Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18354
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Diogo
Santos Rangel
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
CLAIMANT:
Diogo Santos Rangel, Timor-Leste & Brazil
Represented by Thomas Riera
RESPONDENT:
Samut Prakan City, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18354
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 June 2024, the Brazilian and Timorese player, Diogo Santos Rangel (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Thai club, Samut Prakan City (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
1 July 2024 until 30 April 2025.
2.
In accordance with the clause 1.2 of the Contract, “the Club agreed to provide wages of 90,000
THB NET since 1st July 2024 before tax per. (The Club will pay on every 5th of the month,
withholding tax as required by revenue code of Thailand). The Player is responsible for their
personal income tax.” (quote verbatim)
3.
In addition, according to clause 3.2 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a “round trip
flight one ticket (Economic class for player from Brasileiro [sic]- Thailand- Brasileiro [sic]).”
4.
On 6 October 2024, the Claimant sent a text message to the Respondent requesting about
the refund of a flight ticket. The Respondent informed him that they would refund him “with
a salary.”
5.
On 4 December 2024, the Claimant sent a message to the Respondent requesting about
his unpaid salaries. The Respondent replied by saying “I don’t have any money” and the
Claimant repeated that he does not have any money left and he is with his family.
6.
On 10 December 2024, the Claimant sent the following default notice to the Respondent:
“Dear President and Manager, I write this note to inform you that your team has
breached the employment agreement between us. I spoke with the manager after the
Sisaket United FC home game and he promised I would get some money from the team,
considering I have not paid for 3 consecutive months nor have I gotten any win or draw
bonus.
I am really not happy with this situation and I do not want to report the team to Thai
F.A., AFC or FIFA. Please I am beginning you president and Manager kindly attend to my
financial need within 15 days.
If I get no payment before the above date, I have no other option but to report the team
to Thai FC, AFC, or FIFA.
I want to give my best to the team but my mental health is not presently okay because I
have financial responsibilities to attend to.”
7.
On 27 December 2024, the Claimant texted the Respondent saying that “I have already
spoken to the coach, and there is not much I can do at this time, I will be returning to Brazil.
However, the club is responsible for my ticket. How can we help me return to Brazil?”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18354
8.
On 30 December 2024, the parties held the following conversation:
Club: “I don’t have any money. I don’t know how the administration will handle it.”
Player: “I just wanna back home now. Can you help me with something? I just wanna back
home.”
Club: “I didn’t get a salary from the club, but what I did to help everyone was because I didn’t
want to make it difficult for everyone, but now I can’t help anyone else. I hope you can
understand me.”
9.
On 4 January 2025, the Respondent sent the Claimant a signed termination agreement that
does not bear the Player’s signature which stipulated the following:
“This is a mutual agreement with Samut Prakan City (The Club) and Mr. Santos Rangel Diogo
(The Player) […]
Team of this contract termination:
1. The Club and the player don’t have any financial obligations with each other.
2. The player is free to join any club of his choosing. Effective 4 January 2025.”
10. On 10 January 2025, the Player signed a new contract with the Brazilian club Sao Bento- SP
valid as from 10 January 2025 until 15 April 2025 with a monthly salary of BRL 1,520
(hereinafter the New Contract). The total value of the New Contract was BRL 4,878.
11. On 12 January 2025, the Claimant terminated the Contract by sending a letter reminding
the Respondent that the balance of the salary of August 2024, as well as the salaries of
September, October, November and December 2024 remained unpaid.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 25 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
13. The Claimant alleged that the termination of the Contract was with just cause due to
outstanding salaries and requested the following amounts:
- “THB 45,000 as compensation for August 2024, 50% salary + 5% interest from the
payment due date.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18354
- THB 720,000 as compensation for September 2024 to April 2025 salary + 5% interest
as from the payment due date. (2024 September 90,000. 2024 October 90,000. 2024
November 90,000. 2024 December 90,000. 2025 January 90,000. 2025 February 90,000.
2025 March 90,000. 2025 April 90,000).
-
THB 65,280 as compensation for flight ticket + 5% interest as from the date of his dismissal”.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 25 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 30 April 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 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 (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 a Brazilian and Timorese player and a Thai club.
17. 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
18. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18354
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 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
20. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and acknowledged that its task
was to firstly determine when did the Contract terminate and secondly to assess whether
the Claimant had just cause to terminate his Contract.
21. The Chamber first mentioned that the Club did not respond to the claim, entailing that the
Chamber’s decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
22. The Chamber then recalled that, on 1 June 2024, the parties signed the Contract valid as
from 1 July 2024 until 30 April 2025 and on 12 January 2025, the Claimant terminated his
Contract alleging just cause due to outstanding salaries. However, the Chamber observed
that the Player had already signed the New Contract with the Brazilian club on 10 January
2025.
23. In view of the above, the Chamber recalled that according to art. 18 par. 5 of the
Regulations, a player cannot sign two (or more) contracts for the same period. Therefore,
the Chamber considered that the date of the termination of the Contract is not 12 January
2025, but rather 10 January 2025, i.e. the date on which the Claimant started a parallel
employment relationship and de facto terminated his Contract.
24. Having established the date of the termination, the Chamber moved to the assessment of
just cause.
25. The Chamber recalled that according to art. 14 bis of the Regulations, if a club unlawfully
fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be
deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor
club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club
to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18354
26. In the case at hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged not having received by
the moment of the termination the salaries corresponding to the balance of August 2024
and the months of September, October, November and December 2024. In addition, the
Chamber observed that the Claimant provided written evidence of having put the
Respondent in default on 10 December 2024, i.e. more than 15 days before terminating his
Contract on 10 January 2025.
27. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, no evidence was provided, the Respondent failed to provide its
position to the claim.
28. Consequently, in view of all the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just
cause to terminate the Contract due to having at least 2 outstanding salaries and having
provided the Respondent with at least 15 days’ notice to comply with their default.
ii. Consequences
29. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
30. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to 4,5 salaries
under the Contract, amounting to THB 405,000.
31. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber 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. THB
405,000 corresponding to the balance of the salary of August 2024 plus the salaries of
September, October, November and December 2024 (i.e. THB 90,000 times 4 plus THB
45,000).
32. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 45,000 as from 6 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18354
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 December2024 until the date
of effective payment;
•
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 January 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
33. In addition, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s request regarding the reimbursement
of the flight ticket back to Brazil, in accordance with clause 3.2 of the Contract.
34. However, on the document provided as evidence for the reimbursement of the ticket, the
Chamber observed that it did not mention the Player’s name, the itinerary nor the dates.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Claimant did not meet his burden of proof
showing that he indeed incurred this cost and consequently, the Chamber rejected his
request for reimbursement.
35. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
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 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.
36. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber 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 Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
37. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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.
38. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of THB 360,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract from
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18354
January 2025 to April 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
39. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
40. Indeed, the Player found employment with the club Sao Bento- SP. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to BRL 4,878.7, approximately THB
28,318 per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his
damages in the total amount of THB 23,318.
41. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent, and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
42. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of THB
270,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player. However, the Chamber
noted that the compensation cannot exceed the residual value of the Contract and
therefore, the compensation was limited to THB 360,000.
43. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
THB 360,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
44. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 10 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Consequences of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
45. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18354
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
46. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
47. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 19 August 1991 and the
relevant contract with the Club was concluded on 1 June 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that the Player terminated the contract with just cause on 10 January 2025. The
breach of contract by the Club had therefore occurred within the protected period.
48. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had already been held liable of breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, in particular in cases
FPSD-15000, FPSD-15001 and FPSD-15002.
49. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
50. 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.
51. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequences 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.
52. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
53. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18354
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
54. In view of the above, the DRC decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
55. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all appliable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which
is available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
d. Costs
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18354
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Diogo Santos Rangel, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Samut Prakan City, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- THB 405,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 45,000 as from 6 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 December2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 90,000 as from 6 January 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
- THB 360,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10
January 2025 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
6.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18354
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18354
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. 14