Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9317
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 July 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Leonardo da Silva de Sousa
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT:
Leonardo da Silva de Sousa, Brazil
Represented by Tannuri Ribeiro Advogados
RESPONDENT:
Shabab Al Ahli Dubai, United Arab Emirates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9317
I. Facts of the case
1. On 1 September 2019, the Brazilian player Leonardo da Silva de Sousa (hereinafter: the
player) and the Emirati club Shabab Al Ahli Dubai (hereinafter: the club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 September 2019 until
17 July 2021.
2. According to clause 6 of the contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration:
“Season 2019/2020
Signing on fees:
• An amount of (850.000) Euros Eight Hundred Fifty thousand Euro payable within 10 days of
signing the player and passing the Medical examination in Dubai.
Monthly salary:
The player is entitled to total salaries from 1/09/2019 to 30/06/2020 amounting to 2,650,000 euro
(Two Million and six hundred-fifty thousand Euro) divided into 10 instalments of (Euro 265,000)
(or equivalent) Two hundred and sixty-Five thousand EURO paid until the last day of the worked
month.
Season 2020/2021
Signing on fees:
• An amount of (500.000 Euro) Five hundred thousand Euro payable on 30/09/2020.
Monthly Salary: The player is entitled to total salaries from 01/07/2020 to 17/07/2021 amounting
to 3,000,000 Euro (three million Euro) divided into 12 instalments of (Euro 250,000) (or equivalent)
Two hundred fifty thousand EURO paid until the last day of the worked month.
Bonus:
The second party shall be granted bonus in case the team wins any of the following competitions
as follows:
- AFC Champion League 120.000 Euro
- AGLeague: 100.000 Euro
- President Cup: 50.000 Euro. - AGL cup: 25.000 Euro.
These bonuses are paid after calculating and estimating the player’s participation rate in the
sports season, by calculating the total number of minutes of the actual official games in which the
player participated, in accordance with the provisions of the first party rewards regulations”.
3. On 18 February 2021, the player and the club concluded a “Termination & Settlement
Agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement), by means of which it was stipulated as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9317
“The parties (…) agree to terminate the contract with immediate effect, with the player being
released from all his obligations towards the club as of this date”.
4. In this respect, the penultimate paragraph of the agreement’s preamble read as follows:
“Whereas the player is entitled under the contract to collect, from 01 February 2021 until 17 July
2021, the net amount of EUR 1,250,000 in concept of salaries”.
5. Furthermore, Clause 2.2 of the agreement stipulated that “As final compensation for the
termination of the contract, the parties hereby acknowledge that as compensation for the early
termination of the contract, the club shall pay to the player, upon transfer to his Brazilian account
a settlement amount corresponding to one instalment of EUR 200,000 (…), payable as per clause
5 below”, i.e. on the date of signature.
6. Additionally, Clause 3 of the agreement stipulated as follows:
“3.1 Once the settlement amount is paid by the club, the player specifically releases, waives, and
discharges the club (…) from any claims, demands, actions, liabilities and causes of actions of
every kind and character, whether asserted o unasserted, whether known or unknown, whether
suspected or unsuspected, in law and/or in equity, arising from or related to the player’s physical
rehabilitation, the termination of the contract as all amounts from 01 February to 17 July 2021.
3.2 Once the player signs all relevant documents pertaining the amicable termination of the
contract, the club specifically releases, waives, and forever discharges the player (…) from any and
all past, present and/or future claims, demands, actions liabilities, and causes of action, of every
kind and character, whether asserted o unasserted, whether known or unknown, whether
suspected or unsuspected, in law and/or in equity, arising from or related to the player’s
employment by the club and/or the contract, including without limitation and for the avoidance
of doubt the termination of the contract carried out herein”.
7. Lastly, Clause 4 of the agreement established that: “Except for the purpose of enforcing the
provision of this agreement, the player and the club specifically, expressly and irrevocably agree
that this agreement may be pleaded as an absolute and final bar to any complaint or legal
proceedings that may hereafter the prosecuted by either party against the other party arising from
or related to the player’s employment by the club for the period between 01 February and 17 July
2021, as well as his physical rehabilitation and/or the termination of the contract carried out
herein.”
8. On 13 March 2021, the player wrote to the club with regard to the termination agreement,
pointing out inter alia that the residual value of his contract was EUR 1,250,000, i.e. 5 monthly
salaries of EUR 250,000, as described in the second to last paragraph of its preamble. He
further reminded the club that they had intended to “permit an expedited termination of the
Employment Agreement for a settlement amount of EUR 1,000,000 (one million EUROS) payable
in 5 equal instalments of EUR 200,000 (two hundred thousand EUROS) in the months of February
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9317
2021, March 2021, April 2021, May 2021 and June 2021. However, contrary to the intent of the
parties and what was agreed upon, the Club inserted a different amount that was payable to the
Player in the Settlement Agreement”, namely EUR 200,000. The player outlined that the
Agreement was signed “with his defective consent”, that he “does not recognise the validity of
the terms of the Settlement Agreement since it does not adhere to the settlement amount
previously negotiated and agreed upon by the parties,” and that, as a gesture of good will,
offered the club the opportunity to immediately furnish “the version of the Termination and
Settlement Agreement which indicates the correct settlement amount of EUR 1,000,000 (one
million Euros) as previously agreed upon by the parties” within 10 days.
9. On 18 March 2021, the club replied to the player’s letter, stating it was “surprised and outraged
by its content”. The club stated that, although the parties negotiated intensively, they finally
agreed upon the payment of the final amount of EUR 200,000, as stipulated in the agreement
and already paid to the player. The club further described not being aware “of any version of
the termination & settlement agreement that would provide anything different than the version
discussed by, approved and signed by the parties, which [the player] already had in [his]
possession”. The club outlined that it deemed the player’s claim to have signed the agreement
with “defective contentment” as extremely unprofessional and stated that, should the player
claim the agreement is null and void, the club would claim compensation for his breach of
the employment contract and the reimbursement of the settlement amount paid.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9317
II. Proceedings before FIFA
1. On 17 February 2023, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA. A brief
summary of the parties’ submissions is outlined below.
a. Position of the Player
2. In his claim, the player argued that the club had always paid his remuneration in a chaotic
manner. On 10 January 2020, the player was injured during an official match and, despite
undergoing physical therapy, he could still not recover completely. The club thus decided to
unilaterally terminate his employment contract on 18 February 2021, 5 months before its
original expiry, despite the player’s vulnerable health situation.
3. The player claimed that the parties had “agreed to sign a Termination Agreement amounting to
EUR 1,000,000 (one million Euros). However, the Club deceptively made the Player sign a
Termination Agreement amounting to EUR 200,000”. Consequently, he sent the club the letter
of 13 March 2021, the content of which the club entirely denied on 18 March 2021. Thus, the
player claims he had no alternative other than lodging the present claim.
4. The player stated that, by the time the parties concluded the Agreement, the club owed him
outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR 1,937,926. He claimed to have only received
from the club the amount of EUR 3,912,074 over the course of the Contract. In the player’s
words, “the club failed to comply with the payment of the salary for the months from September
2020 to January 2021 (but also part of the salary of August 2020) and the second instalment of
the signing fees amounting to EUR 1,837,926.00 as well as the bonus for winning the AG League
during the season 2019-2020 amounting to EUR 100,000”.
5. The player described that “despite Art. 9.9 of the Employment Contract providing (…) that the
signing-on fees in the contract shall be calculated based on the player’s (second party) completion
of the Contract and not the mere signature thereof” (…) when the Contract was terminated on
18 February 2021 with effect as of 1 February 2021 the second signing bonus has fallen due and
was outstanding for more than 4 months”.
6. Furthermore, the player underlined that, as per art. 341of the SCO, an employee cannot
waive outstanding salaries during the employment contract and within 1 month as from its
termination. Such relative prohibition can only be derogated in case it brings the employee
any advantage.
7. In view of the foregoing, it was argued that, even though the player signed the Agreement ,
the circumstances demonstrate that the club terminated the contract without just cause,
since he was injured and the club was in clear default of its financial obligations. He points
out that the termination under such circumstances is to be considered illegal, in line with
art. 336c of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO) and with the jurisprudence of the DRC. Thus,
the player understood that the Agreement is not valid and should be set aside.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9317
8. Consequently, the player argued that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and
compensation, as well as the reimbursement of the medical expenses he had in Brazil, in a
treatment authorised by the club. In particular, he outlined that his claim for outstanding
remuneration shall not be considered as time-barred, since the second to last sentence of
the preamble of the agreement can be considered as an acknowledgement of debt made on
18 February 2023, and the claim was lodged within 2 years as from that date.
9. In view of the foregoing, the player requested the DRC as follows:
“FIRST – To uphold the claim filed by the Player;
SECOND – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 1,937,926.00 as outstanding remuneration plus
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 February 2021 until the date of effective payment;
THIRD – To order the Club to the pay to the Player EUR 1,125,000 as compensation plus interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 February 2021 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH – To reimburse the medical expenses of the Player in the amount of BRL 46,000 and USD
10,600 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 February 2021 until the date of effective
payment; AND
FIFTH - To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club immediately
(cf. Art. 6, par. 3 and Art. 9, par. 5 of the FIFA Procedural Rules);
Alternatively, and only in the event the above is rejected:
SIXTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 1,937,926.00 as outstanding remuneration plus
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 February 2021 until the date of effective payment;
SEVENTH – To reimburse the medical expenses of the Player in the amount of BRL 46,000 and USD
10,600 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 February 2021 until the date of effective
payment; AND
EIGHTH - To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club immediately
(cf. Art. 6, par. 3 and Art. 9, par. 5 of the FIFA Procedural Rules).”
b. Position of the Club
POSITION
10. In its reply, the club first disputed the admissibility of the player’s claims dated prior to
18 February 2021, as the amounts in question should be considered time barred. In
particular, the club described that the player presented contradictory arguments, as “either
the Agreement is valid – as clearly is the case, and there are no amounts to claim – or, if the
Agreement is invalid, it does not interrupt the statute of limitation”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9317
11. As to the Agreement, the club stated that it does not represent any admission of debt on the
part of the club towards the player. In the words of the club, “On the contrary, it clearly
establishes the absence of any overdue payments at the time of its execution, which undoubtfully
dismisses any argument of interruption of the statute of limitation under article 135 of the SCO”.
12. The club also stated that the Agreement is valid and was duly negotiated, accepted and
executed by the parties, thus terminating the contractual relationship by mutual agreement.
According to the club, the player failed to provide evidence of any action of the club that
could result in the invalidation of the Agreement. The club wished to emphasise that the
player acknowledged that it was his intention to mutually terminate the Contract, that he
indeed signed the Agreement, but that, contrary to his course of action, is presently claiming
an amount which is stipulated nowhere, providing no evidence of the contrary. Equally, the
club stressed that the player admitted to the club fully complying with its financial obligations
as per the Agreement.
13. The club also argued that, had the contract hypothetically not been mutually terminated, the
club would have had a just cause to terminate it unilaterally, due to the player’s
unprofessional behaviour. The club provided a detailed chronology of the facts preceding
the termination, including, in particular, alleged disciplinary contraventions and
unauthorised absences from the club, despite constant warnings from management to
return.
14. As to the player’s injury and medical costs, the club emphasised that following several
medical evaluations, it had arranged his surgery in Spain. Notwithstanding, the player had
allegedly refused such surgery and requested to be operated in Brazil, with one specific
doctor, whilst he would bear the financial, legal and medical consequence of such. The club
enclosed as evidence a declaration allegedly signed by the player which stated that he
insisted “to have the (…) surgery in Brazil upon my arrival on maximum date of 11 September
2020 and I am totally responsible financially legally and medically regarding all the consequences
related and I release [the club] from all and any responsibility related, since the decision to make
the surgery is upon my request, decision and my free will without any pressure from [the club],
and I do acknowledge that I travelled on the 16th March 2020 to Brazil for the same matter but I
didn’t commit and didn’t execute my obligations in this regards, as well I acknowledge that [the
club] exerted the utmost efforts to support me in this regard, for example (…) [by arranging] private
and medical trip to Spain (…)”. The club also submitted as evidence warnings sent to the player,
salary reductions as punishment for his extended absence following the operation, and
unused flight tickets intended for the player’s return.
15. Furthermore, the club pointed out that, prior to signing the Agreement, the player
acknowledged the lawfulness of the deductions imposed by the club and signed an
“Acknowledgement” letter, confirming that he received all amounts due to him until that
date.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9317
16. The club also stated that, in February 2021, the player signed a new employment contract
with the Brazilian club Maringá FC and more recently in 2023 with Cianorte, also from Brazil.
17. In view of the facts described above, the club wished to stress the lack of commitment of the
player to his own recovery treatment, thus denying the accusation that it terminated the
contract due to his injury. The club claimed to have provided the player with due medical
care, but the latter acted in a reckless, unprofessional manner in the process. Regardless,
the club argued, the termination was the result of mutual consent, and not a unilateral
decision of the club.
18. The club also rejected the player’s argument that he waived salaries to his detriment, when
signing the termination agreement. Due to his unauthorised absence and his noncompliance with the club’s warnings, the latter could have terminated the contract with just
cause and requested him to pay compensation to the club. Nonetheless, the parties
concluded a mutual agreement, which was purportedly more beneficial for the player.
19. In conclusion, the club requested for the claim to be deemed partially inadmissible, and in
any event rejected as to the request for any compensation or outstanding remuneration.
c. Replica of the Player
20. In his replica, the player insisted on the arguments presented in his claim and addressed the
accusations made by the club in its reply.
21. In particular, the player understood that his claim is not affected by prescription, as the
termination agreement dated 18 February 2021 contains a clear acknowledgement of debt,
which sets the start of the 2-year prescription time anew. Thus, his claim was lodged on
17 February 2023, i.e. within the 2 years of the fact giving rise to the dispute.
22. As to the substance, and in particular the club’s accusations of breach of contract on his part,
the player indicated that the club did not provide substantial evidence of such and rejects
the deductions imposed on his remuneration as undue, since “no disciplinary proceedings
were open against the Player before the Club decided to impose deductions of the monthly salaries
from September 2020. The Player was never offered an opportunity to respond before imposing
such deductions”. He also points out that the club’s email dated 28 October 2020 did not
mention the percentage of, or the reason for the fine imposed on him, showing that the club
acted in bad faith. The player further outlined that he never received a copy of the club’s
disciplinary regulations, based on which the fines were imposed. In this respect, the player
emphasised that “This email shows that the Club surely paid the monthly salary of the Player late
as under Art. 6 of the Employment Contract the monthly salary shall be paid by the last day of the
worked month. This means the monthly salary of the Player for the month of September 2020 was
due by 30 September 2020, however the Club only informed the Player of a deduction of his
monthly salaries (September included) on 28 October 2020 demonstrating that by that date it still
had not paid the salary of the Player for the month of September 2020”. The player also made
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9317
reference to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS, as per which outstanding
salaries cannot be set off against fines.
23. The player insisted equally that the termination agreement should be considered as invalid.
He stressed that the club did not provide any evidence that no remuneration was
outstanding at the time the agreement was signed or that any reduction of his salary had
been somehow agreed upon. The player, on the contrary, provided several bank statements
proving the exact amount he received from the club, which lead to the conclusion that
EUR 1,837,926 are still outstanding. In particular, the player pointed out that “despite alleging
that no amounts were outstanding the Club felt the need to make the Player sign an
acknowledgment on 31 January 2021 renouncing to the deductions (unlawfully) applied by the
Club on the monthly salaries of the Player and, a few days a later, sign the Termination Agreement
as well. Moreover, despite the fact that the Club submitted a document allegedly confirming that
the Club paid all its obligations under the Employment Contract up to 30 June 2020 it is clear that
the evidence submitted by the Player reflect otherwise”. Reference was made to art. 341 of the
SCO, insisting that a waiver of outstanding salaries is not legal.
24. The player further pointed to the club’s bad faith in accusing him of several contractual
breaches, while being in breach of its own financial obligations. He also asserted that an
employee is allowed to refuse work in case the employed is in default of its contractual
obligations, in accordance with the legal principle of “exception non adimpleti contractus”.
25. In view of the foregoing, the player insists on his original request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Club
26. In its final comments, the club insisted on the arguments raised in its reply. In addition, the
club indicated that the player does not dispute having committed the breaches indicated in
the club’s reply, in particular, his unprofessional behaviour and the non-compliance with the
rehabilitation process. He only addressed the alleged fault of the club to pay his salaries in a
complete and timely manner, without however providing evidence that he had ever put the
club in default of such payments.
27. The club further denied having in any manner breached the contract and pointed out that
the player did not provide any evidence of such alleged breaches. The player however “was
given several opportunities to present his position, cure his breaches and fully comply with his
contractual obligations. Not once the Player disputed any of the statements by the Club nor
responded to any of the several notices issued by Shabab throughout the duration of the
Employment Agreement”.
28. The club also insisted on the validity of the termination agreement and on the absence of
any acknowledgement of debt in it.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9317
29. The club insisted also that the player received a copy of the disciplinary regulations of the
club and enclosed a copy of a “receipt of a list of discipline & violations regulation prize money
regulations” signed by the player, as well as a copy of an email to him dated
13 November 2019, to which these regulations were purportedly attached.
30. The club also claims to have made the following payments to the player, which the latter
failed to mention:
- On 26 August 2019, EUR 500,000 paid in cash, providing as evidence a receipt dated 26.08.2019
allegedly signed by the player;
- On 12 September 2019, EUR 50,000 transferred to the player’s bank account with HSBC Bank
Middle East.
- On 12 September 2019, EUR 300,000 transferred to the player’s Brazilian bank account with
Banco Ourinvest.
- On 30 September 2019, EUR 265,000 paid as salary to the player’s Brazilian bank account with
Banco Ourinvest.
31. The club also clarified that the player was not injured at the time the termination agreement
was signed, but “rather unfit and requiring a few weeks to achieve competition form”.
32. Finally, the club mentioned that the player just ignored several documents signed by him and
presented in the club’s reply, in which he acknowledged he would bear the costs of his
treatment or having received his remuneration, and did not deny having signed them.
33. Based on the foregoing, the club insisted on its original request for relief.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9317
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 17 February 2023 and
submitted for decision on 7 July 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
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 is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from Brazil
and a club from the United Arab Emirates.
3.
The Chamber also took note of the fact that the parties were in disagreement as to the
admissibility of the claim. In particular, it recalled that the club had argued that the player’s
claim for remuneration falling due prior to 17 February 2021 should not be heard, as they
fall outside the date of prescription. Equally, the Chamber observed the rebuttal of the
player, who argued that the purported debt had been acknowledged as a result of the
termination agreement.
4.
The Chamber subsequently revisited the wording of the termination agreement, which
stipulated as follows:
“Whereas the player is entitled under the contract to collect, from 01 February 2021 until 17 July
2021, the net amount of EUR 1,250,000 in concept of salaries.
(…)
As final compensation for the termination of the contract, the parties hereby acknowledge that
as compensation for the early termination of the contract, the club shall pay to the player, upon
transfer to his Brazilian account a settlement amount corresponding to one instalment of
EUR 200,000 (…), payable as per clause 5 below.”
5.
In respect of the above, the Chamber wished to point out that whilst the Agreement
specified the total amount due to the player between 1 February 2021 and the contractual
expiration date, and the compensation payable in consideration of the premature
departure from the Contract, no outstanding amount due to the player had been specified.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9317
6.
Thus, the Chamber firstly considered that no part of the termination agreement could be
considered a novation or acknowledgement of an alleged debt owed to the player, and
that, by way of consequence, any amounts claimed by the player, falling due prior to
17 February 2021, should be held as prescribed.
7.
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 17 February 2023, the October 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
8.
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
9.
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
10. 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 validity of the
termination agreement, and the consequent obligation to remit any amounts under the
concepts of outstanding remuneration and compensation.
11. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
termination agreement was validly concluded, or whether, by way of consequence, the
contract had been terminated with or without just cause.
12. In this respect, the Chamber revisited the arguments submitted by the parties, beginning
with the player, who argued that the club terminated the contract without just cause (by
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9317
means of the termination agreement), forcing him to sign such document while he was
injured and owed outstanding remuneration. The Chamber noted that, although the player
admits to having signed the termination agreement of 17 February 2023, he deems that
his consent was flawed and the agreement should thus be considered null and void.
13. On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the club’s line of argument, who requested
for the termination agreement to be upheld. The Chamber particularly observed that the
club pointed to the lack of evidence submitted as to any duress or deceit during the
signature of the termination agreement. Equally, the Chamber took note of the
argumentation that the player had been in breach of the Contract, and that the club,
contrarily, had always complied with the terms thereof, as well as the termination
agreement, remitting the amount thereunder. In conclusion, the club argued that, by
signing the termination agreement, it did the player a favour, as it would have had just
cause to terminate the Contract unilaterally.
14. Before analysing the submissions of the parties, the Chamber recalled the wording of
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which a party that asserts a certain
fact bears the burden of proving its veracity.
15. Having established the above, the Chamber took particular note of the fact that the player
indeed acknowledged having signed the termination agreement, whilst providing no
evidence that he was in any manner deceived by the club, and forced to sign a document
with a different content than originally agreed upon. Furthermore, the Chamber observed
that, the player provided no evidence of any agreement, in principle or in practice,
stipulating payment of EUR 1,000,000, having been concluded by the parties. On the
contrary, the Chamber deemed that, with his claim, the player appeared to be attempting
to reverse the signature of a binding legal document without previous and careful analysis
of its content upon its signature.
16. The Chamber further wished to refer to its own longstanding jurisprudence in laying down
that a contractual party signing a document of legal significance, as a general rule, does so
on its own responsibility and is liable to bear the legal consequences of such signature.
17. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to overturn the validity of the termination
agreement, the Chamber firstly held that said agreement would be upheld, and considered
valid and binding.
18. Equally, the Chamber wished to point out that the termination agreement did not
represent a waiver of past salaries for services already performed, but rather a freely
negotiated agreement to mutually terminate an employment relationship against a
payment towards the player of EUR 200,000. Said conclusion was particularly supported by
the fact that the player failed to address or deny the breaches of contract the club accused
him of.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9317
19. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the termination agreement was the basis
of the present claim, superseded any other contract previously concluded between the
parties, and was freely negotiated by the parties and duly executed by the club, with such
execution ultimately remaining uncontested by the player.
20. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the player’s claim, insofar as it is admissible.
d. Costs
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9317
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Leonardo da Silva de Sousa, is rejected insofar as it is admissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-9317
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