Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17185
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Welysson
Wendell Pontes da Silva
BY:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland)
CLAIMANT:
Welysson Wendell Pontes da Silva, Brazil
Represented by José Miguel Sampaio e Nora
RESPONDENT:
1472 FC, Nigeria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17185
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 October 2023, the Brazilian player, Welysson Pontes da Silva (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Nigerian club, 1472 FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
signed a Professional Football Player’s Contract Proposal (hereinafter: the Offer) under the
following terms:
“1. That the 2023/2024 – Net Annual Salary is $60,000.
2. That the 2024/2025 – Net Annual Salary is $60,000.
3. That the fixed monthly pay is $5,000.
4. That other perquisites may include:
a. Accommodation and feeding.
b. Trip for the Athlete Brazil/Nigeria/Brazil.
5. That the validity of this contracting proposal is subject to the verification of the condition
below:
a. Medical examinations with a positive opinion to be carried out on the player by the
relevant department and/or facility.
6. That this contracting proposal is not a legally binding instrument pending when other
criteria are met by the player and the relevant contracts are duly executed.
7. That the parties to this contracting proposal declare that this document expresses their
free will and it is not signed in distress or under any unfavourable conditions. As evidence of
this, parties hereby affix their signatures hereunder.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
2.
On 21 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
3.
According to the Claimant, he signed a final contract with the Respondent on 17 November
2023 under identical terms of the Offer.
4.
The Claimant asserted that, despite multiple requests, he was never provided with a copy
of said contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17185
5.
The Claimant also alleged that he trained with the team for two weeks until the Respondent
demanded a wage reduction, which he refused. As a result, the Respondent allegedly
abandoned him at a hotel for four days and forced him to return to Brazil, where he lost
all his personal belongings.
6.
The Claimant further alleges that the Respondent failed to pay his agreed salary of USD
60,000 per season, totalling USD 120,000, and only covered his flight, accommodation, and
meals.
7.
The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“In the Light of all of the above, the player respectfully requests this deciding body to enforce
the jurisdiction over the presente claim and, based on the merits and on FIFA Regulations for
the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
a) Consider the FC 1472 FC guilty of a termination without just cause of the Professional
Employment Contract signed with the player WELLYSON WENDELL PONTES DA SILVA;
b) Consider the FC 1472 FC guilty of the non-payment to the Player WELLYSON WENDELL
PONTES DA SILVA of any amount agreed in the the Professional Employment Contract;
c) In consequence order FC 1472 FC to pay immediatly to the Player the net amount of USD
120.000 regarding the 23/24 and 24/25 seasons and as agreed in the Professional
Employment Contract between the parties;
d) In consequence also order FC 1472 FC to pay the Player an interest rate of 5% of the net
amount of USD 120.000 from the date of due, specifically November 17 2023, till the date of
efective payment;
e) Impose the sanctions mentioned in number 4 of the Article 12 Bis of the “FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 Edition)” due to the damages said before
caused by the non payment by FC 1472 FC to the Player WELLYSON WENDELL PONTES DA
SILVA of the amounts agreed between the parties in Termination Agreement (Schedule 2);
f) Order that FC 1472 FC bears with any and all legal costs incurred by the player WELLYSON
WENDELL PONTES DA SILVA.”
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
Despite of being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17185
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 21 November 2024 and
submitted for decision on 4 March 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.
10. 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 (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 a Brazilian player
and a Nigerian club.
11. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
12. 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 she 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
13. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17185
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
14. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the main issue of the present dispute lies in the Claimant’s allegation that an employment
contract, distinct from the prior Offer, was allegedly concluded between the parties and
forms the legal basis of his claim.
15. Because the Single Judge observed that the Respondent did not reply to the claim, she will
base its analysis on the evidence submitted by the Claimant (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
16. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant did not
assert that the Offer previously extended by the Respondent constituted the employment
contract. Rather, he submitted that a separate and subsequent agreement — allegedly
novating the initial Offer — was validly concluded between the parties.
17. Additionally, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge
reiterated that the party invoking the existence of a right bears the burden of proof.
Accordingly, it was for the Claimant to demonstrate, through credible and convincing
evidence, that a valid employment contract had indeed been entered into with the
Respondent, and not merely offered.
18. In view of the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the documentation provided
by the Claimant and noted that no substantiating material was submitted in support of his
allegation that a contract had been signed subsequent to the Offer. By the same token, no
contract signed between the parties was uploaded into the TMS.
19. The Single Judge emphasised that, while the Claimant argued that a contract distinct from
the Offer was executed, such claim remained entirely unproven. The absence of proof of
the alleged contract does not, however, imply that the initial Offer should be reinstated as
the basis of the claim, especially considering that the Claimant expressly acknowledged
that the Offer itself does not constitute the contract.
20. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant failed to discharge
his burden of proof with respect to the existence of a valid and binding employment
contract. Consequently, the Single Judge found that the Claimant’s claim lacked contractual
foundation and, therefore, had to be rejected in its entirety.
d. Costs
21. 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,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17185
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
22. 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.
23. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17185
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Welysson Wendell Pontes da Silva, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17185
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. 9