Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5008
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 July 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Edson Felipe da Cruz
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairman
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
Alejandro Atilio Taraborelli (Argentina & Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Edson Felipe da Cruz, Brazil
Represented by Diogo Souza Advogados
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Al Qadsiah FC, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Messrs Ali Abbes & Mohamed Rokban
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
Atletico Clube Goianiense, Brazil
Page 2
REF FPSD-5008
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 October 2020, the Brazilian player Edson Felipe da Cruz (hereinafter the Player) and
the Saudi club Al Qadsiah FC (hereinafter the Al Qadsiah) concluded employment
agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement), valid as from 10 October 2020 until
9 July 2022.
2.
In Clause 4 of the Employment Agreement, the Player and Al Qadsiah (jointly referred to
as the parties) agreed upon, inter alia, a total remuneration amounting to USD 1,100,000:
−
−
−
3.
USD 200,000 as a signing fee, payable on 15 October 2020;
USD 207,000 as a signing fee, payable on 15 October 2021;
USD 33,0000 as a monthly salary, payable for the period of 21 months.
Furthermore, the same clause established the following additional benefits:
−
−
−
Transportation and suitable accommodation for the Player;
Four air flight tickets (economy class) round trip between the Player’s home
country and Damman;
“Sign insurance covering injury, medical treatment, sickness disability or death during
the term of his contract, provided that it shall include insurance coverage for the
cases whose effects extend after the end of the contract”.
4.
On 10 April 2021, the Player suffered a serious injury, resulting in a treatment and work
stoppage for “at least 6 (six) months”.
5.
On 12 April 2021, Al Qadsiah authorized the Player to travel to his home country to
undergo a full treatment.
6.
On 4 May 2021, the Player “underwent a surgery to repair the ligament and meniscal of his
left knee” and, allegedly, started his physiotherapy shortly after.
7.
Al Qadsiah was updated on the Player’s health situation via a WhatsApp group.
8.
On 18 and 20 August 2021, Al Qadsiah sent emails to the Player’s agent in order to
“reassure about your health after the surgery conducted, is everything okay and how is the
rehabilitation process after the injury, and we would like you to send the medical reports of
the operation to see your medical condition by the club’s doctors and to know the possibility
of benefiting from your services during the present sport season”.
9.
Allegedly, on 6 September 2021, Al Qadsiah sent the following email to the Player:
Page 3
REF FPSD-5008
10. Allegedly, on 7 September 2021, the Al Qadsiah sent the following termination notice to
the Player:
1. “ON 10.10.2020 WE HAVE SIGNED AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR 2 SEASONS ENDING
AT THE END OF THE SEASON 09.07.2022.
2. ON 2021/04/10 YOU WERE SERIOUSLY INJURED WHICH REQUIRED SURGERY.
3. YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE SURGERY WILL BE MADE ON YOUR COUNTRY AND THE
CLUB DID NOT OBJECT ON CONDITION OF SENDING IT ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND
MEDICAL REPORT TO FOLLOW YOUR PROGRESS AND PLAN YOUR RETURN TO
COMPETITION.
4. STRANGELY SINCE THE INJURY, NO MEDICAL REPORT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE CLUB AND
NO INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WHETHER THE SURGICAL OPERATION WAS
PERFORMED OR NOT.
5. THE CLUB CALL YOUR AGENT SEVERAL TIMES ON THE SAME SUBJECT, WITHOUT ANY
RESULT.
6. THE CLUB SENT YOU AN EMAIL LAST WEEK REQUESTING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
HEALTH CONDITION, ESPECIALLY THAT IT NEEDS TO SPECIFY A LIST OF FOREIGN PLAYERS
AND TO KNOW WHETHER IT CAN COUNT ON YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON
OR IN THE WINTER PERIOD.
7. NO ANSWER FROM YOU.
8. DUE TO THE EMERGENCY AND THE IMMINENCE OF THE END OF REGISTRATION PERIOD
(ON 9 SEPTEMBER 2021) AND THE START OF THE LEAGUE (7 SEPTEMBER 2021) WE SENT
YOU A SECOND EMAIL ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2021 GIVEN YOU A DEADLINE OF 24 HOURS TO
PRODUCE A MEDICAL REPORT INCLUDING
Page 4
REF FPSD-5008
* SURGICAL PROCEDURE DOCUMENTS
* PERIOD OF A TOTAL PHYSICAL REHABILITATION
* THE DATE OF YOUR RETURN TO TRAINING
* THE LEVEL OF PHYSICAL REHABILITATION YOU HAVE REACHED.
1. NO ANSWER OR REACTION FROM YOUR SIDE.
2. YOUR LACK OF INTEREST AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HAS PUT THE CLUB IN SPORTING
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE START OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF
REGISTERING THE NEW PLAYER BEFORE RELEASING YOUR PLACE.
3. THAT SITUATION COULD NOT PERSIST AND WE HAVE SENT YOU A LAST ULTIMATUM UNTIL
7 SEPTEMBER 12:00 PM TO PRODUCE REQUESTED REPORT AND DOCUMENTS.
4. AGAIN, NO RESPONSE AND NO REACTION.
5. AL QADISIYA CLUB HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAN TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT
UNILATERALLY.
6. CONSEQUENTLY, WE INFORM YOU THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CONCLUDED ON
2020/10/10 IS UNILATERALLY TERMINATED BY THE CLUB WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 14 RSTP AND THE CLUB RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE A CLAIM
BEFORE DRC FIFA.
7. WE REMAIN AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO DISCUSS A FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT WHICH WOULD
AVOID FOR BOTH PARTIES A LONG PROCEDURE BEFORE FIFA AND CAS.”
11. On 21 September 2021, the Player’s agent replied to the email of 20 August 2021,
informing Al Qadsiah that the Player’s “doctor and his physical therapists cleared the player
to return for training with the club by November. So we would like to request Al Qadsiah to
arrange the return of the player and his family (wife and 2 children) to Saudi Arabia in
November sending him flight tickets to travel back to Saudi Arabia.”
12. On 24 September 2021, Al Qadsiah made a payment of the Player’s salary of August 2021.
13. Allegedly, as from September 2021, Al Qadsiah stopped “suddenly and unilaterally” paying
the Player’s salary.
14. On 26 October 2021, the Player’s agent sent further email to Al Qadsiah, including the
doctor’s report, “to reaffirm that the Player was allowed by the medical team to resume his
activities with the Club in November as previously informed in the email dated
21 September 2021”.
15. Furthermore, the Player’s agent requested the flight tickets to return to Saudi Arabia for
November 2021 as well as the outstanding salaries amounting to USD 240,000,
corresponding to the sign-on fee and the salary of September 2021, however, to no avail.
16. On 20 November 2021, the Player sent a default notice to Al Qadsiah, requesting the flight
tickets to return to Saudi Arabia for November 2021 as well as the outstanding salaries
Page 5
REF FPSD-5008
amounting to USD 273,000, corresponding to the sign-on fee and the salaries of
September – October 2021 within the next 15-days, however, to no avail.
17. In reply to the mentioned letter, Al Qadsiah argued that it has already “terminated the
contract with [the Player] prematurely for just cause by sending him a formal notification.”
18. On 21 November 2021, the Player reacted to Al Qadsiah’s email: “[…] I would like to inform
you that my client does not acknowledge receipt of any formal notification from the club
regarding an early termination of the employment contract with just cause, especially because
he did not commit any faults.”
19. On 23 November 2021, Al Qadsiah replied as follows:
“[…] We once again surprised by the content of your correspondence in which your client
alleged not receiving any notification from the club. We draw your client’s attention that such
behavior proves his bad faith and his lack of professionalism. For sake of clearness, we sent all
correspondence on the elected email of the player inserted in his contract as well as to his
agent Flavio who cannot ignore it. As an act of good faith, we herewith send you a copy of the
email sent. […]”.
20. On 1 December 2021, the Player sent a further notice to Al Qadsiah, requesting
clarifications regarding the alleged correspondence of September 2021 and “a clear
position about the Contract and the maintenance of the employment relationship between the
parties within 4 (four) days.”
21. On 13 December 2021, the Player sent the final notice to Al Qadsiah, which read as
follows:
“(…) regardless of the fact that you consider the Contract terminated since September 2021,
which we disagree, deny and not accept - as of today we inform you that the Player considers
the Contract terminated by just cause for overdue payables in accordance with Article 14bis
of RSTP.
So, this notification is to inform you that from now onwards the Contract is terminated by the
Player with just cause for outstanding salaries that the club owes to the Player that represents
more than 05 (five) monthly salaries of the Player.”
22. On 21 January 2022, the Player and the Brazilian club, Atletico Clube Goianiense
(hereinafter the New Club), signed a new employment agreement (hereinafter the New
Employment Agreement), valid as from 4 January 2022 until 30 May 2023.
23. In accordance with the New Employment Agreement, the monthly remuneration of the
Player amounted to BRL 30,000 (Brazilian Real).
Page 6
REF FPSD-5008
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 1 February 2022, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. On 5 May 2022,
Al Qadsiah lodged a counter-claim before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the
parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
25. In its claim, the Player requested the amount of USD 306.000 as overdue payables, an
amount of USD 382.181,82 as compensation for breach of contract, “plus interest of 5%
p.m. on all amounts as of the due date of each payment”.
26. Furthermore, the Player requested to “condemn the Club to reimburse the Player’s costs with
his knee surgery and recovery in the amount of BRL 48.300 (forty-eight thousand, three
hundred Brazilian Reais) plus the interest of 5% p.m. as of the date the payment was made by
the Player.”
27. The Player based his claim on art. 14bis of the Regulations as he argued that he “had just
cause to terminate the Contract with just cause for outstanding payables on
13 December 2021, after having put the Club in default of payment in the First Notification
Letter on 20 November 2021.”
28. Based on the above, the Player further requested the residual value of the Employment
Agreement based on art. 17 of the Regulations.
29. The Player provided for the following breakdown:
Page 7
REF FPSD-5008
30. As to the Player’s request for the medical cost, the Player pointed to the Respondent’s
obligation to “Sign insurance covering injury, medical treatment, sickness disability or death
during the term of his contract, provided that it shall include insurance coverage for the cases
whose effects extend after the end of the contract.”
31. In view of the above, the Player requested the reimbursement of the medical costs.
32. Finally, the Player rejected the allegations of the Respondent that the Employment
Agreement has been already terminated in September 2021.
33. In this regard, the Player noted that he “had never received anything from the Club in this
regard before but also because the Claimant did not breach any of his obligations outlined
under the Contract. The Club desperately created this allegation – without any evidence
whatsoever – to avoid fulfilling with the Contract and continue to pay the Player’s salaries while
he was still recovering from a complicated knee injury got during a match of the Respondent.”
b. Position of Al Qadsiah
34. Al Qadsiah rejected the claim of the Player and submitted a counterclaim in the matter at
hand, “to decide that the termination of contract by the club was made for just cause and thus
to order the claimant to pay to the club a compensation for breach of contract equal to
537,000 USD.”
35. Al Qadsiah argued that it terminated the Employment Agreement with just cause on
7 September 2021, as the Player failed to reply to its correspondence of 20 August 2021
regarding the Player’s return to the club.
36. Al Qadsiah continued that “until the date of the termination of the contract the club has
respected all his financial obligations and the player has received all his salaries until the end
of August 2021” and that the Claimant is now, 5 months later, “pretending to ignore the
previous emails from the club and the notification of termination.”
37. With regard to the emails sent to the Player, Al Qadsiah argued that it used the same
email address as provided in the Employment Agreement.
38. Al Qadsiah was of the opinion that the Player’s claim is in bad faith as “the player has
neglected all the notices sent by the club on 18 August, 20 August, 05 September, 6 September
2021 and has reacted only after the termination of the contract in the sole purpose to obtain
a groundless compensation.”
39. Al Qadsiah argued that it lost contact with the Player as from 28 June 2021 and that it “has
waited until the last day to determine the quota of foreign players which increased by the
retrogradation from 7 players to 4 players only.”
Page 8
REF FPSD-5008
40. In view of the above, Al Qadsiah asserted: “Faced to the continual failure of the player to
send his medical report and to inform the club of the date of his return to training session the
club lost all his trust on the player and on the possibility to continue the contractual
relationship and thus the respondent had no other option than to terminate the contract for
just cause.”
41. Due to the termination made for just cause, Al Qadsiah submitted a counterclaim with
the request for compensation equal to the residual value of the contract equal to
USD 537,000.
c. Position of the Player
42. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player provided for the following request for relief:
“(…) B) Dismiss all claims of Club in his Answer & Counterclaim;
C) To accept the claim lodged by the Player against the Respondent;
D) To order the Club to pay to the Player an amount of USD 306.000 (three hundred six
thousand dollars) as overdue payables, plus an amount of USD 382.181,82 (three hundred
eighty-two thousand, one hundred and eighty-one dollars and eighty-two cents) as
compensation for breach of contract – calculation already including the Mitigated and
Additional Compensation -, plus interest of 5% p.m. on all amounts as of the due date of each
payment;
E) To condemn the Club to reimburse the Player’s costs with his knee surgery and
recovery in the amount of BRL 48.300 (forty-eight thousand, three hundred Brazilian Reais)
plus the interest of 5% p.m. as of the date the payment was made by the Player; (…)”
43. The Player stressed that in the counterclaim “important facts of the case were omitted”.
44. In this respect, the Player vehemently denied Al Qadsiah’s allegation that it “had been
without contact with the Player “since 28 June 2021” until 07 September 2021”.
45. In support of his allegations, the Player provided WhatsApp messages of July –
October 2021 with Mr Fares (i.e. Respondent’s General Manager) and Instagram
messages of September – October 2021 with the President of Al Qadsiah.
46. Furthermore, the Player reiterated that he never received the correspondence in
question (i.e. emails of 5, 6 and 7 September 2021) “because the Player’s email is misspelled”
and, furthermore, that the said emails are forged.
47. In this respect, the Player alleging that “THE CLUB WAS CLEARLY SENDING EMAILS TO A
NONEXISTENT EMAIL OF THE PLAYER – WHICH THE CLUB KNEW THAT - ACTING IN BAD FAITH
AGAINST THE PLAYER JUST TO “CREATE” A SCENARIO TO GIVE HIM A POSSIBLE REASON TO HAVE
JUST CAUSE TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.”
Page 9
REF FPSD-5008
48. The Player then argued that “despite of the lies of the Club – the Player have not received
these emails -, EVEN IN CASE THESE EMAILS COULD BE REAL – WHICH WE DENY -, IN ANY
CASE THE CLUB COULD NOT HAVE HAD JUST CAUSE TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.
ANYWAY, THE CLUB COULD NOT OR HAD NOT JUST CAUSE TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.”
49. In this respect, the Player added that he “NEVER COMMITTED ANY BREACH OF CONTRACT,
SPECIALLY A SEVERE ONE THAT COULD POSSIBLY LEAD CLUB TO INSTANTLY TERMINATE
THE CONTRACT.”
50. Furthermore, the Player was of the opinion that “the Club could have taken more lenient
measures to put the Player in a position to prove his intention to honor the Contract.”
51. Regarding his own circumstances, the Player asserted that he had no reason to terminate
the contract, taking into account that he “was not yet fit and able to train and play for the
Club” and that he ”HAS ALWAYS DEMONSTRATED HIS WILL TO RETURN TO THE CLUB TO FULFIL
HIS EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT BY DIRECTLY SENDING SEVERAL MESSAGES TO THE CLUB’S
GENERAL MANAGER AND PRESIDENT AND ALSO THROUGH HIS AGENT AND LAWYER BY
SENDING EMAILS TO THE CLUB REQUESTING HIS FLIGHT,TICKETS TO RETURN TO THE CLUB.”
a. Position of the New Club
52. The FIFA general secretariat requested the position of the New Club, Atletico Clube
Goianiense, to the counterclaim filed by Al Qadsiah.
53. In this respect, the New Club rejected the counterclaim as well as that it “induced or
participated in the end of relationship between these parties.”
54. The New Club argued that it engaged the Player as a free agent, after duly checking that
the Player terminated his Employment Agreement with just cause.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
55. 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 1 February 2022 and
submitted for decision on 21 July 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
June 2022 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.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5008
56. 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 (July 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and a Saudi club.
57. 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 (July 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 February 2022, the March 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
58. 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
59. 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 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
60. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justification for the
termination of the Employment Agreement.
61. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player argued that he had just cause to
terminate the Employment Agreement on 13 December 2021 based on the substantial
outstanding amounts, whereas Al Qadsiah asserted that it terminated the Employment
Agreement with just cause prior to that, i.e. on 7 September 2021.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5008
62. In support of its argumentation, Al Qadsiah asserted that:
−
−
−
“the player has neglected all the notices sent by the club on 18 August, 20 August,
05 September, 6 September 2021 and has reacted only after the termination of the contract
in the sole purpose to obtain a groundless compensation.”
Al Qadsiah lost contact with the Player as from 28 June 2021 and that it “has waited
until the last day to determine the quota of foreign players which increased by the
retrogradation from 7 players to 4 players only.”
“continual failure of the player to send his medical report and to inform the club of the date
of his return to training session the club lost all his trust on the player and on the possibility
to continue the contractual relationship and thus the respondent had no other option than
to terminate the contract for just cause.”
63. In view of the above, the Chamber first concluded that the termination of the Employment
Contract occurred on 7 September 2021 by Al Qadsiah and that its task was to determine,
based on the evidence presented by the parties, whether Al Qadsiah had a valid
justification to do so.
64. In this context, 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.
65. In light of the overall circumstance described in the facts above, as well as taking into
account the evidence on file, the DRC deliberated that the Al Qadsiah’s termination of the
employment relationship on 7 September 2021 was disproportionate and hasty, as
Al Qadsiah did not leave enough time to the Player to redeem himself after he accepted
responsibility for any wrongdoing and expressed his willingness to continue the
employment relationship.
66. Indeed, the DRC highlighted that Al Qadsiah could have taken more lenient measures in
order to put the Player in a position to prove his intention to honour his contractual
obligations towards Al Qadsiah.
67. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that Al Qadsiah terminated the Employment
Agreement without just cause, and, consequently, has to be held liable for the early
termination thereof.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5008
68. Furthermore, the Chamber also recalled that the Player requested the amount of
BRL 48,300, corresponding to the medical expenses incurred in Brazil.
69. The Chamber equally recalled that Clause 4 of the Employment Agreement provided for
insurance coverage and, consequently, decided that the requested amount shall be
granted to the Player.
ii. Consequences
70. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by
Al Qadsiah.
71. Having established that there were no outstanding amounts at the date of termination,
the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the
Player 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, 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.
72. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by
the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
73. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Al Qadsiah to the Player had to be assessed in application of
the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled
that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
74. 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 USD 570,000 (i.e. the sign-on fee of USD 207,000 and eleven
monthly salaries in the total amount of USD 363,000) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5008
75. 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.
76. Indeed, the player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately BRL 30,000 per
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages for the
overlapping period of six months in the total amount of BRL 180,000, that is, USD 32,300.
77. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 537,700 to the Player (i.e. USD 570,000 minus USD 32,300), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
78. 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% p.a. as of 1 February 2021 until the date of effective
payment.
79. Lastly, the Chamber observed that the outstanding amount of BRL 48,300, corresponding
to the medical expenses at the time of termination, was equally requested by the Player.
80. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
reimbursement of such amount, i.e. BRL 48,300.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
81. 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.
82. 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
Page 14
REF FPSD-5008
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5008
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Edson Felipe da Cruz, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent /Counter-Claimant, Al Qadsiah FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the
following amount(s):
- USD 537,700 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- BRL 48,300 as outstanding amount.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the
ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-5008
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).
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
Page 17