Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17370
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
SCU Torreense, Portugal
Represented by João Filipe Lobão
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17370
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 9 July 2024, the Brazilian player Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa (hereinafter, the
Player) and the Portuguese club SCU Torreense (hereinafter, the Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 10 July 2024 until 30 June
2026.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following fixed remuneration:
o Season 2024/2025: EUR 50,400 net in twelve instalments of EUR 4,200 net from July
2024 to June 2025, payable on the last day of each month; and
o Season 2025/2026: EUR 55,200 net in twelve instalments of EUR 4,600 from July 2025
to June 2026, payable on the last day of each month.
3.
In addition, according to Clause 2 lit. b) of the Contract, the Player was also entitled to a
period of paid holiday and Christmas bonuses, “which are included and accounted for in the
value of the benefits defined above”, as well as to a rent allowance of EUR 500 net per month
under Clause 2 lit. c) of the Contract.
4.
Clause 8 of the Contract provides as follows:
“1. Without prejudice to the provisions of clause 17, if one of the parties terminates this
contract claiming just cause, the existence of which has not yet been recognised, it shall be
obliged to compensate the other party for the damage caused by the unlawful conduct,
fixing the amount of compensation to be paid, which shall be as follows:
a) In the event that SCUT SAD terminates the contract unlawfully, it is obliged to pay the
Player compensation corresponding to the amount of remuneration due to the Player
until the end of the contract.
b) In the event that the Player unilaterally terminates this Contract without just cause, he is
obliged to pay SCUT SAD, by himself or through any Club or SAD, the sum of
€10,000,000.00 (ten million euros) plus VAT at the legal rate.
c) The parties recognise that the amount presented in the previous paragraph corresponds
to the valuation of the Player's sporting participation rights freely made by the parties in
this contract, without prejudice to compensation of a higher amount upon proof of
higher damages suffered by SCUT SAD.
5.
Clause 10.2 of the Contract provides as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17370
“[The Club] undertakes to take out and bear the respective costs of compulsory insurance,
the beneficiary of which is the Player himself or his family. The Player hereby authorises [the
Club] to take out any other insurance policies it deems appropriate, namely those relating
to excess damage, with [the Club] being responsible for paying the respective costs and the
Player declaring, for all due and legal purposes, that [the Club] will be the sole and exclusive
beneficiary”.
6.
Pursuant to Clause 11 of the Contract:
“This instrument shall be governed by Portuguese law and, in the alternative, by the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition) and for all
disputes arising out of or in connection with this contract, the FIFA Football Tribunal shall
have jurisdiction (…)”.
7.
On 21 July 2024, the Player was hospitalized in the Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation
Service of the University Hospital Lisboa Norte, as he suffered “Edema of the limbs and
face, foamy urine and reduction of urine output with one week of evolution”.
8.
On 12 and 13 August 2024, the Player and the Club’s doctor had the following WhatsApp
conversation:
[Club’s doctor]: “Right, I've read it carefully. I saw that there are still some analyses and
tests in progress. Maybe they'll have the results by the day of the appointment. What are
you thinking, Venaque? Will you always want to return to Brazil at this stage? Would you
rather stay here?”.
[Player]: “Doctor, I'd like to be treated in Brazil whenever I can. Next to my family”.
[Club’s doctor]: “That's really up to you. Has your manager already spoken to the club?
Were you able to go to the health centre [sic]?”.
[Club’s doctor]: “Good! I hope everything goes well there! Have they told you what the
treatment plan would be when you arrive?”.
[Player]: “I'm doing the therapy to see how it evolves. It takes time. And then in the future
how it goes”.
“Good morning doctor. I'm in the same treatment situation. Struggling a lot”.
[Club’s doctor]: “And how is the situation in Brazil? Are you still goingthere or do you prefer
to do your treatment here?”.
[Player]: “I'm going to Brazil”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17370
[Club’s doctor]: “Very hard indeed, it's not easy”.
[Player]: “I prefer to get treatment there, logistics are better, my family will help me get
treatment. The doctors here think it's better too”.
“I'm going straight to the airport. The doctors are preparing me to go until Sunday”.
[Club’s doctor]: “And in Brazil, are you already counting with you in hospital?”.
[Player]: “Yes, I'll be followed up in the nephrology department there. My brother is a nurse.
He’s already taking care of it in one of this”.
9.
Also, between 19 July 2024 and 28 August 2024, the Player’s agent and the Club’s sport
director were in constant contact via WhatsApp, exchanging several messages about the
Player’s medical condition and his treatment.
10.
On 25 July 2024, The Club’s sporting director visited the Player in the hospital.
11.
On 26 August 2024, the Player travelled from Portugal to Brazil.
12.
On 31 August 2024, the Club’s manager sent the following WhatsApp message to the
Player:
“Good morning (…). Tomorrow medical appointment at 9:00 am at the club’s medical center
[sic] on 1.09.2024”.
13.
On 4 September 2024, the Player sent an email to the Club informing that, after several
attempts to contact the Club’s sporting director, and in the absence of a reply, the Player
had travelled to Brazil to consult with nephrology and kidney transplant specialists. The
Player requested the Club to discuss his options and hear the Club’s proposals in this
regard.
14.
On 18 September 2024, the Player was hospitalized in the UNICAMP Clinic Hospital in
Brazil. According to the medical report:
“24 year-old patient, in follow-up with nephrology for collapsing FSGS and nephrotic
syndrome diagnosed 2 months ago, with hospitalization in July for Nephrotic SD. In
investigation at the UNICAMP Clinic Hospital, hospitalized since 09/18/24 and without
anticipated hospital discharge”.
15.
On 17 October 2024, the Player put the Club in default, informing that, since his
hospitalization, he had only received EUR 2,778.09 as remuneration for July 2024 and EUR
400 in August 2024 as reimbursement of some medical expenses incurred by the Player
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17370
in Portugal. In addition, the Player requested the payment of EUR 11,321.91 for the
following amounts and concepts:
o EUR 1,921.91 as part of the monthly salary and the entire rent allowance for July
2024;
o EUR 4,700 as monthly salary and rent allowance for August 2024; and
o EUR 4,700 as monthly salary and rent allowance for September 2024.
16.
The Player granted the Club a deadline of 15 days to comply with its financial obligations.
17.
On 22 October 2024, the Club replied to the aforementioned communication, opposing
to the Player’s legal representative authorization to represent the Player.
18.
Also on 22 October 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s communication, attaching a new
power of attorney and reiterating the points made in his letter of 17 October 2024.
19.
On 28 October 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice stressing that it was
the Player who was not complying with the Contract and his duty of attendance, in that
he had travelled to Brazil without the Club’s authorization or knowledge and without
providing any medical certificates. The Club further informed him that, pursuant to
national law, it is entitled to deduct from the Player’s remuneration the amount
corresponding to the days in which he was absent. In addition, the Club stated, inter alia,
the following:
“Furthermore, and despite the fact that during the course of conversations his return was
requested, it was confessed to [the Club] that your client was unable to play professional
football and as such could not attend the main team’s training sessions.
It was thus verified under the terms of Art. 41º no. 1 paragraph b) if the Collective Labor
Agreement the expiry of the sports employment contract verifying the supervening, absolute
and definitive impossibility of the player to carry out his activity.
Fact known to the parties and widely recognized by the parties, having resulted in the
termination of the employment contract.
Without prejudice, this fact even gave rise to the formal and alternative proposal under
current jurisprudence that the Player be part of [the Club]’s technical team since he is an
element that earns recognition from all peers and hierarchical superiors who deeply regret
the misfortune that occurs to you.
It remains to be noted that this proposal, although admittedly valued, was rejected given
that, based on what was presented, the player is unable to travel to Portugal and needs to
undergo constant treatment”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17370
20.
On 7 November 2024, the Club paid to the Player EUR 276 under no specific concept.
21.
The Player is currently in the waiting list for a kidney transplant in Brazil.
II.
Proceedings before FIFA
22.
On 5 December 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
23.
The Player contended that an injury or medical condition does not exempt a club from
complying with its obligations, such as the payment of the remuneration, nor constitutes
a just cause for the premature termination of the employment contract.
24.
The Player argued that the Club deducted the pro rata value of his remuneration for the
days he was absent and even declared that the Contract was no longer in force. According
to the Player, he had a valid reason to not attend training sessions, as he was in the
hospital fighting for his life, and the Club was aware of it. The Player contended that the
Club’s decision to deduct and stop paying his salary is legally groundless and a clear
breach of the duty of care that every employer shall have to its employees.
25.
The Player asserted that he had the right to seek a second opinion regarding his medical
condition, and also to choose the medical treatment which he intended to undergo.
26.
According to the Player, the Club prematurely and unilaterally terminated the Contract
without just cause on 28 October 2024.
27.
Based on this, the Player claimed to be entitled to outstanding remuneration in the total
amount of 15,567.07 net per the following amounts and concepts:
o EUR 1,921,91 net as the remaining balance of the monthly salary and rent allowance
for July 2024;
o EUR 4,700 net as monthly salary and rent allowance for August 2024;
o EUR 4,700 net as monthly salary and rent allowance for September 2024; and
o EUR 4,245.16 net as the pro rata value of the monthly salary and rent allowance until
28 October 2024.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17370
28.
The Player also claimed to be entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 99,254.84 net, representing the residual value of the Contract in
accordance with the liquidated damages clause provided in Clause 8 of the Contract,
which the Player considered to be fair and proportionate.
29.
Moreover, the Player claimed to be entitled to moral damages in the amount of EUR 8,232
net, which represents 7% of the total value of the Contract. In this regard, the Player
asserted that the Club breached his personality rights by not providing him any assistance
during his medical treatment in Portugal neither in Brazil, which resulted in regrettable
traumas and moral damages.
30.
The Player lastly claimed to be entitled to an additional amount of EUR 4,900 net under
the specificity of sport, representing the average of the Player’s monthly remuneration
during the Contract.
31.
The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the above, the Player submits to the following requests for relief to the attention
of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST – To accept and uphold the present claim in full;
SECOND – To confirm that the Club terminated the Employment Contract without just cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 1,921.91 (one
thousand nine hundred and twenty-one Euros and ninety-one cents) net as the remaining
balance of the monthly salary and the entire “income allowance” payable in respect of July
2024, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 1
August 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 4,700 (four
thousand seven hundred Euros) net as monthly salary and “income allowance” payable in
respect of August 2024, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent)
annually as from 1 September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 4,700 (four thousand
seven hundred Euros) net as monthly salary and “income allowance” payable in respect of
September 2024, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as
from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective payment;
SIXTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 4,245.16 (four
thousand two hundred and forty-five Euros and sixteen cents) net as pro rata value of the
monthly salary and “income allowance” for the 28 (twenty-eight) days of the month of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17370
October 2024 during which the Employment Contract remained in force, plus default
interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 29 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
SEVENTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 99,254.84 (ninetynine thousand two hundred and fifty-four Euros and eighty-four cents) net as compensation
for the unilateral termination of the Employment Contract without just cause, plus default
interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 29 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
EIGHTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player EUR 8,232 (eight thousand two hundred and
thirty-two Euros) net due as moral damages, plus default interest at the applicable rate of
5% (five percent) annually as from 29 October 2024 until the date of effective payment;
NINTH – To order the Club to pay to the Player EUR 29,400 (twenty-nine thousand four
hundred Euros) net for damages based upon the specificity of sport premises, plus default
interest at the applicable rate of 5% (five percent) annually as from 29 October 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
TENTH - To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately (cf. Art. 21, par. 1 of the FIFA Procedural Rules); and
ELEVENTH– To confirm that the ongoing proceedings is free of costs”.
b. Reply & counterclaim of the Club
32.
On 27 January 2025, the Club filed its reply to the claim and a counterclaim against the
Player.
i. Reply to the claim
33.
In its reply, the Club initially asserted that the present dispute is to be decided in
accordance with Portuguese law and, subsidiarily, by the FIFA regulations, based on
Clause 11 of the Contract.
34.
According to the Club, the Player stopped attending the Club’s activities as from 19 July
2024 without having provided the Club with any medical declaration or incapacitating
certificate. The Club asserted that the Player never informed the Club about his intentions,
and that it only knew that the Player had left when he sent his default notice on 17 October
2024. The Club asserted that the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the Player and
the Club’s doctor show how the latter questioned whether the Player had already spoken
with the Club. The Club added that no one with power to authorize a leave granted the
Player permission to leave the Club and look for treatment in Brazil.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17370
35.
The Club argued that the Player has not provided any evidence that he requested
authorization from the Club before traveling to Brazil. Based on this, the Club contended
that the Player failed to comply with the duty of attendance inherent to the employment
relationship. In this respect, the Club asserted that “(…) [the Contract] was terminated due
to the player’s subsequent, absolute and definitive impossibility of carrying out his activity, on
28 October 2024”, arguing that such termination was with just cause pursuant to art. 41
par. 1 lit. b) of the Collective Labor Agreement between the Portuguese Football League
and the Professional Football Players’ Union (hereinafter, the CCT), in accordance with
which:
“A sports employment contract shall expire in the cases provided for in this CCT or under
the general terms of the law, namely: (…) b) In the case of supervening, absolute and
definitive impossibility of the player to provide his activity or for the employer to receive it”.
36.
The Club further contended that, without neglecting the fact that the Player’s health is a
fundamental right, all the treatments, medical assessments and decisions not to appear
at the Club must be made in agreement between players and clubs.
37.
The Club also argued that, based on art. 28 par. 2 of the CCT, the Club had the right to
deduct from the Player’s remuneration the amount corresponding to the days in which
the Player was absent from work without just cause. In this regard, the Club applied
deductions to the Player’s remuneration, paying only the following amounts:
o July 2024: EUR 2,778 for 8 worked days and the rent allowance, holidays and
Christmas allowances;
o August 2024: EUR 401,99, for holidays and Christmas allowances;
o September 2024: EUR 276, for twelfths of the holiday allowances; and
o October 2024: EUR 276 for twelfths of the holiday allowances.
38.
According to the Club, the Player’s absence since 19 July 2024 without any authorization
and without the prospect of being able to return to his activity is of such gravity that
justified the termination of the Contract with just cause. The Club contended that the
Player had no plans to returning to Portugal, and that the Club could not be required to
maintain the employment contract in force, otherwise, “(…) the club would never be able to
terminate the contract with the player, even if he is permanently prevented from carrying out
his professional activity”.
39.
Based on the above, the Club argued that it had no obligation to make any additional
payments under the Contract, and therefore rejected the Player’s entitlement to the
outstanding remuneration claimed. Likewise, and considering that the Contract was
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17370
terminated with just cause, the Club also rejected the Player’s entitlement to the
compensation claimed.
40.
Moreover, the Club argued that no moral damages should be awarded to the Player, as
such claim is unfounded and there was no wilful or bad faith by the Club. In addition, the
Club asserted that the Player did not provide any evidence of the alleged damages.
ii. Counterclaim
41.
In its counterclaim, the Club contended that, pursuant to art. 24 of Law 24/2024, “In cases
provided for in paragraphs c) and d) of paragraph 1 of the previous article, the party that
causes the termination or that has promoted it unduly must compensate the other party for
the value of the remuneration that would be due to the practitioner if the contract of work had
ceased at its end”.
42.
Based on the foregoing provision, the Club argued that the Player, as the party that caused
the termination, must compensate the Club for the value of the remuneration that would
have been paid until the end of the Contract, i.e., EUR 98,800.
43.
Furthermore, the Club also claimed to be entitled to moral damages in accordance with
the CCT, as the Player’s absences affected its image and reputation. As such, the Club
requested the payment of EUR 8,232 as moral damages, representing 7% of the Contract’s
total value.
44.
The Club requested the following relief:
“In the view of the above, the Club submits to the following requests for relief to the attention
of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST: To accept and uphold the present response to claim in full;
SECOND: To confirm that a material breach has occurred and therefore the Club terminated
the Employment Contract with just cause;
THIRD: To confirm that the Club cannot be held liable for any amounts claimed here,
considering the Player’s absolute and definitive impossibility to fulfill his contractual
obligations, as expressly communicated by him.
FOUR: To order the Player to pay to the Club €98.800,00 (ninety eight thousand and eight
hundred euros) net, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% annually as from 29
October 2024 until the date of effective payment, as compensation.
FIVE: To order the Player to pay to the Club the total amount of €8.232,00 (eight thousand
two hundred and thirty two Euros) net, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5%
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17370
annually until the date of effective payment, as moral damages.
SIX: To absolve the Club from the claims for outstanding remuneration, compensation,
moral damages, specificity of sport and sporting sanctions, presented by the player, since
the contract was terminated with just cause by the club and the claims are unfounded and
disproportionate to this case.
SEVEN: To confirm that the ongoing proceedings is free of costs”.
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
45.
In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player reiterated that he informed the Club’s doctor
since the first time he had to go to the hospital, and kept him informed. The Player also
argued that his agent was in constant contact with the Club’s sporting director. Even
assuming that the Club was not informed, the Player argued that clubs have a duty to
safeguard player’s health, and therefore nothing prevented the Club to look for what was
going with one of its players, who suddenly stopped attending training sessions and
matches.
46.
Based on the above, the Player asserted that he did not leave the workplace without
notice, as expressly confirmed by the Club in its reply and counterclaim. The Player
contended that even the Club’s sport director visited him in the hospital. Accordingly, the
Player argued that his absences were justified.
47.
The Player argued that the Club never requested the Player to return to work, as well as
he never refused to do it, as the Club knew that the Player was in the hospital fighting for
his life. According to the Player, there was no need to provide a medical certificate, as his
medical condition was known by the Club.
48.
According to the Player, the Club only raised an objection to his decision to travel to Brazil
on 28 October 2024, in reply to the Player’s default notice, and when the Club unilaterally
terminated the Contract without any prior warning.
49.
The Player argued that the unilateral termination of the Contract was not an ultima ratio
measure, and that (i) the Club was aware of the Player’s medical condition, (ii) the Club
was aware and informed that the Player was in the hospital, (iii) therefore his absences
were justified (iv) the Player informed the Club about his intention to travel to Brazil, and
(v) the Club only objected to it 55 days later, while unilaterally terminating the Contract.
50.
The Player also claimed that, based on the legal principle of exception non adimpleti
contractus, the Club could not demand the performance of the Contract until he
discharged or offered to discharge its own obligation.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17370
51.
Based on the foregoing, the Player reiterated that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause.
52.
The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the above, the Player hereby submits the following requests for relief to the
attention of the FIFA DRC:
FIRST – To reject the Counterclaim lodged by the Club;
SECOND – To uphold the Statement of Claim filed by the Player; and
THIRD – To confirm the present proceeding are free of any costs whatsoever”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
53.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 5 December 2024 and submitted
for decision on 15 May 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter,
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
54.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and a Portuguese club.
55.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which was the applicable legal framework in the
case at hand. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, according to the Club, the present
dispute should be decided based on Portuguese law and, subsidiarily, by FIFA regulations,
in accordance with Clause 11 of the Contract.
56.
The Chamber underscored that, pursuant to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules:
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17370
“In their application and adjudication of the law, the chambers shall apply the FIFA Statutes
and FIFA regulations, whilst taking into account all relevant arrangements, laws, and/or
collective bargaining agreements that exist at national level, as well as the specificity of
sport”.
57.
In application of the foregoing provision, the members of the Chamber decided that the
FIFA regulations shall be applied to the merits of the case at hand.
58.
Having established the above, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
59.
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. Merits of the dispute
60.
Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only
to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
61.
The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that it concerned a
claim by the Player against the Club for breach of contract and its consequences. The DRC
also noted that the Club not only replied to the claim, but also lodged a counterclaim
against the Player.
62.
The Chamber started the analysis of the case at hand by briefly recalling the Parties’
positions, starting with the Player, who argued that he had informed the Club about his
medical condition since the beginning, being in contact with both the Club’s doctor and
the Club’s sporting director. The Player further asserted that he had the right to seek a
second opinion regarding the treatment of his medical condition, and also to choose the
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17370
medical treatment which he intended to undergo. According to the Player, he informed
the Club about his desire to travel to Brazil and to continue his medical treatment there.
As such, the Player contended that the absences were justified and, in any event, an injury
or a medical condition does not exempt clubs from complying with their financial
obligations. Based on this, the Player submitted that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause, and claimed to be entitled to outstanding remuneration,
compensation for breach of contract and moral damages.
63.
The Chamber also noted that, for its part, the Club argued that the Player stopped
attending the Club’s activities as from 19 July 2024, without having provided any medical
certificate, informing it about his medical condition or requesting authorization to travel
to Brazil. According to the Club, the Player’s absences without authorization and his return
to Brazil without prospect to return to his activity due to his medical condition justified
the termination of the Contract. Based on this, the Club not only rejected the Player’s
entitlement to any of the amounts claimed, but also filed a counterclaim against the
Player, requesting from the Player, as the party that caused the termination,
compensation representing the residual value of the Contract and moral damages.
64.
After having carefully analysed the arguments brought forward by the Parties, the
Chamber observed that it remained undisputed that the Club unilaterally terminated the
Contract on 28 October 2024 based on the Player’s purported absences in the Club’s
activities, and after the Player returned to Brazil – allegedly, without the Club’s knowledge
or authorization–, as well as due to the Player’s medical condition, which, according to the
Club, implied the absolute and definitive impossibility of the Player to carry out his activity.
65.
In view of the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the crux of the dispute lied in the
assessment as to whether the Club had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract
and the legal consequences arising thereof.
66.
The Chamber started the aforementioned analysis by recalling its longstanding
jurisprudence – which has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)– in
accordance with which an injury or health condition of a player can be no valid reason to
cease the payment of a player’s remuneration and even less so to terminate an
employment contract. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that it is the club’s responsibility
to secure the continuation of payment of remuneration in such cases, possibly by means
of adequate insurance. In the case at stake, the topic of the coverage for medical expenses
related to work was even explicitly included in Clause 10.2 of the Contract.
67.
The Chamber further underscored that even when a player is incapacitated to play, and
therefore even when a player is no longer in a position to render his/her services to the
club, this does not constitute a valid reason to unilaterally terminate an employment
contract.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17370
68.
As a result, an employment contract cannot either terminate automatically or be
terminated unilaterally with just cause on the basis that, after signing the relevant
employment contract, a player is found to have a medical condition or is temporarily or
permanently unable to continue with his professional career.
69.
Although the foregoing was enough to conclude that the Club did not have a just cause to
terminate the Contract, the Chamber noted that, according to the Club, the Player was
absent from its activities, which also justified the unilateral termination of the Contract.
70.
In this regard, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract without prior 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 in order for an employer to assure
the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
71.
The Chamber determined that none of the aforementioned requirements were met in
casu. Not only were the Player’s absences clearly justified and known by the Club, as
proved by the WhatsApp messages submitted by the Player, which confirm that he was in
constant contact with the Club’s sporting director –who even visited the Player in the
hospital– but also the Club terminated the Contract without any prior notice, i.e., thereby
deviating from the ultima ratio principle.
72.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC also underscored that players shall have the right
to decide how and where to be treated in case of an injury, and clubs shall respect such
decisions.
73.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the members of the Chamber unanimously
determined that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause, and that it should
therefore be held liable for the consequences that follow. This conclusion led the
Chamber to reject the counterclaim lodged by the Club against the Player.
ii. Consequences
74.
Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the legal
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
75.
Regarding the outstanding remuneration due to the Player, the Chamber noted that,
pursuant to Clause 2 lit. b) of the Contract, he was entitled to holidays and Christmas
bonuses, which were included in the Player’s monthly remuneration as defined in Clause
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17370
2 lit. a). Accordingly, and considering that (i) the Player’s remuneration at the time of
termination was EUR 4,200 as fixed salary plus EUR 500 as rent allowance (i.e., EUR 4,700
in total), and (ii) the Player did not dispute the partial payments made by the Club, the
DRC observed that the outstanding remuneration due to the Player at the time of
termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is EUR 15,067.92
net as follows:
o July 2024: EUR 1,921.91 net;
o August 2024: EUR 4,298.01 net;
o September 2024: EUR 4,424 net; and
o October 2024: EUR 4,424 net.
76.
As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.,
EUR 15,067.92 net as detailed ut supra.
77.
In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following their
relevant due dates (i.e., first day of the following month) until the date of effective
payment.
78.
Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according
to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances
of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
79.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
which the Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable in
the event of breach of contract.
80.
In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of Clauses 8 of the Contract, which
established that:
“8.1.a) In the event that SCUT SAD terminates the contract unlawfully, it is obliged to pay
the Player compensation corresponding to the amount of remuneration due to the
Player until the end of the contract”.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17370
8.1.b) In the event that the Player unilaterally terminates this Contract without just cause,
he is obliged to pay SCUT SAD, by himself or through any Club or SAD, the sum of
€10,000,000.00 (ten million euros) plus VAT at the legal rate”.
81.
After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it
did not fulfil the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and therefore could not be taken into account for
establishing the amount of compensation payable to the Player. In particular, the
Chamber noted that the compensation clause in Clause 8 of the Contract was not
reciprocal, as it provided for different amounts to be paid depending on which party
breached the Contract.
82.
As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set
out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall be equal to the
residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the player signed
a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of
the Regulations).
83.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 98,800 net (i.e., the residual value as from November
2024 until June 2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
84.
In continuation, the Chamber 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
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
85.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
86.
The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract
that was prematurely terminated.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17370
87.
In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD EUR 98,800 net, i.e., the residual value of the Contract.
88.
Taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% per annum as of 28 October 2024 (i.e., the date of
termination) until the date of effective payment.
89.
The Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for any additional compensation, as the
overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated
contract, in accordance with art. 17 par.1 lit. ii) of the Regulations.
90.
Lastly, the Chamber noted that the Player also requested moral damages. The Chamber,
nonetheless, observed that the Player did not provide any evidence in this regard.
Accordingly, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s request for moral
damages.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
91.
Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
92.
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.
93.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
94.
The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17370
95.
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.
d. Costs
96.
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.
97.
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.
98.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17370
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa, is
partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, SCU Torreense, must pay to Pedro Henrique Venaque
Barbosa the following amount(s):
- EUR 15,067.92 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,921,91 net as from 1 August 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,298.01 net as from 1 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,424 net as from 1 October 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,424 net as from 28 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 98,800 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 28 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of SCU Torreense is rejected.
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. SCU Torreense 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.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17370
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Pedro Henrique Venaque
Barbosa 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. 22
REF. FPSD-17370
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 23