Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17094
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Jefferson Reis de Jesus
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT:
Jefferson Reis de Jesus, Brazil
Represented by Rafael Meirelles Gomes de Ávila
RESPONDENT:
Alashkert FC, Armenia
Represented by Ashot Kyureghyan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17094
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 July 2024, the Brazilian player Jefferson Reis de Jesus (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player) and the Armenian club Alashkert FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its date of
signature until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a
monthly salary of AMD 150,000 net.
3.
In addition, article 7.2 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“[…] With a subject to payment of compensation, determined in article 8.1.2. of this Contract,
the Football Player has a right to prematurely and unilaterally (at its own initiative) terminate
this Contract (at his own will), notifying the Club not less than one month before the termination
in accordance with requirements of the part 1 of article 112 of the Labour Code of the Republic
of Armenia and relevant terms of Regulations for the Status and Transfer of players FIFA and
FFA, fully paying the Club the compensation, stipulated in article 8 .1.2 of the present Contract.”
4.
Lastly, article 8 of the Contract read as follows:
“[…] 8.1.1. In order to maintain the stability of the Contract, being governed by the article 17
and other applicable provisions of FIFA regulation "on the Status and Transfer of Players", the
Club and the Football Player have agreed, that in accordance with article 112 of the Labour
Code of the Republic of Armenia in case of termination of this Contract by the initiative of the
Football Player (at his own will) or in case of termination of this Contract upon the initiative of
the Club on disciplinary grounds, which can be qualified as disciplinary sanction in accordance
with part 2 of article 223 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Armenia the Football Player
should pay to the Club a monetary compensation.
8.1.2. In accordance with the article 8 .1.1 or the present Contract, if the Contract is prematurely
and unilaterally terminated by the Football Player (at his own will) or 'in case of termination of
this Contract upon the initiative of the Club on disciplinary grounds, the Football Player shall be
obliged to pay a fine in 40 000 000 (forty million) in Armenian dram (AMD) as a liquidated
damage. […]”
5.
On 13 July 2024, the Claimant travelled to Armenia with his family.
6.
On 25 September 2024, the Club produced the following document regarding the Contract:
“PROOF OF LAST CONTRACT END DATE
Full Player Name: Jefferson Reis de Jesus
Date of Birth: 08.11.1995
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17094
Nationality(ies): Brazil
This is to confirm that the employment contract between Alashkert FC and player Jefferson Reis
de Jesus was terminated by the mutual agreement on 25.09.2024.
I, Liparit Navoyan, General Director of Alashkert FC declare on behalf of the Alashkert FC that
the details provided in this document are, to the best of my knowledge, correct, reliable and
accurate. […]”
7.
On 25 September 2024, the Player and the Club allegedly concluded the following
agreement to terminate the Contract (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement):
“[…] FC “Alashkert”, further “Club”, on behalf of its General Director Liparit Navoyan on the one
side which operates on a basis of legislation of “Club”, and on the other side Jefferson Reis de
Jesus further “Football player” have agreed to the following:
• The parties broke the employment contract, signed between the “Club” and the “Football
player” on 29.07.2024 mutual agreement and pre-term as from 25.09.2024 and the
“Football player” will be free.
• The “Football player” hereby assures that the “Club” has no obligations towards him
(including financial), stipulated by the contract.
• The “Club” hereby assures that the “Football player” has no obligations towards him
(including financial), stipulated by the contract.
• This Agreement is made of three equally valid copies. Each party should have one copy
and the third one should be submitted to FFA. […]”
8.
In addition, on 25 September 2024, the Claimant allegedly signed the following financial
declaration (hereinafter: the Financial Declaration):
“[…] Dear Audit Armenia CJSC
I hereby confirm that “Alashkert Football Club” Public Organization does not have any unfulfilled
financial obligations towards me as of September 25 2024. […]”
9.
On 30 September 2024, the Club produced a document confirming that it has not entered
into an agreement with a third party regarding the Player’s economic rights.
10. On 16 October 2024, the Player sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“Dear Mr.
Whereas the CLAIMANT had previously played for the RESPONDENT, the negotiations regarding
the discussed contract were conducted by phone between the CLAIMANT and Mr. Liparit
Novayan, a representative of the RESPONDENT.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17094
Whereas on July 13th, 2024, the CLAIMANT purchased airline tickets for himself and his wife,
intending to move to the new country and provide services to the RESPONDENT, spending a total
of USD 2,056.
Whereas the contract was signed by both parties on July 29th, 2024, establishing the contractual
period from July 29th, 2024, to May 31st, 2025.
Whereas the CLAIMANT was promised a monthly salary of USD 2,000, totaling [sic] USD 20,000
for the contract period.
Whereas the CLAIMANT did not receive the agreed-upon salaries, and on November 25th, 2024,
the RESPONDENT issued a statement declaring: “confirm that my club has not entered into an
agreement with a third party (defined as any party other than the two clubs transferring the
player or any previous club with which the player has been registered) regarding the abovenamed player’s economic rights,” a document signed solely by the RESPONDENT.
Whereas the RESPONDENT has, to this date, failed to comply with the terms established in the
employment contract, which has harmed the CLAIMANT’s career.
Whereas the RESPONDENT is known for falsifying documents in players’ names, including
signatures on receipts and contracts.
Whereas FIFA has consistently sought to ensure dignified working conditions for athletes by
incorporating contractual principles from Swiss law, such as pacta sunt servanda (the
agreement of the parties must be fulfilled), as well as the premise that a commitment may only
be terminated at the end of its term or by mutual agreement.
Whereas FIFA has established the fulfillment [sic] of contracts as a rule, imposing mechanisms
to enforce this premise, such as the prohibition of unilateral termination before the end of the
contract, under penalty of sports sanctions on the offending party, as well as financial
compensation to the injured party.
Whereas FIFA’s set of rules demonstrates that in cases of unilateral breach of employment, even
if not provided for by the parties, as per Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP), any breach of contract without just cause will lead to
compensation for the innocent party.
Based on the above considerations, the CLAIMANT has no other option but to formally
NOTIFY the Alashkert Football Club that:
1. PAY the amount of USD 20,000, representing the total value of the employment contract
signed between the parties.
2. PAY the amount of USD 2,056, representing the CLAIMANT’s expenses on airline tickets.
3. Provide digital copies of all documents signed by the CLAIMANT during his time at the club
and maintain the original documents for inspection by FIFA or, if necessary, the CAS/TAS. The
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17094
RESPONDENT may not claim that the documents were discarded or destroyed, as the
CLAIMANT is notifying its intention to have these documents examined.
If the RESPONDENT fails to pay or does not respond to this notification within 15 days, such
silence will be interpreted as a negative response.
It is important to note that the RESPONDENT is aware that, if this proposal for an amicable
agreement is not honored [sic] according to the exact terms of the contract, the CLAIMANT will
take legal action against the RESPONDENT for unilateral and unjustified termination of the
contract before the FIFA tribunals, as well as other measures to ensure the CLAIMANT’s rights.
[…]”
11. On 28 October 2024, the Respondent answered the Claimant’s correspondence as follows:
“Dear sir,
We have received an email substantially containing "a notice of default" with serious false
accusations made towards our most esteemed, which obviously cannot be tolerated at any level.
First things first, the employment relations between Jefferson Reis De Jesus (d.o.b. 08.11.1995,
nationality: Brazil, hereinafter referred to as: the "Player") and "FC Alashkert", a football club
affiliated to Football Federation of Armenia (hereinafter referred to as: the "Club") have been
solely regulated by the employment contract, dated 29 July 2024 (hereinafter referred to as: the
"Contract"), to which the Player voluntarily agreed WITHOUT ANY PRE-CONTRACT concluded
beforehand, thus the Contract unquestionably reflected the true and common intention of the
Parties and only the Contract has a binding force within the regulatory power of the relations.
This basic fact is proven by the fact that the Player performed under the Contract by being fielded
for 45 minutes in one of the matches. Thus, the allegations made by you referring to "promises"
are groundless in their entirety and shall not be taken into consideration at any level.
Nonetheless, the Player and the Club have mutually agreed to terminate the Contract
prematurely on 25 September 2024, the copy of which was duly provided to the Player. The
termination agreement, inter alia, provides as follows: "The "Football player" hereby assures
that the "Club" has no obligations towards him (including financial), stipulated by the contract."
Consequently, the Player unquestionably acknowledged the clearance of any overdue payables.
Furthermore, we would like to emphasize as follows : Your notice contains serious and unjust
accusations towards our club as if our club committed a forgery. In particular, it is written as
follows: “Whereas the RESPONDENT is known for falsifying documents in players' names,
including signatures on receipts and contracts.” This is a clear act of defamation, as the SAME
Player has made the same allegations towards our Club in 2021, when he was previously
employed. Moreover, a dispute arose, which was submitted to FIFA and the Player 's claim was
ENTIRELY REJECTED. The last time our Club was benevolent enough to not file a case of
defamation on that ground at a local Brazilian court, however, it seems our benevolence was
interpreted as an act of weakness by the Player leading to a same false allegation this time
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17094
making it systematic. We hereby firmly inform you, that this time our Club will undertake all the
necessary and required actions in accordance with Brazilian law and Brazilian court to make
the Player liable for a defamation in case the Player continuous his groundless accusation. We
STRONGLY recommend to inform your principal, the Player, about the consequences deriving
therefrom before continuing with the false allegations and accusations made towards our Club.
From the moment of receipt of this letter, we assume the Player is duly notified about the
abovementioned. Moreover, the former case is grounded decision, with all the motivation
reflected by FIFA DRC thereto. Needless to say that should the Player file a claim against us, we
will provide FIF A with that decision alongside the evidence pertinent to this matter.
As to the Article 17 of FIF A RSTP. The aforementioned Article, which you invoked, is related to
the termination of the employment contract without just cause by a party in breach. As stated
above, the Contract was terminated by mutual consent, therefore there is no room for Article 17
to be applied in the present case. Moreover, the same well-known principle of pacta sunt
servanda is also applicable to the mutual termination agreement, which the Player seems to not
be respecting. Thus, we hereby reply to your claim that our Club has nothing to pay to the Player.
Regarding the request of yours to provide with the documents, we herein state that the Player
has been provided with all the documents pertinent to his employment at our Club, including
the Contract and the mutual termination agreement, and our Club is not liable for the manner
of maintaining the original examples of the documents by the Player. Furthermore, we inform
you that om Club shall not provide the Player with any other documents as we have already
provided the Player with such and the Club's original copies are securely stored in the Club,
which we will provide to FIFA promptly upon the request of the latter should such request be
made by the latter.
Finally, we strongly recommend refraining from any actions, which can lead to a possible
damage to our Club due to groundless actions by the Player as this time our Club will not tolerate
such behaviour and will indeed undertake counter legal action at a level of domestic jurisdiction
to prevent such systematic abuse against it.”
12. On 20 January 2025, the Player signed an employment contract with the Brazilian club River
- PI valid as from its date of signature until 20 April 2025.
13. According to the Player’s employment contract with River - PI, he is entitled to a monthly
salary amounting to BRL 1,518.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17094
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 14 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
15. In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the Contract
without just cause by sending on 25 September 2024 a correspondence, to which he had
never agreed to or signed, stating that the Contract had been terminated by mutual
agreement.
16. In addition, the Claimant stated that he had never seen or signed the Annex of the Contract,
and that it was never part of the Contract.
17. The Claimant’s requests for relief, as amended, were the following:
“1. Order the RESPONDENT to pay USD 2,000 (two thousand dollars) as outstanding salaries
owed.
2. Order the RESPONDENT to pay the penalty provided in clause 8.1.2, in the amount of AMD
40,000,000 (forty million Armenian drams).
3. Should the DRC find that the CLAIMANT is not entitled to the penalty provided in clause 8.1.2,
it is requested that the full value of the contract, totaling [sic] USD 24,000 (twenty-four thousand
dollars), be established as the penalty for unjustified termination of his employment contract.
4. Order the RESPONDENT to reimburse USD 2,056 for the airfare expenses incurred by the
CLAIMANT, as evidenced by the attached payment receipt.
5. Order the RESPONDENT to provide, in digital format, all documents signed by the CLAIMANT
during his time at the club and to keep the originals in its possession for possible forensic
examination before the CAS/TAS, if necessary.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
18. In its reply, the Respondent argued that, because of the Claimant’s performance and his
lack of playing time, the Contract was terminated through a mutual agreement on 25
September 2024. In this regard, the Respondent relied on the documents the Claimant did
not submit in its claim, namely the Termination Agreement and the Financial Declaration
and indicated that it has no debt towards the Player.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17094
19. In addition, the Respondent noted that the Claimant’s request for reimbursement of flight
tickets has no contractual basis.
20. Lastly, the Respondent argued that the Claimant has a reputation for defaming clubs as
this is his third case before the Dispute Resolution Chamber and that the first two cases
have been rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
21. In his replica, the Claimant argued that the Respondent’s reference to his poor
performance is an attempt to justify the unilateral termination of the Contract.
22. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Termination Agreement and the Financial
Declaration are forged documents.
23. Lastly, the Claimant argued that he was promised a significantly higher salary than the one
stipulated in the Annexe of the Contract submitted by the Respondent. In this regard, the
Claimant noted that the disproportion between the contractual penalty and the salary
alleged by the Club strengthens the narrative that he was misled during the negotiations.
24. Taking into account the above, the Claimant requested payment from the Respondent of
the contractual penalty stipulated in the Contract, i.e. AMD 40,000,000, plus 5% interest p.a.
as from the date of the unilateral termination of the Contract until the date of effective
payment.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
25. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its initial position, noting that the Contract was
terminated by mutual agreement through the Termination Agreement.
26. In addition, the Respondent argued that the forgery allegations of the Claimant are
groundless as he failed to provide a single piece of evidence in this regard.
e. Original documents to be provided via courier
27. In light of the Claimant’s allegations of forgery concerning the Termination Agreement and
the Financial Declaration, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Respondent to provide
the original documents.
28. The FIFA general secretariat received the evidence requested from the Respondent.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17094
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 14 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 15 May 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.
30. 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) (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 an Armenian club.
31. 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. 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
32. 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
33. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17094
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the circumstances of the termination of their employment
relationship.
35. In particular, the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, the Respondent
unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause with its correspondence dated 25
September 2024 and forged his signature in the Termination Agreement and the Financial
Declaration.
36. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the allegations of the
Claimant and argued that the Contract was terminated by mutual agreement through the
Termination Agreement. In addition, the Respondent referred to the Financial Declaration
to argue that it has no debt towards the Claimant.
37. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the Termination Agreement and the Financial
Declaration are forged documents.
38. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber recalled that FIFA’s deciding bodies are not
competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the one of alleged falsified
signatures of documents, and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the competent
national criminal authority. Nonetheless, the Chamber held that, according to art. 13 par.
5 of the Procedural Rules, a party asserting a certain fact bears the burden of proving it.
39. In this framework, the Chamber deemed appropriate to recall that to be able to solve such
disputes in a satisfactory and timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation and
conclusion of a potential criminal investigation, it adopts a practical procedure in such
cases, namely, to request the original version of the disputed documents via regular mail.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that, if for a layman the documents appear to be
authentic and in line with the further documentation on file, such documents are
considered as authentic for the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.
40. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the documentation brought forward
by the parties and acknowledged receipt of the documents provided by the Club via
courier, namely the Termination Agreement and the Financial Declaration. In this regard,
the Chamber proceeded to assess whether the disputed documents could in fact be taken
into consideration in the context of the present case.
41. After thoroughly analysing the documentation provided by the Club via courier, the
Chamber noted that the copy of the Termination Agreement and the Financial Declaration
have been signed by hand and could be original. Nevertheless, the Chamber assessed
whether the signatures of the Player on the Termination Agreement and the Financial
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17094
Declaration are the same as on the Contract, a legal document whose authenticity is not
disputed between the parties, as well as on other documents on file. In this regard, the
Chamber observed that the Player’s signature appears to be the same in all documents on
file, with the exception of the Termination Agreement and the Financial Declaration.
Therefore, the Chamber considered that said documents lack credibility as to their veracity
and authenticity.
42. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also pointed out that the Club failed to further
prove its position that the Contract was terminated via the conclusion of the Termination
Agreement with the Player. In particular, the Chamber emphasised the Club’s lack of
evidentiary support for its assertion that the signatures on the Termination Agreement and
the Financial Declaration belong to the Player. As to the argument put forward by the Club
that the present matter constitutes the Player's third case before the Dispute Resolution
Chamber, with the first two having been rejected, the Chamber considered this point to be
of limited relevance, as those cases did not involve allegations of forgery.
43. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber established that the Termination
Agreement and the Financial Declaration could not be taken into account in the context of
the present dispute, as it appeared that the Player did not in fact sign said documents.
44. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Contract was terminated on 25 September 2024,
the day the Club produced the following document:
“PROOF OF LAST CONTRACT END DATE
Full Player Name: Jefferson Reis de Jesus
Date of Birth: 08.11.1995
Nationality(ies): Brazil
This is to confirm that the employment contract between Alashkert FC and player Jefferson Reis
de Jesus was terminated by the mutual agreement on 25.09.2024.
I, Liparit Navoyan, General Director of Alashkert FC declare on behalf of the Alashkert FC that
the details provided in this document are, to the best of my knowledge, correct, reliable and
accurate. […]”
45. In this context, the Chamber recalled the Football Tribunal’s long-standing jurisprudence,
according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the
termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are
objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to
assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17094
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
46. With the above principle in mind and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded
that the Respondent terminated the Contract without just cause on 25 September 2024.
ii. Consequences
47. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
48. The Chamber observed, based on the evidence on file, that the outstanding remuneration
at the time of termination of the Contract, coupled with the specific requests for relief of
the Player, are equivalent to the monthly salary of September 2024, amounting to AMD
150,000. In particular, the Chamber took note that the Claimant provided an incomplete
copy of the Contract, which did not include the Annexe that stipulated the remuneration
he was entitled to. Additionally, the Chamber took note that no evidence on file supports
the Player’s position that he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 2,000 pursuant to the
Contract.
49. Considering the foregoing, the Chamber relied on the information on the Transfer
Matching System (TMS) pursuant to art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which confirmed
that the Player’s monthly salary amounts to AMD 150,000, as indicated in the copy of the
Contract provided by the Respondent, which included the Annex.
50. The Chamber then noted that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the Respondent did not provide any
evidence to prove the payment of the amount claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
51. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding
amount under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. AMD 150,000.
52. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
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
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.
53. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17094
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 Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber took note of
the wording of article 8.1.2 of the Contract and concluded that it applies in case of
termination of the employment relationship upon the initiative of the Club on disciplinary
grounds, which is not applicable in the present matter.
54. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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)).
55. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber 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 Chamber
concluded that the amount of AMD 1,200,000 (i.e. the monthly salaries from October 2024
until May 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
56. In continuation, the Chamber 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 DRC 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.
57. Indeed, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Brazilian club River – PI,
valid as from 20 January 2025 until 20 April 2025. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary amounting to BRL 1,518.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of BRL 4,554 (BRL 1,518 x 3 months, i.e. from 20 January 2025 until 20 April 2025),
which corresponds to AMD 304,401 on 25 September 2024, the date of termination of the
Contract.
58. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17094
was not terminated due to said reason, i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall not receive additional compensation.
59. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
AMD 895,599 to the Claimant (i.e. AMD 1,200,000 minus AMD 304,401), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
60. Lastly, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s request for reimbursement of his flight
ticket due to a lack of legal basis.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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-17094
d. Costs
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17094
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jefferson Reis de Jesus, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alashkert FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- AMD 150,000 as outstanding remuneration;
- AMD 895,599 as compensation for breach of contract.
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-17094
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. 18