Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17341
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Carlos
Alberto Guimaraes Filho
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy), Member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
CLAIMANT:
Carlos Alberto Guimaraes Filho, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
ARABI SC, Kuwait
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17341
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the case are:
-
the Brazilian player, Carlos Alberto Guimaraes Filho (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant)
-
The Kuwaiti club, ARABI SC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
On 2 January 2024, the Player and the Bahrani club Riffa SC (the Player’s former club)
entered into an employment contract valid as from 3 January 2024 until 30 May 2025
(hereinafter: the Riffa Employment Contract).
3.
Pursuant to the Riffa Employment Contract, Riffa SC undertook to pay the Player a monthly
salary equal to (i) USD 8,000 between January 2024 and May 2024 and (ii) USD 10,000
between August 2024 and May 2025.
4.
On 6 August 2024, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Arabi Employment Contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30
June 2025.
5.
Pursuant to the Arabi Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a total
remuneration amounting to KWD 44,000 through monthly instalments of KWD 4,000, as
well as some performance-related bonuses specified therein.
6.
Clause 3 of the Arabi Employment Contract read as follows:
“1 – If any party to the contract wishes to terminate this contract before the end of its term
as stated in Article N. (1), he has the right to do so, if this is done during the registration period
approved by Kuwait Football Association (KFA), with payment of an amount of 5,000 KWD
(five thousand Kuwaiti dinars).
2 – If the [Player] receives an offer to move and player professionally abroad, this matter will
be done by mutual consent, if this is before the start of the official competitions of KFA with
the first party being compensated for all expenses incurred because of this contract.”
7.
Clause 6.2 of the Arabi Employment Contract read as follows:
“2- Any dispute arising from this contract must be submitted first to the Dispute Resolution
Authority of KFA and then to the Local National Sports Arbitration Authority (NSAT) in the
State of Kuwait and then to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) bodies/committees, with the exclusion of any other jurisdiction whatsoever”
8.
Clause 6.7 of the Arabi Employment Contract read as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17341
“7- The two Parties undertakes to facilitate and complete all papers and procedures necessary
for residence and work visa within Kuwait.”
9.
On 20 and 22 August 2024, via the application WhatsApp, the Player requested to the
alleged Director of the Club, news about his family’s visa.
10. On 26 August 2024, the Player and Club concluded a mutual termination agreement
(hereinafter: the Termination Agreement). The Termination Agreement read as follows:
“This Mutual Termination Agreement is made on 26/01/2024 between, AL- ARABI SPORTING
CLUB and the professional football player Mr. (Carlos Alberto Guimaraes Filho to terminate
the contract signed by the two parties on 06/08/2024
I- The [Club] is obliged to pay amount of 6000 KWD (Six thousands Kuwaiti Dinars only) to the
[Player] as a compensation for terminating the above mentioned contract mutually no later
than 28/08/2024.
2- Once this agreement is signed, the two parties acknowledge that the contract that binds
them has been terminated by mutual consent, and no other dues will be claimed in the future
except for those mentioned in No. (I) of this agreement
3- Moreover, by signing this agreement, the parties are prohibited from resorting to any
judicial authorities or local, regional or international associations to demand any rights
except for the financial rights and entitlements referred to above with the settlement
agreement and if any issues or complaints filed in advance by either party, undertakes to
withdraw' and consider them as if they were not […]”
11. On 28 August 2024, the Vietnamese club QNK Quang Nam F.C. sent the Player the following
offer:
“The initial proposal of Player is as follows:
• The duration of the contract will be from the date of signing the employment contract to
the end of 30 June 2025. Once the player has passed a through medical and physical
examination, the contract signing shall take place.
• The fix salary will be USD 8,000 per month.
• Bonus shall be follows Club’s regulation.
• The Club will support an accommodation.
• The Club will provide one round-trip economy class ticket Brazil – Vietnam – Brazil.[…]”
12. According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 1
September 2024, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Vietnamese
club QNK Quang Nam F.C. (hereinafter: the QNK Employment Contract) valid as from 1
September 2024 until the end of the 2024/2025 season; whereby the latter undertook to
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17341
pay the former a monthly remuneration equal to USD 175 and a monthly performance
bonus of USD 1,824.
13. On 27 September 2024, the Player and Quang Nam FC entered into an agreement to
formalise the premature termination of their employment relationship.
14. On 2 January 2025, the Player and the Brazilian club, Rio Branco Atlético Clube Saf/ES
concluded an employment contract valid as from 2 January 2025 to 30 September 2025
with a monthly salary of BRL 1,518.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 3 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
16. The Claimant first mentioned that FIFA has jurisdiction over the case.
17. According to the Player, by the end of the 2023/2024 season, the Club approached him
with an offer that was expressly conditional upon the amicable termination of his
employment contract with Riffa SC. The purpose of this condition was to avoid the payment
of any transfer fee or compensation to Riffa SC. The Player stated that he persuaded Riffa
SC to agree to the termination, thereby enabling the conclusion of the Arabi Employment
Contract.
18. The Player further added that after the conclusion of the Arabi Employment Contract, the
Club failed to provide the visas for his family and after approximately 2 weeks without any
conclusive answer from the Club, the Player expressly requested the date on which the
visas would be issued. The Player then mentioned that on 26 August 2024, the Club
contacted him to attend a meeting and:
“[d]uring said meeting, the Club communicated the Player to be no longer interested in his
services and, as such, that it intended to terminate the Employment Contract in accordance
with the provisions set out in its Art. 3.
In the referenced occasion, the Club also made sure to print and hand-deliver to the Player a
draft of a termination agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Agreement”,
see Exhibit – 7), threatening him that, should he refuse to sign it and therefore terminate the
Employment Contract under the above-mentioned conditions, he would be forced to stay in
Kuwait for the entire 2024-2025 season without any chances of playing or even seeing his
family, to which no visa(s) would be provided.
Within such straitened circumstances, the Player was left with no alternative but to sign the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17341
Termination Agreement”.
19. Therefore, the Claimant mentioned that the Club engaged in a persistent abusive
behaviour with the purpose of pushing the Player to enter into an early termination of the
Employment Contract under “weird or straitened circumstances”.
20. As to the strained circumstances, he mentioned the following:
“First, the Club made the Player travel alone from Bahrain to Kuwait under the excuse that
he had to pass through the necessary medical examinations and further sign the Employment
Contract, whereupon the former would proceed to issue the required visas and flight tickets
for the latter’s wife and children to join him in the country – which never happened.
Hence, the Player was completely alone in Kuwait for the entire period during which he
remained under the Employment Contract. The Club, though, was not only aware of such
scenario, but also took advantage thereof under outraged bad faith.
Second, the Club called the Player to attend a meeting at its own headquarters alone, during
which the latter was not only informed that the former was no longer interested in his
services, but also forced to sign a unilaterally drafted agreement to put an end to their
employment relationship.
Third, the Club referred to the provisions of Art. 3 of the Employment Contract as if the same
somehow provided an appropriate legal basis for the unilateral termination thereof.
Fourth, the Club threatened the Player not to authorise him to practice nor play with his
teammates in any official matches whatsoever for the entire 2024-2025 season, neither
procure the issuance of the required visas for his family.
Fifth, the Club further threatened the Player not to authorise the release of his International
Transfer Certificate (“ITC”) should he refuse to sign the Termination Agreement and rather
start legal proceedings before the competent decision-making bodies of FIFA.
Sixth, clubs eventually interested in signing the Player within such scenario would
immediately decline to, insofar they would be scared to be held jointly and severally liable for
the payment of a possible compensation in connection therewith, not to mention the
likelihood that sporting sanctions could as well be imposed”
21. In continuation, the Player mentioned that “it cannot be reasonably thought that a player who
had just endeavoured to convince his former club to release him in order to sign with another
club and, as such, secure a 44% (forty-four percent) raise in his earnings would somehow
willingly agree, in the absence of any offer or personal problem that could otherwise justify, to
terminate his new employment contract – and thereby waive the remuneration payable
thereunder – less than a month following its entry into force”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17341
22. Moreover, the Player indicated that there is an inherent disparity between performance
and consideration under the Termination Agreement – as according to the Player, he would
loss as remuneration USD 124,500 which corresponded to 86.36%.
23. Lastly, “the Player has complied with the applicable 1-year time limit – as referred to in the longstanding case law of the CAS – to invoke the prerogative not to honour the Termination
Agreement, to the extent that the conclusion thereof results from the aforesaid straitened
circumstances, since (i) it was signed on 26 August 2024 and (ii) the present Claim is being filed
on 28 November 2024.”
24. In view of all the above, the Player concluded the following:
“The above having been established, it is undisputed that the Termination Agreement entails
a clear disparity between performance and consideration as a result of the exploitation, by
the Club, of the straitened circumstances which it itself subjected the Player to.
Hence, the FIFA DRC shall declare the Termination Agreement null and void ipso jure and, as
such, confirm that the Club unilaterally terminated the Employment Contract without just
cause.”
25. As to the date of termination, he indicated that the Arabi Employment Contract terminated
on 26 August 2024 – i.e. the signing date of the Termination Agreement.
26. Moreover, as to the liquidated damage clause mentioned in the Arabi the Employment
Contract, he stressed that such a provision, albeit reciprocal is potestastive and shall not be
applicable.
27. Finally, the Player mentioned that following the Termination Agreement, he concluded the
QNK Employment Contract on 14 September 2024 with a monthly salary equal to USD
8,000 and that on 27 September 2024, the Player terminated the QNK Employment
Contract as the Player’s family did not adapt to the city of Tam Kỳ.
28. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“FIRST – To uphold the entire claim filed by the Player;
SECOND – To declare the Termination Agreement null and void and, as such, confirm that the
Club unilaterally terminated the Employment Contract without just cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player the total amount of KWD 14,000 (fourteen
thousand Kuwaiti dinars) as Mitigated Compensation for the unilateral termination of the
Employment Contract without just cause, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5%
(five percent) annually as from 27 August 2024 until the effective date of payment;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17341
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay the Player an amount equal to KWD 26,400 (twenty-six
thousand four hundred Kuwaiti dinars) as extra compensation for the unilateral termination
of the Employment Contract without just cause, plus default interest at the applicable rate of
5% (five percent) annually as from 27 August 2024 until the effective date of payment;
FIFTH – To ban the Club from registering any new players on both a national and on an
international level for 2 (two) entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. Art. 17, par. 4 of
the FIFA RSTP);
SIXTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately (cf. Art. 21, par. 1 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); and
EIGHTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
29. Despite being invited, the Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. 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 3 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 27 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
31. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 Brazilian player and a Kuwaiti club.
32. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17341
33. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
34. 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
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for compensation for breach of contract.
36. The Chamber acknowledged that the Player claimed that the Termination Agreement
concluded between the Club and him is invalid and that he is entitled to compensation for
breach of contract as it was signed under straitened circumstances and due to the abusive
behaviour of the Club.
37. The Club, on the other hand, did not respond to the claim, entailing that the Chamber’s
decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Termination Agreement is valid and binding and what are the consequences arising from
it.
39. In order to analyse the above the Chamber first recalled the following facts:
Date
2 January 2024
6 August 2024
Event
the Riffa Employment Contract was
concluded
The Arabi Employment Contract was
concluded
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17341
21/22 August 2024
26 August 2024
28 August 2024
The Player alleged that he requested
the visa for his family
The Termination Agreement was
concluded
the Vietnamese club QNK sent an offer to
the Player
1 September 2024
QNK
Employment
concluded
Contract
was
On 27 September 2024
the Player and Quang Nam FC mutually
terminated their contract
40. The Chamber also observed that the Player’s salary with the Arabi Employment Contract
amounted to a monthly salary of 4,000 /approx. 13,072 and that the QNK Employment
contract in TMS contained a monthly salary of USD 1,999 however, in accordance with the
Offer and the Player’s acknowledgement, his monthly salary amounted to USD 8,000.
41. From the above, the Chamber observed that both the Arabi Employment Contract and the
QNK Employment Contract were terminated 20/26 days after its starting day and that the
Arabi Employment Contract was executed for 20 days.
42. The Chamber further noted the Player did not challenge the signature of the Termination
Agreement but claimed that it was signed under straitened circumstances, in particular he
mentioned that he was alone in Kuwait without his family, coercing him into signing a
termination agreement, and misusing contract terms to justify ending his employment. The
Player also mentioned that the Club also threatened to block his ability to train, play, or
transfer to another team, effectively damaging his career prospects.
43. Upon reviewing the documentation submitted, the Chamber emphasized that the Arabi
Employment Contract was executed 20 days prior to the termination of the employment
relationship. Within this limited timeframe, the Chamber found no evidence indicating that
the Player was prohibited from contacting his family or that the Club refused to assist him
in obtaining a family visa.
44. Furthermore, during the 20-day period of the Arabi Employment Contract, the Chamber
observed only two messages addressed to an individual alleged to be a director of the Club.
However, based on the content of these communications, the Chamber could not conclude
that the Club was unwilling to support the visa process or that it actively obstructed the
issuance of the visa. Lastly, the Chamber took note of the Player’s allegation that the Club
had threatened to prevent him from training, playing, or transferring to another team.
Nevertheless, the Chamber did not find any substantiating evidence to support this claim.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17341
45. Based on all the above, and due to a lack of evidence, the Chamber concluded that the
Player could not establish that the Termination Agreement was signed under straightened
circumstances.
46. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Player did not claim any outstanding
remuneration and that both parties – through the Termination Agreement established an
amount of compensation for the early termination, thus the Chamber concluded that the
Player did no longer perform his duties as player and in addition received an amount for
the early termination.
47. Moreover, the Chamber noted that three days following the termination, the Player
entered into a new employment contract, accepted the payment of KWD 6,000 without
objection, and did not raise any concerns or communicate any of the aforementioned
allegations to the Club at that time. The DRC considered that the Player’s argument could
not be also sustained in accordance with the principle of non venire contra factum proprium.
48. Based on all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Termination Agreement was
freely negotiated as no evidence of duress, or straightened circumstances can be found
and that it is valid and binding to the parties.
49. Hence, as there was valid mutual termination, the Chamber concluded that no
compensation shall be awarded and therefore, the Player’s claim is rejected in entirely.
d. Costs
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17341
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Carlos Alberto Guimaraes Filho, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17341
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. 13