Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9152
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 April 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Sergio Henrique Francisco
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Sérgio Henrique Francisco, Brazil
Represented by Brocchi e Souza Sociedade de Advogados
RESPONDENT:
Club Jorge Wilstermann, Bolivia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9152
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 August 2020, the Brazilian player, Sérgio Henrique Francisco (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the player), and the Bolivian club, Jorge Wilstermann (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract valid as from 1 January 2021 until
31 December 2022 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant:
a. USD 13,000 as monthly salary;
b. USD 500 as monthly housing allowance;
c. USD 10,990 as a sign-on fee.
3.
Clause 12 of the contract reads as follows (freely translated to English):
“The parties establish that the instance to the resolution of controversies “arising out of
this contract is the Dispute Resolution Tribunal of the FBF, pursuant to its regulations. The
parties expressly affirm that they will submit to the arbitral award and/or resolution
rendered by the Tribunal and therefore renounce to challenge it judicially and
constitutionally.”
2. On 24 January 2022, the parties signed a private document (hereinafter: settlement
agreement), by means of which they agreed that the Respondent owed USD 91,900
to the Claimant as “outstanding salaries and bonuses for the 2021 season”. Contextually,
the parties agreed that these amounts would be paid as follows:
a. USD 79,288 with an apartment, to be registered in the name of the Claimant
directly by the real estate constructor and delivered by 31 December 2022;
b. USD 12,612 as balance to still be paid, without a specific due date.
3. Clause 4 of the settlement agreement reads as follows:
“The parties establish that the present settlement agreement is of definitive character and
constitutes material res judicata in accordance with art. 945 and 949 of the Bolivian Civil
Code, and that the same may be opposed before the judicial instances and/or the Dispute
Resolution Tribunal of the FBF, given into consideration the non-existence of other subjects
and/or obligations pending between the parties.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 4 February 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9152
a. Position of the Claimant
5.
The Claimant requested outstanding salaries amounting to USD 181,000 together with
interest of 5% p.a. as from each due date, broken down as follows (quoted verbatim):
Due Date
Due Salaries + Housing Allowance
Outstanding Payments
31 January 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
28 February 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
31 March 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
30 April 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
31 May 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
30 June 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
31 July 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 August 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
30 September 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 October 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
30 November 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 December 2021
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 January 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
28 February 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
31 March 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
30 April 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
31 May 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 500.00
30 June 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 July 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 August 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
30 September 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
31 October 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
30 November 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
December 2022
USD 13,000 + USD 500.00
USD 13,500
OUTSTANDING
SALARIES +
HOUSING ALLOWANCE
6.
USD 181,000 (one hundred and eighty-one thousand American
Dollars)
In his claim, the player did not mention the settlement agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9152
b. Position of the Respondent
7.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that the Dispute Resolution Tribunal of the Bolivian
Football Federation (hereinafter: NDRC of Bolivia) is competent to hear the dispute on the
basis of clause 12 of the contract. It is to be noted that no evidence regarding the
constitution or composition of the NDRC of Bolivia was filed by the Respondent.
8.
As to the substance, the club argued that it was never put in default. Equally, it referred to
the settlement agreement, and argued that the apartment established therein is ready to
be delivered as soon as the player returns, which has not been done so far because the
player left Bolivia.
9.
Equally, the club filed an internal accounting document according to which if confessed to
owe the player USD 60,058.21, as follows:
Total Debt: USD 121,729.54
Season 2020
a. USD 7,299.54 as salaries for 2020;
Season 2021
a. USD 13,000 as salary for August 2021;
b. USD 13,000 as salary for September 2021;
c. USD 13,000 as salary for October 2021;
d. USD 13,000 as salary for November 2021;
e. USD 11,616.67 as bonuses.
Season 2022
a. USD 7,480 as salary for July 2022;
b. USD 13,000 as salary for August 2022;
c. USD 13,000 as salary for September 2022;
d. USD 13,000 as salary for October 2022;
e. USD 13,000 as salary for October 2022.
Rent to pay: USD 6,000
Bonuses to pay: USD 11,616.67
(-) compensation agreement: USD 79,288
TOTAL TO PAY: USD 60,058.21
10. In its request for relief, the club outlined inter alia as follows:
“We request that the player’s claim be declared inadmissible or that the fair amounts owed
to the player be readjusted, since Club Wilstermann does not deny that it owes the player
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9152
a debt, but we ask your court to adjust to the real parameters and not to its unrealistic
claims, not only because of the lack of competence of the DRC, but also because of the
inadmissibility of its claim and bad faith in the way it has acted in its claim.”
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
11. In his rejoinder, the Claimant insists on FIFA’s competence and insofar as the Respondent
has not proved that the NDRC of Bolivia complies with the requirements of FIFA Circular
1010. He equally referred to clause 12 of the contract and submitted said clause is not clear
and exclusive to withdraw the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
12. As to the substance, the Claimant wrote as follows:
“The Claimant requests FIFA DRC to order the Respondent to pay him outstanding salaries
and housing allowances in the total amount of USD 181,000 (one hundred and eighty-one
thousand American Dollars).
Reading the response presented by the Respondent, it is clearly seen that it indeed owes
money to the Claimant. The document named “Estado de Cuentas” is a recognition of the
debts, despite not all of them. It was a document unilaterally produced by the Respondent
with only part of the current debts.
The Respondent also presents a document named “Documento Privado”, whereby it
recognized part of the debts, and undertook to pay the outstanding salaries and housing
allowances to the Claimant with a property by no later than 31 December 2022. Firstly,
the debts mentioned in the document belong to previous contracts, which are different of
the one herein discussed; secondly, the Respondent has not given the property to the
Claimant; thirdly, the Respondent has not proven that the property mentioned in the
document belonged to it, but to “la Construtora TADE”.
Above all, we must bear in mind the well-established CAS jurisprudence about the
prohibition of the “waiving of salary” clearly explained in the Case Ref. Nr. FPSD-4563 as
follows:
(…)
The financial situation of the Respondent has been getting worse in the last years, and the
debts with the players (including the Claimant) have been accruing, thus the Claimant
accepted to sign such document as a guarantee for the payment of the outstanding
salaries and housing allowance. Moreover, the Claimant is Brazilian, and it is obvious that
he has no interest to have a property in another country – actually, he had no choice in
the middle of the financial chaos of the Respondent, but to sign the document to have a
guarantee of the payment, which has not occurred.
The Swiss Code of Obligations supports the Claimant’s position as follows:
Art. 30
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9152
1 A party is under duress if, in the circumstances, he has good cause to believe that there
is imminent and substantial risk to his own life, limb, reputation or property or to those
of a person close to him.
2 The fear that another person might enforce a legitimate claim is taken into consideration
only where the straitened circumstances of the party under duress have been exploited in
order to extort excessive benefits from him.
Analyzing the situation from all perspectives, it is clear that the Respondent owes salaries
and housing allowances to the Claimant, and they have not been paid so far by any
means, and the Respondent has not made any proposal to solve the matter. Therefore,
the Claimant’s claim shall be accepted.”
d. Final comments of the Respondent
13. In spite of having been invited to do so by the FIFA general secretariat, the Respondent did
not file any final comments.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9152
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and admissibility
14. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether
she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took note that the
present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 February 2023 and submitted for decision on
12 April 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022 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.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (October 2022),
she is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and a Bolivian club.
16. The Single Judge further noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the NRDC of Bolivia, alleging that the latter is competent to
deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant contract, in accordance with its clause 12.
17. The Single Judge also noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to
adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the contract does not contain a clear and
exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Bolivia and that the latter is not an
independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the
principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
18. Taking into account all the above, the Single Judge emphasised that in accordance with art.
22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or
in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national
arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Single Judge referred to the principles
contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations,
which came into force on 1 January 2008.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9152
19. In this context, Single Judge pointed out that she should first analyse whether the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Bolivia.
20. In this respect, the Single Judge referred to clause 12 of the employment contract,
according to which: “The parties establish that the instance to the resolution of controversies
“arising out of this contract is the Dispute Resolution Tribunal of the FBF, pursuant to its
regulations. The parties expressly affirm that they will submit to the arbitral award and/or
resolution rendered by the Tribunal and therefore renounce to challenge it judicially and
constitutionally.”
21. At the same time, the Single Judge did not fail to notice the contents of clause 4 of the
settlement agreement, which reads as follows: “The parties establish that the present
settlement agreement is of definitive character and constitutes material res judicata in
accordance with art. 945 and 949 of the Bolivian Civil Code, and that the same may be opposed
before the judicial instances and/or the Dispute Resolution Tribunal of the FBF, given into
consideration the non-existence of other subjects and/or obligations pending between the
parties.”
22. The Single Judge, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clauses in question,
concluded that such contractual constellation did not clearly and exclusively establish the
competence of the NDRC of Bolivia, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
aforementioned Regulations. In particular, the Single Judge underlined that both the
contract and the settlement agreement govern the relationship of the parties. In doing so,
both documents have different jurisdiction clauses, with the settlement agreement
expressly stating that that document could be challenged before ordinary courts or the
NDRC of Bolivia.
23. As a consequence, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for
establishing the competence of an NDRC to the disfavour of the Football Tribunal was not
met.
24. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent failed to provide
any documentary evidence which could prove that the NDRC of Bolivia meets the
requirements established in art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, detailed in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the
NDRC Regulations.
25. On account of the above, and referring to the principle of burden of proof contained in art.
13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge established that the Respondent’s
objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be
rejected, and FIFA is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to
consider the present matter as to the substance.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9152
26. At this point, the Single Judge referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years
have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application of this time limit
shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
27. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA
on 4 February 2023. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts
fallen due before 4 February 2021 are affected by the statute of limitations.
28. The Single Judge noted that, in the present case, the Claimant inter alia requested the
payment of his housing allowance for the month of January 2021, amounting to USD 500,
which fell due by the end of that month, namely 31 January 2021, because the contract
establishes no other due date. The Single Judge thus concluded that the Claimant’s request
is partially time-barred.
29. Consequently, the specific part of the Claimant’s claim related to the payment of the
housing allowance for January 2021 is considered inadmissible. In this respect, the Single
Judge wished to note that since the Claimant did not rely on the settlement agreement in
his claim and insisted on the same amounts sough in his rejoinder, she decided to follow
exactly his allocation of the amounts requested to confirm the above as to the admissibility.
b. Applicable legal framework
30. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 February 2023 and decided on 12
April 2023, the October 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
c. Burden of proof
31. 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, she stressed the
wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
32. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9152
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments, and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this is a claim of a player against a club for
outstanding remuneration.
34. According to the player, the club failed to remit USD 181,000, being:
a. Season 2021: USD 84,000
i. Housing allowance: USD 500 * 12 = USD 6,000
ii. Salaries: USD 13,000 * 6 = USD 78,000
b. Season 2022: USD 97,000
i. Housing allowance: USD 500 * 12 = USD 6,000
ii. Salaries: USD 13,000 * 7 = USD 91,000
35. Out of these, the Single Judge recalled that USD 500 for the season 2021 is time-barred, as
decided in the relevant section above, which leaves a balance of USD 180,500.
36. At the same time, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent argued that the debt was
settled in the settlement agreement, which the player denies as he inter alia argues that he
cannot waive salaries for work already performed.
37. In this respect, the Single Judge did not fail to notice that the settlement agreement was
signed on 24 January 2022. As such, it could have never referred to amounts due after said
date. In fact, it is quite the contrary, as said document textually states that these amounts
regarded the season 2021. What is more, the Single Judge underscored that in accordance
with said settlement agreement, the player was owed USD 91,900, which exceeds the
amount he claimed in these proceedings for the 2021 season.
38. It followed from the above, in the Single Judge’s opinion, that (a) the amounts sought in the
claim are already factored in the settlement agreement, since the amount listed therein
exceeds the amount claimed by the player for the same period, and (b) the settlement
agreement does not affect the claims for the 2022 season. Additionally, because the
settlement agreement exceeds the amount claimed, the Single Judge found that it cannot
mean that the player waived any amounts. As such, the Single Judge decided that the
defence of the club must be rejected in this point.
39. In continuation, the Single Judge turned to the issue of the apartment as raised by the
Respondent, which argued that the same is still available to be given to the player. Yet, the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9152
Single Judge noted that the club has forwarded no evidence in support of this allegation,
or any indication as to whether such obligation was complied with by the club. In
accordance with the principles exceptio non adimpletii contractus and venire contra factum
proprium, the Single Judge determined that the club failed to honour its obligations as to
the delivery of the apartment to the player under the settlement agreement and therefore
it cannot defend itself by trying to claim the performance of such obligation, especially as
no evidence was forwarded in this respect in line with its burden of proof.
40. 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. In this respect, the Single Judge once again
underlined that the player (a) never mentioned the settlement agreement in his claim and
(b) maintained his request for USD 181,000 in his rejoinder. The Single Judge was puzzled
as to why this was the case in that the player could have simply amended his claim seeking
the entire debt of the settlement agreement – which was higher than his original
breakdown for the relevant period – plus the amounts for the season 2022. However, as
he did not do so, the Single Judge is limited to examine the amounts requested as relief, in
line with the principle Ne eat iudex ultra petita partium aut breviter ne ultra petita.
41. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their respective due
dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
a. Allowance for February 2021: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest
per annum as from 1 March 2021 until the date of effective payment;
b. Allowance for March 2021: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 April 2021 until the date of effective payment;
c. Allowance for April 2021: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 May 2021 until the date of effective payment;
d. Allowance for May 2021: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 June 2021 until the date of effective payment;
e. Allowance for June 2021: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 July 2021 until the date of effective payment;
f.
Allowance and salary for July 2021: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5%
interest per annum as from 1 August 2021 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9152
g. Allowance and salary for August 2021: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus
5% interest per annum as from 1 September 2021 until the date of effective payment;
h. Allowance and salary for September 2021: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration
plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 October 2021 until the date of effective payment;
i.
Allowance and salary for October 2021: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus
5% interest per annum as from 1 November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
j.
Allowance and salary for November 2021: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration
plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 December 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
k. Allowance and salary for December 2021: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration
plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective payment;
l.
Allowance for January 2022: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest
per annum as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective payment;
m. Allowance for February 2022: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest
per annum as from 1 March 2022 until the date of effective payment;
n. Allowance for March 2022: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 April 2022 until the date of effective payment;
o. Allowance for April 2022: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective payment;
p. Allowance for May 2022: USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per
annum as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective payment;
q. Allowance and salary for June 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5%
interest per annum as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment;
r. Allowance and salary for July 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5%
interest per annum as from 1 August 2022 until the date of effective payment;
s. Allowance and salary for August 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus
5% interest per annum as from 1 September 2022 until the date of effective payment;
t.
Allowance and salary for September 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration
plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 October 2022 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9152
u. Allowance and salary for October 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus
5% interest per annum as from 1 November 2022 until the date of effective payment;
v. Allowance and salary for November 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration
plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 December 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
w. Allowance and salary for December 2022: USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration
plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9152
e. Costs
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9152
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Sergio Henrique
Francisco.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted insofar it is admissible.
3.
The Respondent, Jorge Wilstermann, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
a. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;
b. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 April 2021
until the date of effective payment;
c. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 May 2021
until the date of effective payment;
d. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 June 2021
until the date of effective payment;
e. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 July 2021
until the date of effective payment;
f.
USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 August
2021 until the date of effective payment;
g. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
September 2021 until the date of effective payment;
h. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 October
2021 until the date of effective payment;
i.
USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
j.
USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
December 2021 until the date of effective payment;
k. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-9152
l.
USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 February
2022 until the date of effective payment;
m. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 March 2022
until the date of effective payment;
n. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 April 2022
until the date of effective payment;
o. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 May 2022
until the date of effective payment;
p. USD 500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 June 2022
until the date of effective payment;
q. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 July
2022 until the date of effective payment;
r. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 August
2022 until the date of effective payment;
s. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
September 2022 until the date of effective payment;
t.
USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 October
2022 until the date of effective payment;
u. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
November 2022 until the date of effective payment;
v. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1
December 2022 until the date of effective payment;
w. USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 January
2023 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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:
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-9152
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-9152
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 19