Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16097
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Vitor Presti Musqueira
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORRELLI (Argentina & Italy), Member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
CLAIMANT:
Vitor Presti Musqueira, Portugal
Represented by Ivan Prudente Araujo
RESPONDENT:
Panserraikos 1946 FC, Greece
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16097
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 March 2023, the Portuguese player, Vitor Presti Musqueira (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Greek club, Panserraikos 1946 FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), concluded a document titled “Private Agreement” (hereinafter: the Private
Agreement).
2.
The terms of the Private Agreement were the following:
“(…)
The two sides agreed to the following:
1. Panserraikos is commited to bring the player to Greece to join our club.
2. AlI the problems are resulting due to training awards from other teams must be solved
with certificates of resignation.
3. In other case the agreement is not on issue.
4. After that the player will sign contract from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2025.
5. The player will receive for the first season 10.000 euro, and for the second season
15.000 euro, which will be distributed in salaries and installments in the contract that
will be signed when we are allowed by the federation system.
It is expressly agreed that this is valid and binding on the contracting parties in any case.
Any modification hereof is valid only if it is in writing and signed by the contracting
parties.
This was drawn up in two identical copies, read and legally signed as follows”.
3.
According to the Player, on 1 August 2023, the Club presented him with a formal contract
(hereinafter: the First Alleged Contract), which stated that the employment relationship
would be valid from 1 August 2023 until 30 June 2025. The Player did not provide a copy of
this contract duly signed by the Club.
4.
In clause 4 of the First Alleged Contract, inter alia, the following was established (quoted
verbatim):
“4. Obligations of the Club
4.1 It is hereby stipulated that the monthly fees of the Player - which in any case may not
be lower than the monthly salary of an unskilled worker set out in the National Collective
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16097
Bargaining Agreement - are set to the amount of 871.00 mixed € paid out to the Player
by the Club the latest at the end of each month, twelve months per year. Apart from the
aforementioned monthly fees, the Club is obligated to pay out to the Player Christmas
bonus (the amount thereof being equal to the monthly fees of the Player) and Easter
bonus (the amount thereof being half of the monthly fees of the Player), as well as Holiday
benefit (the amount thereof being half of the monthly fees of the Player).
(…)
4.3. Other benefits: House for rent
It is agreed that the installments (condition 4.4. of the contract and 4.1. of the wages) are
paid to the footballer cleanly and free of any kind of tax, contributions, surcharge etc.
4.4. The Player shall receive the total amount of …. € in 5 instalments, as follows:
1st instalment amount 250,00 net € payable on 30/01/24.
2nd instalment amount 1.000,00 net € payable on 30/10/2024
3rd instalment amount 1.000,00 net € payable on 30/01/2025.
4th instalment amount 1.000,00 net € payable on 30/03/2025
5th instalment amount 1.500,00 net € payable on 30/06/2025. (…)”
5.
According to the Player, on unspecified dates, which according to him were “several
months later”, the Club presented him with two new contracts (hereinafter: the Second
Alleged Contract and the Third Alleged Contract) that included amendments to the original
terms stipulated in the First Alleged Contract. The Player did not provide a copy of these
contracts duly signed by the Club.
6.
The Second Alleged Contract stipulated that its validity was from 28 August 2023 until 30
June 2024. Additionally, the payments established in clause 4.4 of the First Alleged Contract
were no longer included, and in clause 4.3 the Player was granted food in addition to
housing.
7.
The Third Alleged Contract established that its validity was from 15 January 2024 until 30
June 2024 and the payments established in clause 4.4 of the First Alleged Contract were
also no longer included. Furthermore, the Player was granted food in addition to housing.
8.
On 30 August 2023, the Club announced in its webpage that it had hired the Player.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16097
9.
On 1 September 2023, the parties signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the First
Employment Contract) valid as from 1 September 2023 until 30 June 2024. The terms of the
First Employment Contract were similar to those established in the Second Alleged
Contract: although the payments outlined in clause 4.1 of the First Alleged Contract were
included, those stipulated in clause 4.4 of that document were not, and the Player was
granted housing and food. However, the start date was 1 September 2023 instead of 28
August 2023 and it did not stipulate that the payments were tax-free.
10. On 18 November 2023, the Player participated in a friendly match with the Club.
11. On 8 January 2024, the Player signed a document titled “Formal statement” (hereinafter:
the Statement), which established:
“In my sole responsibility and knowing the consequences provided under article 22 par.
6 of law 1599/1986 I do solemnly declare that I terminate today by mutual agreement
my professional football contract with F.C. PANSERRAIKOS 1946, signed 01/09/2023, and
I do not have any other claims towards the Club from the aforementioned contract or
any other agreement, as I am full compensated.”
12. On 15 January 2024, the parties concluded a new employment contract (hereinafter: the
Second Employment Contract), valid as from the date of the signature until 30 June 2024. The
terms of this contract were those established in the Third Alleged Contract, i.e., the
payments established in clause 4.1 of the First Alleged Contract were included, but those
stipulated in clause 4.4 of that document were not, and the Player was granted housing
and food.
13. On 28 May 2024, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, stating that a contract was
signed on 28 August 2023, ending on 30 June 2024, and that, although he did not receive
any salary under this contract, a new contract was signed on 15 January 2024, lasting until
30 June 2024. In this regard, the Player stated that the terms of both contracts were not
those of the Private Agreement and argued that, due to both contracts, he was entitled to
EUR 12,194. However, the Club had only paid EUR 1,000. Finally, the Player put the Club in
default and requested payment of EUR 9,452 within 15 days.
14. On 3 June 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s letter, stating that he had signed the
Statement and, therefore, the Club did not owe anything to him in relation to the First
Employment Contract. Nonetheless, the Club acknowledged a debt of EUR 4,255.80 under
the Second Employment Contract.
15. On 6 June 2024, the Player sent a new letter, arguing that the Club had initially proposed a
two-year contract and then, unilaterally, changed the duration to one year, forcing him (i)
to accept the conditions imposed by the Club and (ii) to sign the Statement. However, the
Player argued that, considering the good relations with the Club, he proposed that the Club
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16097
made a payment of EUR 7,000 to settle the outstanding wages related to all contracts
signed between the parties.
16. On 7 June 2024, the Club offered to pay the Player EUR 7,000 in two instalments, EUR 3,500
to be paid on 15 June 2024 and EUR 3,500 to be paid on 30 July 2024.
17. Also on 7 June 2024, the Player stated that the proposed amount of EUR 7,000 was
satisfactory, as well as the payment in two instalments. However, the Player requested that
the first instalment be EUR 5,000, to be paid on 13 June 2024, and the second instalment
be EUR 2,000, to be paid on 30 July 2024.
18. On 10 June 2024, the parties signed a document titled “Private contract termination
agreement by mutual agreement Vitor Presti Musqueira” (hereinafter: the Termination
Agreement), which established the following:
“(…)
1. The Company under the name P.A.E. PANSERRAIKOS 1946 which is based in Serres and
in the sports facilities of the Municipal Stadium of Serres, with VAT number
996963470,1st Secondary School of Serres, as legally represented for the signature
hereof by the President and CEO Mr. Anastasios Kazlas, hereinafter referred to as "PAE"
and
2. The footballer VITOR PRESTI MUSQUEIRA, father's name MAXIMINO, with passport
number CC389390, hereinafter referred to as "footballer"
They agreed and mutually accepted the following:
a. The Football Player is connected to the PAE with the professional football player
contract from 15.01.2024 with the financial conditions stated there and with a duration
from 15.01.2024 to 30.06.2024. The contracting parties by mutual agreement decide to
terminate the contract of the football player under the following conditions
b. From the above 15.01.2024 professional contract of the footballer and PAE as well as
from any other agreement that was drawn up in the past, PAE acknowledges that it
currently owes the footballer the sum of €7,000.00 net which results from due wages.
c. With this agreement, it is jointly decided that the amount of €7,000.00 net will be paid
to the footballer in two (2) installments as follows:
• On 13/06/2024 the amount of €5,000.00 to the footballer's Bank Account with PT
number 50002300004560642704894 swift : ACTVPTPL
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16097
• On 30/07/2024 the amount of 2,000.00 in the footballer's Bank Account with PT number
50002300004560642704894 swift : ACTVPTPL
d) By repaying both (2) of the above installments totaling €7,000.00 net, the footballer
declares that he has no financial claim or pending with the PAE deriving from the
professional footballer's contract from 15.01.2024 as well as from any other agreement
that has been drawn up in the past, as it has been paid in full and in full. (…)”
19. On 1 July 2024, the Player was registered as an amateur with the Portuguese club Varzim
SC.
20. On 1 August 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of EUR 2,000
within 48 hours.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 17 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
22. According to the Claimant, the parties first concluded the Private Agreement, which
provided an overview of the conditions discussed and agreed upon in principle. After that,
the Player asserted that the Club provided him with the First Alleged Contract, which had
a validity of two years and stipulated five additional payments. However, he mentioned
that, although he signed this contract, the Club did not provide him with a signed copy,
informing him that, for registration, it was necessary for the Club to sign a training
compensation agreement with other clubs.
23. Nonetheless, the Player stated that then the Club provided him with new contracts that
included different conditions, making unilateral modifications such as changes to the
duration and the removal of additional payments. In this sense, the Player argued that he
was coerced into signing these agreements. Additionally, the Player sustained that he was
forced to sign the Statement and provided a picture as evidence. According to the Player,
as the weaker party in the contractual relationship, he was subjected to undue pressure
and coerced into accepting terms that were unilaterally imposed by the Respondent.
24. Furthermore, the Player mentioned that the Club announced his signing on 30 August 2023
but then postponed his registration.
25. The Player asserted that, during the entire relationship, the Club only paid him EUR 1,000
on 13 February 2024. Nevertheless, he contended that he tried to amicably solve the issue.
In this regard, the Club acknowledged a debt, and the parties concluded the Termination
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16097
Agreement, whereby the Club was obliged to pay EUR 7,000 in two instalments: the first of
EUR 5,000 upon execution of the agreement, and the second of EUR 2,000 to be paid on 30
July 2024. The Player claimed that, under duress, he was compelled to sign this agreement
to formalise the termination. Notwithstanding, the Club failed to pay him EUR 2,000, which
constituted a material breach of the contract.
26. In this regard, the Player requests the annulment of the Statement and the Termination
Agreement on the grounds of bad faith, alleging that he was coerced into signing the
agreements under duress, and material breach of contract, due to the failure to comply
with the terms of the contracts and the payment of the Termination Agreement. Therefore,
the Player requests compensation equal to the value of the First Alleged Contract,
deducting the amounts already paid by the Club.
27. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“The Claimant respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of FIFA:
Affirm Its Jurisdiction: Assert its competence to adjudicate the dispute and provide a
resolution in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Claimants (RSTP) and Procedural Rules.
Annul the “FORMAL STATEMENT” and “PRIVATE CONTRACT TERMINATION AGREEMENT”:
Recognize the invalidity of these documents and restore the terms of the initial
Employment Contract.
Award Compensation: Grant the Claimant the total compensation of €29,138.00 for
unpaid wages and benefits, as well as reimbursement for any related costs
Impose Interest: Apply an annual interest rate of 5% on all overdue payments and
amounts due under the original contract.
Enforce Sanctions: Implement appropriate sanctions against Panserraikos FC 1946 to
ensure accountability and prevent future breaches of contract and regulatory noncompliance.”
b. Position of the Respondent
28. According to the Respondent, the parties first signed the Private Agreement, which
expressly established that all training compensation claims would be resolved in a timely
manner, or else the agreement would not be valid. In this sense, on 1 September 2023, the
parties concluded the First Employment Contract while the settlement of the training
compensation claims was still pending. However, this contract was not ratified by the HFF,
and the registration was not completed because the ITC was not delivered in time.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16097
29. The Club argued that on 8 January 2024, the parties agreed in good faith to terminate the
First Employment Contract, and the Player stated that he had no claims against the
Respondent. After that, the parties concluded the Second Employment Contract.
30. The Club mentioned that between May and June 2024, the Club and the Player, through his
legal representative, negotiated an amicable solution, as the Club had a debt towards the
Player regarding the Second Employment Contract. In this sense, the Club pointed out that
the Player proposed reaching a final agreement for EUR 7,000 in two instalments, even
specifying the payment dates.
31. The Club acknowledged owing the Player EUR 2,000 of the second instalment of the
Termination Agreement. However, the Club remarked that the amounts claimed by the
Player arose from the First Alleged Contract, which was not signed by the parties, and
certainly not by the Club.
32. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Statement was not signed under duress, and that
the picture provided by the Player does not demonstrate that the person shown in the
photograph put pressure on the Player. In this regard, the Club asserted that the Player did
not provide any evidence of having signed the Statement or the Termination Agreement
under duress.
33. Additionally, the Club highlighted that it was the Player’s legal representative who proposed
to reach an agreement, and, therefore, the Termination Agreement was signed following
the Player’s proposal, freely and consciously. In any case, the principle nemo potest venire
contra factum proprium shall apply.
34. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“On the basis of all the aforementioned and of the submitted evidence, we hereby
respectfully request from FIFA Football Tribunal purely for the sake of completeness of
this position, although it is a fact that ultimately no decision will be needed to pass:
i. to rule that the amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant is of 2,000 euros
net.
ii. To reject any other claim and assertion of the Claimant;
iii. to rule that the Claimant shall bear any and all costs of the proceedings.”
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
35. In his rejoinder, the Player remarked that the Club acknowledged having signed more than
one contract and even acknowledged not having registered him, which was the Club’s
responsibility. Furthermore, the Player argued that the registration process was rejected
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16097
by the FPF, because the transfer was requested as a transfer from “a professional to a
professional” when the Player was an amateur.
36. In this regard, the Club made a mistake and then sent another transfer request, which was
rejected because the registration period had already closed. Notwithstanding the above,
the Player stated that the Club wants to blame him.
37. The Player insisted that the Club engaged in conduct that constituted bad faith and duress,
through the imposition of altered and less favourable contractual terms, along with the
Club’s failure to comply with its financial obligations.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
38. Despite having been invited to provide its final comments, the Club failed to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. 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 17 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 12 December 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.
40. 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) (October
2024 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 Portuguese player and a Greek club.
41. 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 Regulations (October 2024 edition), and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 17 September 2024, the June 2024 edition of said regulations is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16097
42. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
43. 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
44. 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, requesting the annulment of contracts and
compensation for breach of contract.
45. On the one hand, the Chamber first recalled that, according to the Player, the Club (i)
consistently failed to comply with several contracts, (ii) made him sign the Statement and
the Termination Agreement under duress and (iii) failed to pay the second instalment of
the Termination Agreement. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Player states that
these documents should be annulled, and that he should be awarded compensation equal
to the first contract he allegedly signed (i.e., the First Alleged Contract).
46. The Club, on the other hand, acknowledged having failed to pay EUR 2,000 of the
Termination Agreement but stated that it was freely signed by the parties, and that even
the Player, through his legal representative, proposed this agreement.
47. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its tasks were to (i) determine which
contracts were signed by the parties, (ii) establish whether they are valid and binding, and
(iii) identify the consequences.
A. The contracts signed by the parties
48. As a starting point, the Chamber noted that both parties acknowledged having signed the
Private Agreement, which was basically an offer from the Club to the Player. In this
agreement, the Chamber observed that it was stipulated that the parties would sign a
contract valid for two years, with the Player receiving EUR 10,000 for the first season and
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16097
EUR 15,000 for the second season. Additionally, the Chamber pointed out that the Private
Agreement stipulated that it was valid and binding, and that any modification would be
valid if it was in writing and signed by both parties.
49. Then, the Chamber turned to the First Alleged Contract. In this respect, the Chamber found
that, although the Player argued that the parties had concluded this contract, he provided
a copy signed solely by him, and the Club denied having signed it. Taking into account that
there is no further evidence demonstrating that this contract was actually signed by the
parties, the Chamber therefore concluded that it could not consider the First Alleged
Contract as a contract validly concluded by the parties.
50. Conversely, the Chamber determined that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that
the parties entered into the First Employment Contract, which was valid for one season
and had different terms than those stipulated in the Private Agreement. In this respect, the
Chamber interpreted that the parties novated the envisaged obligations with the
conclusion of the First Employment Contract, as they had expressly stated in the Private
Agreement that any modification would be valid if it was in writing and signed by both
parties.
51. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, on 8 January 2024, the First Employment Contract
was terminated by the Statement, in which the Player stated that he terminated the First
Employment Contract without any further claims, as he had been compensated
accordingly. The Chamber also took duly note that the Player did not dispute having signed
the Statement but argued that he did so under duress.
52. Moreover, the Chamber established that, a few days later, the parties signed the Second
Employment Contract, which had the same content as the Third Alleged Contract
submitted by the Player and was valid until 30 June 2024.
53. Lastly, the Chamber pointed out that the parties signed the Termination Agreement, in
which it was established that the Club was obliged to pay the Player EUR 7,000 in two
instalments, representing the debt the Club had from the Second Employment Contract
“as well as from any other agreement that was drawn up in the past”. Additionally, the
Chamber remarked that the following was stipulated: “By repaying both (2) of the above
installments totaling €7,000.00 net, the footballer declares that he has no financial claim or
pending with the PAE deriving from the professional footballer's contract from 15.01.2024 as
well as from any other agreement that has been drawn up in the past, as it has been paid in full
and in full.”
54. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the parties: (i) signed the Private
Agreement; (ii) amended the Private Agreement by signing the First Employment Contract;
(iii) terminated the First Employment Contract through the Statement signed by the Player
(without implying that the Statement was valid); (iv) signed the Second Employment
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16097
Contract; and (v) signed the Termination Agreement (also without stating that this
agreement is valid).
55. In this context, the Chamber outlined that the last contract signed by the parties was the
Termination Agreement, which referred to any agreement concluded between the parties
and established that all debts were settled. In the Chamber’s view, with the Termination
Agreement, the parties not only terminated the Second Employment Contract but also
superseded all and any obligations that they may have had based on previous contracts.
56. The Chamber emphasised that this interpretation is consistent with the behaviour of the
parties, not only in the drafting of the Termination Agreement but also in the exchange of
correspondence prior to the signature. In the first notice of default, the Player requested
payment of EUR 9,452 considering not only the Second Employment Contract but also the
First Employment Contract. The Club argued that the First Employment Contract had been
terminated and that it owed the Player EUR 4,255.80 for the Second Employment Contract.
Therefore, the Player asserted that the Club had debts corresponding to the previous
contract and proposed the following: “We propose that the Club makes a payment of €7,000
(seven thousand euros) immediately, to settle the player's outstanding wages, relating to all
contracts signed between the Club and the player.”. This proposal was accepted by the Club,
which is why the Termination Agreement referred to all the previous contracts.
57. In light of the above, the Chamber contended that it needed to analyse whether the
Termination Agreement is valid and binding, and its consequences.
B. The Termination Agreement’s validity
58. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the Player requested the annulment of the
Termination Agreement on the grounds of bad faith and material breach of contract, as he
argued that he signed this agreement under duress and coercion. Conversely, the Club
stated that the Player did not prove that he signed under duress, and that the Termination
Agreement was signed by the Player after having previously taken legal advice.
59. The Chamber first wished to refer to the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, which mentioned on several occasions that a contractual party signing a
document of legal significance, as a general rule, does so under its own responsibility and
is liable to bear the legal consequences of such signature. Additionally, the Chamber
remarked that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has also established that a party
is under duress if, in the circumstances, he/she has good cause to believe that there is
imminent and substantial risk to his/her own life, limb, reputation or property or those of
a person close to him.
60. Taking the above into consideration, the Chamber pointed out that the Termination
Agreement was the result of negotiations held between the Club and the Player, through
his legal representative. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Player put the Club
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16097
in default for EUR 9,452 and the Club acknowledged that it owed him EUR 4,255.80.
However, the Player’s legal representative responded that the Club had debts from the
First Employment Contract and, therefore, proposed to settle the outstanding wages
related to all contracts by the payment of EUR 7,000.
61. The Chamber emphasised that not only did the Player, through his legal representative,
propose the settlement and its amount, but also the payment dates and the distribution
of the instalments. When the Club agreed to settle the matter by paying EUR 7,000, it
proposed to pay the Player in two instalments of EUR 3,500 each. As a response, the
Player’s legal representative stated that the proposed amount was “satisfactory for us to
continue drafting the agreement” but proposed a different distribution for the instalments:
the first one of EUR 5,000 and the second one of EUR 2,000.
62. Hence, the Chamber found that the Termination Agreement was drafted (i) based on a
proposal made by the Player, duly represented by his legal representative, (ii) including the
amount proposed by the Player, duly represented by his legal representative, and (iii)
distributing the value of the instalments and setting the payment dates proposed by the
Player, duly represented by his legal representative. Furthermore, the Termination
Agreement included that this settlement concerned the Second Employment Contract and
all previous agreements, as mentioned by the Player’s legal representative in the several
notices.
63. Consequently, the Chamber asserted that it is not possible for the Player to claim that he
signed this agreement under duress due to the imposition of less favourable terms, as it
was him, duly advised by a legal representative, who proposed all the relevant terms of the
Termination Agreement.
64. Additionally, the Chamber wished to underscore that the Player barely presented any
evidence of this alleged duress: he only submitted one picture in which he is signing
documents, with a person holding the papers. Nonetheless, the Chamber found that the
Player did not provide any proof that he signed the Termination Agreement under duress
as defined by the jurisprudence.
65. Lastly, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber underlined that when the Club failed
to pay the second instalment of the Termination Agreement, the Player, through his legal
representative, sent a notice of default requesting payment and did not argue that the
agreement was invalid.
66. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Termination Agreement is valid and binding
and that, with its signature, the parties validly novated all their obligations under the
previous contracts.
C. Consequences of the Termination Agreement’s validity
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16097
67. First, the Chamber rejected the Player’s claim regarding declaring the nullity of the
Termination Agreement. Additionally, as the parties validly mutually terminated their
employment relationship, the Chamber decided that the request for compensation be
rejected, as there was no unilateral termination that would entitle the Player to this claim.
In this sense, the Chamber stated that the Player was only entitled to claim the outstanding
amounts based on the non-payment of the Termination Agreement.
68. The Chamber observed that the Club acknowledged having failed to pay EUR 2,000 under
the Termination Agreement. In this regard, and although the Player requested
compensation rather than the payment of the remaining amount of the Termination
Agreement, the Chamber decided to award the Player this amount and the applicable
interest, which the Club itself acknowledged as payable to the Player.
69. As a consequence, the Chamber decided to award the Player EUR 2,000 plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the day following the due date (31 July 2024).
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16097
d. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16097
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Vitor Presti Musqueira, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Panserraikos 1946 FC, must pay to the Claimant EUR 2,000 as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 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. 17
REF. FPSD-16097
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. 18