Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17942
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Carlos Nazayro Rivas Cedasmano
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kükesi, Albania
RESPONDENT:
Carlos Nazayro Rivas Cedasmano, Peru
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17942
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 August 2023, the Albanian club Kukësi (hereinafter, the Club or the Claimant) and the
Peruvian player Carlos Nazayro Rivas Cedasmano (hereinafter, the Player or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid for two
sporting seasons, i.e., until 31 May 2025.
2.
On 8 April 2024, the Club and the Player (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties)
concluded an agreement (hereinafter, the Agreement), in accordance with which:
“Preliminary terms of the Agreement
On date 25.08.2023 the Club and the Player have signed [the Contract] for 2 football
seasons.
Since the Player doesn’t want to stay any more in Albania, the parties agree as below.
Article 1. Object of the Agreement
The above parties have signed an employment contract on 25.08.2023, with a term for 2
football season or until 31.05.2025. The player asked [the Club] to leave Albania
immediately, because his mother she [sic] is very sick. The player asked the Club to lend the
amount of 20,000 Euros, in order to use it for the care of his mother’s health. The club paid
the player 20,000 Euros in cash on 08.04.2023. If the player cannot return to Albania,
because he has to take care of his mother in Peru and the player decides to become active
in Peruvian Football Clubs near the place where his mother lives, [the Club] declares that
will not ask for this value anymore and the player is free to play in Peru. If the player does
not return to [the Club] and he is activated with any other foreign club (except those
Peruvian Clubs), the Player is free to play with new club but must pay the debt to [the Club]
in the amount of 20,000 Euros, in the bank account with the following details, within 30 days
from the date of his activation with the respective club and for every day of delay the player
declares that he will pay, a penalty of 0.5%.
(…)
The Player declares that [the Club] has paid him all financial obligations and that the Club
does not owe him any amount. The player declares that he is in very good physical and
sports condition”.
3.
On 29 August 2024, the Player contacted a Club representative via WhatsApp, requesting
from the Club a document stating that the Contract had ended.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17942
4.
In reply, the Club’s representative informed the Player that the Agreement already stated
that the Contract had ended. The WhatsApp conversation continued as follows:
[Player]: “The thing is that they ask me for the contract cancellation sheet, on the sheet that
we signed it says that I am free in Peru but I have to pay 20 k if I play outside of Peru, can’t
you please just make a contract clarifying that I am already a free player and that Do we
[sic] terminate the contract?”.
[Club’s representative]: “We have already terminated the contract. Don’t write to me
anymore”.
5.
On 30 August 2024, the Player’s representative sent an email to the Club, stressing the
following:
“Today I became aware of the document that the player signed with you and I am in a
situation where I would like to talk to try to make an agreement that is good for you. My
phone number is […]”.
6.
Also on 30 August 2024, the Club replied as follows:
“Thank you for your email. [The Club] informs you that the agreement signed between the
Player and the Club has legal value and the Player can register in any club outside his
country, but on the condition that he will make the corresponding payment to us according
to the agreement”.
7.
Also on 30 August 2024, the Player’s legal representative replied as follows:
“Sirs. I just want to do something that is good for you and for the player. I have a possibility
for him to go play for a second division club in Saudi Arabia for one year contract, if in this
period the club buys or sells the player, you will have 20% Net of the sale value. If there is
no sale, the player will continue with the commitment to pay the 20 thousand euros. There
is a possibility that he will be able to pay and the club will earn from the sale. What do you
think?
In Peru we won’t have a chance of anything if he doesn’t play for a year, nobody wins
anything. I think we’ll have a great chance of recovering our expenses”.
8.
Pursuant to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Player
joined the Emirati club Masfout as an amateur player on 9 September 2024.
9.
On 18 September 2024, the Club sent an email to the Player, requesting him the payment
of EUR 20,000 under the Agreement, after the Player joined Masfout. The Club granted the
Player a deadline of 10 days to pay the aforementioned amount.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17942
10. On 25 September 2024, the Player replied to the aforementioned email as follows:
“In response to your email containing the false allegation and the forged agreement that I
did not sign, I want to inform you that if this behavior continues, I will not hesitate to take
necessary action before FIFA in accordance with Article 22 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 25 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
12. The Club argued that, regretfully, in April 2023 the Player’s mother got sick, and that he
requested the Club to terminate the Contract so that he could travel to Peru and take care
of her mother, as well as to help with her medical expenses.
13. The Club asserted that, in this context, it agreed, as a sign of solidarity and understanding,
to sign the Agreement, whereby the Parties mutually terminated the Contract and the Club
loaned EUR 20,000 to the Player for his mother’s medical expenses. The Club further
argued that, pursuant to the Agreement, the Player would be liable to reimburse the loan
in case he signed with another club outside Peru.
14. In this regard, the Club submitted that “it felt the need to protect its interests in case the future
behaviour of the Player would contradict the basis on which [the Club] agreed to early terminate
the Contract and provide him with the Loan. Indeed, for [the Club] it would run against common
sense if the Player would sign a new employment contract with a club outside Peru given that
the sole reason for which the Player wanted to terminate his Contract with [the Club] was for
him to be able to take care of his mother”.
15. The Club further argued that, on 29 August 2024, the Player contacted a Club’s
representative asking for a document that confirmed the termination of the Contract. In
this regard, the Club’s representative informed the Player that he was free to register with
any club, and that the Agreement served as confirmation of this.
16. The Club asserted that around September 2024 it found out that the Player had joined
Masfout, and that the parties had signed an employment contract on 11 September 2024,
according to publicly available sources.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17942
17. The Club submitted that, as a consequence of the above, the Player became automatically
liable to reimburse the Club the loan of EUR 20,000. In addition, the Club argued that the
Player had 30 days as of the date on which he would join a third club to pay a daily 0.5%
penalty, which operates as interest. In this regard, the Club acknowledged that such
penalty, amounting to 178% per annum, is disproportionate, and therefore reduced it to a
rate of 18%.
18. The Club requested the following relief:
“On account of all the foregoing, [the Club] respectfully requests the FIFA general secretariat
to submit a proposal, or alternatively the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to issue a
decision, establishing that:
I. The present claim filed by [the Club] is admissible.
II. [The Player] shall pay to [the Club] the amount of EUR 20,000 as overdue payables.
III. [The Player] shall pay to [the Club] interest at a rate of 18% p.a. as from 11 October
2024 until the date of effective payment.
IV. [The Player] shall be ordered to pay any legal costs to [the Club]”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
19. Despite having been invited to do so, the Player failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17942
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 25 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 6 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
21. 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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Albanian club
and a Peruvian player.
22. 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
January 2025 edition of the Regulations, the aforementioned edition of the Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
23. 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
24. 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-17942
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a club against a player regarding a loan arranged between the Parties in the
Agreement.
26. The Chamber started its analysis by briefly recalling that the Club claimed to be entitled to
EUR 20,000 as reimbursement, based on the following:
o The Player requested the Club to leave Albania and be allowed to travel to Peru to
take care of his mother, who was very sick.
o In this context, the Parties agreed to terminate their employment relationship by
means of the Agreement.
o According to the Agreement, and at the Player’s request, the Club loaned the Player
EUR 20,000 in order to cover the cost of his mother’s medical treatment.
o Also according to the Agreement, the Player undertook to reimburse the loan in case
he joined another club outside Peru.
o Considering that the Player joined Masfout, a club from the United Arab Emirates,
the Player is liable to reimburse the loan in the amount of EUR 20,000.
o The penalty of 0.5% per day of delay stipulated in the Agreement is disproportionate,
and should therefore be reduced to 18% per annum.
27. The Chamber also noted that the Player failed to reply to the claim, and therefore it
underscored that the decision will be made based on the arguments and evidence on file
(cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
28. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse the Club’s
entitlement to the reimbursement claimed.
29. In this regard, and as a preliminary remark, the Chamber first noted that the Agreement
does not explicitly state that the Parties mutually terminated their employment
relationship. In fact, the Chamber observed that the Agreement left open the possibility of
the Player returning to Albania.
30. Nonetheless, after having carefully analysed the Club’s submissions and the evidence
submitted to the file, the Chamber unanimously considered that the Parties’ true and
common intention was to mutually terminate their employment relationship.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17942
31. Not only the Club itself confirmed that the Agreement terminated the Contract, but also
the correspondence exchanged between the Parties indicates that both the Club and the
Player considered the Contract to be terminated. Accordingly, the Chamber established
that the Parties mutually terminated the Contract by means of the Agreement concluded
on 8 April 2024.
32. The above having been established, the members of the Chamber noted that, pursuant to
the Agreement, the Player received, at his request, a loan of EUR 20,000 from the Club for
his mother’s medical treatment. In addition, the Agreement stipulates that if the Player
could not return to Albania and decided to join another club in Peru, he would not have to
repay the loan to the Club. However, if the Player decided to join another club outside Peru,
he would have to repay the loan within 30 days of joining this third club, plus a penalty of
0.5% for every day of delay.
33. The Chamber further noted that the Agreement did not make repayment of the loan
conditional upon the Player signing a new employment contract outside Peru; rather, it was
conditional upon his “activation” with a club in a country other than Peru. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the loan would be enforceable if the Player were registered with
a club outside Peru.
34. In this regard, the Club submitted evidence consisting of an extract of Transfermarkt, which
was confirmed by the information retrieved from TMS, according to which, on 9 September
2024, the Player joined the Emirati club Masfout.
35. Based on the above, the Chamber concluded that the condition for repayment of the loan
was met and, consequently, the Player is obliged to repay EUR 20,000 to the Club.
36. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted although the Player denied having
signed the Agreement in his correspondence of 25 September 2024, he confirmed having
done so in his WhatsApp message of 29 August 2024. Furthermore, the correspondence
sent by the Player’s legal representative on 30 August 2024 also confirms that the Player
did sign the Agreement.
37. Consequently, the Chamber deemed the existence and authenticity of the Agreement
beyond doubt.
38. In view of the foregoing considerations, considering that (i) the condition for the repayment
of the loan was met and (ii) no evidence of payment was submitted by the Player, the
Chamber unanimously decided that the Player is liable to repay the Club the loan of EUR
20,000 in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence
means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17942
39. Lastly, the Chamber addressed the Club’s request for default interest and noted that the
Club itself acknowledged that a penalty of 0.5% per day of delay –which amounts to
182,50% per annum– is disproportionate, and must therefore be reduced to a rate of 18%
per annum.
40. The Chamber adhered to the Club’s position in this regard and recalled that, in accordance
with the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, penalty clauses may be
freely entered into by contractual parties and may be considered acceptable, in the event
that the pertinent written clause meets certain criteria, such as proportionality and
reasonableness. The Chamber further highlighted that whenever the payment of a penalty
is triggered in connection with a default of payment that persists in time (i.e., it is not only
paid once buy increases over time with the non-payment), these obligations tend to be
considered as hidden interest rates rather than penalties, and are to be limited to a rate of
18% per annum.
41. Based on the above, taking into consideration the Club’s request as well as the constant
practice of the DRC in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Club interest at the
rate of 18% per annum on the reimbursement as from 11 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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.
43. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the club within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on playing in official
matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become immediately effective on
the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
45. The player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the club in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17942
46. The Chamber 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.
d. Costs
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17942
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kükesi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Carlos Nazayro Rivas Cedasmano, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
EUR 20,000 as reimbursement plus 18% interest per annum as from 11 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
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 imposed with a restriction on playing in official matches up
until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall
be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
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 six months.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-17942
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. 13