DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16359
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Kiros Stanley Soares Ferraz
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Kiros Stanley Soares Ferraz, Brazil
Represented by Wallace Joacir Alves de Oliveira
RESPONDENT:
Gol-e Gohar FC, Iran
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16359
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Brazilian player Kiros Stanley Soares Ferraz (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Iranian club Gol-e Gohar FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or
the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 11
July 2022 until the end of the season 2022-2023.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant USD
300,000 as follows:
3.
-
USD 90,000 in cash upon signature of the Contract.
-
USD 30,000 in cash as a salary for 7 months between the 1st and the 10th day of
each month.
In addition, article 5 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“2- If the Player does not participate in the training under the pretext of delay in
payments, the Club can deduct up to 3% of the Contract amount for each training
session and up to 5% of the Contract amount for each match as a fine.
[…]
4 - The Player will be responsible for paying possible disciplinary offenses of the Club's
Disciplinary Committee and the judicial bodies of the Federation, as well as paying the
registration fee for the Provincial Board, the Football Federation and the League
Organization, which will be deducted from his claims if paid by the Club.
[…]
9 - Payment and allocation of bonuses and financial penalties will be in accordance
with the results of the team as described in the Club's incentives and penalties
regulations, which have been signed by the Player and are considered an integral part
of this Contract.”
4.
Furthermore, article 7 of the Contract read as follows:
“The Player in this Contract is committed to do the following:
[…]
3 - To observe the disciplinary regulations of the Club which is attached to this
Contract and to adapt its behavior to it, and by signing this Contract, it is assumed
that he is aware of it and has read it thoroughly.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16359
4 - The Player will be sentenced to compensate all the damages resulting from bis
irresponsible and unprofessional performance and behavior towards the Club, as the
case may be. The club's Disciplinary Committee has the authority to handle this issue.
[…]
8 - To strictly follow the instructions of the managers and coaches of the Club
regarding discipline and technical matters, and to participate in all exercises,
competitions, camps, training classes and ceremonies without any excuse, and to
travel with the vehicle that the Club considers. Otherwise, the Club's Disciplinary
Committee will fine up to three percent for each absence from the programs including
training sessions and up to ten percent for each absence from the competition.
[…]
23 - The Player is committed to spend all his technical strength and abilities in the
promotion, growth and prosperity of the Club and to show a suitable example of
himself in public. Violation of this issue is at the discretion of the Club's Disciplinary
Committee. […]”
5.
Plus, article 8 of the Contract provided the following clauses:
“[…] 3 - Any possible penalty of the Player due to misconduct and violation of the
provisions of disciplinary regulations or ethical regulations of the judiciary, if paid by
the Club, will be deducted from the Player's claims.
[…]
5 - Determining the fines and how to punish the Player is the responsibility of the Club's
disciplinary 6- [sic] committee and is applied according to the relevant regulations
attached to this Contract and the Disciplinary Committee will notify him utmost two
weeks from the end of the season.
7 - The Player accepts that due to the number of violations committed, fines will be
collected and deducted from the amount of his Contract. […]”
6.
Lastly, article 11.8 of the Contract read as follows:
“The club shall provide two round-trip air tickets to the player (Brasil [sic] - Iran).”
7.
On 18 May 2023, the Club decided, based on the team’s unsatisfactory performance and
the decision of its Disciplinary Committee, to deduct 5% of the Player’s salary pursuant to
the Contract, which corresponds to USD 15,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16359
8.
By correspondence dated 13 August 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and
requested payment by 24 August 2024 of USD 15,000, corresponding to 5% of the entire
salary provided in the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 2 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. The Claimant filed a claim for overdue payables, requesting the remaining amount of his
Contract.
11. According to the Claimant, he never had the chance to challenge the legality,
proportionality, and justice of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. In this regard, it
is the Player’s position that the Club acted in bad faith by amending unilaterally the
Contract in an excessive manner without respecting his right to be heard.
12. The requests for relief of the Claimant were as follows:
“a) Establish that the employment agreement signed between the parties are valid and
binding to both parties;
b) Establish that [the Respondent] has unlawfully breached the parties’ contract for
unilateral contractual amendment and non-compliance with their financial
obligations;
c) Condemn to pay to the Claimant, the late values from the contract between the
parties as salary and others payments, at the amount of USD 15.000,00 (fifteen
thousand dollars);
d) Condemn [the Respondent] to pay to [the Claimant], the reimbursement of two
round flight tickets São Paulo–Dubai from the contract, at the amount of BRL
12.978,64 (twelve thousand and nine hundred and seventy-eight Brazilian Reals and
sixteen-four cents) paid by the player;
e) Impose a sporting sanction on [the Respondent] consisting on [sic] a ban from
registering any new players, either nationality or internationality, for 3 (three)
registration periods, as a consequence of having unlawfully breached the parties’
employment contract during the Protected Period in the matter at hand;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16359
f) Order the Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 5% per year since the moment
the due amount became outstanding.”
b. Position of the Respondent
13. According to the Respondent, the imposition on the Player of a fine of 5% of his salary for
the season is fair and in accordance with article 5 of the Contract. In this regard, the Club
noted that the Player has explicitly approved the decision of the Club by signing it, given
the team’s unsatisfactory performance of taking only 2 points in the last 7 matches of the
season 2022-2023. Therefore, the Respondent rejected the allegation of the Claimant that
its right to be heard had not been respected.
14. In addition, the Club argued that it has paid the Player a bonus amounting to USD 39,300,
which has no contractual basis. Therefore, it is the position of the Club that it does not have
a debt towards the Player as the amount of the bonus is greater than the amount of the
fine.
15. Lastly, the Respondent submitted evidence that the Claimant acknowledged payment of
USD 325,000 during the season 2022-2023 and that it has provided the Claimant the flights
tickets pursuant to the Contract.
16. Considering the foregoing, the requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“A: The request for the club's financial condemnation to pay 15,000 dollars, should be
rejected.
B: The request for 5% annual interest due to the absence of any debt from the club should be
rejected.
C: The Claim for the Flight Tickets São Paulo–Dubai from the player (IF ANY) should be
rejected.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
17. In its replica, the Claimant submitted a decision rendered by the DRC in another case
involving the Respondent before FIFA, which dealt with the same substance of the dispute.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
18. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its duplica.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16359
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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 2 October 2024 and submitted for
decision on 22 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
20. 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 (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 an Iranian club.
21. 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 par.
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the January 2025 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
22. 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
23. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-16359
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
it pertains to a claim for outstanding remuneration lodged by the Player against the Club
in connection with the Contract.
25. In this context, the Single Judge noted that the Player claims to be entitled to USD 15,000
as the amount deducted from his salary for the season 2022-2023 due to the team’s
unsatisfactory performances and the reimbursement of two round flight tickets São Paulo–
Dubai amounting to BRL 12,978.64.
26. The Single Judge then proceeded to analyse each issue.
A. Balance of the remuneration (5%)
27. First and foremost, the Single Judge acknowledged that it remains undisputed between the
parties that 5% of the Player’s remuneration under the Contract, i.e. the amount of USD
15,000, was deducted from his salary for the season 2022-2023 due to the poor
performance of the team.
28. In view of the above, the Single Judge recalled that in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), a club
intending to impose disciplinary sanctions against a player is required to act in a diligent
and transparent way to guarantee that the employee’s right to be heard is duly fulfilled,
hence that it is legally / contractually authorized to deduct or withdraw from paying a
contractually agreed remuneration.
29. With the above in mind, the Single Judge deemed that the Club could neither establish that
it had a valid reason to impose a “fine” on the Player, nor that his procedural rights
were duly respected. In particular, the Single Judge highlighted the following:
•
the solid jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal establishes that the poor
performance of a player cannot justify the non-payment of his remuneration in
that is constitutes a unilateral and subjective criteria;
•
the Club did not advance any evidence of a personal wrongdoing committed by
the Player, let alone of a breach of contract severe enough to justify the
immediate deduction of part of his remuneration instead of more lenient
measures (e.g., warning, reprimand, suspension);
•
also unproved were the circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings
supposedly held against the Player. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever
concerning his summoning and allowance for submission of defence. Likewise,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16359
there is no copy of the decision on file, but rather a declaration signed by the
Player including the case reference – which, in the view of the Single Judge, does
not corroborate that his right to be heard was respected and that he accepted
such deduction.
•
the proportionality of the fine is also discussible – insofar as it pertains to half a
monthly salary of the Player.
30. Consequently, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the deduction made by the Club
over the Player’s remuneration cannot be upheld, hence that he shall be entitled to the
outstanding remuneration sought, i.e. USD 15,000. This conclusion, in the Single Judge’s
view, is also irrespective of any additional bonus paid to the Player upon discretion of the
Club.
31. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award him interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 11 June 2023, being the due date of
the last monthly salary of the Contract, i.e. May 2023, until the date of effective payment.
B. Reimbursement of the flight tickets
32. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the Player’s request for
reimbursement of two flight tickets.
33. As a departure point, the Single Judge recalled article 11.8 of that the Contract, which read
as follows:
“The club shall provide two round-trip air tickets to the player (Brasil [sic] - Iran).”
34. Consequently, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Player would in principle be entitled
to the reimbursement of two round trip flight tickets, as long as supported by the necessary
documentation. In this regard, the Single Judge determined that the request of the Player
is not supported with the necessary documentary evidence to meet his burden of proof to
demonstrate his entitlement and therefore, the Single Judge concluded that this request
cannot be awarded.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
35. Having stated the above, the Single Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16359
36. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the
club a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
37. Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations was met in the case at hand.
38. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations,
he has competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the above and bearing
in mind that this is the 2nd offence by the Club within the last two years, the Single Judge
decided to impose a reprimand on the Club in accordance with art.12bis par. 4 lit b) of the
Regulations.
39. In this connection, the Single Judge highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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 his 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16359
44. 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
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16359
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kiros Stanley Soares Ferraz, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Gol-e Gohar FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 June 2023
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16359
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 – 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