Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19022
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Raphael
Vinicius Sabella Pereira Dos Santos
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Raphael Vinicius Sabella Pereira Dos Santos, Brazil
Represented by Mariju Maciel e Marina Maciel Advogados & Associados
RESPONDENT:
FC Nikarm, Armenia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19022
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 May 2024, the Armenian club FC Nikarm (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
sent an offer (hereinafter: the Offer) to the Brazilian player Raphael Vinicius Sabella Pereira
Dos Santos (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant) with the following conditions (quote
verbatim):
“If he remains in the First team, our club will offer.
Salary USD 300 per month
Stay Expense
Health insurance
Feeding
Stay
If alternate First and Second Team Our club will offer.
Salary USD 100 per month
Stay expense
Health insurance
Feeding
Stay”
2.
On 1 August 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from 1 August 2024 until 31 May 2025.
3.
According to clause 6 of the Contract, the parties agreed the following (quote verbatim):
“6.1 The Player shall receive monthly salary and rewards according to the annex 1, which
is attached to this Contract and considered as an integral part of it.
6.2 The payment term and order of salary, as well as the payment order of rewards are
also defined by the above-mentioned annex”.
4.
Upon the Player’s arrival at the Club, the latter provided the former a shared house with
other teammates.
5.
On 1 December 2024, the Club signed a termination agreement which did not bear the
signature of the Player. The termination agreement read as follows (quote verbatim):
“[…] 1. The parties mutually decided to terminate the employment contract No. 115 signed
on 01.08.2024 hereinafter: the Employment Agreement). Consider December 01, 2024 as the
termination date.
2. The parties hereby certify that they do not have any obligations, including financial,
towards each other arising from the Employment Agreement.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19022
3. By this agreement, the football player is given the status of “free football player.” This
agreement is made up of 2 equal copies in the Armenian and English language, one copy for
each party. One copy of this agreement is submitted by the club to the FFA electronically for
approval.”
6.
On 9 January 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club stating the following (quote
verbatim):
“[…] Considering that the Club sent an offer to the Player dated 28 May 2024. The offer
included a monthly wage of USD
300,00 (three hundred American dollars),
accommodation, health insurance and feeding. The offer was accepted by the Player.
Considering that the Player and the Club signed employment contract named
“Employment Contract 115”, valid between 1st August 2024 and 31 May2025.
Considering that after the parties signed the employment contract, the Club
accommodated the Player in a house with terrible conditions. The place is absolutely dirty,
has no furniture, has no warm water, and under no circumstances might it be considered
as a decent place for anyone.
Considering that the Club failed to comply with all the Player’s salaries since he joined the
Club.
Considering that even though the Club has a contractual obligation on providing food to
the Player, the Club never complied with this obligation. The Player never received any
amount from the Club, and had to spend big quantities (over USD 1500,00) form his own
savings to eat and maintain his livelihood.
Considering that the employment contract established that the Player has the right to
“demand the payment of the monthly salary stipulated by this Contract (or current Annex)
in time”, as well as the Club’s obligation “to pay the respective salary, as well as other
amounts or rewards due to be paid to the Player in time”.
Moreover, the employment contract also determines that “The Player shall receive
monthly salary and rewards according to the annex 1, which is attached to this Contract
and considered as an integral part of it”. All those determinations of the contract were not
respected by the Club.
Considering that the facts mentioned below would already be considered a just cause for
the player to terminate the contract.
Considering that in December 2024, the Player and the Club mutually agreed on
terminating the employment contract. It is important to mention that the Player only
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19022
accepted this conditions because he had urgency to find a new opportunity to continue
his career, considering that the Club was not paying anything to him.
In January2025, the Club sent an “Agreement” already stamped and signed by its
President. However, the agreement mentions, on its clause 2, that “the parties hereby
certify that they do not have any obligations, including financial, towards each other
arising from the Employment Agreement”, even though any amount was paid to the Player
until the present moment, and the Club did not manifest any intention on complying with
its delayed obligations.
This disposition of the Agreement is unacceptable to the Player. Moreover, the payer has
urgency to solve his situation regarding the Club, considering that the transfer window is
currently open, and the Player needs to work.
Considering the above, the Player notifies the Club to, within Tuesday (14 January 2025):
-
Exclude the Clause 2 from the “Agreement” and provide the Player with an updated
version of the “Agreement”, duly signed and stamped by the Club.
In case the deadline expires without any response from the club, or in case the Club is
unable to comply with any of the abovementioned requests for reasons that the
Player does not have any responsibility, the Player reserves all its rights, including
the right to terminate the employment contract with just cause due to all the abusive and
illegal conducts performed by the Club exposed above, and to claim for his rights before
the FIFA judicial bodies, as well to report to FIFA and FIFPro any abusive conducts
performed by the Club. […]”
7.
On 15 January 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club reiterating the above-mentioned
default notice and informing the club that he terminated his employment contract with just
cause due to the abusive conducts of the Club.
8.
On 26 February 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club reiterating the termination letter
sent on 15 January 2025 and requesting the payment of USD 4,358.22 within 10 days,
corresponding to the outstanding remuneration and to the residual value of the Contract
considering that the Player terminated his Contract with just cause.
9.
On 11 March 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club reiterating his previous
correspondence and giving a 5-day deadline to the Club to comply with the requested.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19022
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 24 April 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
11. The Player alleged having just cause to terminate the Contract considering that the Club
had not paid any of the salaries since the beginning of the Contract, the house provided
was inhabitable and none of the expenses contractually agreed were covered by the Club.
12. Regarding the house, the Player alleged that it was an “abandoned and dirty building, had
no furniture, had no doors and windows, had no beds, had no warm water, and under no
circumstances might it be considered a decent place for anyone”. In this regard, the Player
provided videos and photos as supporting documentation.
13. In this regard, the Player requested the following relief:
“a) Recognize that the Player had just cause to terminate the contract and, consequently, the
Club terminated the contract without just cause.
a) Order the Club to pay the Player the overdue salaries of USD 1,650.00
b) Order the Club to reimburse the amount spend by the Player with food and stay expenses,
in an amount of USD 1,348.22
c) Order the Club to pay compensation for the termination without just cause, in an amount
of USD 1,360.00
d) Order the Club to pay additional compensation of six monthly salaries (USD 1,800.00).
The total amount in debt, as well as the compensation for termination and additional
compensation, shall be cumulated with the relevant interest until the date of the effective
payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19022
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 April 2025 and submitted for
decision on 10 June 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.
16. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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) (January
2025 edition), the Single Judge 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 Armenian club.
17. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19022
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge 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 for breach of contract and overdue payables.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine which salary
was agreed between the parties and whether the Player had just cause to terminate his
Contract. Finally, the Single Judge had to determine the consequences herein.
22. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that according to clause 6 of the Contract, “the Player
shall receive monthly salary and rewards according to the annex 1, which is attached to this
Contract and considered an integral part of it.” However, the Single Judge observed that no
annex 1 was attached in the copy of the Contract provided by the Player or in the copy that
was uploaded by the Club in TMS.
23. The Single Judge took note of the fact that the Player alleged that the annex 1 referred in
clause 6 of the Contract which contained the salary, and the benefits was the Offer.
24. In addition, the Single Judge pointed out that the Club did not respond to the claim,
entailing that his decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is,
the argumentation and evidence filed by the Player, in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21 of the
Procedural Rules.
25. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the salary and benefits of the Player
shall be determined based on the conditions of the Offer which served as Annex 1 of the
Contract.
26. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the Player was entitled to the following
remuneration and benefits:
“If he remains in the First team, our club will offer.
Salary USD 300 per month
Stay Expense
Health insurance
Feeding
Stay”
27. Having established the above, the Single Judge took note of the fact that the Player claimed
having just cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations. In
particular, the Player alleged the following reasons to justify the unilateral termination:
(i)
The conditions of the house that was provided by the Club;
(ii)
The non-payment of 5 monthly salaries at the time of the termination (August
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19022
to December 2024);
(iii)
The non-payment of the food expenses that the Player incurred during his stay.
28. The Single Judge noticed that the Player provided evidence of having put the Club in default
in writing prior to terminating the Contract. However, the Single Judge observed that the
Player only gave a 6-day deadline to the Club to comply with its default and therefore, art.
14 bis could not apply in the present case.
29. In this regard, the Single Judge reminded that according to art. 14.1 of the Regulations, “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 a party can no longer reasonably and in good
faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.”
30. In the present case, the Single Judge considered that, taking into account the photographs
of the house provided by the Player- which have not been contested by the Club- the failure
to pay five monthly salaries and cover food expenses, combined with the Club’s lack of
response to the default notice, constituted just cause for the Player to terminate the
Contract.
31. Consequently, the Single Judge considered that the termination of the Contract was a
measure of ultima ratio and in line with art. 14.1 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
32. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
33. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to 5 salaries under
the Contract, amounting to USD 1,500.
34. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 300
(i.e. USD 300 times 5 months).
35. 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 follows:
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19022
of effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 November 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
36. Regarding the food allowance, the Single Judge noted that the Player was entitled to the
reimbursement of the expenses he incurred “for food and stay.”
37. In particular, according to the Offer, the Player was entitled to benefits of “Stay Expense”,
“Feeding” and “Stay.” However, the contractual provision lacks clarity, particularly regarding
whether the Club was obligated to provide meals and accommodation directly or to
reimburse the Player for related expenses. Given this ambiguity, and in light of the Club’s
failure to respond to the Player’s claim, the Single Judge decided—applying the principle
of contra proferentem—that the Club should reimburse the Player for the costs he incurred
for both food and accommodation. For the sake of completeness, even if the Club did
provide an apartment, the photos submitted clearly demonstrate that the accommodation
was not in a habitable condition.
38. In this regard, the Single Judge noticed that the Player alleged that the amount spent for
food and accommodation amounted to AMD 530,593.50 (or USD 1,348.22). However, the
Player did not provide a breakdown of the amounts requested.
39. Furthermore, according to the Single Judge, the screenshots submitted as evidence lack
sufficient probative value. Specifically, the Single Judge observed that they are only partially
translated into Spanish, do not contain any reference to the Player’s name, and are
unaccompanied by any explanation clarifying the nature or purpose of the amounts listed.
40. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the request for reimbursement of the
expenses requested.
41. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19022
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.
42. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
43. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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, the Chamber recalled that, 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 (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 1,500 (i.e. the residual value of the
Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
45. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Dispute Resolution 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.
46. The Player found employment with the Emirati club, Regional Football Club. However, the
Single judge observed that the Player was employed by his new club as amateur and
therefore he did not mitigate his damages.
47. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 1,500 to the Claimant (i.e. the residual value of the Contract), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of Contract in
the present matter.
48. Lastly, 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19022
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
d. Costs
54. 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.
55. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19022
56. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19022
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Raphael Vinicius Sabella Pereira Dos Santos, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Nikaram, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 1,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 300 as from 1 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
- USD 1,500 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
January 2025 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19022
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19022
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. 16