Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17095
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Kauan Marlon Santos Leite
BY:
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Kauan Marlon Santos Leite, Brazil
Represented by Mr Rodrigo Grumach Falcao
RESPONDENT:
WFС Karpaty Lviv,
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17095
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 July 2023, the Brazilian player Kauan Marlon Santos Leite (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Ukrainian club Karpaty Lviv (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature, for five
sporting seasons (i.e., the end of the season 2027/2028).
2.
According to art. 3.2 the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the
following remuneration:
-
2023/2024 season: UAH 33,100 plus “bonuses for conscientious fulfilment of
obligations under the Contract of UAH 16,600”;
-
2024/2025 season: UAH 49,700 plus “bonuses for conscientious fulfilment of
obligations under the Contract of UAH 24,850 – starting from the month of July of the
season next to the one in which the footballer participates the game on the pitch for
at least 50% of the playing time of the calendar matches of the club’s second team”;
-
2025/2026 season: UAH 66,300 plus “bonuses for conscientious fulfilment of
obligations under the Contract of UAH 33,100 – starting from the month of July of the
season next to the one in which the footballer participates the game on the pitch for
at least 50% of the playing time of the calendar matches of the club’s second team”;
-
2026/2027 season: UAH 99,300 plus “bonuses for conscientious fulfilment of
obligations under the Contract of UAH 49,750 – starting from the month of July of the
season next to the one in which the footballer participates the game on the pitch for
at least 50% of the playing time of the calendar matches of the club’s second team”;
-
2027/2028 season: UAH 124,000 plus “bonuses for conscientious fulfilment of
obligations under the Contract of UAH 62,350 – starting from the month of July of the
season next to the one in which the footballer participates the game on the pitch for at
least 50% of the playing time of the calendar matches of the club’s second team”.
3.
Pursuant to art. 3.3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the
monthly salary in two equal instalments, by the 22nd of each respective month and the 7th
of the following respective month.
4.
Prior to the Contract’s signature, the Respondent sent an enquiry to acquire the Claimant’s
services to the latter’s former club.
5.
Subsequently, on 8 July 2023, the parties signed the Contract.
6.
On 23 July 2023, the Claimant travelled to Ukraine to begin his activity under the Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17095
7.
At an unspecified date after completion of the pre-season, the Claimant was allegedly
verbally informed by the Respondent that his services were no longer needed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 14 November 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
9.
The Claimant lodged a claim for compensation for breach of contract.
10. In his claim, the player argued that he was dismissed without prior warning or justification
by the Respondent.
11. The Claimant argued that he has complied with the terms of the Contract at all times and
that he travelled to Ukraine to carry out his obligations, only to be suddenly dismissed
without any salary payments or compensation for the breach.
12. Thus, the Claimant argued that he was entitled to compensation on the basis of the
Respondent’s breachful behaviour.
13. As a result, the Claimant formulated the following request for relief:
-
Compensation:
o UAH 397,200 for the season 2023/2024;
o UAH 596,400 for the season 2024/2025;
o UAH 783,600 for the season 2025/2026;
o UAH 1,191,600 for the season 2026/2027;
o UAH 1,488,000 for the season 2027/2028
-
Interest as from the respective due dates;
Sporting sanctions on the Respondent.
b. Reply of the Respondent
14. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17095
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 14 November 2024 and submitted
for decision on 28 March 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.
16. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 (hereinafter: 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 Ukrainian club.
17. 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. 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
18. 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 he 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
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17095
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the basis of the present dispute was the lawfulness of the contractual termination.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Respondent indeed terminated the Contract without just cause, as purported by the
Claimant, based on the evidence and submissions on file.
22. Prior to entering into the analysis of the matter at stake, the Single Judge recalled the
parties’ submissions. On one hand, the Claimant alleged that he was verbally dismissed,
and that no prior warning or justification was provided by the Respondent. The Claimant
alleged that this took place after the pre-season had been completed.
23. The Respondent, on the other hand, failed to provide a position as to the claim.
24. The Single Judge, at this stage, deemed it important to point out that, in accordance with
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, a party that asserts a certain fact also bears the
burden of proving its veracity. The Single Judge emphasised this in relevance to the fact
that the Respondent failed to provide a response to the claim. In other words, although the
allegations of the Claimant remain uncontested in the proceedings at stake, the latter also
bears the burden of proving that the allegations themselves are true.
25. Having said this, the Single Judge preliminarily stated that the fact that the Contract exists
and was validly concluded is uncontested, due to the fact that the Respondent and the
Claimant both signed / stamped it on the copy submitted to the file and that the Claimant
provided proof of having travelled to Ukraine to attend the Contract.
26. Further, the Single Judge noted that no termination notice was on file. The Claimant had,
in this sense, alleged a verbal termination by the Respondent.
27. In this respect, in the absence of a written termination of the Contract, the Single Judge
opined that the allegation of the verbal termination must be assessed based on any
accessory evidence on file to corroborate such assertion.
28. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that there was no evidence on file whatsoever of any
interaction between the parties, or related to the timeline of the dispute after the
Claimant’s travels to Ukraine.
29. Specifically, there was, no unilateral termination on file, no letter or any other
correspondence by the Claimant to the Respondent requesting an explanation as to the
alleged verbal termination, no default notice as to any outstanding salaries, and even no
proof of the Claimant leaving Ukraine again after the alleged termination took place.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17095
30. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant, in the initial statement of claim,
referred to a “sudden decision of the club that he would not play” (without expressly
referring to a termination of the Contract). In an ulterior submission, the Claimant then
pointed out that he was verbally informed that he would no longer be part of the team,
and that he should leave the club, whereafter he allegedly left Ukraine on 17 August 2023.
In terms of such departure, once again the Single Judge highlighted that he was unable to
ascertain any evidence thereof in the file at stake.
31. In short, under the above circumstances and the lack of any evidence for the Single Judge
to attribute any wrongdoing (or any interaction between the parties at all), the latter was
unable to determine any concrete breach of contract by the Respondent.
32. Thus, in the absence of a demonstrable breach of contract by the Respondent, the Single
Judge was faced with a situation where the Claimant simply left Ukraine (allegedly on
17 August 2023), without any further correspondence exchanged between the parties.
33. As a result, the Single Judge was unable to determine any breach of contract between the
parties.
34. Lastly, and for completeness’ sake, the Single Judge wished to point out that, as he was not
certain of when the Claimant was verbally informed about the dismissal, and no evidence
as to when the Claimant left Ukraine was presented, he concluded that no outstanding
remuneration could be awarded in the case at hand (since the period where he rendered
services was uncertain).
35. In conclusion, in the absence of a demonstrable breach of contract, the Single Judge
rejected the claim in its entirety.
d. Costs
36. 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
37. 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.
38. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17095
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kauan Marlon Santos Leite, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17095
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. 9