Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16059
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Luis Mateo
Ortiz Lara
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Luis Mateo Ortiz Lara, Ecuador
Represented by Juan Pablo Giraldo
RESPONDENT:
FC Sheriff, Moldova
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16059
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 January 2024, the Ecuadorian player, Luis Mateo Ortiz Lara (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Moldovan club, FC Sheriff (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 20 January
2024 until 31 December 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player, inter alia, a USD
7,000 monthly salary.
3.
Between 1 May and 16 May 2024, the Player received messages from the Club instructing
him to train separately from the team.
4.
On 18 May 2024, the Club purchased one way flight tickets for the Player to travel to
Ecuador for his vacation, without a return flight to Moldova.
5.
On 17 June 2024, the Player is removed from the team’s WhatsApp group chat by a Club
employee.
6.
On 9 July 2024, the translator of the Club (hereinafter: the Club’s translator), sent two
documents to the Player under the titles “Proof of Last Contract” and “Additional Agreement
to the Employment contract” both dated 4 July 2024. According to the evidence on file,
neither document was ever signed by the Player.
7.
On 19 July 2024, the Player sent a formal request urging the Club to facilitate his return to
Tiraspol by purchasing return tickets for him.
8.
On 24 July 2024, the Club issued a statement on its official website announcing that the
Player and the Club had mutually agreed to terminate the Contract.
9.
On 30 July 2024, the Player arrived at the Club’s facilities and recorded a video in the locker
room showing the belongings of other players who were presumably training with the team
at that time.
10. Between 31 July and 22 August 2024, the Player recorded videos at the Club's premises,
claiming he was being denied access to the facilities, along with other videos training alone
in a private gym.
11. On 5 August 2024, the Player sent a formal request to the Club, urging to reintegrate him
into the squad within 10 days.
12. On 12 August 2024, the Club’s translator resent the “Proof of Last Contract” document to
the Player.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16059
13. On 23 August 2024, the Player sent a formal request to the Club, stating that the Contract
had not been terminated and that, if he was not registered with the Club by the end of the
registration period, he would have just cause to terminate the Contract.
14. On 27 August 2024, the Club’s translator and the Player had a three-minute call in which
she told the Player:
-
That he had not been a player of the Club for a long time and that there were papers
with his signature, therefore, as he was no longer a player of the Club, he was wasting
his time;
-
That he could be deported from the country when he reached to the border;
-
That if he took the case to FIFA arbitration, he would need at least USD 10,000 and a
good lawyer, and that during the arbitration, which always lasts two to three years, he
would not be able to play.
15. On 7 September 2024, the Player recorded videos of himself being arrested by individuals
who, based on the evidence in the case file, could not be identified as police officers.
16. By a correspondence dated 7 September 2024, the Player sent a formal notice to the Club
demanding his safe departure from the country within 48 hours.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 16 September 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
18. According to the Player, on 1 August 2024, he had a meeting with the Club’s representatives
in which the latter informed him that his Contract was terminated. According to the Player,
the Club advised him that he had signed certain documents agreeing to the mutual
termination of the Contract, which he denied.
19. According to the Player, on 9 September 2024, his Legal Representative and the Club held
a virtual meeting during which the Club informed them that the Player would be free of
police charges whenever he signs the termination of the Contract.
20. According to the Player, he left Moldova for Türkiye on 10 September 2024 due to constant
pressure from the Club, including being forced to sign the termination of the Contract.
21. The Player argued that the Club induced him to terminate the Contract based, among
others, on the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16059
-
The Club instructed the Player to train separately from the team;
-
Purchasing one-way airplane tickets for the Player to travel to Ecuador;
-
Not sending the training plan and the preseason start date to the Player;
-
Removing the Player from the team’s WhatsApp group chat;
-
Denying him access to the Club’s training facilities;
-
Removing him from the first team’s training sessions and official matches;
-
Not registering the Player for official competitions; and
-
Deploying personnel to deprive him of his freedom in the city of Tiraspol.
22. According to the Player, all the above entitled him to terminate the Contract in accordance
with art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players since the Club
engaged in abusive conduct against him.
23. In addition, the Player argued that there was no mutual agreement to terminate the
Contract.
24. The requests for relief of the Player were the following:
“1. TOTAL RECLAMADO Un monto total de CIENTO DIECINUEVE MIL DOLARES AMERICANOS
($119,000) por concepto de daño por inducción a la ruptura contractual entre el MATEO ORTIZ
y el club CJSC SC Sheriff.
Ecuación de la indemnización:
- Factor de remuneración: SIETE MIL DOLARES AMERICANOS (USD 7,000) – Cláusula Novena
del Contrato de Trabajo
- Factor de tiempo restante del contrato existente: 15 de enero de 2024 hasta el 31 de
diciembre de 2025.
- Factor de deducción: A la fecha de presentación de la demanda el jugador no ha realizado
o suscrito un nuevo contrato con otro club, por lo tanto, no hay deducción del importe que
el jugador puede reclamar.
2. INTERESES
A una tasa del cinco por ciento anual (5%) conforme con la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal de
Fútbol de la FIFA y del Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte, desde la fecha de presentación de la
presente demanda.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16059
3. AGENCIA EN DERECHO
Condenar en agencias en derecho CJSC SC Sheriff de Tiraspol. Por un monto total de SIETE MIL
DOLARES AMERICANOS (USD $7,000) equivalentes a un mes de salario del jugador demandante.
4. SANCIONE DEPORTIVAS:
En caso de declarar la responsabilidad contractual del club CJSC SC Sheriff de Tiraspol por la
inducción a la ruptura del contrato laboral. Imponer la sanción de prohibición de inscripción
de jugadores de acuerdo con el artículo 24 del REJT de la FIFA.”
Freely translated into English:
"1. TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED A total amount of ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE THOUSAND
AMERICAN DOLLARS ($119,000) for damages for inducement of contractual breach between
MATEO ORTIZ and the CJSC SC Sheriff club.
Compensation equation:
- Compensation Factor: SEVEN THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS (USD 7,000) - Clause Ninth of
the Employment Agreement.
- Remaining time factor of the existing contract: January 15, 2024 through December 31, 2025.
- Deduction Factor: As of the date of filing the claim the player has not made or entered into
a new contract with another club, therefore, there is no deduction from the amount the player
can claim.
2. INTEREST
At a rate of five percent per annum (5%) in accordance with the jurisprudence of this FIFA
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, from the date of filing of this lawsuit.
3. AGENCY AT LAW
To award in agencies at law CJSC SC Sheriff of Tiraspol. For a total amount of SEVEN THOUSAND
AMERICAN DOLLARS (USD $7,000) equivalent to one month's salary of the claimant player.
4. SPORTS SANCTIONS:
In case of declaring the contractual liability of the club CJSC SC Sheriff Tiraspol for inducing the
breach of the labour contract. Impose the sanction of ban on registration of players in
accordance with article 24 of the FIFA RSTP."
b. Position of the Club
25. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16059
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. 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 16 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 23 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 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.
27. 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 (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 an Ecuadorian
player and a Moldovan club.
28. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the January
2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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
30. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-16059
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
is a claim of a player against a club concerning the termination of the employment
relationship.
32. The Chamber further noted that the Club did not provide its position on the claim, and
according to the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, it must be considered
that it has renounced its right to defence. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that,
based on art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken based on the
documentation on file (i.e., the statements and documents presented by the Player).
33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to decide (i) on what date the
Contract was terminated and (ii) whether there was just cause to terminate the Contract.
34. Regarding the Contract’s date of termination, the Chamber observed that, despite the
existence of a public official statement in which the Club had informed that both parties
had mutually terminated the Contract, the Player had rejected such mutual termination.
35. The Chamber also took note that, in all communications sent to the Club, the Player had
insisted on the fulfilment of the Contract, including the last formal communication dated
23 August 2024, which followed the one of 5 August 2024, in which the Club had been
granted 10 days to comply with its contractual obligations.
36. The Chamber further observed that in the Player’s last communication, dated 7 September
2024, he refrained from requesting the fulfilment of the Contract and instead requested
his release within the next 48 hours, stating:
“(…) We demand the protection of Mateo and his accompaniment in the player's departure from
the country in the next 48 hours, or we will publish the whole situation in the necessary channels
so that the sports world knows firsthand how the Club treats its players.”
37. The Chamber analysed the circumstances and, in the absence of a clear termination letter,
decided that the Player had unilaterally terminated the Contract on 7 September 2024. In
this regard, the Chamber noted that this was the date on which the Player had explicitly
ceased insisting on the fulfilment of the Contract, representing a definitive change in his
stance towards the contractual relationship.
38. That being established, the Chamber proceeded to analyse whether the Player had just
cause to terminate the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16059
39. The Chamber took note of the Player’s allegation that the Club, through its abusive and
deliberate conduct, forced his termination of the Contract. In particular, the Chamber
noted that the Player claimed that:
-
He was instructed to train separately from the team;
-
He was removed from the team’s WhatsApp group chat;
-
His formal request for the Club to arrange his return to Tiraspol by purchasing the
necessary travel tickets was ignored;
-
He was excluded from the Club’s first team;
-
He was denied access to the Club’s facilities;
-
The Club publicly announced, through its official website, that both parties had
mutually agreed to terminate the Contract;
-
He was not registered to compete in official competitions with the Club;
-
His formal request for reintegration into the squad was not addressed; and
-
His formal correspondence regarding the validity of the Contract and his
registration with the Club was systematically ignored.
40. In this respect, the Chamber first referred to art. 14 of the Regulations according to which,
"A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment
of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In general, just
cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be reasonably expected in good
faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship."
41. Generally, as stated in art. 14 of the Regulations, a premature termination may be issued
only in circumstances in which it can no longer, reasonably and in good faith, be expected
from the party issuing the termination to continue the respective contractual relationship.
In line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the termination of a
contract should always be an action of last resort, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken
in order for an employee to assure the employer’s fulfilment of its contractual duties, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. In other words, as
consistently held by this Chamber, a premature termination of an employment contract
can only be an ultima ratio measure.
42. In line with the above, the Chamber also referred to the specific wording of art. 14 par. 2
of the Regulations, according to which “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the
counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a
player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16059
43. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the ample evidence provided by the Player to
substantiate his allegations.
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the principle of burden of proof, the Chamber
noted that the behaviour of the Club, consisting of the Player’s exclusion from official team
activities, denial of access to club facilities, a disregard for the Player’s formal requests,
public misrepresentation of his contractual status, and obstruction of the Player’s
professional reintegration is clearly and deliberately abusive. Furthermore, the Chamber
took note of the evidence provided by the Player, showing that he consistently and in good
faith tried to contact the Club and requested to be allowed to comply with the terms of the
Contract.
45. In this context, the Chamber concluded that, based on the evidence in the file, the
circumstances of the present case are in line with art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations and,
therefore, the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract due to the Club’s abusive
conduct.
ii. Consequences
46. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of Contract committed by the Club.
47. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to one salary under
the Contract, amounting to USD 7,000.
48. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 7,000.
49. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 26 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
50. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16059
51. 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. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the Contract at the basis of
the matter at stake.
52. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, as a general rule, the compensation to be
paid to the player by the club shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was
prematurely terminated, unless the player signed a new contract following the termination
of his previous contract.
53. 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 under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 112,000 (i.e. 16 times USD 7,000) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
54. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
Chamber as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
55. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
termination of the Contract.
56. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
57. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 112,000, i.e. 16 times USD 7,000, as the residual value of the
Contract.
58. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16059
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
63. 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
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16059
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luis Mateo Ortiz Lara, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Sheriff, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 7,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 September
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 112,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
September 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. 13
REF. FPSD-16059
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 – 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. 14