Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18056
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Vinicius
Mendonca Santa Rosa
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
CLAIMANT:
Vinicius Mendonca Santa Rosa, Brazil
Represented by Evandro Luis Rezende Forte
RESPONDENT:
Portimonense Sporting Clube – Futebol SAD, Portugal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18056
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2024, the Brazilian player Vinicius Mendonca Santa Rosa (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Portuguese club Portimonense Sporting Clube – Futebol SAD
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Employment Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until 30 June 2027.
2.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player the
following remuneration:
•
•
•
•
Season 2024/2025: EUR 1,500 net per month
Season 2025/2026: EUR 1,600 net per month
Season 2026/2027: EUR 1,700 net per month
Total: EUR 57,600 net
3.
The same provision also established that salaries should be paid by the 5th day of the
following month.
4.
On 8 July 2024, the Player received a WhatsApp message from a person identified as the
Club’s Sporting Director, Mr Rodrigo Gral (hereinafter: Mr Gral or the Club’s Sporting
Director). Mr Gral welcomed the Player to the team and informed him that he would be
added to the team’s WhatsApp group.
5.
On 28 July 2024, the Player flew from Belem (Brazil) to Lisbon (Portugal), with a stopover in
Sao Paulo (Brazil). The Club paid for the flight tickets and issued a document entitled “Term
of Responsibility”, which stated that the Player would be in Portugal for a trial period of no
more than 30 days.
6.
On 1 August 2024, the Player allegedly participated in a training match for the U-23 team.
It should be noted that the Player provided photographs of himself on the pitch in the
Club’s uniform, but these are undated.
7.
On 13 August 2024, the Player allegedly participated in a “ceremony” at the Club in order
to officially announce him as a member of the Club’s team. It should be noted that the
Player provided photographs of himself in what appeared to be a media day and signing a
document.
8.
On 24 August 2024, the Player allegedly participated in another training match for the U23 team. It should be noted that the Player provided photographs of himself on the pitch
in the Club’s uniform, but these are undated.
9.
According to the Player, around this time, the Club made him train alone and they informed
him that they had been unable to register him due to a problem with his work visa.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18056
10. Between 31 August and 2 September 2024, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages with
a person identified as the Club’s U-23 Team Manager, Mr Amilcar Delgado (hereinafter: Mr
Delgado or the Club’s U-23 Team Manager), regarding the status of his registration and the
next available steps. Mr Delgado, inter alia, informed the Player that they would have to
sign a mutual termination and that the Club would offer three months’ salary and a flight
ticket to his next destiny as compensation.
11. On 3 September 2024, a person identified as the Club’s intermediary, Mr Gabriel Persi
(hereinafter: Mr Persi or the Club’s Intermediary, and together with the Club’s Sporting
Director jointly referred to as the Club’s Representatives), added the Player and his agent and
legal representative, Messrs Rodrigo Sarti and Joao Lobao respectively (hereinafter jointly
referred to as the Player’s Representatives), to a WhatsApp group called “Kanu Resolução”
(hereinafter: the WhatsApp Group). Among other things, the parties discussed the next steps
in the Player’s career, including a loan to a Mexican club until the Player could be reregistered with the Club in July 2025.
12. On 5 September 2024, the Mexican club, Club de Fútbol Correcaminos de la UAT
(hereinafter: CF Correcaminos), issued a document entitled “Declaration”, which was also
shared in the WhatsApp Group and stated as follows, quoted verbatim:
“We declare and agree that the Brazilian professional football player VINÍCIUS
MENDONÇA SANTA ROSA, born on 24/04/2003, is as from this date authorised to sign a
definitive employment contract with Portimonense Futebol SAD to be valid after the end
of the LIGA MX Ascenso 2024/2025, starting on July 1st, 2025 with the club
PORTIMONENSE FUTEBOL SAD of Portugal”.
13. On 9 September 2024, the parties signed a termination agreement dated 2 September
2025 (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
14. Pursuant to the Termination Agreement, the parties agreed to terminate the Employment
Contract, and the Club undertook to pay the Player a total of EUR 4,500 net, payable in two
instalments: the first of EUR 3,000 net on 8 September 2024, and the second of EUR 1,500
net on 8 October 2024.
15. Also on 9 September 2024, the Player’s Representatives posted a picture of the Termination
Agreement in the WhatsApp Group and informed the Club’s Representatives that the
Player had been given the wrong version of the document. In response, one of the Club’s
representatives acknowledged that the Player had signed the wrong version due to an
administrative error and indicated that he would be invited to sign a corrected document
the following day.
16. On 10 September 2024, the Player’s representatives stated in the WhatsApp Group that the
Player had not been provided with the copy of the updated Termination Agreement or with
the appropriate documents for the flight to Mexico. It appears that the Club provided the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18056
Player with a flight ticket for 10 September 2024, from Lisbon (Portugal) to Mexico City
(Mexico), with a stopover in Madrid (Spain), but it is unclear whether the Player actually
boarded the flight on that occasion.
17. Also on 10 September 2024, the Club’s Representatives sent a copy of the Termination
Agreement signed by the Club and the parties exchanged further correspondence in
relation to the trip to Mexico via the WhatsApp Group.
18. On 13 September 2024 at 15:24, the Club’s Intermediary sent a copy of an employment
contract between the Player and CF Correcaminos to the WhatsApp Group.
19. On 13 September 2024 at 16:25, the parties also exchanged a copy of the aforementioned
employment contract signed by the Player (hereinafter: the Mexican Contract), which
contained the following terms and conditions:
• Term: from 1 September 2024 to 30 June 2025;
• Remuneration: MXN 216,150 net, payable in 10 instalments of MXN 21,615 net each.
20. On 27 September 2024, the Player sent a private WhatsApp message to the Club’s Sporting
Director, asking for an update on his outstanding payments.
21. On 3 October 2024, the Player again contacted the Club’s Sporting Director, this time asking
for information on the status of his registration. The Club’s Sporting Director suggested
that the Player was in a more advantageous position than his colleagues and should be
aware of his role and status.
22. On 18 October 2024, the Player’s Mexican visa was approved.
23. On 22 October 2024, the Player informed the Club’s Sporting Director that he would be in
Lisbon the following day, and asked for his payment and/or for enough money to cover his
expenses.
24. On 24 October 2024, the Player flew from Lisbon (Portugal) to Mexico City (Mexico), with a
stopover in Paris (France).
25. On 13 November 2024, the Player and CF Correcaminos signed a termination agreement
(hereinafter: the Mexican Termination) in which they agreed, inter alia, to terminate the
Mexican Contract and to settle the consequences thereof.
26. Pursuant to the Mexican Termination, CF Correcaminos undertook to pay the Player MXN
15,000 as compensation for breach of contract, as well as to provide him with a flight ticket
to his home country.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18056
27. On 27 November 2024, the Player entered into a new contract with the Brazilian club
Sampaio Correa Futebol e Esporte Ltda. for the period between 27 November 2024 and 1
April 2025. Accordingly, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of BRL 2,000.
28. On 3 February 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, stating that he had
signed the Termination Agreement under duress and that it was therefore null and void.
The Player further noted that he would not honor the Termination Agreement and would
seek compensation in front of FIFA.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
29. On 3 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
30. The Player first recalled the entire context of the negotiations held between the parties in
connection with the Player’s transfer to the Club. In particular, the Player stressed that he
had entered into a valid and binding contract with the Club, which was subsequently
terminated due to the Club’s failure to register him.
31. The Player claimed that the lack of registration amounted to a termination without just
cause. Furthermore, he argued that the Club excluded him from training and forced him
to sign an unfair termination agreement and accept a transfer to Mexico.
32. According to the Player, he had never played for big clubs in the past and was therefore
desperate to continue his career – particularly in view of the fact that the registration
window in Mexico was about to close.
33. The Player then alleged that the Club exercised an undue influence over him and that it
took advantage of his inexperience. The Player referred to Swiss law and stated that he was
experiencing “straitened circumstances” when he signed the Termination Agreement.
34. As a result, the Player claimed that the Termination Agreement should be set aside and
that he should be entitled to his outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), as follows:
• EUR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the salary for July and
August 2024 (i.e., EUR 1,500 each);
• EUR 50,911.38 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Employment Contract (EUR 51,600) minus the mitigated
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18056
compensation with CF Correcaminos (EUR 688.62, as the amount provided for in the
Mexican Termination); and
• 5% interest p.a. on the outstanding remuneration as from the due dates and on the
compensation as from the date of signing of the Termination Agreement (i.e., 9
September 2024).
35. The Player also claimed that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the Club as the
termination took place during the protected period.
36. The Player submitted the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“136. In line with the above, the Player herein submits to the attention of the members
of the DRC the following requests for relief:
FIRST –To uphold the present Claim in full;
SECOND –To confirm that the Club breached the Employment Contract without just
cause;
THIRD –To order the Club to pay the Player EUR1,500 due as outstanding salary due
for July, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
FOURTH–To order the Club to pay the Player EUR1,500 due as outstanding salary due
for August, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 September 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
FIFTH–To order the Club to pay the Player 50,911.38 due as (Mitigated) compensation
for the breach of the Employment Contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 10
September2024 until the date of effective payment;
Alternatively, and only whether the paragraphs (third; fourth and fifth) are not
accepted:
SIXTH–To order the Club to pay the Player EUR4,500 due as compensation for the
breach of the Employment Contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a.as of 10
September2024 until the date of effective payment;
SEVENTH–To ban the Club from registering any new players, either national or
internationally, for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods;
EIGHTH–To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately; and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18056
NINETH –To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs”.
b. Position of the Respondent
37. The Club failed to respond to the claim despite having been invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. 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 3 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 22 May 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
39. 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 an Brazilian player and a Portuguese club.
40. 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
41. 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).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18056
c. Merits of the dispute
42. 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
43. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club, for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
44. The Chamber acknowledged that the Player claimed that he had signed the Termination
Agreement under duress and that this document was therefore null and void. The Player
argued that the Club terminated the Employment Contract without just cause and that, as
a consequence, he was entitled to the outstanding remuneration and the mitigated
compensation.
45. The Club, on the other hand, did not respond to the claim. Therefore, the DRC recognized
that any decision must be taken solely on the basis of the documents submitted by the
Player (cf., art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
46. In this context, the DRC also identified that it had to determine (i) whether the Termination
Agreement is valid and binding and (ii) what the consequences are in each of the scenarios.
A.
IS THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT VALID AND BINDING?
1)
Duress / “Straitened Circumstances”
47. The Chamber first noted that the Player’s main argument was that he signed the
Termination Agreement under duress. In this regard, the Player stated that he had been
forced to train alone due to the Club’s failure to register him and that he had settled for
the only alternative to continue with his career: the transfer to Mexico. The Player also
claimed that the Club had illicitly taken advantage of his good faith and his inexperience in
the football market.
48. In this context, the DRC recalled that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
established that a party is under duress if, in the circumstances, he/she has good cause to
believe that there is imminent and substantial risk to his/her own life, limb, reputation or
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18056
property or those of a person close to him/her. Additionally, art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules also stipulates that a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it.
49. Although the Player provided evidence of the conversations that took place with the Club
in the context of the negotiations, which could indeed support the fact that the Club was
not able to register him, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player has not provided any
evidence to prove the veracity of his allegations regarding duress. In this respect, the
Chamber outlined that there is no evidence to support that any of the Club’s
representatives has ever threatened him and/or coerced him into signing the Termination
Agreement.
50. The Chamber also noted that, as demonstrated by the Player, the parties communicated
via WhatsApp. Most importantly, the Chamber considered that the material messages were
even exchanged in the WhatsApp Group that included the representatives of the Club, the
Player, his agent and his legal representative. Therefore, and even accepting (quod non)
that the Player was inexperienced, the DRC considered that he was not left alone in the
negotiations, and, on the contrary, his representatives took proactive steps throughout the
termination process.
51. Similarly, the DRC was of the opinion that the evidence on file shows that the Player did not
contest the validity of the Termination Agreement until after he had travelled to Mexico,
signed the Mexican Termination and then returned to Brazil. Therefore, the Chamber
emphasized that more than 5 months had elapsed between the signing of the Termination
Agreement and this claim.
52. In light of the above, and based on the definition of duress in jurisprudence, the Chamber
concluded that the Player’s statement alone was not sufficient to establish that the
Termination Agreement was signed under duress. According to the DRC, the fact that,
allegedly, the terms of this agreement ended up being disadvantageous to the Player was
also not a reason to assume that he signed under duress.
53. Based on all of the above, and due to a lack of evidence, the Chamber decided that the
Player has failed to establish that the Termination Agreement was signed under duress or
under “straitened circumstances”.
2)
Reciprocal concessions
54. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber further recalled that the mere signing of a
contract is not sufficient to ensure the enforceability of its contents. In particular, the
Chamber noted that the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the
Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) on waivers provides that (i) in general terms, an
employee (e.g., a player or a coach) cannot waive remuneration for work already
performed; and (ii) in order to assess whether a transaction is permissible, the court /
deciding-making body is required to conduct a balancing of interests by considering
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18056
whether the reciprocal claims waived by each party are of comparable value. Put
differently, whether there is an appropriate equivalence between the parties’ reciprocal
concessions.
55. At this point, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player argued that he had “waived” all
sums under the Contract, which amounted to EUR 57,600.
56. Then, the Chamber noted that, in the Termination Agreement, the parties stipulated that
the Player would be entitled to EUR 4,500 (i.e., three months’ salary) and, from the context
of the discussions, a flight ticket to his next destination.
57. While the Chamber found that the Player had agreed to terminate a three-year contract
with the Club by signing the Termination Agreement, it also noted that the Club undertook
to cover all his outstanding remuneration and to take the necessary steps to enable him to
continue his career elsewhere. Furthermore, the DRC highlighted that the Player had
actually signed the Mexican Contract (which was subsequently terminated by his own free
will) and that his representatives had actively agreed to the arrangement reached by and
between the parties.
58. Furthermore, since the Chamber had already established that the Player failed to prove
that the Club acted in an abusive manner towards him, the DRC found it questionable
whether the Player would actually be entitled to any of the claimed compensation.
59. Based on the above, the Chamber was not convinced that the signing of the Termination
Agreement involved the parties making unbalanced concessions. In other words, the DRC
concluded that the Player had failed to prove that the Termination Agreement required
review, as detailed in the aforementioned jurisprudence.
60. The DRC therefore decided that the Termination Agreement is valid and binding.
B.
CONSEQUENCES
61. Given that the parties entered into a valid and mutual termination agreement, the
Chamber considered that they novated their obligations and there was no reason to depart
from their contractual freedom.
62. In this respect, the DRC deemed that it was for the Club to prove that it had met its financial
obligations. However, as the Club did not respond to this claim, the Chamber considered
that it also failed to discharge its burden of proof.
63. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Player was entitled to the EUR 4,500 claimed in
the alternative, plus interest as from the due date.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18056
64. The DRC further noted that the Player claimed interest on the entire amount as from 10
September 2024, whereas the Termination Agreement provided for a payment in two
instalments.
65. Here, and although the DRC noted that the Player failed to provide the corrected version
of the Termination Agreement to reflect this change, the Chamber similarly considered that
the Club had expressly acknowledged the administrative error via the WhatsApp Group.
The DRC also noted that the evidence on file suggested that the parties had agreed to pay
a lump sum, which was also not disputed by the Club.
66. Therefore, and again in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC
therefore ordered the Club to pay the Player EUR 4,500 in outstanding remuneration, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 10 September 2024.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
70. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
71. 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. 12
REF. FPSD-18056
d. Costs
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18056
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Vinicius Mendonca Santa Rosa, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Portimonense Sporting Clube – Futebol SAD, must pay to the Claimant
the following amount(s):
- EUR 4,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 September
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 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. 14
REF. FPSD-18056
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. 15