Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14778
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Mauricio Plenckauskas Cordeiro
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil / Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mauricio Plenckauskas Cordeiro, Brazil
Represented by Mathias Noronha
RESPONDENT:
Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh, Vietnam
Represented by Eleven & Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14778
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 February 2022, the Brazilian player Mauricio Plenckauskas Cordeiro (hereinafter, the Claimant
or the Player) and the Vietnamese club Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh (hereinafter, the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 22 February 2022
until 20 August 2022.
2.
According to Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a monthly
remuneration of USD 6,000 net, payable on the 5th day of each month.
3.
As per Clauses 9.1, 9.3. and 9.5 of the Contract:
“1. The Player injured while on duty to the Club (in practice, training, competitions and other tasks
required by the Club): the cost of treatment for the player due to injury will be paid by Club at a place
designated by the Company”.
“3. Health and personal accident insurance. Party A shall buy Health and personal accident insurance for
Party B which includes benefits about medical care; accidental or dies while executing its duties or because
of executing its duties”.
“10. The club will only bear the cost if the player is treated at the place designated by the Club in Vietnam”.
4.
According to the Player, during the week of 16 May 2022 he suffered an injury during a practice with
the Club after a collision with the goalkeeper, “which caused trauma in the lumbar region”.
5.
On 27 May 2022, the Player asked the Club’s translator to inform the coach of the Club that he did
not want to travel by bus to Baria for an away game, as he was feeling pain in the back, and that “I
need maybe 3, 4 days to be 100% and next to this comeback strong”. The Club’s translator informed
him that the coach requested him to travel, and the Player replied “Ok mister, so tomorrow I go”.
6.
On 28 August 2022, the Parties concluded the so-called “Labor contract termination agreement”
(hereinafter, the Termination Agreement) whereas:
“The two parties have agreed to terminate the Labor Contract No. (…) between Ho Chi Minh City football
and Mr Mauricio Plenckauskas Cordeiro from 21/08/2022”.
7.
As per Clause 1.1 of the Termination Agreement:
“The Company will pay the salary from August 01, 2022 until the end of August 20, 2022 to Mr Mauricio
Plenckauskas Cordeiro: USD 3,871”.
8.
As per Clause 2 of the Termination Agreement:
“2.1 The Company had fulfilled all rights and obligations with respect to the Player.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14778
2.2 Both Parties do not have any other claims. The Parties no longer have any debts to each other”.
9.
On 20 January 2023, the Player was diagnosed with “MRI of the lumbosacral spine demonstrating L4L5-S1 degenerative discopathy with disc bulging and protrusion detailed above” and “Rectification of
physiological lumbar lordosis”.
10. On 28 April 2023, the Player paid BRL 500 for “ambulatory medical activity restricted to consultations”.
11. On 15 July 2023, the Player put the Club in default, requesting payment of USD 72,000 corresponding
to twelve monthly instalments as per the Contract. The Player granted a 10-day deadline to the Club
to comply with this payment.
12. On 24 August 2023, the Player underwent a physiotherapy treatment session in Brazil, which costed
BRL 5,640.
13. On 28 September 2023, the “Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de Santa Catarina” issued a
certification in accordance with which “[the Player] was under medical treatment having done 6
electroacupuncture sessions on a weekly basis, in order to treat Lumbosciatica, stating on April 25 th, 2023,
showing partial pain relief during the treatment. However, his functional limitations persisted, remaining
unable to carry out his professional activities”.
14. On an unknown date, the “Sports Fisio Phisiotherapy and Health Center” issued a letter informing that
“On 26/07/23 we started specific work for pain relief, manual therapy and other specific lumbar spine
techniques, where after 8 sessions we did not observe any improvement in the condition, which did not
allow us to return him to his work as a professional soccer player. We suggest removal from the profession
and detailed analysis with a spine specialist, as possibly surgery is necessary, which would drastically
reduce the chances of returning to the sport after such procedure, it would reduce the pain with
limitations to the sport practice”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 29 May 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
16. According to the Player, “at the end of the contract, the complainant was still injured, but the club, even
having the contractual obligation of paying for the player’s treatment during the period of absence due
to injury, did not renew the contract with the complainant so that he could continue with the necessary
recovery procedure to return to his professional activities”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14778
17. The Player alleged that the Club was aware of his injury, and nevertheless made him travel by bus
with the rest of the team and attend the matches.
18. Furthermore, the Player argued that the Club even made him play in four matches even though
being injured. Based on the foregoing, the Player sustained that the Club clearly violated the
Contract, as it did not provide him with the proper treatment and even subjected him to a painful
situation for making him participate in matches.
19. The Player also argued that, according to the Contract, the Club had the duty to provide him with an
insurance, which allegedly it never did. In this respect, “The incidence of job stability of the injured
player is highly important, as it protects him from financial damages that might suffer due to the injury.
It should be noted that the complainant has not played since the end of the relationship with the
Vietnamese club, and is still paying for the costs of the treatment for the spine injury”.
20. According to the Player, “in case the employee does not recover within the period of the contract there
is an obligation for the club to continue to support the treatment, which, consequently, would create the
compulsory renewal of the bond and its respective maintenance until the player’s recovery. Assuming that
the complainant should be subject to job stability, with the discontinuity of the relationship between the
parties, it is possible to certify contract termination without just cause, which allows the consequences
contained in article 17 of the RSTP”.
21. The Player claimed being entitled to compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which
would amount to the value of the insurance that the Club undertook to pay. Given that this amount
is unknown, the Player sustained that Brazilian law, in accordance with which the compensation in
case of work accidents is equal to twelve salaries, is applicable. Accordingly, the Player claimed being
entitled to USD 72,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to twelve monthly
instalments as per the Contract.
22. Furthermore, the Player also claimed his entitlement to receive moral damages for the situation
caused by the Club in the amount of USD 8,000, as well as reimbursement for the expenses incurred
in connection with his injury, for the amount of “around USD 1,225”.
23. The Player requested the following relief:
a) The value equivalent to the insurance coverage in the contract. In case the defendant does not
prove the insurance was hired, or in case the amount of the insurance is too small or
disproportional considering the damage suffered and unable to repair the human right that was
violated, twelve months of the gross value of the salary of USD 6,000, which represents the total
value of USD 72,000, which should be updated according to criteria adopted by the sentence, as
well as the interest of 1% (one per cent) per month until payment.
b) Compensation for moral damages of USD 8,000 or, alternatively, in the amount that this Court
considers appropriate.
c) Reimbursement for material damages of USD 1,225.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14778
d) The imposition of interest and monetary correction until payment.
e) The imposition of the sports measure in article 17.4, which establishes the prohibition of the
registration of new national, as well as international, players for two consecutive transfer
windows.
f) Protests for all types of legal evidence.
b. Position of the Respondent
24. In its reply to the claim, the Club argued that the Player was acting in bath faith, as he blatantly lied
in the explanations of the facts of the case.
25. According to the Club, when the Player was informed in May 2022 that he had to travel with the rest
of the team, he immediately accepted without complaining, either at that time or afterwards. The
Club sustained that the Player never complained about his injury nor the way he was treated by the
Club.
26. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Player was back on his feet very quickly and trained normally
until the end of the Contract, taking part in the Club’s training sessions and activities without any
complaints.
27. The Club sustained that it is false that it obliged the Player to take part in the last four games of the
league, which is a blatant lie. In this respect, the Club argued that the Player was not selected by the
coach for those last four games for tactical and sporting reasons.
28. The Club further argued that the fact that the Player did not mention the Termination Agreement in
his claim proves his bad faith. According to the Club, the Player never complained about his alleged
injury, and almost a year after the end of the Contract, it received the default notice of the Player
and, more than 10 months after the default notice, the Player lodged the claim before FIFA.
29. According to the Club, the Player did not provide sufficient and precise legal grounds and
documentation to substantiate any of his claims, which is contrary to the ratio behind the Procedural
Rules.
30. The Club sustained that the Player’s allegations as to the alleged injury are false, as he failed to prove
the alleged injury, having complained about it to the Club, or having refused to train. According to
the Club, the case is based on medical certificates issued in Brazil after the end of the Player’s
Contract. The Club also sustained that the WhatsApp messages with the Player’s agent do not prove
the Player’s claims, that the Club was not involved in them, and that they are undated and freely
translated.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14778
31. Furthermore, the Club also argued that it indeed complied with its obligations as to the insurance,
and that if the Player had wished to receive any treatment, the Club would have provided it.
However, according to the Club, the Player never asked to see a doctor or undergo examinations. It
was only at the end of the Contract and on his return to Brazil “that the Player fraudulently fabricated
his story”.
32. According to the Club, the Player is not claiming any legal rights or financial compensation based on
the Contract, which means that there are not any overdue payables. In this respect, the Contract
expired on 21 August 2022, and the Parties jointly concluded the Termination Agreement on 28
August 2022 “without the slightest dispute between the parties”. The Club insisted that the Player never
complained about the termination of the Contract, his alleged injury nor any medical expenses in
Vietnam, but only after he returned to Brazil.
33. The Club further argued that the Player wrongfully applied Brazilian law to claim his entitlement to
USD 72,000, and that the applicable law in the Football Tribunal is the FIFA regulations, and rejected
the Player’s entitlement to any kind of compensation and the application of sporting sanctions, as
no termination of contract occurred in this case.
34. The Club requested the following relief:
“Dismiss the claim of the Player in its entirety”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. 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 29 May 2024 and submitted for decision on 29 August 2024. Taking into
account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
36. 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 (June 2024 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Brazilian player and a Vietnamese club.
37. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14778
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 29 May 2024, the February 2024 edition of said regulations (hereinafter,
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
38. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that when deciding a dispute, FIFA’s regulations
prevail over any national law chosen by the parties. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that
the main objective of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors
within the football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable
if the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought to it.
Therefore, the Chamber deemed that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular
national law to the substance of the dispute but rather the Regulations, general principles of law
and, where existing, the Football Tribunal’s well-established jurisprudence.
b. Burden of proof
39. 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
40. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered into the
merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC 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
41. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties
strongly disputed the Player’s entitlement to compensation, moral damages and reimbursement
based on the fact that the Club allegedly breached the Contract by failing to renew it after the Player
allegedly suffered an injury.
42. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, according to the Player, in case a player suffers an injury,
the relevant club has the obligation to renew the employment relationship until the player’s
recovery. Based on the foregoing, the Player claimed being entitled to compensation for breach of
contract amounting to twelve monthly instalments under Brazilian Law, moral damages and
reimbursement of the expenses incurred after the Club failed to renew the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14778
43. The Chamber also noted that, on its part, the Club sustained that the Player did not suffer any injury,
that it complied with its obligations with regard to the insurance, and that the claim of the Player is
not based in any contractual provision, thus rejecting the Player’s entitlement to any amount and
the existence of a unilateral termination.
44. As a departure point, the DRC recalled its well-established jurisprudence in accordance with which
the fact that a player is injured during the course of an employment contract is not a just cause for
the club to prematurely and unilaterally terminate the employment contract. Nevertheless, the
Chamber observed that, in casu, the Contract was not unilaterally terminated by the Club, but it
expired naturally on 20 August 2022 instead.
45. The foregoing having been established, and without prejudice to the assessment as to whether the
Player suffered or not an injury, the Chamber established that neither the Regulations nor the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal foresee the extension of an employment contract in case a
player suffers an injury, and hence it decided to reject the Player’s entitlement to any compensation
and/or damages arising from the fact that the Contract was not extended. For the sake of clarity,
the Club could not be held responsible for not having renewed or extended the Contract, as such
renewal or extension has no legal or contractual basis.
46. The Chamber subsequently turned its attention to the claim for reimbursement of the expenses
incurred by the Player. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Club strongly disputed that the Player
had suffered an injury.
47. Based on the above, the Chamber established that it should be assessed whether the Player indeed
suffered an injury in May 2022 while being under Contract with the Club, only scenario in which the
Player could be entitled to a reimbursement for the expenses incurred in connection with the
abovementioned injury. In this regard, the DRC referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
and concluded that it was for the Player to prove that he indeed suffered an injury.
48. With the above in mind, and after having carefully analysed the evidence and arguments provided
by the Player, the Chamber observed that he only submitted a WhatsApp conversation with the Club
where he informed that he was suffering pain in his back, that he did not want to travel, and that he
would need three or four days “to be 100% and comeback strong”. The Chamber also took note of the
fact that, when the Player was informed that he had to travel with the rest of the team, he agreed
with no further complaints.
49. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player’s submissions were contradicted by the evidence
provided by the Club. In particular, the latter submitted a termination agreement concluded with
the Player on 28 August 2022, to which the Player did not make any reference in his claim, and in
which the Player acknowledged that the Club had fulfilled all its rights and obligations towards the
Player, not having the Player any other claims against the Club.
50. Additionally, the DRC also observed that, according to the Player, the Club obliged him to participate
in the last four games of the season while he was allegedly injured. However, the DRC noted that,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14778
according to the evidence provided by the Club, the Player was not even listed as a substitute in
those games.
51. Based on the above, the Chamber determined that not only the Player’s argumentation regarding
the injury was not backed by the relevant evidence, but also that they were contradicted by the
evidence submitted by the Club and, hence, the DRC decided to reject the Player’s claim as the
amounts claimed as reimbursement could not be connected or linked to the alleged injury.
52. Without prejudice to the foregoing, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber also observed
that the expenses detailed by the Claimant were incurred about five months after the expiry of the
Contract, and while the Player was back in Brazil. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, pursuant
to Clause 9.5 of the Contract, “The club will only bear the cost if the player is treated at the place
designated by the Club in Vietnam”. Accordingly, and based on the fact that the expenses were not
incurred in Vietnam, the DRC concluded that, in any event, the Player’s claim shall be rejected.
d. Costs
53. 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.
54. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14778
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mauricio Plenckauskas Cordeiro, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14778
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 12