Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12853
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Juan Manuel Tevez
BY:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), member
CLAIMANT:
Juan Manuel Tevez, Argentina
RESPONDENT:
Sociedad Deportiva Aucas, Ecuador
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12853
I. Facts of the case
1. On 1 January 2022, the player Juan Manuel Tevez and Sociedad Deportiva Aucas concluded an
employment contract valid as from 1 January 2022 until 31 October 2022, or until the end of the
season 2022, whichever comes first.
2. Clause 10 of the contract stipulated the following:
“DÉCIMA PRlMERA: CONTROVERSIAS
Las partes renuncian a domicilio y acuerdan que toda controversia derivada de la aplicación o
interpretación de este contrato será resuelta por la Cámara de Mediación y Resolución de Disputas
de la Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol.”
Free translation into English:
"Eleventh: CONTROVERSIES
The parties waive domicile and agree that any controversy derived from the application or
interpretation of this contract will be resolved by the Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber of
the Ecuadorian Football Federation."
3. On 3 November 2022, Mr Danny Walker and the players Victor Figueroa, Damián Frascarelli, Luis
Romero, Jhonny Quiñonez, Edison Vega and Roberto Ordoñez signed the following “Private
Agreement”
“Acuerdo Privado – Premios por Objetivo Primer Plantel – Temporada 2022
(…)
Premios por objetivo: Las partes han acordado el siguiente reparto de premios para el equipo de
primer, si Sociedad Deportiva Aucas alcanza los siguientes objetivos:
a. Clasificación a la Copa CONMEBOL Libertadores Fase de Grupos 2023: El plantel recibirá
$1,000,000.00 (UN MILLÓN DE DÓLARES DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE NORTEAMÉRICA).
b. Obtención del Campeonato nacional LIGAPRO 2022: El plantel recibirá $200,000.00 (DOSCIENTOS
MIL DÓLARES DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE NORTEAMÉRICA).
Los valores mencionados deberán ser cancelados en un plazo de 10 días posteriores a la fecha en
que se realice el pago efectivo por parte de Sociedad Deportiva Aucas. Este monto es neto.
Estos premios serán repartidos por el plantel profesional según sus criterios. Queda expresamente
estipulado que el Club no intervendrá en la distribución de estos valores. Sin embargo, se deberá
presentar un listado con los nombres y valores a recibir por cada uno de los jugadores.
Los jugadores, en relación con el criterio de repartición, no tendrán reclamo alguno que dirigir al
Club. Cualquier queja deberá ser dirigida directamente a sus representantes presentes en la
celebración de este acuerdo.
Las partes, en virtud de la suscripción del presente acuerdo, se comprometen a manejar de manera
confidencial la información tanto de las negociaciones previas como de la suscripción de este
acuerdo, así como los términos, condiciones y estipulaciones de todo el contenido presente en este
documento.
El Club no reconocerá ningún otro valor que no esté acordado en el presente documento.”
Free translation into English:
"Private Agreement - First Team Goal Rewards - Season 2022
(...)
Target Awards: The parties have agreed to the following distribution of prizes for the first team, if
Sociedad Deportiva Aucas achieves the following targets:
a. Qualification to the Copa CONMEBOL Libertadores Group Stage 2023: The team will receive
$1,000,000.00 (ONE MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12853
b. Winning the LIGAPRO 2022 National Championship: The club will receive $200,000.00 (TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS).
The aforementioned amounts must be paid within 10 days of the date on which the actual payment
is made by Sociedad Deportiva Aucas. This amount is net.
These prizes will be distributed by the professional team according to their criteria. It is expressly
stipulated that the Club will not intervene in the distribution of these values. However, a list with the
names and values to be received by each of the players must be submitted.
The players, in relation to the criteria of distribution, shall have no claims to address to the Club.
Any complaints shall be addressed directly to their representatives present at the conclusion of this
agreement.
The parties, by virtue of the execution of this agreement, agree to treat as confidential the
information of the negotiations prior to and the execution of this agreement, as well as the terms,
conditions and stipulations of all content contained herein.
The Club shall not recognise any other value not agreed to herein."
4. On 31 December 2022, Mr Julián Pastor ([email protected]) sent an email to the player’s
representative, including a draft for a termination agreement.
5. In said email, he noted that, regarding the group prize, it is important to recall that its
distribution is contingent upon the players submitting an approved list signed by all player
representatives (captains). He noted that this list should specify the name and amount each
player is entitled to receive. The email confirmed that the payment will be made once SD
AUCAS receives the entire prize from LigaPro and Conmebol.
6. According to the player, on 17 July 2023, the club issued a “distribution list” indicating, inter
alia, that the player is entitled to USD 40,000 as bonus for “Copa Libertadores” and USD 6,500
as bonus for “Liga Pro” Champion.
7. The distribution list indicated that the corresponding bonuses are payable within 10 days
following the payment from CONMEBOL.
8. The distribution list includes the following stamps and signatures:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12853
9. On 1 November 2023, the legal representative of the player sent a default notice to the club
requesting to settle the total amount of USD 53,915.74 net within 10 days, detailed as follows:
- USD 3,732.40 for prorated salary and monthly bonus from November 1 to 13, 2022.
- USD 46,500 for the group award - qualification for the Copa CONMEBOL Libertadores
group stage in 2023 (per private agreement on August 7, 2023).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12853
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 27 November 2023, the player lodged a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal for
outstanding remuneration and requested the payment of an outstanding bonus of USD 46,500
net, plus applicable interest.
11. As to the interest, the player argued the following:
If Ecuadorian law is applied, the interest rate should be no lower than 16% per annum, as set
by the national bank of Ecuador.
If Swiss law is applied, the interest rate should be 5% per annum, as per Article 104 of the
Swiss Code of Obligations
12. The player argued that the actions of Mr. Walker were later ratified by the Club, making any lack
of authorization irrelevant.
13. The Player considered he could reasonably believe that Mr. Walker, as the owner of Aucas, had
the power to represent the Club.
14. In its reply, the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA and argued that there is a clear
and explicit submission to the Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Ecuadorian
Football Federation (Ecuadorian NDRC).
15. The Respondent made reference to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(RSTP) to determine the competent authority in international disputes, highlighting Article 22.1.
16. The club also made emphasis on the possibility for parties to submit disputes to a national
arbitration tribunal, as long as certain conditions are met, as stated in Article 22.1.
17. The Respondent asserted that the general rule is for the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to
handle international labor disputes between clubs and players.
18. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the existence of an arbitration clause must be verified
in the employment contract, not in ancillary documents like the "Bonus Agreement" or
"Distribution List."
19. In this respect, the club underlined that the "Employment Contract for Football Players - Seasonal
Contract" contains a clear submission clause to the Ecuadorian NDRC.
20. The argument that the player, as the plaintiff, must prove why the contractual jurisdictional
agreement was ignored, citing the "affirmati incumbit probatio" principle.
21. The club referred to a CAS decision indicating that the party challenging the agreed jurisdictional
clause bears the burden of proof.
22. The Respondent further argued that that the Ecuadorian NDRC meets the requirements of
fairness, equality, and due process as outlined in the RSTP.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12853
23. The club provided information concerning the composition and functioning of the Ecuadorian
NDRC, including the requirement for parity between club and player representatives.
24. The Respondent also referred to specific articles within the Ecuadorian NDRC 's regulations that
allegedly ensure fairness, including the appointment of members, quorum, and procedural rights
for the parties involved.
25. The club concluded that, based on the contractual agreement and the compliance of the
Ecuadorian NDRC with regulatory standards, FIFA lacks jurisdiction in the dispute.
26. As to the substance, the Respondent denied the existence of the "Bonus Agreement" and
disputes its validity, claiming it was falsified, citing a handwriting expert's report concerning the
signature of Mr Daniel Boris Walker.
27. The club considered that the handwriting expert concludes that the signature on the "Bonus
Agreement" does not match other verified signatures of the player's representative.
28. The respondent argued that Mr Daniel Boris Walker, does not have the authority to represent SD
Aucas, as only the President, Pablo Ricardo Montufar Almeida, has the legal representation
according to official records.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12853
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 27 November 2023 and submitted for decision on 18
April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the May 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.
2.
Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in
principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between an Argentinean player and an Ecuadorian club.
3.
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. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 27 November 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
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 evidence not filed by the parties,
including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
c.
5.
Admissibility
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber noted that, in its reply to the claim, the Respondent
contested the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter, arguing that it shall be referred
to the Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Ecuadorian Football Federation (FEF)
(hereinafter: Ecuadorian NDRC) as the contract that is at the basis of the present dispute grants
competence to the later.
6.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber also noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA
to adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the contract and, in particular, the “private
agreement” does not contain a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Ecuadorian
NDRC and that the latter is not an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings
and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12853
7.
Taking into account all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international
dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by
an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework
of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be
included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the
parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect
the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the
principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations,
which came into force on 1 January 2008.
8.
In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the employment contract
at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of
the Ecuadorian NDRC.
9.
On this note, the Chamber noted that the dispute at stake is based on a collective “private agreement”
(cf. point I. 3 above) and not on the primary employment contract concluded between the player
and the club.
10. The Chamber emphasized that the dispute in question revolves around a collective "private
agreement" (refer to point I. 3 above), distinct from the primary employment contract between the
player and the club.
11. However, notwithstanding further deliberations regarding this "Private Agreement," the Chamber
acknowledged that, in all scenarios, this agreement is inherently linked to and derived from the
primary employment contract between the parties.
12. As a result, the Chamber confirmed that it is fully relevant to analyse the contents of the primary
employment contract in relation to the jurisdiction.
13. In particular, the Chamber noted that Clause 10 of the employment contract stipulated the
following:
“DÉCIMA PRlMERA: CONTROVERSIAS
Las partes renuncian a domicilio y acuerdan que toda controversia derivada de la aplicación o
interpretación de este contrato será resuelta por la Cámara de Mediación y Resolución de Disputas de la
Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol.”
Free translation into English:
"Eleventh: CONTROVERSIES
The parties waive domicile and agree that any controversy derived from the application or interpretation
of this contract will be resolved by the Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Ecuadorian
Football Federation."
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12853
14. In the view of the Chamber, the contents of clause 10 of the contract are sufficiently clear, as they
grant competence to the Ecuadorian NDRC.
15. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the further pre-requisites for
establishing the competence of a NDRC. The Chamber namely referred to principle of equal
representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of the very fundamental
elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such.
Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in
the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the
aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall
serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the
player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or
appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such
associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten
club representatives (…).”
16. The club provided a copy of the Regulations of the Ecuadorian NDRC (Reglamento de
Funcionamiento de la Cámara de Mediación y Resolución de Disputas). The most relevant articles
are quoted below:
“Art. 3.- Composición.La CMRD, respetando la paridad, estará integrada por:
a) Un Presidente y un Vicepresidente, independientes, elegidos por el Directorio de la FEF, sobre la
base de una lista de como mínimo cinco personas, elaborada de común acuerdo por los
representantes de los jugadores y los clubes;
b) Dos representantes de los clubes, elegidos por el Directorio de la FEF de entre una nómina de un
candidato presentado uno por cada club de la primera categoría; y,
c) Dos representantes de los jugadores, escogidos por el Directorio de la FEF de un listado de cuatro
candidatos presentados por la organización representativa de los jugadores profesionales de fútbol
reconocida por FIFPRO, de acuerdo a los requisitos señalados en éste Reglamento. En caso de no existir
dicha organización reconocida por FIFPRO, será FIFPRO directamente la encargada de presentar el
listado de los 4 candidatos.
Los miembros nombrados por las partes deberán ser abogados o doctores en jurisprudencia,
especializados en derecho deportivo, en libre ejercicio de la profesión y con experiencia de por lo
menos diez años.
La Cámara de Mediación y Resolución de Disputas se reúne cuando esté compuesta por al menos tres
de sus miembros o cinco de sus miembros, incluido el Presidente o el Vicepresidente, de tal manera
que siempre y necesariamente estén representados clubes y jugadores en igual número.
En ningún caso la CMRD estará integrada por más de dos miembros por clubes o jugadores.”
(…)
Art. 14.- Quórum.Para que la CMRD, pueda instalarse y sesionar, deberán estar presentes cuando menos tres de sus
miembros o cinco de sus miembros, de tal manera que siempre y necesariamente estén representados
clubes y jugadores en igual número.
Consecuentemente deberán participar, necesariamente, un delegado por el club y un delegado por el
jugador. Si no estuviere alguno de los citados delegados, la sesión en mención, no se llevará a cabo,
en cuyo caso el Presidente el mismo día de la sesión fallida señalará nuevo día y hora para la reunión,
la cual se realizará con el quórum antes señalado, constatando la presencia de las partes que
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12853
conforman la Cámara, para lo cual convocará al miembro alterno del titular que no asistió a la
primera convocatoria.
Free translation into English:
"Art. 3 - Composition.
The Ecuadorian NDRC, respecting parity, shall be composed of:
(a) A President and a Vice-President, independent, elected by the FEF Board of Directors, on the basis
of a list of at least five persons, drawn up by mutual agreement by the players' and clubs'
representatives;
b) Two club representatives, elected by the FEF Board of Directors from a list of one candidate
presented by each club in the first category; and,
c) Two players' representatives, chosen by the FEF Board of Directors from a list of four candidates
presented by the professional football players' representative organisation recognised by FIFPRO, in
accordance with the requirements set out in these Regulations. In case there is no such organisation
recognised by FIFPRO, FIFPRO will be directly in charge of presenting the list of the 4 candidates.
The members appointed by the parties must be lawyers or doctors of jurisprudence, specialised in
sports law, in free exercise of their profession and with at least ten years of experience.
The Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber is convened when it is composed of at least three of
its members or five of its members, including the chairman or the vice-chairman, in such a way that
clubs and players are always and necessarily represented in equal numbers.
In no case shall the Ecuadorian NDRC be composed of more than two members from clubs or players."
(...)
Art. 14 - Quorum.
In order for the Ecuadorian NDRC to convene and meet, at least three of its members or five of its
members must be present, in such a way that clubs and players are always and necessarily
represented in equal numbers.
Consequently, one delegate for the club and one delegate for the player must necessarily be present.
If any of the aforementioned delegates are absent, the aforementioned session shall not take place, in
which case the President shall, on the same day of the failed session, set a new day and time for the
meeting, which shall be held with the aforementioned quorum, ascertaining the presence of the parties
so that the President shall call the alternate member of the incumbent who did not attend the first
meeting.
17. In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence
over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to
appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal
(…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is
represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.
18. With the aforementioned principles in mind, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation
presented by the Respondent and noted that it indeed provided a copy of the Regulations of the
Ecuadorian NDRC, which are quoted in point I. 16 above.
19. However, after duly examining article 3 of said Regulations, the Chamber noted that said article
stipulates that the Ecuadorian NDRC is, inter alia, Chaired by a “President and a Vice-President,
independent, elected by the FEF Board of Directors, on the basis of a list of at least five persons, drawn up
by mutual agreement by the players' and clubs' representatives”.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12853
20. In this respect, the Chamber considered the Respondent failed to demonstrate the current
president and vice-president of the Ecuadorian NDRC have been appointed respecting the principle
of equal representation between players and clubs and that, moreover, documentation had been
provided by the Claimant that the appointments had not been done in accordance with the FEF’s
own regulations.
21. In addition, the DRC confirmed that the documentation provided by the FEF indicates that the
operation of its national dispute resolution system follows a two-tiered structure, with the CMRD
serving as the first instance and the Cámara de Apelaciones de Resolución de Disputas (CARD) as
the appellate instance. In this regard, the Chamber noted from said documentation that the FEF
itself acknowledges that both chambers are not yet fully operational.
22. In this context, the DRC considered that denying FIFA's jurisdiction would imply that the Player, if he
were to resort to the Ecuadorian dispute resolution system established within the FEF, would find it
impossible to have his right to due legal process fully respected. This conclusion was particularly
drawn with regard to his right to appeal, as provided for in the FEF regulations, which would not be
guaranteed due to the absence of a properly constituted body to decide on the appeal.
23. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the club failed to prove that the Ecuadorian
NDRC indeed respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
24. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider
the present matter as to the substance.
d. Merits of the dispute
25. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
26. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter.
27. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged the present matter concerns a bonus claim based on a
“Private Agreement” concluded on 3 November 2022 between Mr Danny Walker and the players
Victor Figueroa, Damián Frascarelli, Luis Romero, Jhonny Quiñonez, Edison Vega and Roberto
Ordoñez (the representatives of the squad).
28. Thus, the first issue is to understand whether said agreement is valid and binding and if the Claimant
can rely on it.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12853
29. In this respect, and without prejudice of further examination of the signatures included in said
document, the Chamber wished to understand the validity of the private agreement in relation to
the parties.
30. Indeed, the Chamber noted that the private agreement is of a collective nature, where certain
alleged player representatives have signed on behalf of the entire team. The Chamber also observed
that there is no explicit authorisation from the claimant to his alleged representatives.
31. However, in the opinion of the Chamber the absence of explicit authorization should not negate the
possibility of an implied representation. Indeed, in the context of a collective agreement and
professional sports, it is not unusual for players to appoint team captains or elected representatives
to negotiate and sign agreements on their behalf. It is a customary practice in football for players to
often appoint representatives, (i.e. team captains), to engage in negotiations and agreements
related to collective bonuses.
32. In the context of the authority of Mr Walker, the Chamber recalled that, as per the jurisprudence of
the FIFA Football Tribunal, there is a reasonable expectation or good faith belief that the individual
representing the club has the authority to act on behalf of the club. Hence, the player could in good
faith believe that an agreement signed by Mr Walker – as the owner of the club – would legally bind
the club. Should Mr Walker not have the legal authority to bind the club, this may have implications
for him vis-à-vis the club, but it does not alter the Chamber’s view that the club committed bonus
payments to the player(s).
33. The Chamber also noted that a graphological report was introduced by Aucas, claiming that Mr
Walker's signature on the agreement was falsified, while at the same time arguing that he lacked
the authority to represent the club, as only the President, Pablo Ricardo Montufar Almeida, had legal
representation.
34. In addition, the Chamber considered that the lack of explicit authorization and the forgery argument
should be evaluated in light of subsequent actions by the parties that may have ratified or accepted
the representations made and make it implausible that the signature was indeed forged. In
particular, on 31 December 2022 (i.e. after the signature of the private agreement on 3 November
2022), Mr. Julián Pastor ([email protected]), a representative of the club, engaged in
discussions related to contractual matters by sending an email to the player's representative, and
engaged in a bonus-related discussion. By initiating conversations around bonuses, there is clear
evidence that the club accepted their existence.
35. Thereafter, on 17 July 2023, the club issued a “Distribution List”. While the validity of this distribution
list is contested by the club, in the view of the Chamber, it reasonably exposes that the club wished
to specify the exact individual amounts granted by the club in the private agreement. The timing of
the "distribution list," occurring after the private agreement's signing, suggests an effort by the club
to formalize and communicate the individual bonus amounts.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12853
36. In addition, the Chamber also observed that the present claim, by the claimant, is connected to a
larger collective of players who have submitted similar claims. The consistent nature of these claims
reflects a shared understanding and experience regarding the entitlements specified in the private
agreement.
37. On this note, the Chamber expressed, however, that it is true that there also some legitimate
concerns over this agreement, insofar the signatures seem unclear and there is not specific use of
the full names of the player in the “Distribution List”.
38. Nevertheless, the Chamber considered that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the
agreement is forged. In particular, the Chamber observed that the graphological report does not
show from where the compared signatures were taken from.
39. Given the above, the Chamber concluded that the "Distribution List" issued by the club on 17 July
2023 is a credible and consistent document, aligning with prior actions such as discussions initiated
by Mr Julián Pastor. Its formalized structure and timing post the private agreement support the
narrative that the club actively acknowledged and addressed individual bonus amounts. The
Chamber considered that this coherence is reinforced by its alignment with the broader collective
of players submitting similar claims.
40. Therefore, the Chamber established that the bonus entitlement listed for the claimant in the
“Distribution List” is consistent with the entire evidence gathered during the proceedings, and
reflects an individual entitlement for him, that is due by the club to the player.
41. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the disputed bonus agreement is valid.
42. Consequently, in application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber established that
the player should receive USD 46,500 net, as specified in the private agreement.
43. In addition, taking into account the request of the player as well as the longstanding jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a., as from the due date. In
particular, the Chamber noted that said amounts were due 10 days as from when the club received
the corresponding amounts from Conmebol, i.e. as from 25 August 2023, as acknowledged by the
club in its duplica.
44. Finally, the Chamber noted that the player requested to be provided with his tax certificates.
45. In relation to this request, the Chamber had no other option than to reject this part of the claim,
since there is no contractual stipulation to this effect and the amount of bonus is already awarded
as a NET amount.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
46. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12853
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.
47. In this regard, the DRC 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.
48. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
49. 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.
50. The DRC 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.
e. Costs
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of
the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-12853
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Juan Manuel Tevez.
2.
The Respondent, Sociedad Deportiva Aucas, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 46,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 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
Bank Account Registration Form, as available in the FIFA Legal Portal.
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-12853
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