Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13705
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Igor Soares Santana
BY:
Angela Collins, Australia
CLAIMANT:
Igor Soares Santana, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
Al Jazira Al Hamra, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Daniel Magdi Louis
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13705
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the dispute are the Brazilian player Igor Soares Santana (hereinafter: Player or
Claimant) and the Emirati club Al Jazira Al Hamra (hereinafter: Club or Respondent), affiliated to
the United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAEFA).
2.
Claimant and Respondent are hereinafter referred to as the parties.
3.
In accordance with the information available in the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 12
April 2023, the Player was registered with the Brazilian club, Betim FC. His previous club before
this registration was the Bolivian club, CA MCEPAL Vinto Palma Flor.
4.
On 7 June 2023, the Club and the Player signed the document quoted in continuation
(hereinafter: the Offer Letter). The Offer Letter is drafted in the Club’s letterhead and bears the
Player’s signature as well as the Club’s stamp.
“Date: 07/06/2023
From: Al Jazeera AI Hamra Football Club,
Subject: Offer to sign a professional player contract.
Dear Sir,
We would like to offer Mr. IGOR SOARES SANTANA who carries a Brazilian passport with number:
[…] professional player contract with the following: 1- The duration of the contract (15/07/2023 to 30/05/2024) or until the end of the team's sport
season.
2- Monthly Salary (3000 dollars -Three thousand dollars).
3- Two travel tickets (round trip).
4- The club bears the cost of issuing residents and visa.
5- Accommodation and transportation will be provided for the player.
6- The player shall receive bonus for official matches according to the club internal regulation
system.
7- By signing this offer the player and his agent are both responsible to keep the conditions of
this offer secret from any media, and violation of this condition puts the player and his agent
under legal responsibility.
8 - The player will be obtained a draft of his employment contract, and the contract shall not go
into force or there will be no legal consequences to this draft until the player passes the medical
examination and the contract signed from both parties.
9 - This offer and its conditions will not go into force until the player passes the medical
examination.
10- This offer is valid for 72 hours from its date.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13705
5.
On 17 July 2023, the Club procured flight tickets to the Player. The itinerary was as follows:
outbound flight on 18 July 2023 from Belo Horizonte (Brazil) to Dubai (UAE) via Sao Paulo
(Brazil), arriving on 19 July 2023.
6.
On 20, 23, and 26 July 2023 the Player underwent medical tests in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE), procured by the Club, and passed them as admitted by the Respondent. During this time,
the Player also took part in training sessions with the Club, which is confirmed by both parties.
7.
On 28 July 2023, a Club representative wrote to the Player and informed him as follows via the
application WhatsApp:
“Hello Captain how are you Captain tomorrow morning driver will come pick you and Igor and
come to club to sign contract okay at 10:00 he will come to hotel”.
8.
On 29 July 2023, the Player and the Club allegedly signed a definitive and more detailed
employment agreement. The Claimant contents the Respondent never provided him with a
copy of such document. The Club disputes this assertion and stated that the Player was
provided only with a draft contract.
9.
In accordance with the information available in TMS:
a. on 1 August 2023, the parties concluded and employment agreement
(hereinafter: Contract), with the following conditions:
i. Term: from 1 August 2023 until 30 May 2024.
ii. Salary: AED 11,000 payable by the end of each month for a contract total of
AED 110,000, which is approx. USD 3,000.
iii. The Contract makes no mention to flight tickets.
iv. A compensation clause which reads as follows:
“17- In the case of ending the contract from the [Club], the [Club] pays One-month
salary only to the [Player].
18- In the event of termination of the contract by the [Player], the [Player] shall pay
the amount of (110000) one hundred and eleven thousand dirhams to the [Club].”
b. on 5 August 2024, the Club entered a transfer instruction to engage the Player
permanently. A copy of the Contract was uploaded by the Club in such instruction.
The Club listed CA MCEPAL Vinto Palma Flor as the Player’s previous club.
Consequently, on the same date, the UAEFA requested the Player’s International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) from the Bolivian Football Federation (FBF).
c. on 8 August 2023 the FBF delivered the Player’s ITC, but immediately thereafter
requested the cancellation of said transfer instruction on the following grounds
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13705
(freely translated to English): “the ITC was sent to the Brazilian Football
Confederation to the club Betim Futebol – MG”.
d. on 9 August 2023, the relevant transfer instruction was cancelled by the UAEFA.
10. On 9 August 2023, the Player supposedly played a friendly with the Respondent.
11. On 14 August 2023, the Club allegedly verbally terminated the working relationship with the
Player. The Club disputed this assertion.
12. On 15 August 2023, the Player returned to Brazil, with flight tickets procured by the Club with
the following itinerary: from Dubai (UAE) to Sao Paulo (Brazil) via Doha (Qatar), arriving on 16
August 2023.
13. According to TMS, the registration periods for the season 2023/2024 in the UAE were as follows:
from 3 July 2023 to 21 September 2023 and from 22 January 2024 to 21 February 2024.
14. Following the Player’s departure from the UAE, he subsequently signed an employment
contract with the Brazilian club, Betim FC, valid as from 21 March 2024 until 1 April 2025,
including a monthly salary of BRL 1,412, which is equivalent to approximately AED 1,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 15 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
16. According to the Claimant, the Offer Letter constitutes a valid and binding employment
agreement. The Player further advanced the argumentation detailed in continuation.
17. The Claimant outlined the principle pacta sunt servanda, stating that it is the pinnacle of the
legal framework developed by FIFA to the effect that the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (RSTP) aim to ensure that parties honour their contracts up to their expiry
date. The Claimant asserted that unilateral termination of a contract without just cause,
especially during the protected period, should be discouraged.
18. In continuation, the Player referred to the principle of essentialia negotii, which revolves around
the fulfillment of essential elements necessary for a valid and binding contract. These essential
elements include the names of the parties to the contract, their roles, the date of conclusion,
the duration of the employment relationship, the Player's remuneration, and the signatures of
both parties. The Player asserted that the Offer Letter fulfilled all these essentialia negotii,
making it a valid and binding contract according to the jurisprudence of FIFA and the Court of
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13705
Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Additionally, the Player emphasized that the Offer Letter clearly
outlined the employment relationship, the term of the contract, the remuneration, the object
of the contract, and the signatures of the parties, thereby meeting the requirements for a bona
fide employment contract.
19. Additionally, the Player alleged that a party asserting a fact must necessarily prove it. In the
absence of direct evidence, the Player argued that a decision can be based upon “clues and a
high degree of likelihood”. Additionally, the Player argued that events whose existence must be
presumed according to the normal course of things can be indicated as a basis of judgment,
even if these events are not confirmed by evidence.
20. The Player emphasized that the formation of a contract is based upon consensus, offer, and
acceptance, as confirmed by specialized doctrine, and stated that an offer is a declaration of
the intention to be bound under a contract with the content as specified, under the condition
of acceptance by the addressee. The Player also clarified that the acceptance of the offer,
necessary for the conclusion of a contract, can occur implicitly or explicitly, and refers to FIFA
jurisprudence to support his arguments regarding the acceptance of the offer and the
formation of a valid and binding contract.
21. Given the foregoing, the Player is of the opinion that the Club terminated their employment
relationship without just cause. He recalled articles 13, 14 and 17 of the RSTP to this effect and
emphasized that just cause for the early termination of a contract signed between a
professional Player and a Club must be assessed while considering all specific and particular
circumstances of the concrete case. The Player further asserted that just cause is generally to
be considered as given when there are objective criteria, which do not reasonably permit
expectation of a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties. The Player
stated that, as a general rule, for a party to have just cause to terminate a contract early, the
other party needs to have seriously neglected its own contractual obligations.
22. The Player requested therefore payment of outstanding remuneration for a monthly salary of
USD 3,000 per the Contract, plus default interest.
23. As to the compensation, the Player explained that the calculation shall take into consideration
the monthly salaries that the Club undertook to pay him during the period between August
2023 and June 2024, to a total of USD 33,000.
24. Additionally, the Player recalled the fact that the Club also had to pay him the airplane tickets
for the latter's return to his hometown, Belo Horizonte, but only provided a return ticket to Sao
Paulo, and therefore seeks BRL 2,047.19 for such concept. Equally, the Player had to pay for
accommodation during his layover in Sao Paulo and seeks reimbursement of BRL 240 to this
effect. In support of the above, the Player filed evidence of his hotel accommodation costs and
untranslated documents regarding his flight ticket.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13705
25. Lastly, the Player clarified that at the moment of filing the claim he was not under a new
employment contract with any club. If the Player signed a new contract by the time of the
decision, in addition to the mitigated compensation, the Player argued he claimed to be entitled
to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional compensation, which may
be increased up to a maximum of six-monthly salaries in case of egregious circumstances.
26. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of all the facts above, the Player submits to the attention of the FIFA DRC the following
requests for relief:
FIRST – To uphold the entire claim filed by the Player;
SECOND – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 3,000 net due as outstanding salary for the
month of July 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 August 2023 until the date of effective
payment;
THIRD - To order the Club to pay the Player USD 33,000 net due as compensation for the breach
of the Employment Contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 August 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player R$ 2.047,91 net due as airplane ticket;
FIFTH - To order the Club to pay to the Player R$ 240 due as hotel- accommodation;
SIXTH - To ban the Club from registering any new Players, either national or internationally, for 2
(two) entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. Art. 17, par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP;
SEVENTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately (cf. Art. 6, par. 3 and Art. 9, par. 5 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); and
EIGHTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings is free of any costs.”
b. Position of the Respondent
27. In its reply, the Respondent objected to the claim of the Player and advanced the following
arguments:
Lack of proof of execution of an employment contract
28. The Player was unable to provide material evidence supporting the events of signing the
employment contract and its unilateral termination. The Club asserted that the Player is
building a case on mere speculation rather than concrete evidence.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13705
29. The Club highlighted that the Player failed to provide any concrete material evidence that the
two crucial aspects of his case indeed took place, including the signing of the Contract and its
subsequent verbal termination by the Club on 14 August 2023. The Club emphasized that the
Player was unable to prove the existence of the Contract and is involving the “normal course of
things” theory as the basis of judgment in case the main events of his claim are not confirmed
by evidence.
30. The Club also mentioned that the Player accused it of keeping all copies of the Contract and not
providing him with his copy, but the Player failed to provide any evidence that these events
occurred.
31. The Player's reliance on CAS and FIFA jurisprudence that are not similar to the matter at hand
was also highlighted by the Club in that it pointed out that the Player consistently fails to provide
evidence that the signature of the Contract or its termination happened in reality.
32. The Club equally dismissed the Player's reliance on several photos of himself wearing the Club's
kit and within its premises as proof of the employment relationship between the parties, stating
that the context of the photos does not provide reliable evidence.
33. The Club also noted that the Player's filing of an alternative scenario, suggesting that the Offer
Letter should be enough to establish the relationship between the parties, is seen as a
desperate attempt to prove the existence of the employment relationship. The Club contended
that the Offer Letter was subject to the Player passing his medical tests and signing a definitive
contract with the Club, which never occurred.
Deviation from the Offer Letter by the Claimant
34. The Club asserted that the Player made several requests after signing the Offer Letter and
receiving the draft contract from the Club, which led to the deviation from the initial agreement
in the Offer Letter, were significant and could not be accommodated. As a result, the
negotiations with the Player were stopped by the Club, indicating a clear deviation from the
parties' initial agreement. It is to be noted that the Club did not file evidence in support of this
argumentation.
As to the compensation and reimbursement sought
35. The Club maintained that there is no contract that was signed and subsequently terminated,
and therefore, the Player is not entitled to any compensation. The Club emphasized that the
Player's request for financial compensation is based on two main elements: the Player's
entitlement for a remuneration from 15 July until 14 August 2023 of USD 3,000, and a
compensation of 11 months' salaries from August 2023 until June 2024 with the total of USD
33,000, making the total compensation equivalent to USD 36,000.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13705
36. The Club pointed out that the Offer Letter stipulated the duration of the contract from 15 July
2023 until 30 May 2024, and the maximum financial exposure that the Player should be entitled
to, on the assumption that the contract existed and was unilaterally terminated, must be
equivalent to USD 32,600, not USD 36,000.
37. The Club also raised the issue of the Player potentially signing a new employment contract with
another club and asserted that any new wages from the third-party club must be deducted
from the compensation amount.
38. The Club contended that the Player's intentional miscalculation of the compensation amount
is evidence of the Player trying to maximize financial profit rather than seeking his alleged rights
from the alleged unilateral termination.
39. As to the flight ticket, the Club asserted that the Player is not entitled to be reimbursed for his
hotel booking and internal flight ticket, as he failed to provide any supporting evidence that he
is initially from Belo Horizonte, Brazil, and did not submit evidence to prove the necessity of
flying back there. Therefore, the Claimant's request for reimbursement must be dismissed.
40. The Club further emphasized that, in good faith and after the termination of negotiations, they
provided Player with a ticket to his home country, which demonstrates their willingness to
facilitate his return without additional compensation.
41. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“Therefore, for all the above reasons, the Respondent respectfully requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the FIFA Tribunal to rule with the following:
o Primary Requests:
▪ To dismiss the claim of the Player and to rule that the Parties did never sign an employment
contract.
▪ To rule that the Respondent did not unilaterally terminate the employment contract without just
cause.
▪ To rule that the Claimant is not entitled for any financial compensation whatsoever since there
is no breach of contract and therefore no compensation.
▪ To rule that [the Claimant] is not entitled to be reimbursed the hotel booking and internal flight
ticket.
o Subsidiary Request:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13705
▪ In case the honorable Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that the Offer Letter was binding on
the Parties until the Player left the country – To rule that the Claimant is entitled for USD 2,600
(two thousand US Dollars)
o And in anyway:
▪ No Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent; and
▪ to rule that the Claimant shall bear all the cost and expenses related to this proceeding, if any.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 February 2024 and
submitted for decision on 2 May 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.
43. 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 RSTP (ed. February 2024), she 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 Emirati club.
44. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the RSTP (ed. February 2024), and considering that the present claim was lodged on
15 February 2024, the said edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
45. 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, she stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4
of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider evidence not filed by the parties,
including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the TMS.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13705
c. Merits of the dispute
46. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, she started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, she
emphasised that in the following considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
47. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute this is a claim of a player against a
club for breach of contract, where the parties’ dissent lies on (a) the existence or not of an
employment relationship, (b) the termination of said relationship, if any; and (c) the
consequences that follow.
48. Accordingly, the Single Judge proceeded to examine these issues in turn.
The existence of the employment relationship
49. As a departure point, the Single Judge firmly outlined that the argumentation of the Player that
the signed a valid and binding contract with the Club is confirmed by the evidence in TMS,
whereby a specimen of the Contract signed by the parties is found, and it is one which
undoubtedly contains all essentialia negotii.
50. What is more, after a careful study of the documentation on file, the Single Judge noted that
the Club undertook all the necessary steps to hire the Player, including: presenting him with an
offer, receiving him in its premises, allowing him to train with the rest of the team, procuring
medical examinations, drafting and allowing him to sign a contract, and, finally starting a
transfer instruction in TMS. This demonstrates in the Single Judge’s view not only that the
Contract was executed but was also performed to some degree. It is also to say, in her opinion,
that the Offer Letter alone could suffice to establish the employment relationship between the
parties.
51. In other words, the Single Judge found it can be concluded that the Club effectively engaged
the services of the Player; and, as such, it cannot rely on the argument that a contract was
formally never signed – which in fact was not the case in light of the evidence available in TMS.
52. As such, the Single Judge decided that such Contract constitutes a valid and binding document
between the parties. To this effect, she recalled that this document and not the Offer Letter
governs the relationship between the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13705
The termination of the employment relationship
53. In continuation, the Single Judge turned to the issue of the termination, and underlined that
according to the Claimant, the Respondent verbally terminated the employment relationship
verbally on 14 August 2023.
54. While there is no evidence of this termination on file, the Single Judge noted that the parties do
not dispute that the Player left for Brazil on 15 August 2023 with flight tickets provided by the
Club. While the Player insists that we left because he was dismissed, the Club stated that it
ceased negotiations on account of the Player’s alleged demands.
55. In this scenario, the Single Judge recalled the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies
the termination of a contract without warning. In other words, only when there are objective
criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment
relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there
are more lenient measures which can be taken, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can
only be an ultima ratio.
56. Given the foregoing, the Single Judge highlighted that the truth of the matter is that there was
already a valid and binding contract in place, so any “negotiations” could not justify the
dismissal of the Player by the Club. On the balance of both parties’ positions, the Single Judge
found that by issuing the flight tickets and confirming that it could not accommodate the
Player’s requests, the Club actively ceased to be interested in his services and therefore it
caused the Contract to be terminated without just cause on 15 August 2023, when the Player
left the UAE.
57. In all scenarios, with a valid and binding contract in place, the Single Judge confirmed that
dismissing the Player on the grounds alleged by the Club could not in any way be considered
an ultima ratio matter.
ii. Consequences
58. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
59. The Single Judge observed that only a short time of the Contract had elapsed by the time it was
terminated, and accordingly all amounts due to the Player should be accounted as
compensation for breach of contract.
60. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, she firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13705
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.
61. 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 established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
62. As a consequence, 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount
of compensation payable.
63. 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.
Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of AED 110,000 serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
64. 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 Football
Tribunal 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.
65. Indeed, the Player found employment with Betim FC. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately AED 1,000 per month.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of AED 2,300, considering the pro-rata period he was at that club.
66. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the contract termination did not
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13705
take place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club, and therefore decided that the
Player shall not receive additional compensation.
67. Consequently, on account of all of the abovementioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of AED 107,700
to the Player (i.e., AED 110,000 minus AED 2,300), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
68. Moreover, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the latter decided to award him interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 August 2023 (i.e., the date of termination of the Contract) until
the date of effective payment.
69. Finally, the Single Judge addressed the issue of the flight tickets and hotel expenses claimed by
the Player. Accordingly, she decided to reject these in that there was no stipulation in the
Contract to the effect that the Player was entitled to flight tickets, conversely to the Offer Letter.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13705
d. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded the deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13705
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Igor Soares Santana, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Jazira Al Hamra, must pay to the Claimant AED 107,700 as compensation
for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 August 2023 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. 16
REF. FPSD-13705
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. 17