Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17640
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Diego Roncaglio
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT:
Diego Roncaglio, Brazil
Represented by Margarida Garcia
RESPONDENT:
Riga Futsal Club, Latvia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17640
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Brazilian futsal player Diego Roncaglio (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant);
•
The Latvian futsal club Riga Futsal Club (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated
to the Latvian Football Federation (LFF).
2.
According to the Player, in July 2024, his agent and the Club’s president exchanged
messages concerning the potential hiring of the Player, which culminated on 31 August
2024 with the Respondent providing him with an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Alleged Contract).
3.
According to clause 1 of the Alleged Contract, this document was valid as from 1 August
2024 until 1 June 2026.
4.
Clause 2 of the Alleged Contract stated:
“2. Financial conditions
2.1. The salary for the employee is set for the first year from 01.08.2024-01.06.2025: 6
000 EUR per month in the 2024/2025 season and starting from 01.07. 2025 - 01.06.2026
salary is set at EUR 9,000 per month, in 2025/2026,
2.2. the club may pay the player an additional bonus: the amount of which is determined
individually by the club. Salary and additional bonuses will be paid to the player's bank
account. Individual bonuses at the end of each season once a year.
2.3. The employer pays for the purchase of round-trip air tickets from Riga to Brazil
(economy class and no more than 2 pieces of luggage) wife or son twice a year.
2.4. All net amounts shown here are approximate and do not constitute any
commitment. Any Player earnings are subject to taxation in accordance with applicable
law.
The club provides the player with an apartment and pays the rent of the apartment.”
5.
Clause 5, inter alia, established (quoted verbatim):
“(…)
5.2. The Contract may be terminated unilaterally by the Club in the following cases
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17640
5.2.1. If the Football-player is notices in institutions related with betting or if he is
registered in any website connected with activity of betting which is attested by the report
of relevant. Club’s officials (in this case no additional sums are paid to the Footballplayer). If the Football-player violates the provisions of this article by means of mediation
of a third person, this also is regarded as such violation.
5.2.2. If information is received about influence and/or manipulation of results of
Football- player's games or another activity related with non-compliance and/or
violation of "Fair Play" principle (betting). In this case the Football-player undergoes an
expertise by means of polygraph. Refusing from expertise with polygraph is regarded as
consent of Football-player to his violation. Results of the expertise and other proofs are
transferred for further examination and application of penalty to organizations
competent in this area.
5.2.3. The Player may unilaterally prematurely terminate this Contract for a payment of
a buy-out fee amounting to EUR 200,000. The Player wishing to unilaterally terminate
this Contract on the basis of this clause, must notify the Club in written form at least 15
days in advance. The buy-out fee must be paid by the Player on or before the day of the
termination of this Contract otherwise the termination shall be deemed as effected
without just cause.
The Club will accept a payment of the buy-out fee made by a new club of the Player.
5.2.4. If the Player terminates this Contract unilaterally and without just cause, he must
immediately pay to the Club a compensation for the unilateral termination (liquidated
damages) amounting to EUR 200 000.5.2.5. Other mutual rights and activities of the Club and Football-player conform to the
Labour Law.
5.2.6. The Football-player is not entitled to conclude a labour contract with another Club.
5.2.7. This Contract includes all agreements between the Parties regarding the subject of
the Contract and replaces all verbal agreements and negotiations between the Parties.
5.2.8. The Contract may be terminated by mutual agreement between the parties
observing the cases and procedure anticipated in the Labour Contract.
5.2.9. The Football-player is not entitled to revoke the notice regarding termination of
the contract
5.2.10. Any dispute arising from or related to this contract will be submitted to the
jurisdiction of FIFA bodies. This contract shall be governed by FIFA RSTP.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17640
5.2.11. The Labour Contract is prepared on 3 pages in two copies one of which remains
with the Club, one - with the Football-player and one scan with the Latvian Football
Federation.”
6.
It should be noted that the copy of the Alleged Contract submitted by the Player only
contained his own signature.
7.
On 31 August 2024, the Player’s agent forwarded a document titled “Captura de Tela 202408-31 a(s) 19.24.43.pdf” to a contact saved as “Petrow Riga Futsal”, who, according to the
Player, was the Club’s president. Additionally, the Player’s agent sent the following
messages (quoted verbatim):
“All good about Roncaglio
Send me signed and we can make the official announcement”
8.
On 3 September 2024, the Player’s agent and the contract saved as “Petrow Riga Futsal”
had the following conversation (quoted verbatim):
“Player’s agent: Brother??? Where's the contract
Petrow Riga Futsal: We still have to wait when they send me a signed acceptance that
we can take it, we still have time
Hello my friend
Player’s agent: You're kidding with me I know you don't have Roncaglio anymore
Petrow Riga Futsal: I say I'm waiting for acceptance and then I'll sign, so it's agreed and
I'm waiting for the signature
Player’s agent: What signature ? You sign brother ! You're the boss
Petrow Riga Futsal: akcept sign with sponsors The sponsor is traveling and I am waiting
for his answer that he will tell me to sign because he pays the money,
Player’s agent: How did you make the offer without asking the sponsor ?
Petrow Riga Futsal: I asked the sponsor, he said that we can pay a salary of 6 k and the
conditions that I said, now I want to make sure that everything is ok, so that there are no
misunderstandings”
9.
On 4 September 2024, the Player’s agent sent the following messages to the contact saved
as “Petrow Riga Futsal” (quoted verbatim):
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17640
“So?
Roncaglio?
Brother he’s going to FIFA
he’s crazy”
10. On 6 September 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club, stating that the parties had
entered into a valid and binding contract, despite the Club having failed to return him the
copy of the Alleged Contract duly signed. Nonetheless, the Player argued that the Club was
refusing to register him and proceed with the necessary arrangements to allow him to
initiate his activity with the Club. Thus, the Player granted the Club five days to confirm the
execution and validity of the Alleged Contract.
11. On 18 September 2024, the Player sent a new letter, stating that the Club failed to confirm
the execution and validity of the Alleged Contract. Therefore, the Player asserted that the
undisputed contractual link had been breached and unilaterally terminated by the Club
without just cause.
12. On 23 December 2024, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Latvian club
RFS Futsal valid as from 1 January 2025 until 31 May 2026. Accordingly, from 1 January 2025
until 31 May 2025, the Player would be entitled to a salary of EUR 6,340.30 gross (EUR 5,000
net) and from 1 June 2025 until 31 May 2026, he would be entitled to a salary of EUR
8,840.30 gross (EUR 7,000 net).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 31 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
14. The Player first argued that he had a valid and binding contract with the Club, which the
latter breached without just cause (i.e., the Alleged Contract). In this regard, the Player
stated that, in July 2024, his agent and the Club’s president exchanged messages
concerning his potential hiring. According to the Player, this culminated on 31 August 2024,
when the Respondent provided him with an employment contract.
15. The Player asserted that the Alleged Contract had all essentialia negotii, such as the parties
to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration payable by the employer to the employee. In this sense, the Player argued
that a comprehensive understanding of all facts and actions taken by the Player within the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17640
context of the relationship can lead to the determination of an existing contractual
relationship between the parties, even in the absence of the signature of one of them.
16. In this context, the Player referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), stating that there was no doubt that the Club’s formal
signature was not mandatory for an employment contract to be valid. Therefore, the Player
assured that the Alleged Contract was valid and binding.
17. Based on the above, the Player alleged that the Club refused to register him or to proceed
with the necessary arrangements to enable him to commence his activities with the Club.
Thus, the Player argued that he considered this to constitute a termination without just
cause, entitling him to compensation for breach of contract.
18. In this respect, the Player stated that, considering that the Alleged Contract did not include
a compensation clause, the amount of compensation should be assessed based on art. 17
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). Since
the Alleged Contract was never executed, the Player argued that he is entitled to EUR
174,000 net, i.e., the total value of the Alleged Contract.
19. Lastly, the Player asserted that the Club’s conduct has been characterised by a significant
degree of bad faith.
20. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“V. Request for Relief
44. In view of all the above, the Claimant hereby respectfully requests that the DRC
accepts the present claim, and:
A. Declare that the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a valid and binding
Employment Agreement;
B. Declare that the Respondent terminated the Employment Agreement without just
cause;
C. Condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of €174 000,00 (one
hundred and seventy-four thousand euros) net as compensation for breach of contract
without just cause, plus the relevant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. over the
aforementioned claimed amount, counting as from 16 September 2024 until its effective
payment;
D. To sanction the Respondent in accordance with Art. 17, Par. 4 of the RSTP;
E. To pay the full FIFA procedural costs, if any.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17640
b. Position of the Respondent
21. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. 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 31 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 15 May 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.
23. 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 (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 Latvian club.
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17640
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
27. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract.
28. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, although the Club never provided him
with a duly signed copy, the Alleged Contract was valid and binding on the parties. In this
context, the Player argued that the Club failed to register him or to undertake the necessary
arrangements to enable him to perform his duties under this contract, therefore causing
the termination without just cause.
29. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber determined
that the decision shall be taken based on the documentation available in the case file (i.e.,
the statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
30. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether the
Alleged Contract was a valid and binding contract and, if so, whether there was a breach
by the Club and its consequences.
A. Was the Alleged Contract a valid and binding contract?
31. The Chamber noted that the Player argued that the Club’s president sent him the Alleged
Contract, which included all essentialia negotii, such as the parties to the contract and their
role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the
employer to the employee. The Chamber also recalled that, although the Alleged Contract
did not have the Club’s signature, the Player stated that a comprehensive analysis of all the
facts could lead to the determination of an existing contractual relationship between the
parties.
32. In this context, the Chamber first referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal,
which has established that the actual signature of the contract is not the sole or even a
necessary element to determine whether there was an existing contractual relationship
between the parties. Instead, the validity and the enforcement of the contract should be
established on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions
taken by the parties within their context of their relationship.
33. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the same jurisprudence has also consistently
stipulated that the Chamber must be very careful with accepting documents other than the
fully executed contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17640
34. The Chamber underscored, specifically, that (i) the conclusion of a contract can sometimes,
in very specific and limited circumstances, be proved without a formal signature, provided
that such proof meets certain standards of confidence, but (ii) decisions determining that
a contractual relationship has been formed without a signed contract require a high
standard of proof.
35. In this case, the Chamber observed that it remained undisputed that the Alleged Contract
was not signed by the Club. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player provided
several arguments and pieces of evidence, which must be analysed in turn to determine
whether a contractual relationship existed between the parties.
36. The Chamber first recalled that, according to the Player, in July 2024, the Claimant’s agent
and the Respondent’s president exchanged messages concerning the potential hiring of
the Player. Nonetheless, the majority of the Chamber found that the Player failed to
provide any evidence to support these allegations (e.g., any messages in the context of the
negotiations of the employment contract).
37. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, on 31 August 2024, the
Club’s president provided him with the Alleged Contract. In this regard, the Chamber
observed that the Player provided a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation, in which a
contact saved as “Petrow Riga Futsal” sent him a document entitled “Contract
Roncaglio.docx”. However, the majority of the Chamber found it important that the Player
failed to provide any further explanation or evidence demonstrating the identity of the
parties concerned or the content of the attachments supposedly exchanged between
them.
38. Additionally, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Alleged Contract
contained all essentialia negotii. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the document
provided by the Player indeed contained (i) the role of the parties, (ii) the duration and (iii)
the remuneration, although it did not contain the Club’s signature. Here, the majority of
the Chamber once again mentioned that the Player failed to provide convincing evidence
that the Alleged Contract he submitted to this case was the document that he received
from the contact saved as “Petrow Riga Futsal”.
39. Moreover, the Chamber indicated that the Player provided a screenshot in which he sent
a document to the contact saved as “Petrow Riga Futsal”. However, the majority of the
Chamber considered that the Player failed to show that this document was actually the
Alleged Contract he submitted to this file and that it contained his signature.
40. The Chamber also considered that after allegedly sending the signed Alleged Contract, the
Player’s agent requested the contact saved as “Petrow Riga Futsal” to send him a signed
copy of the document to make the official announcement. A few days later, he asked for
the copy signed by the Club and questioned why he had made the offer without consulting
the sponsor first. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber considered that the Player’s
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17640
agent, through his behaviour, acknowledged that the Club’s signature was a necessary
requirement for the contract’s execution.
41. After this analysis, the majority of the Chamber again remarked that although the
conclusion of a contract can be proved without a formal signature, the standard of proof
required is high, considering that it would entail that an employment relationship was
formalised without an explicitly proof of consent: the signature.
42. Furthermore, in the opinion of the majority of the Chamber, the evidence provided by the
Player in this case does not meet the required standard. In particular, the majority of the
Chamber was not convinced that there was sufficient evidence to establish that there had
been mutual acceptance of both parties. Hence, the majority of the DRC deemed that the
Alleged Contract did not contain all essential elements recognised in the Football Tribunal’s
jurisprudence.
43. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to underline that, even if the Club failed
to reply to the claim, the Player bore the burden of providing enough evidence to prove
the asserted facts based on art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. Nevertheless, having
carefully assessed the documents submitted with the claim, the majority of the Chamber
concluded that the Player could not discharge his burden of proof, meaning that he failed
to corroborate the existence of the contractual relationship.
44. In light of all the above, the majority of the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim.
d. Costs
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17640
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Diego Roncaglio, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17640
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