Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17071
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Fabricio Rodrigues Da Silva Ferreira
BY:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Fabricio Rodrigues Da Silva Ferreira, Brazil
Represented by Trengrouse Gonçalves
RESPONDENT:
SC Dnipro-1, Ukraine
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17071
I. Facts of the case
1. On 4 January 2022, the Brazilian player Fabricio Rodrigues da Silva (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Ukrainian club SC Dnipro-1 (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until
31 December 2026.
2. According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a remuneration
of UAH 85,000 net per month.
3. On the same day, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an annexe to the Contract,
pursuant to which clause 1.1. stated as follows:
“in addition to the salary (…), the club herein undertakes to pay the player: an extra remuneration
in the corresponding amount, in order to make the overall monthly wages of the player, under
the Contract and all annexes/agreements to it, be equal to USD 10,000 net per month during the
period from 4 January 2022 till 31 December 2026.”
4. On 5 July 2023, the Claimant left Ukraine due to safety concerns caused by the ongoing
military conflict.
5. On 11 October 2023, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, indicating that the latter
has allegedly failed to comply with its contractual obligations by “not guaranteeing the best
conditions for the player’s preparation”. The Claimant invited the Respondent to provide a
“position to the terms stated herein” within 48h, briefly referred to Annexe 7 of the RSTP
(without expressly suspending the Contract) and requested the latter to provide a written
position as to a potential premature termination of the contract.
6. Between November 2023 and January 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent exchanged
several emails in which they discussed his potential return once the armed conflict would
conclude, and the possibility of the Claimant being loaned out, in order to continue playing
football whilst not being able to return to Ukraine.
7. On 11 January 2024, the Claimant was loaned to the Brazilian club Nova Iguaçu until
10 April 2024, during the course of which, pursuant to art. 2 of the relevant loan agreement,
Nova Iguaçu was solely responsible for the Claimant’s remuneration, as to be determined
in a separate employment agreement.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17071
8. On 16 February 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent an email informing the latter that
he is still unable to return to Ukraine due to the ongoing armed conflict, and that he
“appreciated the efforts” to conclude a new loan agreement with Nova Iguaçu until
31 December 2024.
9. On 7 March 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent a further notice requesting payment
of “outstanding salaries”, an agent commission, as well as a formal position in respect of
concluding a mutual termination agreement in light of the player not being able to return
to Ukraine and continue his contractual activity.
10. On 14 March 2024, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, informing him that it was
preparing an extension of the loan agreement with Nova Iguaçu until 31 December 2024.
11. On 18 March 2024, the Claimant addressed the Respondent in writing about the notice sent
on 7 March 2024, and mentioned that such notice contained no mention of any loan
extension with the Brazilian club Nova Iguaçu. The Claimant therefore insisted upon a
formal position of the Respondent regarding the outstanding salaries and a mutual
termination of the Contract, by no later than 21 March 2024.
12. On 20 March 2024, the Respondent addressed the Claimant in writing, firstly outlining that
it did not object to the Claimant’s long absence, in hopes of maintaining a positive relation
and wanting to retain his services, however, also acknowledging a debt of USD 14,000
attributable to financial difficulties. The debt, as acknowledged by the Respondent,
corresponded to partial salaries between July 2023 and August 2023, with the latter
undertaking to pay the amounts in one of two different methods:
-
Payment in UAH into a local account, with a disclaimer that due to domestic legal
restrictions, payments abroad were barred and withdrawals were limited to EUR 300 per
week.
-
Payment in one lump sum in cash upon the Claimant’s return from loan.
13. On 9 April 2024, the Claimant requested a virtual meeting with the Respondent.
14. On 9 May 2024, the Claimant sent an update to the Respondent about a recent injury, sent
two medical bills as an enclosure, and once again enquired about the outstanding amounts.
15. On 6 July 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent a further default notice, pointing out the
alleged default of USD 14,000, corresponding to the months of partially July 2023 and
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17071
August 2023, and requesting payment thereof within 15 days, failing which the Claimant
would unilaterally terminate the Contract.
16. On 5 August 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent a letter, informing that, besides the
amount of USD 14,000 that was already pointed out in the previous default notice, a further
amount of USD 40,000, corresponding to four monthly salaries between September 2023
and December 2023 of USD 10,000 each was allegedly outstanding. The Claimant further
alleged that the Respondent was purportedly insolvent and on the verge of no longer
participating in competitions, further emphasizing its failure to comply with the financial
requirements of the Contract. Based on all the above, the Claimant unilaterally terminated
the Contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17071
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 17 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
18. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to pay a number of salary
instalments, between July 2023 (partial) and December 2023, despite having been put in
default thereof
19. The Claimant further specified that he was permitted not to return to Ukraine due to the
ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine. The Claimant denounced the Respondent’s failure to
conclude a mutual termination agreement in light of the situation it was facing.
20. The Claimant thus asserted that he had a just cause to terminate the Contract due to
overdue payables in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
21. In conclusion, the Claimant formulated the following request for relief (cf. statement of
claim and submission dated 9 December 2024, updating the request for relief):
-
USD 54,000 outstanding remuneration (partial salary of July 2023 plus salaries of
August 2023 – December 2023);
USD 30,000 compensation for breach of contract;
Interest on the outstanding remuneration only.
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to file a reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17071
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. 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 13 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 3 April 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.
24. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 Ukrainian club.
25. 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 the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
26. 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
27. 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-17071
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
28. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the basis of the present dispute was the lawfulness of the premature termination of the
Contract by the Claimant.
29. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant invoked just cause to terminate the Contract due
to overdue payables, whereas the Respondent failed to submit a reply to the claim.
30. Consequently, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
amounts claimed indeed remained outstanding, whether as a result, the Claimant had a
just cause to prematurely terminate the Contract, and lastly, what consequences of a
potentially unlawful breach of contract by either party would entail.
31. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber wished to point out that Annexe 7 of the Regulations
was not applicable in the case at hand, as the Contract appeared not to have been
suspended by either party, nor mutually for that matter.
32. Having set out the above, the Chamber recalled the timeline of the case in as far as was
relevant for the contractual termination at stake.
33. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant asserted not having received his remuneration in
the amount of USD 54,000, corresponding to the period between July 2023 and
December 2023.
34. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s absence as from
July 2023.
35. The Chamber considered that this aspect should be considered hand-in-hand with the fact
that the Respondent had acknowledged owing the Claimant salaries between July 2023 and
August 2023 – in the amount of USD 14,000 – as a gesture of goodwill and due to its
intention to retain his services, it did not impose any fines or sanctions on the Claimant
during his absence. This was cemented, in the Chamber’s view, by the contents of the letter
sent by the Respondent on 20 March 2024.
36. The Chamber equally deemed it relevant that the salaries between September 2023 and
December 2023 were not mentioned in any of the default notices sent by the Claimant, and
only raised following the termination of the Contract.
37. Apart from the fact that the Claimant was not rendering any services during that period,
the Chamber deemed that the former had showed no urgency in respect of continuing to
receive those amounts despite his absence, which pointed to a lack of intention on his part
to realistically continue pursuing the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17071
38. Turning to the period the Claimant spent on loan at the Brazilian club Nova Iguaçu, the
Chamber deemed it relevant that, as the date of his supposed return to the Respondent
was nearing, the Claimant once again expressed that he was unable to return to Ukraine
to continue carrying out the Contract.
39. Furthermore, the Chamber was drawn to the fact that, despite the Respondent’s efforts to
extend the duration of the loan (which had been previously requested by the Claimant
himself in his letter dated 16 February 2024) and intending to retain his services, the
Claimant subsequently backtracked on this purported arrangement and, in his letter of
18 March 2024, referred to mutually terminating the Contract instead.
40. Once the loan period with Nova Iguaçu had expired, the Claimant effectively only sent two
further correspondences before the termination of the Contract. One of these was on
9 May 2024, where the Claimant alluded to a recent injury which he had suffered, and in
which he inquired about the amount of USD 14,000 which corresponded to July 2023 and
August 2023. The last letter was sent on 6 July 2024, which represented a formal default
notice for the same amount of USD 14,000, in which the Claimant granted a deadline of
15 days for the Respondent to remedy its default.
41. The Chamber considered that all of the above – namely the continued refusal of the
Claimant to return to the club (particularly in the absence of any suspension of the Contract
or following the correct procedure as prescribed in Annexe 7 of the Regulations), coupled
with the lack of any urgency to continue receiving salaries during his absence at the
relevant time, and the contradictory manner in which these amounts were only requested
following the termination of the Contract, represented a loss of the Claimant’s intention to
continue pursuing the Contract.
42. Such loss of intention was reciprocated by the Respondent, in the Chamber’s view, in light
of its lack of communication following the expiration of the loan period. The Chamber
understood that, upon seeing that the Claimant was not prepared to return to Ukraine
despite its efforts to remedy its default dating back to July 2023 and August 2023, and
facilitate an extended loan period, the Respondent equally lost interest in pursuing the
Contract.
43. Therefore, to conclude, the Chamber considered that the parties lost interest in pursuing
the Contract, and mutually departed therefrom after the loan period had expired – i.e.,
after 10 April 2024.
44. For completeness’ sake, the Chamber wished to highlight that, even in the hypothesis that
the parties had not mutually departed from the Contract, the Claimant would not have had
a just cause to prematurely terminate the Contract on 5 August 2024, on account of the
fact that the amounts which were determined to have remained outstanding – namely the
USD 14,000 which represent part of the salary of July 2023 and the full salary of
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17071
August 2023, constitute less than two monthly salaries under the Contract, thus falling
short of the required amount under art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations.
45. With this established, the Chamber held that, in the absence of a breach of contract by the
Respondent, the Claimant shall be limited to receiving the amounts which were held as
outstanding at the time of termination of the Contract. The Chamber recalled that this
amount constituted USD 4,000 as the partial salary of July 2023 and the full salary of
USD 10,000 for August 2023 under the Annexe to the Contract.
46. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the mutual departure, i.e.
USD 14,000.
47. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the following dates:
-
On the amount of USD 4,000, as from 1 August 2023 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 10,000, as from 1 September 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. 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.
49. In this regard, the DRC 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.
50. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17071
51. 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.
52. The DRC 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
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17071
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Fabricio Rodrigues Da Silva Ferreira, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, SC Dnipro-1, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 1 August 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 10,000 as from 1 September 2023 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 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.
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-17071
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