Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18788
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Joao Pedro
Oliveira
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Joao Pedro Oliveira, Brazil
Represented by Victor de Sordi
RESPONDENT:
Qingdao Red Lions Football Club, China PR
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18788
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 February 2024, the Brazilian player, Joao Pedro Oliveira (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Chinese club, Qingdao Red Lions Football Club (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from the date of signing until 31 December 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Clause 3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the total salary of USD 102,715 as follows:
“1. During the term of this Contract, the total salary of [the Player] is USD 102,715.00 Pre tax
(in word: 102,715.00 US Dollar, i.e. approximately USD 80,000 after tax). For clarification, the
payment details are as following:
1.1 From 26 February 2024 to 29 February 2024, the total salary of [the Player] is USD
2,715 Pre tax (in word: 2,715, US Dollar, i.e. approximately USD 2280 after tax);
1.2 From March 2024 to 31 December 2024, [the Player]'s salary shall be paid monthly in
USD 10,000.00 Pre tax (in word: 10000.00 US Dollar, i.e. approximately U$SD 7,772 after
tax).”
3.
On 24 September 2024, the parties entered into a contract entitled “Players contract
additional agreement” (hereinafter: the Additional Agreement), with a duration of one
season.
4.
Clause 4 of the Additional Agreement indicated as follows, quoted verbatim:
“4. During the winter training of [the Club]'s team, if [the Player]'s team coach and team doctor
can fully recover through warm-up matches and training inspection, [the Club] doctor can
fully recover through warm-up matches and training inspection, [the Club] will sign the 2025
work contract with [the Player]. The specific contract terms are as follows:
A) Contract years of 1 season;
B) The monthly salary is $5000 (after tax);
(…)”
5.
Clause 5 and 6 of the Additional Agreement indicated as follows:
“5. If [the Player] is unable to participate in [the Club]'s professional football league due to
injury during the winter training of [the Club]'s team, both parties are unable to complete the
2025 season contract signing, and [the Player] shall bear the treatment expenses incurred by
the injury;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18788
6. If [the Club]'s team fails to avoid relegation in the 2024 season, [the Player] does not need
to return to [the Club]'s team for winter training.
Neither party has no objection, in duplicate.”
6.
On 11 December 2024, the Respondent issued an invitation letter to the Chinese embassy
in Brazil, stating as follows, quoted verbatim:
“INVTATION
To:Embaixada da República Popular da China no Brasil
Dear OLIVEIRA Joan Pedro
Our company sincerely invites the Brazilian athlete OLIVEIRA Joan Pedro, passport number
YE452813, date of birth June 17, 1999, to come to China for Business visit from December
30, 2024 to March 25, 2025. All expenses during the stay in China will be borne by our
company, and we hope the embassy will approve it.”
7.
On 8 January 2025, the Claimant received his Chinese visa, allowing him to stay in China for
90 days.
8.
On 12 January 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment, claiming the
Club had terminated the employment relationship prematurely and without a valid reason.
In the notice, the Claimant requested the Club to, within 10 days: (i) confirm its intention to
continue with the employment relationship; (ii) issue the flight ticket from Brazil to China;
and (iii) to settle the financial obligations owed to the Player, amounting to USD 5,000.
9.
On 31 January 2025, a contact identified by the Claimant as a Respondent representative
sent him a termination notice via text message, stating as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Hi how r u, for your situation, club and coach group have the decision think until now the
team is impossible to think one foreign player position on the central defender's pisiton, so
until now we think it is no necessary invite you to come back to have the trail. This is the idea
right now from the club. Sorry about this, we really hope you can come back, but the situation
is too difficult to give one defender position for this season for foreign player.”
10. On 24 February 2025, the Claimant sent a second default notice to the Respondent, in
which he reiterated his previous request to the Club, only adding that his credit now
amounted to USD 10,000. The Claimant gave the Respondent 5 days to remedy the
situation and stated that this notice served as an ultima ratio measure, at the risk of
termination.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18788
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 28 Mach 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. In his claim, the Claimant argued that during his season at the Club, he suffered a significant
injury that required immediate medical attention, which was allegedly received in Brazil.
13. According to the Claimant, following this incident, the parties decided to enter the
Additional Agreement on 10 September 2024 in order to secure the return of the Player to
China.
14. The Claimant argued that the Additional Agreement is a contractual extension, containing
all the essentialia negotii, intended to ensure the continuation of the employment
relationship for the 2025 season.
15. The Claimant argued that, in any case, the Additional Agreement should at least be
considered as a pre-contract.
16. The Claimant also argued that he complied with his obligations under the Additional
Agreement: he allegedly underwent medical treatment and remained available to return
to the Club.
17. Moreover, according to the Claimant, under the Additional Agreement, the Club had the
obligation to (i) pay a monthly salary of USD 5,000; (ii) arrange for the Player’s return and
provide flight tickets; and (iii) schedule medical evaluation or training reintegration.
18. In this sense, the Claimant signalled the concrete steps taken by the Club, namely the
submission of the necessary documents for the issuance of the Player’s entry visa to China.
19. However, the Claimant argued that the Club never formally required any medical
examination, nor did it express any concern regarding the Player’s physical fitness.
20. According to the Claimant, he made several attempts to contact the Respondent from “midJanuary 2025 onward” requesting travelling dates from Brazil to China but was met with no
response from the Club.
21. The Claimant further signalled that, on 31 January 2025, the Club sent a message to the
Player stating that they no longer required his services.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18788
22. The Claimant asserted that he was consequently placed in an untenable professional
position, as he was unable to secure a contract with a new club due to the closure of
transfer windows in most countries. This situation, according to the Claimant, resulted in a
significant loss of both financial income and career development opportunities.
23. The Claimant then claimed to have terminated the contractual relationship as an ultima
ratio measure, having allegedly exhausted all reasonable avenues and once he considered
there was a loss of trust between the parties, and that the continuation of the Contract was
impossible.
24. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“In view of the aforementioned, the Claimant respectfully requests to this honorable
Chamber the following relief:
(i) To enforce FIFA’s Football Tribunal jurisdiction as competent to rule on the matter;
(ii) To conclude that the Additional Agreement was a new Employment Agreement;
(iii) To rule that the Claimant had just cause to early terminate the employment
relationship;
(iv) To rule that the Respondent shall pay to the Player USD 10,000 as overdue payments
related to his salary from January and February;
(v) To rule that the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant a compensation calculated from
the residual value of the Employment Agreement in the amount of USD 50.000 (fifty
thousand dollars) due to the early termination of the Employment Agreement;
(vi) To order the Respondent to pay interest on the said amounts of 5% p.a, calculated pro
rata;
(vii) To impose a sporting sanction on the Club pursuant to Article 17, par. 3 of the FIFA
RSTP;
(viii) To order the Club to cover all costs of the proceedings and to bear all the legal fees
and costs incurred by the Player in connection with the present matter.”
b. Position of the Respondent
25. The Club failed to respond to the claim despite being invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18788
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 28 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
24 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 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 Brazilian player and a Chinese 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. 26 of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18788
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that,
according to the Claimant, he terminated the employment relationship and particularly the
Additional Agreement with just cause.
32. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the validity and
legal nature of the Additional Agreement, whether there was a termination with just cause
by the Claimant and the consequences thereof.
33. The Chamber then recalled that, in accordance with consistent jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, an employment contract is deemed valid and enforceable only if it
includes the essentialia negotii of such an agreement. These elements typically comprise
the identification of the parties and their respective roles, the duration of the employment,
the agreed remuneration, and the mutual consent of both parties.
34. In the present case, a thorough examination of the Additional Agreement reveals that it in
fact includes the following:
⎯ the term of the employment relationship;
⎯ the compensation due to the Player;
⎯ the nature of the services to be provided; and
⎯ both parties.
35. The Chamber acknowledged that although some ambiguity exists regarding the duration
of the Additional Agreement, as it refers to a term of “contract years of 1 season”, based on
the context of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances of the case, it can be
reasonably interpreted that the intended duration corresponds to the entirety of the 2025
season.
36. The Chamber then recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which just cause
shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably and in good faith
be expected to continue a contractual relationship. In other words, only when there are
objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order to ensure the
fulfilment of an employer’s contractual duties, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract
can only be an ultima ratio.
37. The Chamber further recalled that, in the present matter, the burden of proof lies with the
Claimant to demonstrate either that he terminated his employment contract with just
cause, or, alternatively, that the Club unilaterally terminated such contract without just
cause.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18788
38. With the above in mind, the majority of the Chamber was not convinced by the Claimant’s
arguments, as detailed in continuation.
39. Firstly, the Chamber assessed the Claimant's submission, in which it noted an
inconsistency. Specifically, the so-called first default notice states on its face that it was sent
on 12 January 2025 (while the Claim describes it as being sent “in January” without further
specification) but refers to evidence dated 31 January 2025; this incongruency undermines
the credibility of the notice and suggests, as does its place in the chronology included in
the Claim, that it may have been sent on 12 February rather than 12 January.
40. Secondly, the Claimant failed to provide any delivery receipts or confirmation that either of
the default notices were actually sent to the Respondent, leaving the Chamber unable to
verify whether either of the communications ever reached its intended recipient (and
when).
41. Thirdly, after the Chamber reviewed the text message evidence submitted, it noted that
the messages lacked clear identification of the sender and recipient. No names, contact
details, or other verifiable markers were provided to confirm that a communication
originated from a representative of Qingdao Red Lions FC or was received by the Claimant.
As a result, the majority of the Chamber found this evidence unreliable and insufficient to
establish that the Respondent had formally or informally terminated the employment
relationship.
42. Fourthly, the Chamber considered the Claimant’s argument that the issuance of a visa by
the Chinese authorities, based on an invitation letter from the Club, demonstrated the
execution of the Additional Agreement. However, the Chamber clarified that the issuance
of a visa is an administrative formality and does not, in itself, constitute proof of contractual
execution, let alone of a premature termination of a contract.
43. In light of this, the majority of the Chamber considered that the Claimant’s own actions,
including the issuance of a default notice referencing future-dated evidence and lacking
proof of delivery undermined the credibility of his claim of termination with just cause.
Additionally, the alleged termination by the Respondent was not proven, and the evidence
presented ⎯particularly the text messages⎯ was deemed unreliable due to the lack of
identifiable parties.
44. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s argument that the issuance of a visa
by the Chinese authorities, based on an invitation letter from the Club, could indicate the
execution of the Additional Agreement. However, the majority of the Chamber decided that
this element alone does not appear conclusive. The issuance of a visa is primarily an
administrative formality and does not, in itself, constitute proof of contractual execution.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18788
45. Based on the above, the majority of the Chamber concluded that, absent sufficiently
persuasive evidence of a breakdown of the parties’ relationship or a definitive act of
termination by the Respondent, the Claimant has not established that he had just cause to
terminate the employment relationship.
46. Therefore, while referring to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and the principle of the
burden of proof, the majority of the Chamber understood that in spite of the apparent
formal validity of the Additional Agreement vis-à-vis FIFA’s jurisprudence regarding the
essentialia negotii, the Player did not meet his burden of proof in order to demonstrate that
he had just cause to terminate. The inconsistencies in the timeline, lack of verifiable
communication, and absence of persuasive evidence led the majority of the Chamber to
determine that the claim could not be substantiated.
47. Therefore, the majority of the Chamber decided that, based on the evidentiary
shortcomings identified, the claim shall be rejected.
d. Costs
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18788
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joao Pedro Oliveira, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18788
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