Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13755
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Luiz Felipe Santana Figueiredo
BY:
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Luiz Felipe Santana Figueiredo, Brazil
Represented by Wallace Joacir Alves de Oliveira
RESPONDENT:
MGLKS Tarpan Mrocza, Poland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13755
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 June 2022, the Brazilian player, Luiz Felipe Santana Figueiredo (hereinafter: Claimant
or player) and the Polish club, MGLKS Tarpan Mrocza (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
signed a document (hereinafter: document) establishing a contractual relationship valid as
from 15 June 2022 until 30 June 2024.
2.
According to the document, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
amounts:
- Polish Zloty (PLN) 2,000 as monthly salary during the “autumn round” of the
season 2022/2023;
- PLN 2,500 as monthly salary during the “spring round” of the season 2022/2023;
- PLN 3,000 as monthly salary during the “autumn round” of the season 2023/2024;
- PLN 3,500 as monthly salary during the “spring round” of the season 2023/2024.
3.
On 22 November 2022, the player left Poland for his approved winter vacations.
4.
In January 2023, according to the player, the club informed him that it does not count on
him any longer and that he should not return to the club.
5.
On 2 February 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of PLN 66,000 as compensation for breach of contract within 15 days.
6.
The player confirmed that he remained unemployed until today.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 21 February 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of the following monies:
- PLN 12,000 as outstanding salaries (6x PLN 2,000) plus 5% interest p.a. as of the
due dates;
- PLN 54,000 as compensation for breach of contract (residual value), plus 5%
interest p.a.
- PLN 6,000 as additional compensation of 3 monthly salaries.
9.
In his claim, the player argued that the club had no just cause to terminate the contract in
January 2023.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13755
b. Position of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the player’s claim.
11. The club argued that it signed the document as “preliminary agreement” with the player in
order to get him into the country for a trial, which the player did not pass.
12. The Respondent held that it paid for the player’s accommodation, food and travel expenses
before he left the country.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether
he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the
present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 February 2024 and submitted for decision on
25 April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (February 2024
edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 February 2024, the February 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
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. 4
REF. FPSD-13755
c. Merits of the dispute
17. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties dispute the existence of a contractual
relationship.
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if a valid and
binding employment contract was concluded between the parties and in the affirmative, if
such contract was breached.
20. The Single Judge duly noted that according to the Claimant, the parties concluded a valid
employment contract which was breached by the club when he was sent home to Brazil.
21. The Respondent, on the other side, argued that the contract was only a “preliminary
agreement” in order to get the player into the country for a trial, which he did not pass.
22. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge noted that the parties’ first
fundamental disagreement is whether the document allegedly concluded between the
parties on 15 June 2022 can be considered as a valid and binding employment contract.
23. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge started by recalling the Football Tribunal’s wellestablished jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be
considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the
employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, 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.
24. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Single Judge concluded
that all such elements were included in the document filed by the player. In other words,
the Single Judge understood that the legal document concluded by the parties (i.e. the
document) indeed included all the relevant information at the basis of an employment
relationship between contractual parties. Specifically, the document contains the signature
of both parties, provides for the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration payable to the player. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the document
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13755
is in fact a valid and binding employment contract and shall be considered in the case at
stake, as the contractual basis of the present dispute.
25. On account of the above, and since the club did not appear to have any valid reason for a
contract termination, the Single Judge concluded that the club terminated the contract
without just cause.
ii. Consequences
26. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
27. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 6 monthly
salaries under the contract, amounting to PLN 12,000.
28. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. PLN
12,000 (i.e. 6 times PLN 2,000).
29. 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 21 February 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
30. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single
Judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
31. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13755
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
32. As a consequence, the members of the Single Judge determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
33. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of PLN 54,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
34. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
35. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
36. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
37. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of PLN 54,000, as the residual value of the contract.
38. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 21 February 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13755
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
39. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
40. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
41. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
42. 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.
43. The Single Judge 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
44. The Single Judge 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.
45. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
46. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13755
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luiz Felipe Santana Figueiredo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, MGLKS Tarpan Mrocza, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- PLN 12,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 February
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- PLN 54,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 21 February 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. 9
REF. FPSD-13755
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 10