Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14112
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luca Taylor
Maia Reis
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Lucas Taylor Maia Reis, Brazil
Represented by CSMV Advogados
RESPONDENT:
FC PAOK THESSALONIKI, Greece
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14112
I. Facts of the case
1.
The Brazilian player Lucas Taylor Maia Reis (hereinafter the Claimant or the Player) and the
Greek club PAOK Thessalonikin(hereinafter the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter the Employment Contract) valid as from 2 July 2021 until
30 June 2024.
2.
Clause 4.1 of the Employment Contract outlined the Club's obligations regarding the
Player’s remuneration as follows:
(i)
3.
A monthly gross salary of EUR 1,283; and “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).”
Clause 4.4 of the Employment Contract outlined further Club's obligations regarding the
Player’s remuneration as follows:
(ii)
A total net amount of EUR 960,000 over the contract’s duration, payable as
follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14112
4.
In August 2022, the parties and the Ukrainian club, Shakhtar Donetsk, agreed upon the
loan of the Player from 22 August 2022 until 30 June 2023.
5.
Consequently, on 21 August 2022, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a private
agreement (hereinafter the Private Agreement) to govern their relationship in the light of
the loan.
6.
The Private Agreement stipulated the following:
“4.- PAOK F.C. undertakes the obligation to pay the Player the proportion of his salary
of August 2022 of article 4.1 of the Contract of 30.06.2021 and the proportion of salary
bonuses of the same article until his leaving from PAOK F. C. payroll, which will take
place on 22.08.2022. Moreover, PAOK F.C. will pay the Player, by no later than 31.08.2022,
the 12th and 13th installment of the Contract of 30.06.2021, payable on 29.07.2022according to the contract amendment of 27.06.2022-and 31.07.2022, amounted to 27.400,00
Euros net and 26.600,00 net accordingly.”
“5.- The Player declares that, apart from the amounts referred to in article 4, he has no
demand or claim, past, present or future, against PAOK F. C., arising from the present,
the Contract of 30.06.2021 as well as from any other reason, for the period of his loan to
F.C. SHAKHTAR DONETSK. Moreover, if the Player is permanently transferred to F.C. SHAKHTAR
DONETSK as from 01.07.2023 according to the terms of the loan transfer agreement dated
21.08.2022, the Player declares that he has no demand or claim, past, present or future,
against PAOK F.C., arising from the present, the Contract of 30.06.2021 as well as from any
other reason.” (emphasis added)
7.
Following the information contained in TMS, on 21 August 2022, the Player and Shakhtar
Donetsk concluded an employment agreement valid as from 22 August 2022 until
30 June 2023 for, inter alia, for a monthly salary of EUR 34,783.
8.
On 23 November 2022, the legal representative of the Player sent a letter to the Club,
requesting the payment of the following:
−
−
−
The proportion of the Player’s salary for August 2022.
The proportion of salary bonuses for the same period.
The 12th and 13th instalments of the contract, amounting to EUR 27,400 and
EUR 26,600 net, respectively.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14112
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 18 March 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. The Claimant lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and requested the payment of
EUR 18,019.35 net with 5% annual interest from 31 August 2022.
11. The Player explained that this amount corresponds to his remuneration arising from
Clause 4 of the Private Agreement for the period comprised between 1 August 2022 to
21 August 2022. In this respect, the Player argued that the “salary” should be calculated
based on Clauses 4.1 and 4.4 of the Employment Contract.
12. The Player’s calculation was as follows:
Description
Full Monthly Basic Salary (stemming from Clause 4.1 of the Employment
Contract)
Full Monthly Additional Salary (stemming from Clause 4.4 of the
Employment Contract)
Proportional Period (21/31 days)
Gross Salary for August (Proportional)
Net Additional Salary for August (Proportional)
Amount
EUR 1,283
EUR 26,600
EUR 869.12
EUR 18,019.35
13. In view of the above, the Player argued that part of the salary stemming from Clause 4.4 of
the Employment Contract remained outstanding.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. In its reply, the Respondent contended that all payment obligations under the Private
Agreement had been met.
15. The Respondent underlined that, under Clause 5 of the Private Agreement, the Player
declared that he had no further claims against PAOK FC beyond the amounts specified in
Clause 4 of said Agreement. The Respondent continued that despite this clear agreement,
the Player now seeks to reinterpret the definition of his “monthly salary” and include
additional payments as instalments, contradicting the agreement’s explicit terms.
16. According to the Club, if the Player wanted for his pro-rata instalment of August to be
included as part of the settlement amount, then he had ample chance to suggest that
amendment or raise the relevant objection. Instead, it was not until 19 months after the
Private Agreement was signed that the Player found fault with it.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14112
17. The Club argued that the Player waived his right to claim any payments beyond those
stipulated in Clause 4 of the Private Agreement, in other words, payments 12 and 13 of the
Instalments and his pro-rata August salary per Clause 4.1 of the Employment Contract.
18. The Club stated that the Player waived said instalments because he was the one who
pushed to move away from Paok Thessaloniki, as Shakhtar Donetsk is a Champions League
Team.
c. Replica of the Claimant
19. In his replica, the Claimant insisted to receive the amount of EUR 18,019.35.
20. The Claimant argued that there is no violation to the principle of pacta sunt servanda once
he claims due payment of amounts arising precisely from Clause 4 of the Employment
Agreement. The Claimant argued that the amount in dispute does not exacerbate the
remuneration detailed in the items of Clause 4. Rather, it places the concept of “salary” at
the centre of the discussion, once the instalments provided for in Clause 4.4 are part of his
salary. In other words, according to the Claimant, the concept of "salary" should include
the instalments mentioned in Clause 4.4 of the Employment Agreement.
21. The player insisted that his claim is not time-barred and therefore there is no venire contra
factum proprium.
22. Finally, the Claimant added that “it is important to point out that the alleged proof of
payment –which resembles an internal payment accrual –referring to the 2022 Christmas bonus
and the proportional pro rata August amount concerning Clause 4.1 of the Employment
Agreement (Exhibit 18 of the Answer), does not alter the request made in the claim (as none of
them are part of the amounts hereby claimed by the Player). Rather, the Claimant’s request
refers specifically to the amounts established in Clause 4.4. of the Employment Agreement
concerning August 2022.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
23. In its duplica, the Respondent emphasized once again that the Player waived any claims
beyond what was stipulated in the Private Agreement, specifically referring to
Instalments 12 and 13 and pro-rata August salary, not the entire contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14112
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 18 March 2024 and submitted for decision on
22 August 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
25. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the 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 Greek club.
26. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 March 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. 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
28. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-14112
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this
case concerns allegedly overdue payables.
30. Before turning their attention to the arguments of the parties, the members of the DRC
recalled that the present dispute arises from an employment contract between the parties,
which was effective from 2 July 2021 until 30 June 2024. The DRC further took note that in
August 2022, the Player was loaned to Shakhtar Donetsk, and a Private Agreement was
signed between the Player and the Club to address remuneration issues related to the loan.
31. Thereafter, the DRC took note that the Player claimed outstanding remuneration
amounting to EUR 18,019.35 net, calculated for the period between 1 August 2022 to
21 August 2022. In this respect, the members observed that the amount claimed
corresponds to a part of the August salary, established in Clause 4.4 of the Employment
Contract.
32. Equally, the Chamber analysed the arguments of the Club. The latter asserted that all
obligations under the Private Agreement were fulfilled. It emphasized that the Player
waived any claims beyond the amounts specified in the Private Agreement, including the
pro-rata August salary payable per Clause 4.4. of the Employment Contract.
33. In this context, the Chamber looked at the exact wording of the Private Agreement, which
clearly stipulates that the Claimant undertakes the obligation to pay “the proportion of his
salary of August 2022 of article 4.1 of the Contract of 30.06.2021 and the proportion of
salary bonuses of the same article until his leaving from PAOK F. C. payroll, which will take place
on 22.08.2022. Moreover, PAOK F.C. will pay the Player, by no later than 31.08.2022, the 12th
and 13th installment of the Contract of 30.06.2021.” (emphasis added)
34. After a due analysis of this clause, the members of the Chamber concluded that the
intention of the parties was to include the remuneration based on Clause 4.1 of the
Employment Contract, i.e. proportion of EUR 1,283. On the other hand, the Chamber noted
that the Private Agreement does not mention the proportion of the 14th instalment (unlike
explicit mention of the other instalments 12th and 13th).
35. Based on the clear wording of such clause, the members of the Chamber concluded that
the Player was merely entitled to the pro-rata amounts of his salary August 2022 of
Clause 4.1 of the Employment Contract, which he recognized as paid by the Club.
36. For the sake of completeness, the DRC added that even if the 14th instalment would have
been considered as a salary, the Player has been granted an equivalent consideration in
exchange of any waiver. In this regard, the Chamber pointed to the transfer to Shakhtar
Donetsk, financial implications related thereto as well as Shakhtar’s participation in the
UEFA competition.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14112
37. The DRC continued that the Player has never disputed his consent to the arrangement
found between the parties. Likewise, the Player has never raised any objections as to the
circumstances for the signature of the loan to Shakhtar Donetsk or the Private Agreement,
such as that he was under duress, unaware of the waiver and/or in opposition to the terms
therein established.
38. Considering the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Club accepted to loan the
Player to another club free of costs, whereas the Player committed to seek new
opportunities in a different country, for a slightly higher remuneration, however at the
expense of one of the instalments mentioned in Clause 4.4 of the Employment Contract.
39. All in all, the DRC stressed that that the Player could not now change his course of action
and argue that the negotiations were illegally conducted, hence that the waived amount
should be in fact granted (venire contra factum proprium). In other words, Clause 4.4 of the
Employment Contract was validly waived.
40. In view of the above, the Chamber rejected the claim of the Claimant.
d. Costs
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14112
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lucas Taylor Maia Reis, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14112
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11