DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16968
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Arthur
Rodrigues Rezende
BY:
Clifford HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT:
Arthur Rodrigues Rezende, Brazil
Represented by Joao Filipe Lobao
RESPONDENT:
Al Kholood, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Sport Makers
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16968
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Brazilian player, Arthur Rodrigues Rezende (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Saudi club, Al Kholood (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
15 July 2023 until 30 June 2024.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia a USD 30,000 net contractual bonus in case the first team was promoted to the Saudi
Pro League by the end of the 2023/24 season, as follows:
“5.3 Conditional financial payments
The Club shall, upon satisfaction by the Player of the condition(s) specified in this section, pay
the following remuneration to the Player within 30 days of the satisfaction by the Player of the
respective condition:
Payment type
[…]
Bonus for promotion
Currency
Amount
Condition to be met
USD
30,000
In case the first team is promoted from
D1 to the Super League by the end of
the 2023/2024 season”
3.
By the end of the 2023/24 season, the Respondent got promoted to the Saudi Pro League.
4.
By correspondence dated 18 October 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of USD 30,000 net setting a 10-day time limit in order to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 6 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay the promotion bonus provided in
the Contract.
7.
The Claimant alleged that the Respondent was promoted to the Saudi Pro League on 28
May 2024 after playing its last game of the 2023/24 season.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16968
8.
The Claimant argued that the promotion bonus was due on 27 June since the Contract
established that the Respondent shall pay it within 30 (thirty) days of the satisfaction by the
Claimant of the condition
9.
The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“I - The Player respectfully request to the Dispute Resolution Chamber to recognize that Club is
in debt with him in an amount no less than the NET AMOUNT 30.000,00 (thirty thousand US
Dollars) as from 27th June 2024;
II - The Club is ordered to pay the net plus 5% interest over due 30.000,00 (thirty thousand US
Dollars) as of the payment dates defined in I.
III - The Decision shall be executed in accordance with Art. 24 bis FIFA RSTP and also include a
decision about the consequences of the Club failure to pay the amounts according to request
for relief no. I and II.”
b. Position of the Respondent
10. According to the Respondent, the Claimant is only entitled to USD 25,400 since it made a
partial payment of USD 4,600 to the Claimant.
11. The Respondent argued that, after the match against Saudi club Al Safa which secured
Respondent’s promotion, the Claimant received SAR 20,000.
12. According to the Respondent, this amount comprised SAR 3,000 as the match bonus and
SAR 17,000 as part of the promotion bonus which, according to the Respondent, was
acknowledged and signed by the Claimant.
13. The requests for relief of the Respondent, were the following:
“In view of all the above, we request this honorable chamber to:
1. Refer the present dispute to be settled by mediation.
2. Alternatively, accept this response against the Player’s claim and;
3. Rule that the promotion bonus shall be calculated after the deduction of the following
amount:
• sar 17,000 for the advance payment of the promotion bonus paid to the player (equivalent
approximately to usd 4,600)
total amount: usd 30,000 - usd 4,600 = 25,400 usd”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16968
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
14. In his rejoinder, the Claimant alleged that the Contract stipulated that the bonuses have to
be paid separately and cumulatively meaning, in the Claimant’s view, that the Respondent’s
partial payment of SAR 17,000 does not entitle the Respondent to reduce the Claimant’s
rightful claim for the full USD 30,000 net.
15. In addition, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent’s answer was submitted outside of
the deadline established by FIFA general secretariat.
16. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“First and foremost;
a) Declare that the Club’s response was submitted outside the prescribed deadline. and if this is
not interpreted in this manner
a) the Player respectfully request to the Dispute Resolution Chamber to recognize that Club is in
debt with him in an amount no less than the NET AMOUNT 30.000,00 (thirty thousand US
Dollars) as from 27th june 2024;
b) The Club is ordered to pay the net plus 5% interest over due 30.000,00 (thirty thousand US
Dollars) as of the payment dates defined in i.
c) The Decision shall be executed in accordance with art. 24 bis FIFA RSTP and also include a
decision about the consequences of the Club failure to pay the amounts according to request
for relief no. i and ii.”
d. Final comments of the Respondent
17. In its final comments, the Respondent emphasized that the Claimant acknowledged receipt
of this amount but disputed its classification, asserting that the promotion bonus must be
paid separately. However, the Respondent argued that there is no contractual obligation
to separate these payments.
18. Additionally, the Respondent maintained that its response was timely submitted within
FIFA’s deadline, considering the official weekends in its domicile.
19. In light of the above, the Respondent reiterated its requests for relief.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16968
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 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 6 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 20 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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 Saudi club.
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 the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) the January
2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
23. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant contested the Respondent’s submission
dated 8 December 2024, alleging that it was submitted outside of the deadline established
by the FIFA general secretariat, namely 6 December 2024.
24. The Chamber referred to art. 11 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which explicitly stipulates:
“If the last day of a time limit coincides with an official public holiday or a non-working day in
the place of domicile of the party required to comply, the time limit will expire at the end of the
next working day.”
25. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that in the Respondent’s domicile, Fridays and
Saturdays are designated as official non-working days. Therefore, while the deadline fell on
Friday, 6 December 2024, the first available working day for submission was Sunday, 8
December 2024.
26. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s answer to the claim
was submitted within the deadline established by the FIFA General Secretariat and shall be
duly taken into account.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16968
b. Burden of proof
27. 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
28. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain conditional financial obligation by the
Respondent under the Contract, namely USD 30,000.
30. Firstly, the Chamber wished to point out that that it is undisputed that the condition set
out in the par. 2 of clause 5.3 of the Contract has been met, namely that the Respondent
was promoted to the Saudi Pro League by the end of the 2023/24 season.
31. However, the Chamber observed that the Respondent requested the deduction of USD
4,600 from the total outstanding amount claimed, as it it allegedly made a payment to the
Claimant in the amount of SAR 17,000, which, according to the Respondent, was equivalent
to USD 4,600.
32. The Chamber went to analyse the evidence provided by the Respondent on this matter and
concluded that there was no explicit mention indicating that the referred payment
constituted, even partially, the promotion bonus. Specifically, the evidence provided by the
Respondent on this matter stated that the SAR 17,000 payment was related to a match
bonus for the victory achieved on 21 May 2024 against the Saudi club Al-Safa.
33. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that the Claimant should have been explicitly
informed that the SAR 17,000 payment was intended to partially fulfil the promotion bonus,
should that have been the Respondent’s intent.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16968
34. Accordingly, the Chamber held that the lack of such clarity constituted a failure of the
Respondent to properly communicate the nature of the payment.
35. Consequently, and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda, which in
essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the
Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from the
Contract concluded between the parties, namely USD 30,000 net.
36. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 27 June 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
37. In continuation, the Chamber 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.
38. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the player put the club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the club
a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
39. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the club had delayed a due payment without a
prima facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations was met in the case at hand.
40. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above, the Chamber
decided to impose a warning on the club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the
Regulations.
41. In this connection, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16968
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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
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. 9
REF. FPSD-16968
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Arthur Rodrigues Rezende, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Kholood, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 30,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 June 2024
until the date of effective payment.
3.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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. 10
REF. FPSD-16968
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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 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. 11