the BRL 5,000,000
compensation owed to the Club under the Federative Contract.
42. Finally, the Player insisted that the Football Tribunal had jurisdiction over this case, as the
Private Employment Contract and the IRA were not signed because the parties did not
agree on the choice of forum. He then argued that it was the Club who had refrained from
signing the contracts.
43. Furthermore, he submitted an alternative claim based on the principle of culpa in
contrahendo, stating that the Club was still responsible for his losses.
44. The Player also submitted a WhatsApp conversation allegedly involving a member of the
Club’s financial department. In this conversation, the Player was informed that the first
partial payment made by the Club referred to his salary for August and that the second
payment referred to his image rights for the same month. It should be noted that these
messages are undated.
45. The Player reiterated his request for relief in accordance with his claim.
d. Duplica of the Club
46. On 16 January 2025, the Club submitted its final comments.
47. The Club disputed the new evidence provided by the Player with his replica, claiming that
it should be inadmissible as it had not been provided at an earlier stage. Furthermore, the
Club pointed out that the evidence was incomplete and out of context.
48. The Club then insisted that it had reached a mutual termination with the Player, which it
claimed that could be confirmed by the tone of the press releases issued by the Club and
reported by local media. Hence, the Club claimed that there was no premature termination
without just cause.
49. The Club also insisted that the Offer was not final or binding, and that neither the Private
Employment Contract nor the IRA had been concluded through the Player’s fault.
50. The Club again acknowledged a debt of BRL 20,609.28 but claimed that no further liability
existed. It added that, alternatively, any compensation should be limited to BRL 213,333.33
(cf., clause 1 of the Federative Contract).
51. The Club also restated its conclusion that art. 17 of the Regulations and sporting sanctions
were not applicable and reiterated its request for relief added to the reply brief.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16862
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
52. 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 31 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
53. 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 (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is – in principle –
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Colombian player and a Brazilian club.
54. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Club disputed the Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction
over the Player’s claim regarding his remuneration under the Private Employment Contract
and the IRA. The Club stated that these contracts were not employment-related, and that
the IRA had been negotiated with a third party.
55. The Player, on the other hand, argued that the entire dispute was employment-related and
that he had not agreed to exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction.
56. In light of the above, the Chamber deemed it necessary to first establish the contractual
basis for the parties’ employment relationship to rule on the threshold issue of jurisdiction.
57. In this respect, the DRC initially noted that the parties did not dispute that they had signed
the Offer, or that they had agreed to the terms and conditions set out in it. However, the
parties disagree on the legal nature of this document (i.e., whether it was a pre-contract or
a unilateral offer of employment) and, most importantly, on whether it was superseded by
the Federative Contract.
58. In this context, the Chamber’s first conclusion was that, regardless of the document’s name,
it was validly concluded and became binding on the parties with the Player’s signature.
59. Furthermore, and contrary to the Club’s allegation, the Chamber found that the Offer was
not entirely replaced by the Federative Contract. The DRC based its conclusion on the
following reasoning:
•
The case file showed, and the parties did not dispute, that their mutual intention
was for the Offer to be a preliminary agreement that would ultimately be
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16862
replaced by three different contracts: (i) the Federative Contract, (ii) the Private
Employment Contract, and (iii) the IRA. This intention was confirmed by the draft
agreements provided by the Club and tacitly acknowledged by both parties. As a
result, the Chamber was not convinced that by concluding only one of these three
documents, the parties had ever intended to replace their original arrangement.
•
Conversely, the Chamber accepted the Player’s allegation that the Federative
Contract was concluded first, since it was a mandatory condition for the Player’s
registration with the CBF, whereas the two other documents (i.e., the Private
Employment Contract and IRA) were left in second place and were subject to
further action by the parties.
•
Although the Chamber considered both parties to have been negligent in their
business, as it would be expected for all contracts to be concluded before
services commenced, the Player was actually registered with the Club and started
working. In this regard, the Club did not dispute that he played several official
matches from August to October, nor that the Club made partial payments that
appeared to encompass both his salary and image rights.
•
There is nothing in the case file to suggest that the Player had waived any part of
his remuneration under the Offer, including the sums that were provided for in
the Private Employment Contract and the IRA. In fact, the Club did submit any
evidence that they had reached a different agreement with the Player that could
suggest a change of mind regarding the terms and conditions set out in the Offer.
On the contrary, the Chamber found that the ancillary documents were neglected
and ultimately left aside, since the Player had already been fully incorporated into
the team.
60. Taking into account the above, the case timeline, and the parties’ overall behaviour, the
Chamber determined that the disagreement between the parties regarding the Private
Employment Contract and the IRA should not be held against the Player or interpreted in
a way of legally voiding the Offer. Similarly, the Chamber concluded that it would be illogical
to accept that the Federative Contract had entirely superseded the Offer simply because it
was signed a posteriori, considering the facts of the case.
61. The Chamber’s conclusion was further reinforced by the absence of any clause in the
Federative Contract stating that it represents the parties’ entire agreement. Additionally,
while the Club attributed the failure to sign two supplementary documents to the Player, it
did not assert that this resulted in a modification of the Offer’s terms. Nor did it contest
that the Player rendered services for a period of one and a half months prior to the
termination date.
62. The DRC then considered that the parties’ reluctance to sign the Employment Contract and
the IRA should not be dissociated from the facts, but rather that the Offer remained valid
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16862
as the satellite contract governing their relationship, which was only partially replaced
insofar as it concerned the Federative Contract. Consequently, the Chamber established
that the two documents must be read together to establish the basis of the employment
relationship.
63. Further, in the absence of a jurisdiction clause in either the Offer or the Federative
Contract, the Chamber decided that the parties have not deviated from FIFA’s jurisdiction.
Similarly, and regardless of the Company’s involvement, the DRC considered the Player to
be the ultimate beneficiary of any claimed amount, deeming the Offer to be of an
employment-related nature. This also meant that, as the IRA was ultimately not executed,
the claim falls within the scope of jurisdiction set out in art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the
Regulations.
64. In light of the above, the Chamber confirmed that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to
hear the matter in its entirety.
65. 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 of the
Regulations (edition July 2025), the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
66. 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 (hereinafter: TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
67. 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.
68. In particular, the Chamber recalled that the Club claimed that the evidence provided by the
Player in his rejoinder should be inadmissible because it had not been provided earlier,
and it was out of context.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16862
69. Nevertheless, the Chamber emphasised that any type of evidence may be submitted
during the submission phase, and the relevant chamber has ultimate discretion as to the
weight given to evidence (cf., art. 13 and 22 of the Procedural Rules). The Chamber also
noted that the Club was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and submit
any counterevidence it wished.
70. Therefore, the Chamber pointed out that the Club’s position in this respect was groundless
and rejected.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
71. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract brought by a player against a club.
72. According to the Chamber, the main point of disagreement between the parties concerned
the contractual basis for their dispute (see III, a) supra). However, the Chamber
acknowledged that the parties also disagreed on the circumstances of the termination: the
Player claimed that his employment was terminated by the Club unilaterally and unlawfully,
whereas the Club claimed that the termination occurred by mutual agreement.
Furthermore, the parties have different views on the consequences of the termination and
in the amount of compensation, if any.
73. In light of the above, the Chamber recognised that its task was to establish the nature of
the termination and whether the Player is entitled to any outstanding remuneration /
compensation.
A. TERMINATION
74. As a starting point, the Chamber noted that the Club did not dispute that it had publicly
announced the termination of the Player’s employment on 11 October 2024. However, the
Club alleged that this post confirmed that the Player had consented to the termination and
had amicably agreed to leave the Club without making any further claims.
75. Once again, the Chamber emphasised that the Club did not provide any proof of its
allegations. In particular, the Club did not provide any evidence of a mutual termination
agreement, nor of the Player indicating his willingness to end the employment relationship.
76. Furthermore, and although the parties have conflicting views as to who refrained from
signing the Private Employment Contract and the IRA, the Chamber considered that, as the
party in charge of the administrative process of the Player’s registration and beneficiary of
his services, the Club was required to exercise a higher level of diligence / proactivity to
ensure that the bureaucratic side of their arrangement was finalised.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16862
77. However, in the absence of further evidence to suggest otherwise, the Chamber concluded
that the Club could not withdraw from its original arrangement with the Player and
reasonably expect not to be held liable for any consequences.
78. Consequently, the Chamber ruled that the Club terminated the employment relationship
on 11 October 2024 without just cause.
B. CONSEQUENCES
79. The Chamber then stated that the Club should be liable to pay the Player any outstanding
remuneration at the time of the termination, as well as compensation for the premature
breach of contract.
80. Again in favour of the facts as they stand, the Chamber considered that these calculations
must take into account the original remuneration agreed by the parties under the Offer,
since, as previously stated, there are no elements on file to suggest that the parties had
ever validly departed from this agreement.
81. The Chamber then decided that the Player be entitled to the following amounts.
(I) Outstanding Remuneration
82. As the termination occurred on 11 October 2024, the Chamber found that the Player
should have received his entitlements for the months of August (pro rata for 9 days) and
September 2024, as follows:
August 2024 (Due date: 1 September 2024)
Component
Contractual entitlement (net)
Amount due (net)
Salary
BRL 36,487.08
BRL 10,593.02
Image rights
BRL 50,000
BRL 14,516.13
Allowance + Accommodation
BRL 23,000
BRL 6,677.42
Signing fee*
BRL 5,161.29
BRL 5,161.29
Subtotal - August 2024
BRL 36,947.86
September 2024 (Due date: 1 October 2024)
Component
Contractual entitlement (net)
Amount due (net)
Salary
BRL 36,487.08
BRL 36,487.08
Image rights
BRL 50,000
BRL 50,000
Allowance + Accommodation
BRL 23,000
BRL 23,000
Signing fee*
BRL 85,161.29
BRL 20,000
Subtotal – September 2024
BRL 129,487.08
* Specifically regarding the signing fee, the Chamber in principle assumed that it was payable as a lump
sum on the signing date. However, as the Player claimed in his claim that this amount would also be paid
in instalments, which was not disputed by the Club and also reflected in the unsigned Private Employment
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16862
Contract, the Chamber decided that it be awarded as claimed.
83. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club made two payments (i) BRL 16,057.39 on 20
September 2024; and (ii) 13,333.33 on 8 October 2024, totalling BRL 29,390.72. In this
respect, the Chamber decided that these payments be credited against the oldest
outstanding debt.
84. Therefore, the DRC decided that the Player is entitled to the following outstanding
remuneration:
• BRL 7,107.14 net as outstanding remuneration for the month of August 2024, plus
5% interest p.a. from 1 September 2024;
• BRL 129,487.08 net as outstanding remuneration for the month of September 2024,
plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 October 2024.
(ii) Compensation for breach of contract
85. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
86. 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.
87. At this point, although the Federative Contract contained a liquidated damages clause
providing for the payment of the residual value of this contract as compensation in the
event of breach, the Chamber recalled that it had repeatedly stated that this agreement
must be considered in combination with the other contracts (whether concluded or not)
between the parties, particularly the Offer.
88. Therefore, the Chamber considered that, in addition to the residual value of the
remuneration under the Federative Contract, the Player should also be entitled to the
residual value of his global entitlements under the Offer.
89. The Chamber also noted at this point that the Offer itself contained a penalty clause that
could possibly represent a more reasonable amount of compensation. However, this
penalty clause was explicitly designed to address breaches of the contractual obligations
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16862
established therein (e.g., failing to register the Player within the registration period or failing
to undergo medical examinations). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that it could not
be applied interchangeably to calculate compensation for the premature breach of the
employment relationship.
90. In light of the above, the DRC found that the alternative which best reflected the parties’
agreement, and which therefore amounts to the most reasonable solution to define the
outcome in this case, was to calculate residual value of the Federative Contract, in addition
to the residual value of the two unfinished documents, as also set out in the Offer.
According to the Chamber, this reasoning also aligned with the rationale for calculating
compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations.
91. 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 from the termination until the
original end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of BRL
388,461.24 served as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract, broken down as follows:
Residual value (October, November and December)
Salary
BRL 36,487.08
BRL 109,461.24
Image rights
BRL 50,000
BRL 150,000
Allowance + Accomodation
BRL 23,000
BRL 69,000
Signing fee*
BRL 85,161.29
BRL 60,000
Total
BRL 388,461.24
92. The Chamber further considered that no mitigation or additional compensation applied in
this case.
93. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of BRL
388,461.24 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
94. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
95. 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
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16862
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
96. 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.
97. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
98. The Club 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.
99. 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
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16862
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Yony Alexander
Gonzalez Copete.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Paysandú Sport Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- BRL 7,107.14 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- BRL 129,487.08 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
October 2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- BRL 388,461.24 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-16862
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-16862
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. 21