TAS - CAS 2025 A-11508 Jefferson Tavares da Silva v. Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann & FIFA
Tribunal de Arbitraje Deportivo
Descargar PDF
Disponible
Detalles
- Título
- TAS - CAS 2025 A-11508 Jefferson Tavares da Silva v. Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann & FIFA
- Autor
- Tribunal de Arbitraje Deportivo
- Categoría
- Jurisprudencia
- Área del derecho
- Deporte
- Año
- 2025
CAS 2025/A/11508 Jefferson Tavares da Silva v. Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann & FIFA
ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the
COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
sitting in the following composition:
Sole Arbitrator: Mr. Marco Leal, Attorney-at-Law, Miami, FL, United States of America
In the arbitration between:
Jefferson Tavares da Silva Represented by Mr. Filipe Orsolini Pinto de Souza and Ms. Talita Novaes, Attorneys-at-Law, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
-Appellantand
Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann, Bolivia Represented by Mr. Enric Ripoll González, Attorney-at-Law, Miami, FL, United States of America
-First Respondentand Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Switzerland Represented by Rodrigo Morais, Senior Legal Counsel, FIFA Litigation Department, Miami, FL, United States of America
-Second Respondent-CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 2
I. THE PARTIES
1. Mr. Jefferson Tavares da Silva (hereinafter, the “Appellant” or the “Player”) is a professional football player holding dual Brazilian and Bolivian nationality.
2. Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann (hereinafter, the “First Respondent” or the “Club”) is a professional football club with seat in Cochabamba, Bolivia, affiliated to the Bolivian Football Federation (the “FBF”).
3. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (hereinafter, “FIFA” or the “Second Respondent”) is the international governing body of football, with its seat in Zurich,
Switzerland.
4. The Appellant, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent are hereinafter collectively
3. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (hereinafter, “FIFA” or the “Second Respondent”) is the international governing body of football, with its seat in Zurich,
Switzerland.
4. The Appellant, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. The elements set out below are a summary of the main relevant facts as established by the Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the decision rendered by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “DRC”) on 3 April 2025 (the “Appealed Decision”), the written submissions of the Parties, and the exhibits filed in the present proceedings. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in the legal considerations of this Award.
6. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties, he refers in this Award only to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain his reasoning.
7. On 8 January 2024, the Appellant and the First Respondent entered into an employment relationship valid until 31 December 2025 (the “Employment Relationship”).
8. In the context of such Employment Relationship, two contractual instruments were executed between the Appellant and the First Respondent, both dated 8 January 2024.
9. A first contract, submitted for registration before the FBF (the “Registered Contract”), identified the Appellant by reference to his Bolivian identity document and was executed in accordance with the standard form required for the registration of players within the FBF system.
10. A second contractual document (the “Private Contract”), also dated 8 January 2024, identified the Appellant by reference to his Brazilian passport. However, such document expressly referred to the Appellant as a “naturalized Bolivian”.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 3
11. The Sole Arbitrator notes that both the Registered Contract and the Private Contract
identified the Appellant by reference to his Brazilian passport. However, such document expressly referred to the Appellant as a “naturalized Bolivian”.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 3
11. The Sole Arbitrator notes that both the Registered Contract and the Private Contract governed the same employment relationship and covered the same period of time, while providing for the same overall remuneration.
12. On 19 February 2024, the Appellant was registered with the FBF through the COMET system. According to the documentation on record, and as confirmed by the FBF, the Appellant was registered as a Bolivian player, being identified by means of his Bolivian identity document, and participated in official competitions under such status during the 2024 seaso n. In this respect, the FBF further certified that the Appellant occupied a Bolivian player slot and was never considered a foreign player in any official competition.
13. On 1 December 2024, the Appellant put the First Respondent in default, alleging outstanding remuneration.
14. On 17 December 2024, the Appellant terminated the Employment Relationship and, on the same date, lodged a claim before the DRC seeking outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
15. In the proceedings before FIFA, the First Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the DRC, arguing that the dispute lacked an international dimension, in light of the Appellant’s registration with the FBF as a Bolivian player.
16. During such proceedings, the FBF provided information and documentation confirming, inter alia, that the Appellant had been registered as a Bolivian player on the basis of his Bolivian identity documents.
17. On 3 April 2025, the DRC rendered the Appealed Decision, by means of which it declared that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
18. In particular, the DRC held, inter alia, as follows (paras. 24–28 of the Appealed Decision):
17. On 3 April 2025, the DRC rendered the Appealed Decision, by means of which it declared that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
18. In particular, the DRC held, inter alia, as follows (paras. 24–28 of the Appealed Decision):
“[…] FIFA is only competent to hear an employment-related dispute […] when the parties have different nationalities”.
“[…] in cases where a player has dual citizenship, his registration is a determining factor when assessing if the international dimension of the dispute is given”.
“[…] the Claimant was registered and verified in the COMET system as a Bolivian player”.
“[…] the Claimant occupied a Bolivian player slot and was never considered a foreign player in any official competition”.
“[…] the player was registered under the same nationality as the club and therefore the present claim lacks international dimension and is inadmissible”.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 4
19. The operative part of the Appealed Decision reads as follows: “1. The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant,
Jefferson Tavares da Silva.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.”
20. On 16 May 2025, the grounds of the Appealed Decision were notified to the Parties.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CAS
21. On 6 June 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal before CAS against the Appealed Decision, in accordance with Articles R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”).
22. On 16 June 2025, the Appellant filed his Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of
the CAS Code.
23. In his Statement of Appeal, the Appellant requested that the matter be decided by a Sole Arbitrator. By letter dated 29 September 2025, the Second Respondent agreed to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The First Respondent did not express any position on the
the CAS Code.
23. In his Statement of Appeal, the Appellant requested that the matter be decided by a Sole Arbitrator. By letter dated 29 September 2025, the Second Respondent agreed to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The First Respondent did not express any position on the number of arbitrators within the prescribed time limit.
24. On 30 October 2025, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent each filed their respective Answers in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code.
25. On 31 October 2025, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to indicate whether they preferred a hearing to be held or whether the matter could be decided on the basis of the written submissions. On the same date, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that, in light of their positions regarding the number of arbitrators, the present dispute would be submitted to a Sole Arbitrator in accordance with Article R54 of the CAS Code. The Sole Arbitrator appointed to decide the present matter was:
Sole Arbitrator: Mr. Marco Leal, Attorney-at-Law in Miami, FL, USA.
26. Between 31 October and 8 November 2025, the Parties informed the CAS Court Office of their respective positions regarding the holding of a hearing. In particular, on 31 October 2025, the Second Respondent indicated that it did not consider a hearing or a c ase management conference necessary and requested that the award be rendered solely on the basis of the written submissions; on 7 November 2025, the Appellant stated that he considered a hearing necessary; and on 8 November 2025, the First Respondent confirmed that it agreed with the Second Respondent’s position and did not deem a hearing necessary.
27. On 3 December 2025, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, invited the Parties to provide further clarification in relation to the contractual documentation on record.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 5
27. On 3 December 2025, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, invited the Parties to provide further clarification in relation to the contractual documentation on record.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 5
28. On 12 December 2025, the Appellant submitted his comments and clarifications in response to the Sole Arbitrator’s request of 3 December 2025. On 8 January 2026, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent submitted their respective comments and clarifications.
29. On 15 January 2026, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties, on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, that, after reviewing the file and considering the Parties’ respective positions regarding the holding of a hearing, pursuant to Article R57 of the CAS Code, t he Sole Arbitrator deemed himself sufficiently well-informed to decide the case solely on the basis of the Parties’ written submissions and without the need to hold a hearing.
30. On 15 January 2026, the CAS Court Office issued the Order of Procedure.
31. Finally, on 19 January 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Order of Procedure duly signed by the Second Respondent; on 20 January 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Orders of Procedure duly signed by the Appellant and
the First Respondent.
IV. THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF AND POSITIONS
THE APPELLANT
A. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
32. In his Appeal Brief, the Appellant requests CAS to:
“[…] the Appellant request for relief is the CAS to set aside the decision issued by the FIFA Football Tribunal in its entirety, to recognize that the FIFA Football Tribunal has jurisdiction over the case and then to refer the case back to it for a decision on the merits, and to order the First Respondent to pay the cost of arbitration, including legal costs and other expenses.
FIFA Football Tribunal in its entirety, to recognize that the FIFA Football Tribunal has jurisdiction over the case and then to refer the case back to it for a decision on the merits, and to order the First Respondent to pay the cost of arbitration, including legal costs and other expenses.
Alternatively, if the CAS understands that also the merits shall be decided, the Appellant’s request for relief is the following:
a) to uphold the appeal and declare that the Employment Contract signed by and between the parties was terminated with just cause for outstanding salaries on 17 December 2024, according to article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP;
b) to uphold the appeal and order the First Respondent Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann (Bolivia) to pay the Appellant the outstanding salaries in the net amount of USD 58,050 (fifty-eight thousand and fifty American Dollars), plus interests of 5% p.a. as fro m the due date of each payment;CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 6
c) to uphold the appeal and order the First Respondent Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann (Bolivia) to pay the Appellant a compensation equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated in the total net amount of USD 119,000 (one hundr ed and nineteen thousand American Dollars), plus interests of 5% p.a. as from 17 December 2024;
d) to uphold the appeal and order the First Respondent Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann (Bolivia) to pay to the Appellant an additional compensation in the total net amount of USD 27,000 (twenty-nine thousand American Dollars), plus interests of 5% p.a. as from 16 December 2024;
e) to uphold the appeal and sanction the First Respondent Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann (Bolivia) in accordance with article 17.4 of FIFA RSTP;
f) to uphold the appeal and include the consequences of the failure to pay the relevant
16 December 2024;
e) to uphold the appeal and sanction the First Respondent Club Deportivo Jorge Wilstermann (Bolivia) in accordance with article 17.4 of FIFA RSTP;
f) to uphold the appeal and include the consequences of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time, pursuant article 24 of the FIFA RSTP.
g) to order the First Respondent to pay the cost of arbitration, including legal costs and other expenses.”
33. In his additional comments submitted on 12 December 2025, the Appellant further requests
CAS to:
“a) the recognition of the full validity of the contract executed by the Appellant in his capacity as a Brazilian player (first contract);
b) a declaration that the contract in which the Appellant is described as a Bolivian national (second contract) has no legal validity, as it was of a merely formal nature and produced exclusively for registration purposes before the Bolivian Football Feder ation, without corresponding to the actual contractual arrangement between the parties;
c) the recognition that all contractual obligations must be assessed exclusively based on the contract executed in the Appellant’s capacity as a Brazilian player (first contract);
d) the exclusion, for the purposes of the decision, of any documents submitted by the Respondent indicating the Appellant as a Bolivian player (second contract), as such documents were produced only after the relevant facts and bear no relation to the original contractual agreement;
e) the Respondent fully comply with all obligations established in the valid contract, including any outstanding payments or applicable penalties;CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 7
f) the recognition that the late registration before the Bolivian Football Federation does not alter the legal nature of the contractual relationship originally concluded, and that the Appellant’s qualification as a Brazilian player must prevail.”
B. POSITION
34. The Appellant submits that the Appealed Decision should be set aside, as the DRC incorrectly declined jurisdiction over the dispute.
not alter the legal nature of the contractual relationship originally concluded, and that the Appellant’s qualification as a Brazilian player must prevail.”
B. POSITION
34. The Appellant submits that the Appealed Decision should be set aside, as the DRC incorrectly declined jurisdiction over the dispute.
35. According to the Appellant, the present matter has an international dimension within the meaning of Article 22 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (the “RSTP”), and FIFA was therefore competent to hear the claim.
36. The Appellant emphasizes that he holds Brazilian nationality by birth and submits that such nationality must be taken into account when determining the existence of an international dimension.
37. In this respect, the Appellant argues that the DRC erred in treating his registration with the FBF as the decisive factor and in disregarding the broader factual and legal context of the case.
38. In particular, the Appellant submits that, according to FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, the assessment of the international dimension cannot be based solely on the player’s registration, but must also take into account the contractual relationship between the parties and the player’s nationality for the purpose of football.
39. In this regard, the Appellant further relies on the Commentary to the RSTP, submitting that it is necessary to establish, first, under which nationality a player signs the contract, and subsequently under which nationality he is registered with the club, and that both elements must be assessed together when determining the existence of an international dimension.
40. The Appellant argues that the DRC failed to consider such elements and instead relied exclusively on his registration status within the FBF and the COMET system.
41. The Appellant further contends that the contractual relationship between the Parties was, in substance, concluded on the basis of his Brazilian nationality and not on any purely domestic Bolivian status.
42. In this respect, the Appellant relies on the contractual documentation executed between the Appellant and the First Respondent, noting that the contract concluded in his capacity as a
in substance, concluded on the basis of his Brazilian nationality and not on any purely domestic Bolivian status.
42. In this respect, the Appellant relies on the contractual documentation executed between the Appellant and the First Respondent, noting that the contract concluded in his capacity as a Brazilian player identified him by reference to his Brazilian passport and reflected the true agreement between the Appellant and the First Respondent.
43. The Appellant acknowledges that another contractual document referred to him as a “naturalized Bolivian”, but submits that such document does not reflect the reality of the employment relationship and was executed solely for registration purposes.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 8
44. According to the Appellant, the existence of two contractual instruments must be assessed in light of the factual chronology in which they were executed.
45. In this regard, the Appellant submits that a “pre-contract” had been agreed prior to his arrival in Bolivia, reflecting the terms later incorporated into the contract concluded in his capacity as a Brazilian player.
46. The Appellant further explains that such “pre -contract” was signed only by him and had been sent to him before his arrival in Bolivia, at a time when the Appellant and the First Respondent had already agreed on the essential terms of the employment relationship.
47. The Appellant also refers to the sequence of events surrounding his arrival in Bolivia, emphasizing that he travelled to Bolivia on 9 January 2024 and that the contractual arrangements identifying him as a Brazilian player were only executed after his arrival.
48. According to the Appellant, the documentation required for his registration as a Bolivian player was requested by the First Respondent only after the conclusion of the employment agreement, as evidenced by communications exchanged between the Parties.
49. In this context, the Appellant further submits that his registration as a Bolivian player was carried out unilaterally by the First Respondent and without his full knowledge or informed
agreement, as evidenced by communications exchanged between the Parties.
49. In this context, the Appellant further submits that his registration as a Bolivian player was carried out unilaterally by the First Respondent and without his full knowledge or informed consent, and that he was not aware, at the relevant time, of the impli cations of such registration.
50. The Appellant also relies on documentary evidence, including travel documents and electronic communications, to demonstrate that the registration process took place after the employment relationship had already been agreed and formalized.
51. In addition, the Appellant submits that the contractual documentation referring to him as a Bolivian player contains inconsistencies and differences, including with respect to remuneration structure, termination clauses, and dispute resolution provisions, which, in his view, undermine the credibility of such documentation.
52. On that basis, the Appellant maintains that the DRC gave excessive and determinative weight to federative registration, while failing properly to consider the contractual documentation, the player’s nationality, and the factual sequence of events.
53. Accordingly, the Appellant requests that the Appealed Decision be set aside, that FIFA’s jurisdiction be recognized, and that the matter be referred back to the DRC for a decision on the merits.
54. In the alternative, the Appellant requests that CAS decide the dispute on the merits.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 9
THE FIRST RESPONDENT
A. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
55. In its Answer, the First Respondent requests CAS to:
“1. Dismiss the appeal in its entirety and uphold the decision of the FIFA Football Tribunal dated April 3, 2025, which correctly determined that FIFA lacks jurisdiction over this dispute due to the absence of international dimension.
2. Confirm that the dispute lacks international dimension as both the Player and the club are registered with the same national association (FBF) and the Player was registered and played as a Bolivian national.
over this dispute due to the absence of international dimension.
2. Confirm that the dispute lacks international dimension as both the Player and the club are registered with the same national association (FBF) and the Player was registered and played as a Bolivian national.
3. Confirm that the competent jurisdiction to hear this dispute is the Dispute Resolution Tribunal (TRD) of the FBF, in accordance with Article 22.1.b of the RSTP and the parties' express agreement.
4. Order the Appellant to pay all costs of arbitration, including the Respondent's legal fees and expenses.
5. Award the Respondent the sum of USD 10,000 (ten thousand United States Dollars) or such amount as this Tribunal deems fair and reasonable, as compensation for legal fees incurred in defending against this appeal.
6. Subsidiarily, and only in the event that this Tribunal does not accept the objection to jurisdiction, the Respondent reserves its right to develop its arguments on the merits at the appropriate procedural stage, without this response implying any waiver of the material defense of its rights.”
56. In its additional comments submitted on 8 January 2026, the First Respondent further requests CAS to: “1. Dismiss the appeal in its entirety and uphold the decision of the FIFA Football Tribunal dated April 3, 2025, which correctly determined that FIFA lacks jurisdiction over this dispute due to the absence of international dimension. Dismiss the appeal in its entirety;
2. Confirm the decision of the FIFA Tribunal of 17 October 2024, including its finding of lack of jurisdiction;
3. Declare that the present dispute is of a purely domestic nature and that no international dimension exists;CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 10
4. Reject and exclude from the record the document newly submitted by the Appellant (the alleged “pre-contract”), as it was introduced out of time and without any exceptional justification;
dimension exists;CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 10
4. Reject and exclude from the record the document newly submitted by the Appellant (the alleged “pre-contract”), as it was introduced out of time and without any exceptional justification;
5. Order that the Appellant bear all costs of the arbitration, including a contribution toward the Respondent’s legal fees and expenses.”
B. POSITION
57. The First Respondent submits that the Appealed Decision is correct and should be upheld, as the dispute does not present an international dimension within the meaning of Article 22 of the RSTP.
58. In this respect, the First Respondent emphasizes that both the Appellant and the Club are registered with the FBF and that, for the entirety of the relevant period, the Appellant was registered and competed as a Bolivian player.
59. According to the First Respondent, the decisive criterion for determining the existence of an international dimension is the nationality under which the player is registered with the relevant national association, rather than the mere possession of multiple nationalities.
60. The First Respondent submits that the Appellant was duly registered in the FBF’s COMET system as a Bolivian player and, throughout the 2024 season, occupied a Bolivian player slot and was never considered a foreign player in any official competition.
61. The First Respondent further contends that the Appellant benefited from such registration, in particular by avoiding the regulatory limitations applicable to foreign players.
62. In this regard, the First Respondent argues that the Appellant cannot rely on his dual nationality to challenge the consequences of a registration status from which he derived sporting and regulatory advantages.
63. The First Respondent also relies on FIFA regulations and CAS jurisprudence, submitting that it is not the mere possession of a foreign passport that determines the international nature of a dispute, but rather the sporting nationality effectively used by t he player in the context of the employment relationship.
63. The First Respondent also relies on FIFA regulations and CAS jurisprudence, submitting that it is not the mere possession of a foreign passport that determines the international nature of a dispute, but rather the sporting nationality effectively used by t he player in the context of the employment relationship.
64. The First Respondent further refers to the Commentary to the RSTP, submitting that it requires consistency between the nationality under which a player signs a contract and the nationality under which he is registered, and that the decisive element is ultimately the player’s nationality for the purpose of football.
65. According to the First Respondent, in the present case, both elements converge, as the Appellant was registered and competed as a Bolivian player.
66. The First Respondent rejects the Appellant’s argument that the contractual documentation supports the existence of an international dimension.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 11
67. In particular, the First Respondent submits that the official contract registered with the FBF
(the Registered Contract) constitutes the primary instrument for determining the Appellant’s regulatory status, as it governs registration, eligibility, and part icipation in official competitions.
68. The First Respondent further explains that, under Bolivian football regulations, the execution of both a standard federation contract (“Contrato Único”) and a complementary annex is mandatory, and that both instruments were duly executed and form part of a single contractual framework.
69. According to the First Respondent, any alleged differences between these documents are the result of the structural limitations of the standard federation form and do not create any inconsistency or contradiction between them.
70. The First Respondent further emphasizes that both contractual instruments contain references to the Appellant’s Bolivian status, including identification as Bolivian and/or as a “naturalized Bolivian”, which, under Bolivian law, constitutes the same legal and sporting status.
71. The First Respondent objects to the introduction, at a late stage of the proceedings, of an
references to the Appellant’s Bolivian status, including identification as Bolivian and/or as a “naturalized Bolivian”, which, under Bolivian law, constitutes the same legal and sporting status.
71. The First Respondent objects to the introduction, at a late stage of the proceedings, of an alleged “pre-contract” submitted by the Appellant.
72. In this respect, the First Respondent submits that such document was never produced during the proceedings before FIFA and was not referenced in the Appeal Brief, and therefore constitutes inadmissible new evidence.
73. The First Respondent further argues that the alleged “pre -contract” is not a binding agreement, but merely an unsigned draft document, lacking the Club’s signature and therefore devoid of any probative value.
74. According to the First Respondent, even if such document were to be admitted, it would have been superseded by the final employment contracts duly executed and registered with the FBF, which constitute the only binding instruments governing the relationship between the Parties.
75. The First Respondent rejects the Appellant’s allegation that his registration as a Bolivian player was carried out unilaterally and without his knowledge.
76. In this regard, the First Respondent submits that the Appellant voluntarily acquired Bolivian nationality and provided his Bolivian identity documentation for the purposes of his registration as a Bolivian player.
77. The First Respondent further submits that the Appellant was aware of the purpose for which such documentation was used, as evidenced by the exchanges between the Parties.CAS 2025/A/11508
P. 12
78. The First Respondent also refers to public statements made by the Appellant, including media interviews, in which he acknowledged his naturalization and the sporting benefits associated with being registered as a Bolivian player.
79. According to the First Respondent, such elements demonstrate that the Appellant was fully aware of, and accepted, his status as a Bolivian player.
media interviews, in which he acknowledged his naturalization and the sporting benefits associated with being registered as a Bolivian player.
