Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13052
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Leonardo
Ribeiro da Cruz
BY:
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar)
CLAIMANT:
Leonardo Ribeiro da Cruz, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
NEA SALAMINA FAMAGUSTA, Cyprus
Represented by Tasos M. Kyrmitsis
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13052
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 6 June 2023, the Brazilian player, Leonardo Ribeiro da Cruz (hereinafter: Claimant or
Player) and the Cypriot club, NEA SALAMINA FAMAGUSTA (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 6 June 2023 until
31 May 2024.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following:
“1.3 The Player's gross remuneration shall be as follows:
From 06/06/2023 until 31/05/2024, a gross salary of €4,491.86 (€4,000 net). The salary will be
given in 10 equal monthly installments of €400 (four hundred EURO), starting from 31/08/2023.
All taxes payable to the Tax Department, as per the applicable legislation, shall be paid by the
Club.”
3.
Article 13 of the contract stipulates:
“13. Dispute Resolution
Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA.”
4.
Additionally, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an Image Rights contract, in
accordance with which the Respondent undertook to pay the following to the Claimant:
“SALARIES OF THE FOOTBALL PLAYER”
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
The Player's Total installments for period of employment
06/06/2023 - 31/05/2024, is €31,000 EURO (Thirty-One
Thousand EURO) NET. The amount of €31,000 EURO (Thirty-One
Thousand EURO) will be given in 10 equal monthly
installments of €3.100 (Three thousand and one hundred
EURO) NET, with 45 (forty-five) days period of grace, starting
from 31/08/2023.
€31,000 EURO (ThirtyOne Thousand EURO)
5.
On 31 July 2023, allegedly the club’s agent contacted the player and his agent “and they were
both informed by the decision of the Club to breach both contracts.”
6.
On 7 August 2023, the player indicated that the club requested him to return the car
provided to him “since the Employment Contract and the Image Contract was terminated.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13052
7.
On 11 August 2023, the player put the club in default and requested payment of the
amount of the amount of EUR 35,000 corresponding to his outstanding remuneration,
granting a deadline of 10 days to comply.
8.
On 16 August 2023, the Club requested the Player to attend a hearing at the head offices
of the Club with the purpose to discuss the terms and conditions of a possible settlement
agreement.
9.
On 18 August 2023,” it was published on the website of CFA that the Club had added the Player
to its squad.”
10. On 22 August 2023, the Club sent correspondence to the Player, inter alia, mentioning the
following:
“The Club is aware that an employment contract may only be terminated upon the expiry of the
term or by mutual agreement of the parties in accordance with Art.13 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players ("RSTP"). Because of this we would like to inform you that
on the 16th of August 2023 it was mutually agreed in writing between the Player and the Club
to terminate both contacts dated 6th of June 2023 (Employment Contact & Image Rights
Contract).
Therefore, by presenting to you all the above the Club reject and ignored all the allegations in
your letter for a unilateral termination without just cause. It is clear and clarified that the Player
and the Club had mutually agreed to terminate their employment relationship on the 16th of
August 2023.”
11. On 28 August 2023, the Player answered the Club and mentioned that he never agreed to
mutually terminate the employment relationship with the Club nor signed any agreement
to that effect on 16 August 2023.
12. On 25 September 2023, the Player sent a further correspondence to the Club, indicating,
inter alia, that he never agreed to the mutual termination agreement or that he signed it.
13. On 19 September 2023, the player signed an employment contract with the Greek club,
Niki Volou 1924 valid as from 30 September 2023 until 30 June 2024, including a monthly
salary of EUR 1,170 between 30 September 2023 and 30 June 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 14 December 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13052
a. Position of the Claimant
15. The Claimant, inter alia, argued that the Respondent committed a contractual breach.
16. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“FIRST – To uphold the entire claim filed by the Player;
SECOND – To issue a finding that the Termination Agreement is null and void;
THIRD - To issue a finding that the Club terminated the Employment Contract and the Image
Contract unilaterally and without any just cause whatsoever;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 35,000 (thirty-five
thousand Euros) due as compensation for the unilateral breach of the Employment Contract
and the Image Contract, plus default interest at the rate of 5% annually as from 1 August 2023
until the effective date of payment;
FIFTH – To impose transfer ban on the Club prohibiting it from registering any new players, either
national or internationally, for 2 (two) entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. Art. 17,
par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP);
SIXTH – To request the Club to forward to the members of the FIFA DRC an original form of the
Termination Agreement;
SEVENTH - To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately (cf. Art. 21, par. 1 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); AND
EIGHTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings is free of any costs.”
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Respondent firstly contested FIFA’s jurisdiction based on article 13 of the
contract.
18. According to the club on 16 August 2023, the Player voluntarily visited the offices of the Club,
and he signed a mutual termination agreement and simultaneously receiving €3500- in cash.”
19. The club argued that the Player “until today insists that he never signed any contract on the
16th August 2023, but he accepts through his letter dated 25th September 2023 that he only
signed the said payment receipt”.
20. The club indicated that the original termination agreement was available for inspection by
the player as provided to FIFA.
21. The club indicated that based on the discrepancies it “received an independent handwriting
expert/graphologist report, which concluded that it is clear and undisputed that the signature
on the termination agreement dated 15th of August 2023 are genuine signatures by Leonardo
Ribeiro Da Cruz, the Player.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13052
22. According to the club “the present case is not a case of a unilateral termination with or
without just a cause. The present case according to our position as illustrated above is a
clear mutual termination agreement.”
23. In conclusion the club indicated that “all the facts provided above and especially the expert
report we are calling you to reject his claim and order him to cover all the legal expenses
of the present procedure plus the expenses of the expert report.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13052
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 14 December
2023 and submitted for decision on 11 June 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. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players February 2024 edition), the Single Judge
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 Cypriot club.
26. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition)
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 December 2023, the May 2023
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Admissibility.
28. The Single Judge further noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of Cyprus
(hereinafter: the NDRC of Cyprus), alleging that the latter is competent to deal with any
dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract.
29. Taking into account the above, the Single Judge emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13052
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or
in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national
arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs.
30. In this context, the Single Judge pointed out that it should first analyse whether the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Cyprus. In this respect, the Single Judge referred
to article 13 of the contract, which, inter alia states: “Any employment dispute between the
Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved according to the applicable regulations of the CFA.”
31. The Single Judge, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause, concluded that such
clause was indeed clear and exclusive in favour of the competence of the NDRC of Cyprus.
32. Having established the foregoing, the Single Judge turned its attention to the further prerequisites for establishing the competence of a NDRC. The Single Judge namely referred to
principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is
one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute
resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as
in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as
follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a fouryear renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by
the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives
who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to
FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by
FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA
Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the
appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to
appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration
tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group
that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the
arbitrator list”.
33. With the aforementioned principles in mind, the Single Judge established that the
Respondent failed to submit any documentation as corroborating evidence to proof that
the NDRC of the CFA meets the requirements of the FIFA circular 1010.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13052
34. On account of all the above, the Single Judge established that the Respondent’s objection
to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
d. Merits of the dispute
35. Her competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
36. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note that the case at hand pertains to a claim for compensation for breach
of contract, lodged by the player against the club.
37. The Single Judge noted that the club argued that the contract was terminated by mutual
termination and that the player on his account argued that the termination agreement is
null and void, moreover that his signature was forged on the said agreement.
38. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine the validity
of the termination agreement.
39. In this context the Single Judge observed that the player indicated that he signed the
payment receipt to receive the money in settlement as indicated in the termination
agreement but argued that his signature on the termination agreement was forged.
40. In reference to the player’s argument, the Single Judge remarked that the player did not
advance any evidence in support of his allegations that such documents were forged.
41. By recalling the content of art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge
established that the player therefore failed to provide documentary evidence relating to
his argument, hence she decided to reject the argument of the player.
42. In continuation, the Single Judge mentioned that the club on the other hand provided the
original termination agreement to the FIFA administration together with a report from an
independent handwriting expert/graphologist which confirmed the authenticity of the
signature of the player on the said termination agreement.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13052
43. Therefore, on analysis of all the documentation on file, the Single Judge indicated that it is
evident that the parties agreed to mutually terminate the contract, moreover the Single
Judge noted that the player almost immediately signed a new employment contract with
another club.
44. In consideration of the circumstances in the matter at hand, the Single Judge indicated that
it led to the conclusion and furthermore verified that the termination agreement signed on
16 August 2023, reflected the true intention of the parties regarding the terms for mutual
termination.
45. In support of this, the Single Judge highlighted that the original document as provided by
the club was signed by both parties, furthermore the player failed to provide corroborating
evidence as to his argument that the said agreement was forged by the club, additionally
collecting the money in settlement.
46. Taking the above into account, the Single Judge concluded that the termination agreement
is be deemed as valid and binding.
47. Consequently, the Single Judge rejected the claim of the player as the said termination
agreement confirmed the terms of settlement, not entitling the player to further
compensation.
e. Costs
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13052
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Leonardo Ribeiro
da Cruz.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Leonardo Ribeiro da Cruz, is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13052
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. 12