Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17211
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Carlos Andrey Moreira de Miranda
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Carlos Andrey Moreira de Miranda, Brazil
Represented by Pedro Zaithammer
RESPONDENT:
Al Mahmal, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17211
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Brazilian player (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player) and the
Saudi Arabian club Al Mahmal (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 May 2024 until 31 July 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a
monthly salary of USD 1,150 net, by the last day of each month.
3.
In addition, article 5.6 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“The Player shall be entitled to paid annual leave of [MINIMUM 28 CALENDAR DAYS]. In all
circumstances, the Player shall have the right to paid leave of a minimum length of 28 calendar
days per 12-month period, with a guarantee that at least two weeks of paid leave may be taken
uninterrupted after the first part of the season and at least two weeks after the last official match
of the season. Where the duration of this Contract is less than 12 months, the periods of paid
leave referred to above shall apply on a pro rata basis.
Annual vacation dates shall be as agreed by the Parties in advance. As a general rule, the Player
shall only take annual leave where no official matches are to be played by the Club. Where the
Parties, acting reasonably, fail to reach an agreement in respect of the annual vacation dates,
the Club shall fix the Player’s annual vacation dates according to the needs of the sporting
activity of the Club, taking into account, to the extent possible, the interests of the Player. […]”
4.
Lastly, article 6 of the Contract read as follows:
“The Club shall:
[…]
8. promptly provide the Player with all necessary assistance required to obtain the Iqama (i.e.
residence permit issued by the Saudi Arabian national authorities) as well as any other travel
visas which the Player may reasonably require from time to time in order to exercise his freedom
of movement; […]”
5.
On 15 May 2024, the Club announced on social media the hire of the Player.
6.
On 20 May 2024 the Club announced on social media that the Player will participate in the
Saudi Arabian Football Federation Beach Soccer Classification League Finals.
7.
On 6 June 2024, the Player received a partial salary payment of SAR 2,157.
8.
On July 4, 2024, the beach soccer championship organized by the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation, in which the Player had been contracted to participate, ended.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17211
9.
Throughout the duration of the employment relationship, the Player attempted to contact
the Club via WhatsApp regarding the payment of his remuneration.
10. On 11 July 2024, the Player left Saudi Arabia.
11. On 30 July 2024, the Player asked the CEO of the Club for an update regarding the payment
of his remuneration.
12. On 1 August 2024, the CEO of the Club informed the Player that a payment of SAR 10,780
had been made in respect of his remuneration and provided the corresponding receipt.
13. On 9 August 2024, the Claimant contacted his bank, namely Bradesco Bank inc., regarding
the alleged payment made by the Club on 1 August 2024.
14. On the same day, i.e. 9 August 2024, Bradesco Bank inc. answered the Claimant as follows:
“[…] In fact, the only concrete information contained in the receipt sent is the IBAN code, which
is correct.
Meanwhile, notice that it has a code on the front (MS00090278). I am not aware of what the
code is about and it would be interesting to understand whether this number was used before
the IBAN code or not, as it would change the IBAN configuration and possibly impact the receipt
of the order.
Therefore, we are waiting for the official bank receipt of the shipment for further verification
and to be sure of the data used to send the order. […]”
15. On the same day, i.e. 9 August 2024, the Player asked the CEO of the Club for an update
regarding the payment of his remuneration and requested the official bank receipt, as he
had not received the payment dated 1 August 2024.
16. On 10 August 2024, the CEO of the Club informed the Player that he only has in his
possession the receipt he provided on 1 August 2024.
17. On an unspecified date, the Club provided the Player with a document entitled “Clearance”
dated 10 July 2024 (hereinafter: the Clearance) which the Player supposedly signed,
stipulating that he acknowledged having received all of his dues from the Club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 22 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17211
a. Position of the Claimant
19. In his claim, the Player submitted evidence to prove his employment relationship with the
Club as he noted that the latter never provided him with a signed copy of the Contract. In
this regard, the Player stated that he was hired to compete in an official beach soccer
championship organized by the Saudi Arabian Football Federation.
20. In addition, the Claimant stated that he is entitled to the following outstanding amounts,
for which he put the Respondent in default on 2 October 2024:
•
USD 574.93 as the salary for May 2024;
•
USD 1,150 as the salary for June 2024;
•
USD 1,150 as the salary for July 2024;
•
USD 580.35 (BRL 2,990.32) as reimbursement for the visa;
•
USD 1,892.24 (BRL 10,248.75) as reimbursement for flight tickets; and
•
USD 287.50 as annual paid leave (1/4 of a year).
21. Lastly, the Player argued that the Clearance provided by the Club in response to his
correspondence dated 2 October 2024 is null and void as he does not recall signing it and
it may have been altered. In this regard, the Player argued that the Clearance is dated 10
July 2024 and that the Club continued to promise him the payment of his remuneration
after the alleged signing of the Clearance, which demonstrate that there are still
outstanding amounts to be paid.
22. Considering the foregoing, the Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
•
Outstanding remuneration of USD 5,635.02, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the day
the payments were effectively due; and
•
1% of the claim’s value due to the inadequate food provided, which forced him to
pay for his own meals.
b. Position of the Respondent
23. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17211
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 22 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 24 July 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.
25. 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) (July 2025
edition), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player and a Saudi
Arabian club.
26. 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 July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. 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. Merits of the dispute
28. 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17211
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Claimant disputes the alleged payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the Contract, namely USD 5,635.02.
30. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Respondent did not respond to the claim,
entailing that its 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.
31. In this context, and given that only an unsigned copy of the Contract is on file, the Chamber
acknowledged that its first task was to determine whether the Contract, allegedly
concluded between the parties on an unspecified date, can be considered a valid and
binding employment contract. If so, the Chamber noted that its second task would be to
assess whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Respondent and
whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied with its financial
obligations.
32. The Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence which dictates that, in
order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the
consent of the employer and the employee (usually manifested by their signature to the
relevant employment contract), it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment
contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment
relationship and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
33. In the present matter, the Chamber pointed out that the Contract included all the relevant
information at the basis of an employment relationship between contractual parties except
the signature of both parties. Specifically, the Chamber observed that the Contract
provided for the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable
to the Player and clearly stipulated that the Player is employed as a footballer with the Club.
34. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that it had to assess whether the consent of the
parties could be inferred from the evidence submitted to the file.
35. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, a party claiming a right based on an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of
proof. On this note, the Chamber considered that it was up to the Player to prove the
parties’ consent to the contract. In other words, it was for the Player to prove that the
employment relationship on which he claims outstanding remuneration from the Club did
in fact exist.
36. In the present matter, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber
was of the opinion that the Claimant provided sufficient evidence to establish a valid and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17211
binding employment relationship with the Respondent. In fact, the Chamber took note of
the correspondence on file between the parties, the photos submitted by the Club and that
the Contract provided for the duration of the employment relationship, the remuneration
payable to the Player and it clearly stipulated that the Player is employed as a footballer
with the Club. In addition, the Chamber acknowledged the evidence provided by the Player
to prove that he was part of the Club’s WhatsApp group and that the Club issued a check
in his name.
37. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary provided by the Club, the Chamber
considered that the parties have concluded a valid and binding employment contract and
that it shall be considered as the contractual basis of the present dispute.
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent
bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract
concluded between the parties as well with the alleged Clearance. Nonetheless, regardless
of the wording of the Clearance, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent failed to reply
to the claim and therefore did not provide any evidence to prove the payment of the
amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber stated no
reasonable justification was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the
terms of the contract.
39. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also pointed out that the Club did promise the
Player the payment of his remuneration after the alleged signing of the Clearance on 10
July 2024 and that it did not dispute this assertion.
40. As a consequence, and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda, which
in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the
Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from the
Contract concluded between the parties. In this regard, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
•
USD 574.93 as the salary for May 2024;
•
USD 1,150 as the salary for June 2024; and
•
USD 1,150 as the salary for July 2024.
41. In continuation, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s requests for reimbursement of
the flight tickets and the visa related fees, the annual paid leave, and 1% of his claim’s value
for the alleged inadequate food provided by the Club due to a lack of legal basis and
necessary supporting evidence. In this regard, the Chamber observed that (i) the Player’s
visa indicates that there are no fees to be paid; and that (ii) the Player is requesting
reimbursement of both his visa and that of his teammate.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17211
42. With respect to the Player’s request for annual paid leave, the Chamber held that article
5.6 of the Contract does not entitle him to any additional remuneration beyond the value
of the Contract, and that, in any event, such leave must have been taken during the term
of the employment relationship. Thus, in the absence of any evidence substantiating the
Player’s claim, the Chamber decided to reject the request.
43. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
•
USD 574.93 as the salary for May 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024
until the date of effective payment;
•
USD 1,150 as the salary for June 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024 until
the date of effective payment; and
•
USD 1,150 as the salary for July 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2024
until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
44. 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
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
45. 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.
46. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
47. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17211
48. 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
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17211
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Carlos Andrey Moreira de Miranda, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Mahmal, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 2,874.93 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 574.93 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,150 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,150 as from 1 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
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. 11
REF. FPSD-17211
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. 12