DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17756
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player David
Ribera Viana
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
David Ribera Viana, Bolivia
Represented by Jamil Mirko Pardo Chavez
RESPONDENT:
Kelantan Darul Naim FC, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17756
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
On 18 February 2024, the Bolivian player, David Ribera Viana (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Malaysian club, Kelantan United FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) signed an offer letter (hereinafter: the Offer) with the following conditions:
-
Salary USD 5,000 net as from “the first day of your appearance subject to medical
examination result by club/ government doctor in Malaysia.”
-
Duration: 1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024.
-
Clause 3: “Player’s Agent fee: Equivalent to one (1) month of Player’s salary.”
-
Clause 4: “Taxes: Club will be responsible for the Player’s taxes.”
-
Clause 9: “This contract will be automatically revoked without any demands for
compensation if the player does not pass the medical examination test and/or physical
fitness & endurance test or not successfully registered to play in the Malaysian
League.”
On 1 April 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 April 2024 until 30 September 2024 and the
parties agreed on the following remuneration:
-
USD 5,000 per month to be paid no later than the 7th of each month.
3.
According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 24 April
2024, the Respondent entered a transfer instruction in TMS for the permanent transfer of
the Claimant and uploaded the Contract that had been duly signed by the parties.
4.
On 26 April 2024, the Malaysian FA confirmed the receipt of the ITC and registered the
Claimant with the FA for the Respondent.
5.
On 3 December 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting the
following payments:
-
USD 1,500 corresponding to 30% of April’s salary;
USD 1,500 corresponding to 30% of May’s salary;
USD 1,500 corresponding to 30% of April’s salary;
USD 5,000 for July’s salary;
USD 5,000 for August’s salary;
USD 5,000 for September’s salary;
USD 5,000 for the agent’s fees.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17756
6.
The Claimant gave a deadline of 15 days to the Respondent to comply with its default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 10 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
8.
The Claimant alleged that until June 2024, the Respondent was only paying 70% of the
Claimant’s salary for the months of April, May and June 2024. In addition, the Club did not
pay the salaries of July, August and September 2024 in their entirety.
9.
The Claimant argued that he did not have a copy of his Contract as it was not provided by
the Respondent and therefore, the contractual basis of his claim was the Offer.
10. In continuation, the Claimant analysed the Offer and claimed that it contained the
essentialia negotii and had been duly signed and accepted by the Claimant. Therefore,
according to the latter, the Offer shall be considered valid and binding.
11. Finally, the Claimant requested the following relief:
-
USD 1,500 net that corresponded to 30% of the salary of April 2024;
USD 1,500 net that corresponded to 30% of the salary of May 2024;
USD 1,500 net that corresponded to 30% of the salary of June 2024;
USD 5,000 net that corresponded to the entire salary of July 2024;
USD 5,000 net that corresponded to the entire salary of August 2024;
USD 5,000 net that corresponded to the entire salary of September 2024;
USD 5,000 net that corresponded to the payment of the agent’s fees.
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. 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
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17756
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 January 2025 and submitted for
decision on 9 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.
14. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (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 a
Bolivian player and a Malaysian club.
15. 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 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
16. 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 he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
17. 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
18. 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 overdue salaries based on an
offer letter as the Claimant alleged not being in possession of his employment contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17756
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to firstly determine the
contractual basis of the claim and secondly whether or not the Respondent had complied
with its contractual obligations or not.
20. In this regard, the Single Judge took note of the fact that the Claimant provided a copy of
the Offer alleging not having been provided with a copy of his Contract. However, the Single
Judge observed, through the authority enshrined in art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules,
that the Contract, that was duly signed by the parties, had been uploaded in TMS by the
Respondent. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Contract contained the same
provisions as for the duration and remuneration as the Offer.
21. Therefore, according to the Single Judge, the analysis as to whether the Offer constituted a
valid and binding was not necessary as the Contract had been uploaded by the Respondent
in TMS.
22. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Contract shall be considered the
contractual basis of the present claim.
23. Having established the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the outstanding
amounts. In this regard, he noted that the Claimant requested the following amounts:
-
USD 1,500 corresponding to 30% of April’s salary;
USD 1,500 corresponding to 30% of May’s salary;
USD 1,500 corresponding to 30% of June’s salary;
USD 5,000 for July’s salary;
USD 5,000 for August’s salary;
USD 5,000 for September’s salary;
USD 5,000 for the agent’s fees.
24. The Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent did not respond to the claim, entailing
that his decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant, in line with art. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules.
25. In view of the above and principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided to award
the Claimant the salaries of the total amount of USD 19,500 corresponding to the balance
of the salaries for the months of April, May and June 2024 and the full salaries for the
months of July, August and September 2024.
26. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 8 May 2024 until the date of
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17756
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 8 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 8 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 8 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 8 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 8 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
27. The Single Judge also noted that the Claimant had requested the amounts to be
awarded on a net basis. However, he observed that the Contract did not specify whether
the amounts were to be considered net or gross. In the view of the Single Judge, the mere
fact that the Offer referred to net amounts did not automatically imply that the amounts
stipulated in the Contract should also be treated as net.
28. Consequently, the Single Judge decided not to award the amounts on a net basis.
27. Finally, regarding the agent’s fee requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge observed that
the Contract did not include a provision foreseeing such a payment. As a result, based on
the lack of a contractual basis, the Single Judge decided not to award said amount.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
28. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
29. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
30. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17756
31. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) of the Regulations.
32. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
33. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
34. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
35. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
36. 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.
37. The Single Judge 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. 8
REF. FPSD-17756
d. Costs
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17756
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, David Ribera Viana, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kelantan United FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 19,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 8 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 8 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of USD 1,500 as from 8 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 8 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 8 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of USD 5,000 as from 8 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17756
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17756
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. 12