Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6536
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 September 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Tiago Luis Martins
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
José Luis ANDRADE (Portugal), member
Alexandra GÓMEZ BRUINEWOUD (Uruguay & Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Tiago Luis Martins, Brazil
Represented by Mr Carlos Eduardo Licks Flores
RESPONDENT:
Al Hamriya, UAE
REF FPSD-6536
I Facts
1. According to the information contained in the TMS, the Thai club, Rayong FC and the player entered
into a contract valid as from 21 December 2019 until 31 October 2020.
2. Following the same source, Rayong FC and the player concluded a termination agreement effective
as from 13 May 2020.
3. The player Tiago Luis Martins and Al Hamriya signed the following document, dated 19 May 2020:
4. According to the player, on 30 June 2020, the club informed him that he should not travel to the
United Arab Emirates (no evidence on file).
5. The player declared that he subsequently remained unemployed.
6. However, in accordance with the information contained in the TMS, the player concluded a transfer
agreement with the Brazilian club, AD Confiança, valid as from 15 August 2020 until 31 January 2021,
for a monthly salary of BRL 2,000 (note: equivalent to approx. USD 380)
REF FPSD-6536
II Proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber
7. On 28 June 2022, the player Tiago Luis Martins lodged a claim before for breach of contract without
just cause and requested the payment of compensation in the amount of USD 120,000.
8. The player explained that he also resigned from his previous club in Thailand in order to join the
Respondent.
9. The player stated that the non-execution of the contract cause him “immense financial and moral
damage”.
10. The Respondent replied as follows:
“With reference to the report of the seed, we would like to inform you that the offer sent to the mentioned
player is not official, as the player was not sent on the specified date, and we would like to explain to you
that the player’s clearance with his previous club is on a date before sending the contract offer as mentioned
in the clearance from his previous club.”
REF FPSD-6536
III Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber) 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 28 June 2022 and submitted for decision on 1 September 2022.
Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 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.
2.
Subsequently, the Chamber 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 (June 2022 edition), it is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Brazilian player and an Emirati club.
3.
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 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 28 June 2022, the June 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
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
(TMS).
c. Admissibility
5.
At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations (edition June 2022), 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.
6.
In this context, the Chamber observed that the matter at stake concerns the breach, on 30 June
2020 (cf. point I 4 above), of a contract allegedly concluded on 19 May 2020. Given that the claim
REF FPSD-6536
was lodged on 28 June 2022, the Chamber observed that the claim was made within the period
established in art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations and therefore confirmed that the matter is admissible.
d. Merits of the dispute
7.
Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i.
Main legal discussion and considerations
8.
The Chamber first noted that the matter at stake concerns the contractual validity of a document
dated 19 May 2020, allegedly concluded between the parties.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club
and requested the payment of compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
10. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the position of the club, which stated that “the offer
sent to the mentioned player is not official, as the player was not sent on the specified date”.
11. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that the main legal issue at stake is to determine
whether the aforementioned document was a valid and binding employment contract.
12. After carefully examining the evidence on file, the Chamber observed that there is no sufficient
information about the conclusion of said document. In particular, the Chamber was of the opinion
the player could have provided more background information about the context of the signature of
this contract, including previous correspondence, to prove the conclusion of a contract.
13. In addition, the Chamber also noted that there is no real evidence that the player signed said
document before 25 May 2020, as required by the offer. The Chamber also observed that it is
unknown whether the player signed the contract in person or via the exchange of electronic
correspondence. In this last case, if the signature was made digitally or via exchange or electronic
correspondence, the Chamber considered that the player could have provided the relevant
transmission reports. However, none of said potential evidence was submitted during the
proceedings.
14. Furthermore, the Chamber also highlighted that the present practically two years after the alleged
conclusion of the contract, and that he did not send any default notice. The Chamber considered
that this serves as an indicator that the player had no real interest in joining the club.
15. As a result, the Chamber had no other option than to reject the claim.
REF FPSD-6536
e.
Costs
16. 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.
17. Furthermore, 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.
18. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
REF FPSD-6536
IV Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Tiago Luis Martins, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
REF FPSD-6536
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification
of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the
request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish
an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777