Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01288
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge
passed on 27 January 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ricardo Alves Pereira
BY:
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay/Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Ricardo Alves Pereira, Brazil
Represented by Marcelo Amoretty Souza
RESPONDENT:
Club US Ben Guerdane, Tunisia
Page 2 of 10
REF 20-01288
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 16 May 2019, the Brazilian player Ricardo Alves Pereira (hereinafter “the player”) and the
Tunisian club US Ben Guerdane (Hereinafter “the club”) signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: “the contract”) valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2021.
2.
According to art. 4 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player the following
salary:
-
Season 2019/2020: USD 30,000 to be paid as follows:
•
•
•
-
USD 10,000 before 31 July 2019;
USD 10,000 before 31 January 2020;
USD 10,000 before 31 May 2020.
Season 2020/2021: USD 30,000 to be paid as follows:
•
•
•
USD 10,000 before 31 July 2020;
USD 10,000 before 31 January 2021;
USD 10,000 before 31 May 2021.
3.
In addition to the above, the club undertook to provide the player with accommodation with
two other players and collective transportation.
4.
On an unknown date, the player, the club and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Ansar (hereinafter:
the Saudi Arabian club or Al Ansar) signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: “the loan
agreement”) according to which the player was loaned from the former to the latter “as from
its date until 15/06/2020”.
5.
According to the loan agreement, Al Ansar paid USD 20,000 to the club for the loan of the
player and Al Ansar undertook to pay the player USD 30,000 for the duration of the loan,
including his agent’s fees.
6.
By means of a letter dated 10 August 2020 to the club, the player complained that the salaries
due on 31 May 2020 and 31 July 2020 remained outstanding. However, the player
underlined that he wished to continue working for the club. As such, the player granted the
club 15 days to pay the relevant amounts, failing which he would terminate the contract.
7.
On 26 August 2020, the player noted that no payment and no answer had been received by
the club within the 15-day deadline. In this context, the player informed the club of the
termination of the contract.
8.
On 4 September 2020, the club replied expressing its surprise with regard to the
aforementioned correspondence. The club explained that the player was loaned to the Saudi
Page 3 of 10
REF 20-01288
Arabian club, as from 1 January 2020 until 15 June 2020. With the foregoing in mind, the
club stated the following:
-
It always respected its commitments and the player “signed a document dated
30/01/2020 certifying that he has received all his salaries”;
The player cannot claim his salary of 31 May 2020 since his loan ends on 30 June 2020;
The sports season in Tunisia ends on 15 June 2020 but due to covid-19, the season was
extended until 15 September 2020 in accordance with FIFA Circular 1714;
The payment due on 31 July 2020 “is provided for in the contract for the start of the
2020/2021 season, but this season does not start until 10/01/2020”;
9. The club further informed the player that “we are ready in case of your refusal of any
cooperation to pay the player” and explained that “coming to an agreement in good faith
will be beneficial for the player”. In particular, the club expressed its “desire to see the player
again in our team and we are counting on him very much for next season”. Finally, the club
held that the player went directly to Brazil at the end of his loan, in clear violation of the
contract and considered that the player’s termination was not valid.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
II.
10. On 10 September 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. The claim of the Claimant
11. In his claim, the player insisted that he always complied with his contractual obligations.
However, the player explained he only received the two first salaries set out in the contract,
the club failing to pay the salaries due on 31 May 2020 and 31 July 2020.
12. According to the Claimant, the club did not reply to his default notices.
13. The Claimant submits that taking into account that the player’s annual salary was USD
30,000, to be paid in 3 instalments, the player “came to the conclusion that each instalment
covers 4 (four) months of salary”. Therefore, by failing to pay the two instalments of 31 May
2020 and 31 July 2020, the club actually failed to pay 8 months of salary.
14. As such, the player considered that the club was in breach of contract and that thus, he was
entitled to terminated the contract with just cause as per art. 14bis, as he did.
15. In light of the above, the player requested the following:
-
USD 20,000 as outstanding remuneration;
USD 20,000 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract
(instalments due on 31 January and 31 May 2021);
Page 4 of 10
REF 20-01288
-
Sporting sanctions as per art. 17 par. 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (RSTP) against the club.
b.
Position of the Respondent
16. In his reply, the club held that the player expressed his intention to be loaned and was thus
loaned to the Saudi Arabian club as from 30 January 2020 until 15 June 2020.
17. According to the Respondent, when the player sent his default notices, the player was on
loan in the Saudi Arabian club. Considering that the contract between the player and the
club was suspended during the loan, the player had no right to receive said amounts.
18. The club also explained that the salaries were paid in cash because the player failed to provide
a valid bank account.
19. The Respondent further argues that the player never came back to the club after his loan in
Saudi Arabia and travelling was not an issue as there were still regular flights between the
two countries.
20. However, by means of its letter dated 4 September 2020, the club offered to the player to
amicably resolve the situation and to let the player resume his activity with the club.
21. This said, the Respondent emphasises that the player never replied to its correspondence,
thereby clearly demonstrating his bad faith and wish to terminate the contract rather than
resuming his activities.
22. In light of the above, the club considered that the player terminated the contract without just
cause and claimed to have suffered a damage since it lost a valuable foreign player. As such,
the club lodged a counterclaim against the player and requested the following.
-
USD 40,000 calculated on the basis of the contract “(USD 10,000 received + USD 30,000
to be received)” (free translation from original in French);
Sporting sanctions in the form of a suspension of 6 months against the player.
23. Alternatively, the club requested that the player’s claim be rejected.
c.
Answer to the counterclaim
24. In its position on the counterclaim, the player confirmed that he was loaned to the Saudi
Arabian club “for the period of 30 January 2020 to 30 May 2020”.
25. This said, the player claimed that “this contract was terminated on 05 March 2020, having in
mind the player’s ITC was never delivered to the Saudi club, because the Respondent delayed
the insertions of the details on the TMS system”. As such, the player emphasised that the
non-obtaining of the ITC is not his fault and referred to DRC jurisprudence in that regard.
Page 5 of 10
REF 20-01288
26. The termination agreement between the player and Al Ansar provided the following (quoted
verbatim):
“I am the undersigned RICARDO ALVES PEREIRA, BRAZILIAN nationality passport no
(YE020972) professional player in the first team football club Al-Ansar city IN Madinah for
the sports season 2019/20920 THAT My contract had been terminated consensually between
me and the club and I received my full financial dues from salaries and housing allowance
until today 5/3/2020, and that my contract with the club, which started on 30/1/2020 and
end on 30/5/2020 and I have no right to claim the club or any other entity any financial
aspects for this period by check number (05375140) Fro (37500 riyals), equivalent to 10,000
dollar, and this is my confirmation of that”.
27. The Claimant argues that considering the loan agreement and the employment contract
between the player and the Saudi Arabian club were terminated on 5 March 2020, the
“contract between the Claimant and the Respondent returned to be in force, consequently,
the obligation to make the payments of the salary was in force also”.
28. The player also acknowledged that the club offered to amicably terminate the contract,
however the player “never wanted to terminate his contract. On contrary, the Claimant
wanted to maintain his contract until the final day, reason why the Claimant did not accepted
(sic) the termination agreement offered by the Respondent.”
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge (hereinafter: DRC 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 10 September 2020 and submitted for decision on
27 January 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of
the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
30. Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2021), 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 Tunisian 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition January 2021), and
Page 6 of 10
REF 20-01288
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 September 2020, the August 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
32. The DRC Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC Judge stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
33. In this respect, the DRC Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining
to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained
in TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
34. The competence of the DRC Judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, she started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC 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.
35. Having said this, the DRC Judge proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding
the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind
art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on
the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
36. From the documentation available on TMS and on file, the DRC Judge was convinced of the
fact that the player’s loan to Al Ansar was terminated prematurely, due to player’s ITC not
being delivered. In this regard, the termination agreement signed between the player and Al
Ansar, provided only in the response to the counterclaim, provides convincing evidence of
the fact that the loan of the player ended at the latest on 5 March 2020.
37. Against such background, the DRC Judge deemed that the contract between the player and
the club should had become valid again on or around March 2020, since its term was 30
June 2021.
38. Analysing the evidence on file, the DRC Judge took note that the club held that the player
never came back after his unsuccessful loan in Saudi Arabia and further specified that
travelling was not an issue as there were still regular flights between the two countries.
Page 7 of 10
REF 20-01288
39. The DRC Judge gave weight to the fact that in his default notice dated 10 August 2020, the
player claimed that he wished to continue working for the club. However, it should be noted
that the player did not mention anything in his claim with regard to his loan to Saudi Arabia.
40. Moreover, the DRC Judge gave weight to the fact that the player did not provide any
elements to explain whether or not he returned to Tunisia in March 2020. Indeed, it was
noted by the DRC Judge that the player did not contest the club’s argument that he did not
return back to Tunisia in March 2020, nor any other time thereafter. Furthermore, the player
did not provide any evidence as to whether he tried to return Tunisia at any given time.
41. Furthermore, the DRC Judge turn to the fact that according to the club’s correspondence
dated 4 September 2020, the club made an offer to the player to amicably resolve the
situation and to let the player resume his activity with the club. The player did not reply to
said correspondence and lodged his claim in front of FIFA only 6 days later, i.e. on 10
September 2020.
42. On the other hand, the DRC Judge noted that the club was, or should had been, aware that
the loan to Al Ansar had not materialized due to the impossibility for delivering the ITC on
time, partly due to the club’s actions.
43. Moreover, whilst there is no evidence on file to suggest that the club was aware of the
termination signed between Al Ansar and the player, there is no evidence either of any
attempt made by the club to contact the player at the time before or after the loan agreement
was originally due to expire (i.e. 30 June 2020) in order for the parties to organize the return
of the player.
44. Against such background, the DRC Judge was comfortably satisfied to consider that the
parties lost interest in one another as no services were provided by the player since 15
December 2019 and as from the evidence available on file, it also appears that the club did
not try to reach out to the player to ask him to return to Tunisia to resume his activities, at
any given time, neither at the expected expiry date of the loan nor at the factual early
termination date of the loan. Put differently, the DRC Judge concluded that both parties
mutually departed from the contract since 15 December 2019.
45. Bearing in mind all the above, the DRC Judge decided that the claim and the counterclaim
are both rejected in its entirety.
46. As a way of conclusion, the DRC Judge referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in
relation to the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment
related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the DRC Judge
decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
Page 8 of 10
REF 20-01288
47. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC Judge recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
IV. DECISION OF THE DRC JUDGE
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Ricardo Alves Pereira, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club US Ben Guerdane, is rejected.
For the DRC Judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
REF 20-01288
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 of the Procedural Rules).
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
Page 10 of 10