Sport Clube União Torrense Futebol v. Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts selected by the Sole Arbitrator after thorough review and consideration of the Parties’ written and oral submissions and adduced evidence in their entirety. This background information is given for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the discussion of law and merits that follows.

A. The Contract

4. On 9 July 2024, the Parties signed a sports employment contract, starting on 10 July 2024 and ending on 30 June 2026 (the “Contract”).

5. The Contract included, inter alia, the following clauses relevant for the present dispute:

Clause 2 “a) SCUT SAD shall pay the Player for the services set out in clause 1 and during the term shown in clause 3 net monthly amount of:

a. 2024/2025 Sports Season: €4,200.00 (four thousand two hundred euros) which will be paid in 12 (twelve) equal instalments, the first on the last day of July 2024 and the remaining 11 (eleven) on the same day of the following months;

b. 2025/2026 Sports Season: €4,600.00 (four thousand six hundred euros) which will be paid in 12 (twelve) equal instalments, the first on the last day of July 2025 and the remaining 11 (eleven) on the same day of the following months or, in the event that SCUT SAD disputes the LIGA's remuneration for this season will be €5,850.00 (five thousand eight hundred and fifty euros), which will be paid in 12 (twelve) equal instalments, the first on the last day of July 2025 and the remaining 11 (eleven) on the same day of the following months;

b) The PLAYER shall be entitled to a period of paid holiday under the legal terms, in accordance with the duration of the contract, and the corresponding proportional holiday and Christmas bonuses, which are included and accounted for in the value of the benefits defined above.

c) The PLAYER will also be entitled to a rent subsidy of €500.00 (five hundred euros) for the duration of the employment contract, which will be paid under the same terms as the remuneration mentioned above, as well as being entitled to 2 (two) return tickets (Portugal-Brazil) per season.

d) The PLAYER shall be entitled to net performance bonuses in the event of verification of the following assumptions:

a. €10,000.00 (ten thousand euros) in the event that SCUT SAD achieves promotion to the I Liga (professional league organised by the Portuguese Professional Football League).

b. €10,000.00 (ten thousand euros) if SCUT SAD manages to stay in the I Liga (professional championship organised by the Portuguese Professional Football League).”

Clause 3 “Without prejudice to clause 17, this contract shall commence on 10 July 2024, and end on 30 June 2026.”

Clause 8 “1. Without prejudice to the provisions of clause 17, if one of the parties terminates this contract claiming just cause, the existence of which has not yet been recognised, it shall be obliged to compensate the other party for the damage caused by the unlawful conduct, fixing the amount of compensation to be paid, which shall be as follows:

a) In the event that SCUT SAD terminates the contract unlawfully, it is obliged to pay the Player compensation corresponding to the amount of remuneration due to the Player until the end of the contract.

b) In the event that the Player unilaterally terminates this Contract without just cause, he is obliged to pay SCUT SAD, by himself or through any Club or SAD, the sum of €10,000,000.00 (ten million euros) plus VAT at the legal rate

c) The parties recognise that the amount presented in the previous paragraph corresponds to the valuation of the Player's sporting participation rights freely made by the parties in this contract, without prejudice to compensation of a higher amount upon proof of higher damages suffered by SCUT SAD.

2. The Parties expressly declare that the amount indicated has been established after a thoughtful process of discussion and negotiation and that it has been freely agreed and accepted as fair, in the interest and safeguard of both, taking into account, among other aspects, the stability of the contractual relationship assumed between the Parties.”

Clause 11 “This instrument shall be governed by Portuguese law and, in the alternative, by the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Player (February 2024 Edition) and For all disputes arising out of or in connection with this contract, the FIFA Football Tribunal shall have jurisdiction, with recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS-CAS), based in Lausanne, with express waiver of any other. Before the TAS-CAS, the language of arbitration shall be English.”1

Clause 17 “1. The parties recognise that in the event that official competitions are cancelled and/or suspended during the term of this sports employment contract, the parties hereby agree that this employment contract shall terminate with the cancellation of the sports competitions scheduled for the sports seasons defined above or, alternatively, if sports competitions are suspended by decree of a state of emergency, this employment contract shall be suspended for the duration of the state of emergency and until the resumption of physical activity is authorised by decree of law.

2. The Sports Labour Contract hereby granted shall terminate if the suspension referred to in the paragraph. The suspension shall be suspended if it lasts for more than half of the term remaining on the date on which the suspension began.

3. In the event of the termination of this sports employment contract under the terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this clause, neither party shall have the right to claim any indemnity or compensation from the other party.”

The Sole Arbitrator notes that, in its original version in Portuguese, the Contract establishes as follows: “O presente instrumento será regido pela Lei Portuguesa e subsidiariamente pelo FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.” Consequently, the translation submitted by the Parties does not seem to be accurate, as “subsidiariamente” is translated as “in the alternative”.

B. The Player’s kidney disease and its consequences

6. On 19 July 2024, the Player was admitted into the Hospital de Santa Maria in Lisbon. On 21 July 2024, the Player was transferred to the Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation Service with a “probable nephrotic syndrome and acute kidney injury (it is not possible to exclude, at this time, a possible concomitant nephritic component) of cause to be clarified.”

7. In the hospital’s note of discharge dated 14 August 2024 to 25 August 2024, it was confirmed that the Player was undergoing daily dialysis and receiving corticosteroid treatments.

8. On 12 August 2024, the Player was released from the hospital.

9. On 12 and 13 August 2024, the Player and the Club’s doctor spoke to each other via WhatsApp about his health conditions, with the Player expressing his will to continue his treatment in Brazil.

10. On 14 August 2024, the Player was readmitted into the intensive care unit of Hospital de Santa Maria in Lisbon.

11. On 25 August 2024, the Player was discharged from Hospital de Santa Maria.

12. On 26 August 2024, the Player travelled from Portugal to Brazil.

13. On 31 August 2024, the Club summoned the Player to appear at the Club’s medical department on 1 September 2024 at 09:00 for clinical assessment.

14. On 4 September 2024, Ms. Ines Lopes, legal representative of the Player, sent an email to the Club informing that, “[a]fter multiple attempts to contact your Sporting Director” on 14 and 16 August 2024 to seek the Club’s “authorization and approval for the player's urgent and necessary trip to Brazil for a consultation with a specialist doctor”, the Sporting Director “did not acknowledge the situation, offer any assistance, or show any concern [but i]nstead, he stated that such matters were not within his responsibility and that he would provide us with the relevant contact information”. Ms. Lopes further stated that, in view of the lack of response and the Player’s “serious and unstable medical condition, which could require hemodialysis treatment and, ultimately, a kidney transplant”, the Player “departed for Brazil to consult with nephrology and kidney transplant specialists”. Finally, Ms. Lopes proposed to “discuss the player's options with you and hear your proposals regarding his current situation”.

15. On 18 September 2024, the Player was again hospitalized in the Clinical Hospital of Unicamp in São Paulo, “with no prospect of medical discharge”.

16. On 18 October 2024, the Player issued a formal notice of default (“Player’s Notice of Default”) to the Club requesting unpaid salaries and allowances, granting the “Club a full and final deadline of 15 (fifteen) days to remedy the breach of its contractual obligations and pay the total outstanding amount of EUR 11,321.91”, and stating that, alternatively, “the Player will have no other alternative but to terminate the Employment Contract with just cause, in accordance with Articles 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players”.

17. On 28 October 2024, the Club replied to such email by submitting to the Player its notice of default (“Club’s Notice of Default”), stating that:

The Player did not comply with his obligation of attendance under the Contract and that, as per the applicable law, the Club had the “right to deduct from the player’s remuneration the amount corresponding to the days in which he was absent from work without just cause”;

In view of the “supervening, absolute and definitive impossibility of the player to carry out his activity”, the Contract was terminated.

18. The Club had proposed to the Player to integrate the technical staff of the Club, and that such proposal had been rejected in view of the fact that the Player was “unable to travel to Portugal and needs to undergo constant treatment”.

19. Since 19 March 2025, the Player has been registered on the national kidney transplant waiting list.

C. Proceedings before the FIFA DRC

20. On 5 December 2024, the Player filed a Statement of Claim against the Club before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “FIFA DRC”).

21. On 15 May 2025, the FIFA DRC issued the decision appealed in this proceeding (the “Appealed Decision”). The Appealed Decision determined that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause.

22. In particular, the Appealed Decision provided as follows:

- “1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa, is partially accepted.

- 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, SCU Torreense, must pay to Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa the following amount(s):

- - EUR 15,067.92 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:

- - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,921,91 net as from 1 August 2024 until the date of effective payment;

- - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,298.01 net as from 1 September 2024 until the date of effective payment;

- - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,424 net as from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective payment; and

- - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,424 net as from 28 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.

- - EUR 98,800 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as from 28 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.

- 3. Any further claims of Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa are rejected.

- 4. The counterclaim of SCU Torreense is rejected.

- 5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

- 6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

- 1. SCU Torreense shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

- 2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

- 3. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Pedro Henrique Venaque Barbosa in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

- 4. This decision is rendered without costs.”

23. The grounds of the Appealed Decision were notified to the Parties on 24 June 2025.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

24. On 14 July 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) against the Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision, pursuant to Article R47 and R48 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 Edition) (the “CAS Code”). The Appellant requested to submit this matter to a Sole Arbitrator and the Respondent agreed to such a request.

25. On 14 August 2025, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief (the “Brief”).

26. On 1 September 2025, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Deputy President of the Appeals Arbitration Division, informed the Parties of the appointment of the sole arbitrator as follows (the “Sole Arbitrator”):

Sole Arbitrator: Mr. Hervé Le Lay, Attorney-at-law, Paris, France

27. On 28 November 2025, the Respondent submitted its Answer to the Brief (the “Answer”).

28. On 5 January 2026, after having consulted the Parties, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties of the Sole Arbitrator’s decision to hold a virtual hearing taking place on 8 April 2026.

29. On 6 February 2026, the CAS Court Office issued the Order of Procedure (the “OP”), which was duly signed by the Respondent on 10 February 2026 and by the Appellant on 23 February 2026.

30. On 8 April 2026, a hearing was held in Lausanne, Switzerland. Besides the Sole Arbitrator, who was assisted by Ms. Lia Yokomizo, Counsel of CAS, the following persons attended the hearing:

For the Appellant:

- Mr. Ricardo Magalhães Tavares, counsel;

- Ms. Rafaela Garça, counsel;

- Dr. Joao Fachana, expert witness on Portuguese Law;

- Dr. Daniel Meneses, witness;

- Mr. André Sabino, witness;

- Mr. Bruno Miguel, interpreter.

For the Respondent:

- Mr. Pedro Botelho, counsel;

- Mr. Nene Zini, witness;

- Ms. Larissa Benavides, interpreter.

31. Although called to appear by the Appellant at the hearing in its Appeal Brief as witness Mr. Andre Rodrigues Baptista, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Club, and as medical expert witness Dr. Diego Dias Ramos, they did not attend the hearing. Appellant had also requested the testimony of the Player. However, the Player is a party, not a witness and did not attend the hearing. Appellant did not make any comment in this regard.

32. At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant requested that the Player produce his full medical certificate. Although this request was framed as a reiteration of a prior request for document production, it is noted that no such request had been formally submitted in this arbitration prior to the hearing.

33. The Respondent opposed to such request and indicated that the Player had received a successful transplant. At the hearing, the Sole Arbitrator decided not to grant the request for document production. The decision was based on the need to balance the Respondent’s right to privacy against the relevance of the requested document. At the close of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objections as to the composition of the Panel or to the conduct of the proceedings. They further confirmed that their right to be heard had been fully respected.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

34. The following outline is a synthesis of the Parties’ arguments and submissions which the Sole Arbitrator deems relevant to decide the present dispute. Although this summary does not comprise each and every contention advanced by the Parties, and may not include explicit reference to all their arguments, the Sole Arbitrator has nonetheless carefully considered all the submissions made by them. The Parties’ written and oral submissions, documentary and witness evidence, and the content of the Appealed Decision were all taken into consideration.

A. The Appellant

35. In its Brief dated 14 August 2025, the Appellant filed the following prayers for relief :

“FIRST: To set aside the decision rendered by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA dated 15 May 2025.

SECOND: To declare that a material breach has occurred - due to a supervening, absolute, and definitive cause that renders the Player unable to perform his professional activity - and, consequently, that the termination of the employment contract by the Appellant, by expiry, was with just cause, with no compensation or outstanding remuneration being due to the Respondent.

THIRD: To confirm that, for this reason, the Club cannot be held liable for any compensation or outstanding remuneration to the Respondent, nor be subject to the imposition of sporting sanctions, in accordance with the applicable Portuguese law and Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

In addition,

FOURTH: To order the Player to pay to the Club €98.800,00 (ninety-eight thousand and eight hundred euros) net, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% annually as from 29 October 2024 until the date of effective payment, as compensation.

FIFTH: To order the Player to pay to the Club the total amount of €8.232,00 (eight thousand two hundred and thirty-two Euros) net, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% annually until the date of effective payment, as moral damages.

SIXTH: To order the Respondent to bear any costs incurred with the present procedure and reimburse the Appellant for procedural costs, already incurred or eventually incurred.”

36. The submissions of the Appellant, as contained in its written submissions and oral pleadings, may be summarized, in essence, as follows:

a. The Contract was terminated with just cause

37. Further to Clause 11 of the Contract, Portuguese Law is applicable, with FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”) applying subsidiarily.

38. The legal regime of the sports practitioner’s employment contracts in Portugal is regulated by Law 54/2017 of July 14 (the “Employment Law”).

39. Article 23 of the Employment Law states the following:

- “1- The Sports Employment Contract may be terminated by:

- a) Expiry;

- b) Revocation of an agreement between the parties;

- c) Dismissal for just cause promoted by the sports employer;

- d) Resolution with just cause at the athlete's initiative;

- e) Termination by either party during the probationary period;

- f) Collective dismissal;

- g) Complaint initiated by the athlete, when contractually agreed, under the terms of article 25.”

40. Article 3 of the Employment Law provides that:

- “1- The rules applicable to the employment contract that are compatible with its specificity shall apply subsidiarily to the relationships arising from the sports employment contract.

- 2- The rules contained in this law may be subject to development and adaptation by collective labor agreement that provides in a more favorable way for sports practitioners and takes into account the specificities of each sporting modality.”

41. Consequently, the Collective Labour Agreement (the “CLA”) signed between the Portuguese Professional Football League and the Professional Football Players’ Union must also be considered.

42. Article 39 of the CLA establishes the following grounds for termination of the sports employment contract:

- “a) Revocation of an agreement between the parties;

- b) Expiry;

- c) Dismissal for just cause promoted by the employer;

- d) Termination with just cause at the player's initiative;

- e) Termination at the player's initiative without just cause when contractually agreed;

- f) Termination by either party during the probationary period;

- g) Collective dismissal;

- h) Abandonment of work.”

43. Regarding the expiry of the contract, article 41, 1, paragraph b) of the CLA provides as follows:

- “1. A sports employment contract shall expire in the cases provided for in this [CLA] or under the general terms of the law, namely:

- b) In the case of supervening, absolute and definitive impossibility of the player to provide his activity or for the employer to receive it;”

44. In the present case, the illness affecting the Player is supervening (diagnosed only after the employment relationship had commenced), absolute (it is a chronic and progressive disease that causes a permanent functional limitation) and definitive (no meaningful recovery is expected).

45. Furthermore, by leaving Portugal and travelling to Brazil, the Player prevented the competent authorities, specifically those related to occupational medicine, from performing their duties and preparing the reports required by Portuguese law.

46. According to Portuguese case law and scholars if, after signing the contract, the worker is completely unable to perform the task entrusted to them, there is an impossibility which renders the legal transaction null and void. With regard to the worker, as the contract is concluded intuitu personae, in addition to the objective impossibility of performing the service (Article 790 of the Civil Code), the subjective impossibility – relating to the worker as a person – also leads to the termination of the employment relationship (Article 791 of the Civil Code).

47. The principle enshrined in Article 14 of the RSTP is also applicable, which provides that: “[a] contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.”

48. The Commentary of the RSTP offers some clarifications regarding the ambit and scope of just cause, stating that “[t]he Regulations do not provide a definition, nor a defined list of what would generally be considered a just cause. It is impossible to capture all potential conduct that might be considered just cause for the premature and unilateral termination of a contract. However, over the years, jurisprudence has established several criteria that define, in abstract terms, which combinations of circumstances should be considered just causes. A contract may only be terminated prior to the expiry of the agreed term where there is a valid reason to do so”.

49. CAS jurisprudence acknowledges that a substantial and irreversible breach of contractual duties justifies the immediate termination of the contract without liability for the party exercising the right of termination (CAS 2012/A/2698).

50. In addition, good faith, as a fundamental principle governing contractual relations, dictates that the relationship must cease when, objectively, its continuation becomes untenable.

51. Hence, given that a material breach occurred due to a supervening, absolute, and definitive impossibility which led to the expiry of the contract, just cause for its early termination is established. As such, the Club shall not incur any consequences of any kind – either the payment of compensation or the imposition of sporting sanctions – in line with the applicable Portuguese law and Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.

b. The alleged outstanding amounts

52. According to Article 13 of the CLA, the player must “punctually attend training sessions, games, internships, trips, medical examinations and treatments and submit to the training regime in advance. established by the trainer and all treatments recommended by clinical services”.

53. Article 289 of the CLA considers as justified “absences authorized by the employer, as well as those motivated by the impossibility of working due to a fact not attributable to the player, namely illness, accident or compliance with legal obligations, or the need to provide assistance unavoidable to members of his family”.

54. Article 254(2) of the Portuguese Labour Code states that “[p]roof of the worker’s illness shall be provided by a declaration from a hospital, health center, or by a medical certificate.”

55. In the present case, although the Club was able to monitor the Player’s clinical condition while he was in Portugal, no medical certificate was formally submitted to justify his absences, as required by law, and the absences should therefore be considered unjustified.

56. According to article 28 of the CLA, “the employer has the right to deduct from the player's salary the amount corresponding to the days in which he was absent from work without justification”.

57. Therefore, the Club paid to the Player, as remuneration, a total amount of EUR 3,731.99:

- For July 2024, considering that the Player worked only 8 days (10 July 2024 to 18 July 2024) the Club paid a total amount of EUR 2,778.00 corresponding to: rent in the amount of EUR 500.00, remuneration corresponding to 8 days, twelfths of holidays and Christmas allowances, with the respective taxes discounted on these.

- For August 2024, given the Player's total absence, a total amount of EUR 401.99 was paid, corresponding to the twelfths of the Holiday and Christmas allowances, mandatory by law, only.

- For September 2024, given the Player's total absence, a total amount of EUR 276.00 was paid, corresponding to the twelfths of the holiday allowance only.

- For October 2024, given the Player's total absence, a total amount of EUR 276.00 was paid, corresponding to the twelfths of the holiday allowance only.

58. In conclusion, the Player’s conduct, consisting of his unauthorized travel to Brazil and the consequent prolonged absence from the Club without adequate medical certificate entitles the Club to deduct from his salary the amounts corresponding to the days of unjustified absence.

c. The compensation owed by the Player

59. While the Club never opposed the Player’s right to seek a second medical opinion or to pursue the treatment of his choice, this does not exempt the Player from his essential contractual duties to duly justify his continued absence from work and to cooperate with the Club’s medical department.

60. The Player’s failure to provide any updated medical documentation severely impaired the Club’s ability to monitor his condition and assess his fitness for a potential return to professional activity.

61. As such, without prejudice to the fact that a player’s health is a fundamental right, all treatments, opinions and medical assessments and decisions made by the Player himself and decisions not to appear at the Club to fulfil his employment contract must be made in full agreement between players and their clubs, as supported by CAS case law (CAS

62. In accordance with Article 17 of the RSTP, the Player must compensate the Club for the value of the remuneration that would be due to the Player if the Contract had ceased at its end.

63. The total compensation amount shall rely on the value of the remuneration due to the Player from the communication of termination by the Club (28 October 2024) until the expiry date as per the contract (30 June 2026).

64. In this sense, regarding the 2024-2025 sports season, 8 months of the contract would still run (October 2024 – June 2025) and the monthly agreed salary was EUR 4,700.00, which results in a total value of EUR 37,600.00.

65. Regarding the 2025-2026 season, 12 months of the contract would still run (July 2025 – June 2026) and the agreed monthly salary was of EUR 5,100.00 which resulted in a final sum of EUR 61,200.00.

66. In conclusion, the Player shall be ordered to pay the Club the total amount of EUR 98,800.00, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% annually as from 29 October 2024 until the date of effective payment.

d. Moral Damages

67. Article 51 of the CLA provides that “when a player causes the dismissal promoted by the club or sports society, he incurs civil liability for the damages caused due to the breach of contract”.

68. The fact that the Player did not fulfil his duties inherent to the contractual relationship, notably that of attendance, without the proper authorizations from the Club, affects the image and reputation of the latter.

69. In the present case, as previously decided in two CAS cases, a percentage of the contract amount should be used as parameter, particularly a 7%.

70. Considering that the total remuneration set out in the Contract was of EUR 117,600.00, the Player shall pay to the Club the amount of EUR 8,232.00, plus default interest at the applicable rate of 5% annually until the date of effective payment.

B. The Position of the Respondent

71. In its Answer dated 28 November 2025, the Respondent filed the following prayers for relief:

“FIRST – To dismiss the appeal lodged by the Club;

SECOND – To confirm the Challenged Decision;

THIRD – To order the Club to bear all costs associated with the present arbitration; and

FOURTH – To order the Club to pay a contribution towards the legal fees, costs and expenses incurred by the Player, in an amount equal to at least CHF 10,000 (ten thousand Swiss francs)”.

72. The submissions of the Respondent, as contained in its written submissions and oral pleadings, may be summarized, in essence, as follows:

a. Lack of just cause for termination

73. Under FIFA’s regulatory framework, the employment relationship between players and their clubs is distinct from ordinary employment relationships. In particular, contracts may not be terminated unilaterally, and the club owes a duty of care towards the player.

74. In particular, Article 18 of the FIFA RSTP determines that the validity and/or entry into force of an employment agreement may not be made subject to a successful medical examination. As established in the FIFA RSTP commentary (p.235), “Clubs have a specific obligation to organise a medical examination before signing a contract with a player If a club fails to abide by this fundamental principle, and instead decides to sign the contract before it receives confirmation that the player is fit and healthy, it does so at its own risk. A contract signed under these circumstances will be considered valid and binding and the club will not be permitted to terminate it unilaterally if the player goes on to fail a medical examination or fails to undertake a medical examination. A contract terminated in this way is considered to have been terminated without just cause”.

75. Hence, although the referenced regulatory provision does not explicitly rule the consequences where a player is injured or somehow prevented from providing his services due to a medical intercurrence or an incapacity, it is obvious that, should such a situation come about, a club lacks the necessary legal basis to unilaterally terminate the employment contract concerned.

76. This is supported by CAS caselaw, where it has been established that “Article 18 (4) RSTP does not directly address the situation of a player who is injured or unwell during the course of his employment. Nevertheless, the rationale underlying article 18 (4) RSTP is relevant throughout the employment relationship between a club and a player. Therefore, an employment contract cannot either terminate automatically or be terminated unilaterally with just cause on the basis that a player is found, after the contract of employment has been signed, permanently unable to continue his professional career”

77. In another case, it was concluded that “[t]he athlete is obliged to do whatever is necessary on his part to maintain his working capacity. If he breaches this, this can constitute a “just cause for termination. If the player cannot provide the club with his working capacity due to illness or injury, this does not constitute a breach of duty and there is no “just cause” for unilateral termination of the contract. There is also no breach of the duty to work if the player does not play at the level wanted by the Club” (CAS 2009/A/1956).

78. Art. 328 of the Swiss Code of Obligations provides as follows:

- “1. Within the employment relationship, the employer must acknowledge and safeguard the employee’s personality rights, have due regard for his health and ensure that proper moral standards are maintained. In particular, he must ensure that employees are not sexually harassed and that any victim of sexual harassment suffers no further adverse consequences.”

79. Hence, a club, after having signed a contract with a player, does not have the right to terminate it unilaterally based on the assumption that the latter is facing medical issues which renders him unable to provide his services as previously expected.

80. Such approach becomes all the more undisputed considering that (i) the Player has not contributed to such a situation, (ii) the Player is the most affected and harmed party and (iii) Player is only 1 out of 30 other professional players which the Club remains under contract with.

81. Finally, even though the referenced pathology is very serious and results into important sequels, it is neither possible nor advisable to affirm that the Player is not going to play professional football anymore.

82. In line with the above, considering that a contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated upon expiry of its term or by mutual agreement further to Article 13 of the RSTP, the Club had no valid reason or just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract.

b. The outstanding payment

83. FIFA Circular no. 1171 expressly provides that any professional football player has the right to obtain a second opinion and a different sort of treatment than those prescribed by the medical staff of the club which he is under contract with.

84. After several days hospitalised in Portugal with no sign of progress in the near future, the Player decided to travel to Brazil with the purpose of procuring a second opinion and, eventually, starting a new medical treatment which presented better prospects than those previously prescribed.

85. On 12 and 13 August 2024, the Player expressly communicated to the Club’s doctor about it in exchanges of messages via WhatsApp.

86. Regarding the Club’s allegation that the Player failed to submit a medical certificate attesting the medical issues faced, a medical certificate only serves to provide the employer with evidence that the employee is unable to be in his workplace due to a medical occurrence. In the case at hand such a document was unnecessary since the Club was aware of the serious medical problems which the Player was facing.

87. Finally, assuming but not admitting, the Player was under any sort of contractual breach, the Club was under the obligation to warn the Player beforehand, which was not complied with in the present case.

88. Consequently, it is undisputed that the Club did not have the necessary legal grounds to stop paying the Player the remuneration set out in the Employment Contract based on the assumption that the latter failed to submit the pertinent medical certificate