Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16422
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Adil Rami
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Adil Rami, France
Represented by Jules Plancque
RESPONDENT:
Boavista FC, Portugal
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16422
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 September 2020, the French player, Adil Rami (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant),
and the Portuguese club, Boavista FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 4 September 2020 until
30 June 2022.
2.
On 29 July 2021, the parties signed a “[r]evocation of sports employment contract agreement”
(hereinafter the Termination Agreement). The Club acknowledged its debt towards the
Player and the parties also agreed on a compensation.
3.
On 7 October 2021, the Player filed a claim in front of the Football Tribunal requesting
payment of his outstanding remuneration on the basis of the Termination Agreement.
4.
On 27 January 2022, the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal issued a
decision (FPSD-3925) condemning the Respondent for the payment of the following
amounts (hereinafter the DRC Decision):
“The Respondent, Boavista Futebol Club, has to pay to the Claimant, the following
amounts:
-
EUR 75,864.52 as outstanding remuneration plus 18% interest p.a. as from 16
[A]ugust 2021 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 123,000 as compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2021
until the date of effective payment.”
5.
The DRC decision became final and binding.
6.
On an unspecified day in the month of July 2022, the Club paid EUR 216,115.74 to the
Player.
7.
On 19 October 2022, the Player received a letter from the Portuguese tax authorities for
the payment of the amount of EUR 41,519.29, indicating 2021 as the relevant fiscal year.
8.
On 3 April 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Respondent putting them in default for the
payment of EUR 41,519.29 indicating that it corresponded to outstanding taxes due for
2021 and giving them 15 days to comply with their default. In particular, the Player stated
the above:
“For the record, [the Player] and [the Respondent] signed an employment contract on 4
September 2020, under the terms of which he was to receive remuneration net of all charges
and taxes.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16422
On 29 July 2021, an agreement for the amicable termination of this contract was signed,
providing for the payment to [the Player] of a certain sum, still net of all charges and taxes.
The Club is therefore solely liable for any taxes that may be due to the Portuguese tax authorities.
More than a year later, the Portuguese tax authorities sent [the Player] a summons to pay the
sum of 41,519.26 euros, corresponding to outstanding taxes due for 2021 (see attached). As
indicated above, the sums received by [the Player] were agreed to be “net of all charges and
taxes.”
Therefore, for the sake of good order, I would ask you to pay [the Player] the said sum of
41,519.26 euros, so that he can settle the debt claimed by the tax authorities within 15 days this
letter being sent […].”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 3 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. According to the Claimant, the Club was contractually bound to pay the taxes to the
Portuguese authorities as the agreed amounts were “net” of any taxes. However, according
to the Player, the Club did not pay the relevant taxes in the amount of EUR 41,519.26 to the
authorities.
11. In addition, the Claimant argued that he became aware of the outstanding amount towards
the tax authorities on 19 October 2022.
12. Finally, the Claimant requested the following amounts:
-
EUR 42,400 ;
-
EUR 2,000 for the legal costs.
13. Even though invited to provide the detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute and the
contractual basis, the Claimant did not provide further details than the original claim.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the Claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16422
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 3 October 2024 and submitted for
decision on 29 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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 (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 an French player and a Portuguese club.
17. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber first of all wished to stress that FIFA’s deciding bodies
are in principle not competent to deal with purely tax relate disputes, as they fall outside
the scope of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and Procedural Rules
unless it can be established that there is a contractual basis for the claim related to taxes.
18. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant’s request is rather unclear regarding
the payment that triggered the taxes requested and the relevant contractual basis. The
Single Judge, however, took note that, according to the arguments presented by the
Claimant, the Club failed to pay the taxes due to the Portuguese authorities, following the
DRC Decision.
19. On this point, the Chamber recalled the latest edition of the Commentary on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which stipulates that “whenever the origin
of a dispute lies within the contractual employment relationship between a player and their club,
i.e. whenever the relevant employment contract serves as the legal basis for the claim between
the parties, it can be assumed that the dispute is “employment-related” within the meaning of
article 22 paragraph 1 b), Regulations” ( p. 460).
20. Consequently, based on art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided
that the Football Tribunal is competent to entertain the present case and rule on tax issues
as they are “employment related.”
21. 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 par.
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the January 2025 edition of said
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16422
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Admissibility
22. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Football Tribunal previously rendered
a decision on the basis of the Contract/Termination Agreement. Therefore, the Single Judge
considered appropriate to assess ex oficio whether the present claim is affected by res
iudicata or preclusion.
23. In this regard, the Single Judged took note of the main points of the case, which can be
summarized as follows:
-
On 4 September 2020, the Parties signed an employment contract which they
mutually terminated on 29 July 2021, agreeing on a net amount to be paid to the
Player corresponding to outstanding salaries and compensation.
-
In view of the Club’s failure to pay the agreed amount, the Player lodged a claim
before FIFA requesting the payment of the amounts agreed upon in the
Termination Agreement (hereinafter First Claim).
-
The DRC Decision condemned the Club to pay said amounts:
-
EUR 75,864.52 as outstanding remuneration plus 18% interest p.a. as from 16
[A]ugust 2021 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 123,000 as compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2021
until the date of effective payment.”
-
The Club paid the Player the amount of EUR 216,115.74 in July 2022.
-
On 19 October 2022, the Player received a letter from the Portuguese tax
authorities requesting the payment of EUR 41,519.26
-
On 3 April 2024, the Player requested the Club to pay the above amount “so that he
can settle the debt claimed by the tax authorities.”
-
On 3 October 2024, the Player lodged a claim before FIFA requesting the payment
of the taxes allegedly arising from the execution of the DRC Decision.
24. Having established the above, the Single Judge initially recalled that the principle of res
iudicata ensures that whenever a dispute has been defined and decided upon, it becomes
irrevocable, confirmed and deemed to be just- res iudicata pro Veritate habetur. In
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16422
particular, the Single Judge underlined that this principle applies whenever three elements
are concurrently present, namely:
•
•
•
The same persons;
The same object;
The same cause.
25. On this note, the Single Judge went on to analyse the evidence on file regarding the
previous decision allegedly passed in a similar matter. In this respect, the Single Judge
observed that indeed a decision (i.e. the DRC Decision) had been passed by a competent
deciding body (i.e. the Football Tribunal) on 29 July 2021, which became final and binding.
26. The Single Judge then underlined that the principle of res iudicata is applicable if
cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the matter in
dispute are identical.
27. In this respect, he noted that both the player and the club were parties in the proceedings
leading to the DRC Decision as well as in the dispute at stake. As a consequence, the Single
Judge came to the conclusion that the condition of the identity of parties is fulfilled.
28. The Single Judge then turned his attention to the criterion of the object of the matter in
dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that, according to the Claimant, the
obligation to pay the relevant taxes was triggered from the execution of the DRC Decision
and therefore, considered it could not have been raised by the Player in his First Claim.
Therefore, he concluded that the objects of the First claim and the one at hand are not the
same.
29. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that there is no identity of objects between the
First Claim and the one at hand, entailing that there is no res iudicata or preclusion.
30. In continuation, the Single Judge assessed whether the claim was filed within the two-year
limitation, in accordance with art. 23.3 of the Regulations.
31. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the issuance date of the letter from the
Portuguese tax authorities should be considered the relevant date for determining the
statute of limitations. Since the letter was issued on 19 October 2022 and the alleged
payment would be performed after this date, and the claim was lodged with FIFA on 3
October 2024, the Single Judge concluded that the claim was filed within the two-year
limitation outlined in art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations.
c. Burden of proof
32. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16422
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).
d. Merits of the dispute
33. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. 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 the payment of taxes in accordance with a
notification sent by the Portuguese tax authorities.
35. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Player requested the payment of
the following amounts:
-
EUR 42,400 ;
-
EUR 2,000 for the legal fees.
36. At this point, the Single Judge considered important to highlight that, while the tax
notification requested an amount of EUR 41,309.79, the Claimant requested a payment of
EUR 42,400, amount requested in the first claim (FPSD-3925) based on the Termination
Agreement and granted to the Player on the DRC Decision. In this regard, the Single Judge
noted that the Player has not clarified in his submission whether the amount requested
corresponds to the amount that has already been granted in the DRC Decision or to the
amount requested by the Portuguese tax authorities.
37. However, and as explained above, based on the default notice sent by the Player to the
Club, the Single Judge considered that the Player is requesting an advance of payment to
pay taxes as he stated in the notice that “I would ask you to pay Mr. Rami the said sum of
41,519.26 euros, so that he can settle the debt claimed by the tax authorities within 15 days this
letter being sent.” (emphasis added)
38. Consequently, the Single Judge considered that the amount owed to the tax authorities has
not yet been paid by the Player.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16422
39. Considering all the above, the Single Judge considered that his task is to analyse whether
the Club has to pay the amount requested by the Player.
40. In this context, the Single Judge observed that the Player provided a document sent by the
tax authorities that mentions the name of the Player, the date, the total amount due and
the fiscal period this amount corresponds to.
41. Nevertheless, the Single Judge noted that the Player has not submitted any additional
documentation to substantiate that the amount of EUR 41,519.26 corresponded to the tax
that arose from the payment made by the Club pursuant to the DRC Decision or to any
payment made by the Club to the Player. Furthermore, no tax declaration or other relevant
documentation related to the tax payment has been provided.
42. Moreover, the Single Judge emphasised that while the DRC decision and the compliance
with the amounts paid by the Club dated to the year 2022, the notification of the tax
authorities indicated 2021 as the relevant fiscal year.
43. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has not met his burden of
proof, as he has failed to demonstrate that the amount claimed to pay taxes is connected
to the payment made by the Club in accordance with the DRC Decision.
44. As a final note, the Single Judge considered relevant to emphasise that the DRC Decision is
final and binding.
45. Consequently, the Single Judge considered that the Claimant can no longer claim any
amounts arising from the DRC Decision as it has become final and binding.
46. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the claim.
e. Costs
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16422
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Adil Rami, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16422
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. 11