Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18485
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Gerson Leal Rodrigues Gouveia
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT:
Gerson Leal Rodrigues Gouveia, Luxembourg
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
Guangxi Pingguo Haliao Football Club, China PR
Represented by Daniel Muñoz Sirera
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18485
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 July 2024, the Luxembourgish player, Gerson Leal Rodrigues Gouveia (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant), and the Chinese club, Guangxi Pingguo Haliao Football Club
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from 15 July 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
On 14 December 2025, both parties signed a termination agreement (hereinafter: the
Termination Agreement).
3.
Clause 1 para. 2 lit. 1 and 2 of the Termination Agreement provides, quoted verbatim:
‘’CLAUSE FIRST
1. With the signature of the present Termination, the Parties expressly and
irrevocably terminate the Employment Agreements identified in the “whereas’
section above, with immediate effects.
2. As compensation for the signature of the Termination hereunder, the Club
undertakes to pay to the Player a total net amount of 338,852€ (Three Hundred
and Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two Euros), corresponding to the
overdue payables and the remunerations due until January 2025, to be paid in 4
(four) instalments as follows:
i.
85.000,00€
ii.
85.000,00€
iii.
85 000,00€
iv.
83.852,00€
20 March
4.
(Eighty-Five Thousand Euros) net on 20 December 2024;
(Eighty-Five Thousand Euros) net on 20 January 2025;
(Eighty-Five Thousand Euros) net on 20 February 2025; and
(Eighty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two Euros) net on
Clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination Agreement provides, quoted verbatim:
“In the event that for any reason the Club fails to pay-either in part or in full- the
amounts established under paragraph “2” above within the due dates, all unpaid
amounts under this agreement shall become immediately due and payable, and a
20% (twenty percent) penalty over the overdue amount shall be paid by the Club,
accrued by a 10% (ten percent) interest p a. The amount of the penalty is freely
established between both Parties with reference to the damages suffered by the
Player resulting from the acceptance of this Agreement and the added financial
costs he will bear if the Club fails to comply with this Agreement in a timely
manner.”
5.
On 23 January 2025, the Player put the Club in default, stating that the second instalment
under clause 1 para. 2 of the Termination Agreement due on 20 January 2025 was overdue
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18485
and granted the Club 3 days to proceed to the payment of EUR 85,000 in order to remedy
the default.
6.
On 17 February 2025, the Player put the Club in default a second time claiming EUR 253,852
as the residual value of clause 1 para. 2 of the Termination Agreement, as well as EUR
50,744.40 as a 20% penalty over the residual value of the Termination Agreement, and a
10% interest rate per annum over the outstanding amounts. The Player granted the Club a
10-day deadline, until 27 February 2025 to proceed to the payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 7 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
The Player confirmed that the Club had paid the first instalment under clause 1 para. 2 of
the Termination, however the Player argued that the Club failed to pay the subsequent
instalment due under this provision of the Termination Agreement.
9.
The Player mentioned that the Club failed to answer his communications, namely the
notice of default sent on 23 January 2025, and the notice of default sent on 17 February
2025.
10. The Player affirmed that as per the terms of clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination Agreement
he is entitled to the entire residual value of the Termination Agreement, in addition to a
penalty equivalent to 20% of the residual value, and to the imposition of a 10% p.a. interest
rate over the claimed amounts.
11. The Player stated that he had complied with the requirements of art. 12bis of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) by sending
the Club a notice of default detailing all the amounts claimed and granting him a 10-day
deadline to complete the payment
12. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
‘’ In the light of all of the above, Gerson Leal Rodrigues Gouveia respectfully requests
the FIFA Football Tribunal to:
(i)
Determine that the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
established under the Termination Agreement and, consequently, order
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18485
the Respondent to the payment of the total amount of €304.626,40 (Three
hundred and four thousand six hundred and twenty-six euros and forty cents);
(ii) Order the Respondent to pay an interest at a rate of 10% (ten percent) p.a.,
calculated over the outstanding amount of €304.626,40 as from the date of
default, i.e., 21 January 2025, until the date of effective payment.
(iii) Impose sporting sanctions upon the Respondent as considered appropriate.’’
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Club submitted that as per the principle of Ne bis in idem, interest and a
contractual penalty cannot be applied concurrently, and interest cannot be applied over
the contractual penalty.
14. In addition, relying on the art. 163 of the Swiss Code of Obligations the Club stated that the
penalty clause should be reduced as it is excessive and disproportionate.
15. Indeed, the Club affirmed that since the contractual penalty is imposed over the residual
value of the Termination Agreement, adding interest over this amount would amount to
sanction the Club twice for its default, contradicting the principle of Ne bis in idem, and that
therefore clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination Agreement should be considered
disproportionate and invalid.
16. Subsidiarily, the Club raised that should the Football Tribunal consider clause 1 para. 4 of
the Termination Agreement valid, the interest shall not be imposed over the contractual
penalty, as it would contradict the principle of Ne bis in idem, and the Football Tribunal’s
jurisprudence.
17. The Respondent’s requests for relief, were the following:
“In view of all the above legal and factual arguments, we hereby kindly request this
honourable Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal:
1.To accept the present answer of GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUBCO.,
LTD against GERSON LEAL RODRIGUES GOUVEIA.
2.To decide that PARA 4 of the FIRST CLAUSE of the Termination Agreement is invalid
and not applicable to said Termination Agreement and therefore this Claim.
3.To dismiss the claim of GERSON LEAL RODRIGUES GOUVEIA against GUANGXI
PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB CO., LTD in full.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18485
4.To decide that GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB CO., LTD is not liable
to pay any penalty or interest to GERSON LEAL RODRIGUES GOUVEIA under the
claim filed by it.
Alternatively,
5. To decide that GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB CO., LTD is not liable
to pay any default interest to GERSON LEAL RODRIGUES GOUVEIA.
In any case
5. To decide that no sporting sanction shall be imposed on GUANGXI PINGGUO
HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB CO., LTD as requested by GERSON LEAL RODRIGUES
GOUVEIA under the claim filed by it.
6. Order GERSON LEAL RODRIGUES GOUVEIA to pay all the legal, advance and
procedural costs arising from this procedure.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18485
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 7 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
18 July 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.
19. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 para. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 para. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 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 Luxemburgish player and a Chinese club.
20. 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 July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
para. 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 para. 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
22. 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-18485
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note that it is
undisputed that the Club has failed to pay the second instalment under clause 1 para. 2 lit
1. of the Termination Agreement when it fell due on 20 January 2025, and that, as a
consequence, the acceleration clause included in clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination
Agreement was triggered. The DRC, therefore, noted that there is no dispute regarding the
Player’s entitlement to EUR 253,852.
24. However, the Chamber noted that the parties strongly dispute the validity of the 20%
penalty clause of the residual value of the Termination Agreement, and the request made
by the Player that interest at a rate of 10% p.a. be applied over the outstanding amounts.
25. On one hand the Player argued that the terms of the Termination Agreement are binding
on the Club, emphasizing that clause 1 para. 4 was mutually agreed upon, that the penalty
clause should be enforced, and that interest began to accrue on the outstanding amounts
from the date they became overdue.
26. To the contrary, the Club disputed the validity of the penalty clause as it deemed it
excessive and disproportionate and also contested the request for imposition of interest
over the outstanding amounts made by the Player. The Club considered that the
enforcement of the penalty combined with the application of interest would contradict the
principle of Ne Bis in idem.
27. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the validity of
the contractual penalty and the interest to be awarded.
28. For the sake of completeness, and despite that its application was undisputed, the
Chamber reviewed the acceleration clause included in clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination
Agreement and confirmed its validity. Indeed, as per the longstanding jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal acceleration clauses are accepted and enforceable. Therefore, the
Chamber determined that the residual value of the Termination Agreement equivalent to
EUR 168,852 became due, once the Club defaulted on the payment of the second
instalment of the Termination Agreement of USD 85,000, on 21 January 2025.
29. In that context, the Chamber noted that acceleration clauses such as the one included in
clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination Agreement have been recognized as valid by the
longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal (cf. DRC Decision of 27 February 2025,
Babel).
30. Regarding the acceleration clause, the Chamber also added that in accordance with the
consistent jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the acceleration of subsequent payments
upon the non-payment of an amount previously due as principal is a practice traditionally
recognized and considered proportionate, insofar as it constitutes a security in benefit of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18485
the creditor, since it encourages the debtor party to respect its financial obligations towards
the creditor party.
31. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player was EUR 253,852.
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the Claimant EUR 253,852.
33. The Chamber then moved on to the analysis of the contractual penalty also included in
clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination Agreement. Recalling the longstanding jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal on contractual penalties, the Chamber considered that the 20%
penalty clause was not disproportionate and could be enforced in the present case.
34. The Chamber noted that the contractual penalty as drafted in clause 1 part. 4 of the
Termination Agreement served as an incentive for the parties to comply with the terms of
the agreement and was maintaining a proportionate penalty applicable only to the
amounts remaining, taking into account the amounts already paid. In the present case, the
Chamber confirmed that the penalty was applicable over the second, third and fourth
instalments of the Termination Agreement as the Club defaulted on the payment of the
second instalment.
35. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the contractual penalty of 20% of the residual
value of the Termination Agreement was proportionate and enforceable. The Chamber
considered that the contractual penalty should be equal to EUR 50,770.40 (20% x EUR
253.852). However, the Chamber noted that the Player, mentioned EUR 50,744.40 in his
submission, but that in his request for relief he claimed EUR 304,626.4 including all the
amounts, which when removing EUR 253,852 as outstanding remuneration, leaves EUR
50,774.40 as the claimed value of the contractual penalty.
36. In that sense, and despite the conflicting amounts in the submissions, the Chamber
followed the applicable calculations under clause 1 para. 4 and awarded EUR 50,770.40 as
contractual penalty.
37. Following its analysis on the contractual penalty, the Chamber moved to the second
contentious point between the parties, the imposition of interest over the outstanding
amounts.
38. The Chamber observed that the Player requested that a 10% p.a. interest rate be applied
over all the claimed amounts.
39. Considering that the Parties contractually agreed at clause 1 para. 4 of the Termination
Agreement to a 10% p.a. interest rate applicable to outstanding remuneration, and that
this interest rate is within the permissible interest rate as per the jurisprudence of Football
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18485
Tribunal, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 10% p.a. as
follows:
- 10% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 85,000 as from 21 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 10% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 168,852 as from 22 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
40. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also considered the Club’s argument regarding
the principle of Ne bis in idem and reaffirmed the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal to the effect that interest cannot be imposed on contractual penalties.
Accordingly, and so as not to contravene the aforementioned legal principle, the DRC
decided that no interest should be imposed on the contractual penalty.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18485
d. Costs
46. The Chamber referred to art. 25 para. 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.
47. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
para. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
48. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18485
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, Gerson Leal Rodrigues Gouveia, is partially accepted.
1.
The Respondent, Guangxi Pingguo Haliao Football Club, must pay to the Claimant the
following amount(s):
- EUR 253,852 as outstanding remuneration plus 10% interest p.a. as follows:
- 10% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 85,000 as from 21 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 10% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 168,852 as from 22 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 50,770.40 as contractual penalty
2.
Any other claims of the Claimant are rejected.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-18485
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18485
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 para. 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. 14