FIFA - Decisión disputa Ribeiro 30062023 (1)

REF FPSD-10575

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 30 June 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Renan Ribeiro BY: Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson

CLAIMANT:

Renan Ribeiro, Brazil

RESPONDENT:

Al Ahli, Saudi Arabia Page 2

REF FPSD-10575

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 August 2022, the Brazilian player Renan Ribeiro (hereinafter the Claimant or the Player) and the Saudi club, Al Ahli Saudi SC (hereinafter the Club) signed the Employment Contract for Professional Football Player (hereinafter the Contract), valid as from 1 August 2022 to 30 May 2023.

2. According to Section 5 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to receive the following: - EUR 80,000 as monthly salary, net and payable at the end of each month (10 instalments); - EUR 400,000 as “signing fees”, payable on 1 August 2022. - EUR 300,000, in case the club is promoted to the MBS league.

3. On 8 September 2022, the Club unilaterally terminated the contract of the Player.

4. On 29 September 2022, the Player lodged a first claim (FPSD-7686) before FIFA for breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the following amounts: - EUR 80,000 as overdue payables until 8 September 2022; - EUR 720,000, as compensation for wrongful termination, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract; - EUR 300,000, as contractual bonus, in the event the Club is promoted to MBS League for the 2023/2024 season;

5. Following the relevant proceedings, on 1 February 2023, the Dispute Resolution Chamber

(DRC) decided the following: “2.The Respondent, Al Ahli, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:

• EUR 80,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2022 until the date of effective payment; - EUR 720,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 September 2022 until the date of effective payment.”

Page 3

REF FPSD-10575

II. Proceedings before FIFA

6. On 14 June 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA and requested the payment of EUR 300,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 May 2023, corresponding to the bonus established in section 5 of the Contract, given that the Respondent “the sole condition for triggering the payment of the bonus was met, i.e., getting promoted to the Super

League.”

7. The Claimant considered that, in its decision of 1 February 2023, that the DRC “deemed premature to analyze the Player’s request for 300,000€ in concept of bonus that would become due if the Club achieved promotion to the MBS League for the 2023/2024 season.”

Page 4

REF FPSD-10575

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

1. First of all, the Chairperson of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter the Chairperson) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.

2. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 14 June 2023 and submitted for a preliminary decision on 30 June 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.

3. The Chairperson confirmed that, in accordance with art. 19 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural

Rules, he is competent to decide, in an expedited manner, whether the case at stake is affected by any preliminary procedural matter (i.e. if the Football Tribunal obviously does not have jurisdiction or if the claim is obviously time-barred). Likewise, the Chairperson highlighted that, in case the claim is not affected by any preliminary procedural matters, the FIFA general secretariat would be ordered to continue the procedure (cf. art. 19 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).

4. Subsequently, the Chairperson 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. 1lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would – in principle – be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player and a Saudi club.

b. Admissibility

5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairperson noted that an issue regarding the admissibility of the present claim was identified by FIFA ex officio.

6. In particular, the Chairperson noted that a dispute between the parties concerning the same contractual relationship had already been decided upon by the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 1 February 2023 and that, as a result, the matter may potentially be affected by res iudicata.

7. In view of the above, the Chairperson held that he had to establish whether he could enter the substance of the matter and pass a decision, considering the general principle of res judicata. Accordingly, the Chairperson deemed it appropriate to briefly recall that, on the

Page 5 REF FPSD-10575 basis of the principle of res judicata, a decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case in the event that another – competent – deciding body has already dealt with the same matter by passing a final and binding decision.

8. Furthermore, the Chairperson underlined that the principle of res judicata is applicable if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the matter in dispute are identical. In this respect, he recalled that the criterion of the identity of the parties is given if the parties to the disputes are the same. Having said this, the Chairperson noted that both the Claimant and the Respondent were the parties in the proceedings leading to the decision previously rendered as well as in the dispute at stake.

As a consequence, considering that the parties to both disputes are the same, the Chairperson came to the conclusion that the condition of the identity of parties is fulfilled.

9. The Chairperson then turned his attention to the criterion of the object of the matter in dispute. In this respect, started by acknowledging that the identity of the object is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant requests of the two claims are similar.

10. Upon comparing the previous claim lodged with the DRC and the present one, the Chairperson noted that both stemmed from the same contract and involved a request for a bonus amounting to EUR 300,000, payable if the club were promoted to the MBS league.

While the previous claim encompassed a broader claim for breach of contract, the present claim solely focused on ““EUR 300,000, as contractual bonus, in the event the Club is promoted to MBS League for the 2023/2024 season”

11. Significantly, the Chairperson highlighted that the contractual relationship between the parties had been terminated on 8 September 2022. Consequently, any amount contractually due after that date could not be considered as outstanding. Instead, it could only be regarded as a potential compensation that may be awarded to the player, in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations. Indeed, the Chairperson recalled the contents of said article, which establishes the principles for the calculation of the party in breach shall pay compensation, according to which, unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for the breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the

law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport, and any other objective criteria. The Chairperson remembered that, accordingly, said criteria shall include, 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, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period.

12. The Chairperson verified that in the previous case (FPSD-7686), the player was awarded EUR 720,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, in line with the criteria outlined in Article 17 of the Regulations. This amount fundamentally

Page 6 REF FPSD-10575 represented the residual value of the contract for the period from September 2022 until 30 May 2023, calculated as EUR 80,000 per month for nine months.

13. Based on the foregoing, the Chairperson emphasized that the player's request for a promotion bonus did not constitute a claim for outstanding remuneration. Instead, it effectively served as a demand to increase the already awarded compensation from the previous decision.

14. In this respect, the Chairperson underlined that, in the previous matter, the DRC already granted compensation for breach of contract without just cause in conformity with the criteria outlined in art. 17 of the Regulations.

15. In the present case, while the Claimant seeks a specific bonus amount, the Chairperson noted this bonus is only a part of the potential compensation that may be awarded. The DRC has the authority to consider all relevant factors and exercise its discretionary powers in determining the appropriate compensation amount, in line with the principles outlined in art. 17 of the Regulations. Therefore, the claimed bonus cannot be presumed as a guaranteed or automatic entitlement, but rather as one component among various factors that the DRC will consider in its deliberations. Therefore, the mere existence of a

contractual bonus does not mandate its inclusion in the compensation awarded by the DRC.

16. The Chairperson further noted that none of the parties requested the grounds of the previous decision, thereby implying it became final and binding.

17. Therefore, the Chairperson was of the opinion that, should the player have disagreed with the amount of the payable compensation, he should have followed the appropriate legal remedies (including a possible appeal). Yet, by lodging a new claim by means of which he requested an additional amount to be added to the payable compensation, the Chairperson understood that, de facto, the Claimant is intending to appeal the previous decision, without using the prescribed legal remedies and channels.

18. In this respect, the Chairperson further underlined that it is not in a position to review a previous decision of the DRC that became final and binding.

19. Therefore, as the DRC has already dealt with the same matter, passing a final and binding decision, the present case is affected by res iudicata and FIFA is not in a position to deal again with the substance of the dispute. The Chairperson highlighted that res judicata prevents to reopen issues that have already been conclusively determined, ensuring that parties cannot repeatedly bring forward the same claims or seek additional remedies without following the prescribed legal procedures.

20. As a result, the Chairperson could only establish that the present claim is inadmissible.

Page 7

REF FPSD-10575

c. Costs

21. The Chairperson 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 Chairperson decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the Claimant.

Page 8

REF FPSD-10575

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Renan Ribeiro, is inadmissible.

2. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer Page 9

REF FPSD-10575

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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 Page 10