CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11360 — Adilson Gancho Silva v. PSM Makassar

"Adilson Gancho Silva" · CAS set aside FIFA DRC decision and ordered PSM Makassar to pay player USD 19,500 after finding a payment order alone does not prove payment.

What happened in Adilson Gancho Silva

Portuguese player Adilson Gancho Silva signed an employment contract with Indonesian club PSM Makassar on 10 June 2024. Following an early termination, the parties concluded a Settlement Agreement on 29 September 2024 for a total of USD 38,000 net, payable in four installments. The first installment of USD 19,500 was due by 31 December 2024. The club produced a payment order dated 31 December 2024 but the player maintained he never received the funds. Before the FIFA DRC, the player accidentally submitted December 2024 bank statements twice instead of January 2025 statements. The FIFA DRC rejected the player's claim, finding he had not discharged his burden of proof given the payment order appeared to show a transfer had been initiated. On appeal, CAS admitted the January 2025 bank statements as new evidence, finding the error was inadvertent and not in bad faith. The Sole Arbitrator held that a payment order merely evidences initiation of a transfer, not execution or receipt, and that the club — as debtor — bore the burden of proving actual payment, which it failed to discharge. The FIFA DRC decision was set aside and PSM Makassar was ordered to pay USD 19,500 net of taxes plus 5% interest per annum from 10 January 2025. The case matters because it clarifies that a bank payment order is insufficient proof of payment in international transfer disputes and reaffirms that advance waiver-of-appeal clauses in settlement agreements are invalid under Swiss law.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11360

On 10 June 2024, the parties entered into an employment contract. Following termination, they concluded a Settlement Agreement on 29 September 2024 for USD 38,000 net in four installments. The club sent a payment order on 31 December 2024 for the first installment of USD 19,500 but the player denied receipt. On 9 January 2025, the player placed the club in default. On 20 January 2025, the player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal. The club failed to reply. On 3 April 2025, the FIFA DRC (decision FPSD-17854) rejected the player's claim, finding he had not met his burden of proof because the bank statements submitted covered only through December 2024 and could not exclude post-period crediting. Grounds were notified on 14 May 2025. A rectification request was rejected by FIFA on 11 June 2025. The player filed his Statement of Appeal before CAS on 4 June 2025, seeking to set aside the FIFA DRC decision and obtain payment of USD 19,500 net plus interest.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11360

• An advance waiver-of-appeal clause in a settlement agreement is invalid under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence unless made after notification of the FIFA decision being appealed.
• A bank payment order evidencing initiation of a transfer does not constitute proof of payment; actual execution requires confirmation such as a SWIFT MT103 message, bank debit advice, or bank credit advice.
• The debtor bears the burden of proving that payment was executed, i.e., that funds were actually transferred and credited to the creditor's account.
• New evidence inadvertently omitted at first instance due to a clerical error, with no indication of bad faith, may be admitted by CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code.
• CAS, acting as an appellate tribunal, has no jurisdiction to order FIFA to impose sporting sanctions on a club; only FIFA has exclusive jurisdiction to determine and impose such sanctions.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first addressed admissibility, finding the waiver clause in the Settlement Agreement was generic, lacked explicit reference to CAS, and amounted to a blanket advance waiver contrary to Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence, including TAS 2023/A/9639. On new evidence, the arbitrator found no procedural error by the FIFA DRC but admitted the January 2025 bank statements because the player's double submission of December 2024 statements was an inadvertent clerical error with no bad faith, consistent with Article R57 of the CAS Code. On the merits, applying the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard, the arbitrator held that the debtor bears the burden of proving payment under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code and Article 13 para. 4 of the FIFA Procedural Rules. The club's payment order of 31 December 2024 merely showed initiation of a transfer; without SWIFT MT103 confirmation or equivalent transactional evidence, it could not demonstrate discharge of the obligation. The player's January 2025 bank statements showed no incoming transfer. The club's complete silence throughout proceedings meant it produced no countervailing evidence. Any residual uncertainty about whether funds arrived after the bank statement period was resolved against the club as the burden-bearing party. The request for sporting sanctions was rejected as outside CAS appellate jurisdiction.

Why Adilson Gancho Silva matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that a bank payment order is legally insufficient to prove discharge of an international payment obligation, with SWIFT MT103 confirmation or equivalent evidence required. It also confirms that advance waiver-of-appeal clauses in settlement agreements are invalid under Swiss law unless executed after notification of the relevant FIFA decision, protecting players' access to CAS review. The decision further clarifies that inadvertent evidentiary errors at first instance can be cured on CAS appeal without a finding of bad faith.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1189 IFK Norrköping v. Trinité Sports FC & FFF CAS 2017/A/5277 FK Sarajevo v. KVC Westerlo TAS 2023/A/9639 Club Atlético Independiente c. Gastón Alexis Silva Perdomo CAS 2020/A/6988 CAS 2018/A/6044 CAS 2024/A/10431 Yeni Mersin Idrnanyurdu Futbol A.S. v. Milan Mitrovic & FIFA

Frequently asked questions about Adilson Gancho Silva

Does a bank payment order prove that a club paid a player under a settlement agreement?

No. In Adilson Gancho Silva v. PSM Makassar, the Sole Arbitrator held that a payment order dated 31 December 2024 merely evidenced initiation of a transfer and did not prove execution or receipt of funds. Proof of payment requires confirmation of the actual transfer, such as a SWIFT MT103 message, bank debit advice, or bank credit advice, none of which PSM Makassar provided.

Can a settlement agreement clause waiving the right to appeal to CAS be enforced?

Not if it is a blanket advance waiver. In this case, the Settlement Agreement contained a clause stating FIFA decisions would be 'final and binding' and waiving any right to appeal. The Sole Arbitrator found this clause invalid because it was generic, lacked explicit reference to CAS, and was made in advance rather than after notification of the FIFA decision, contrary to Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence including TAS 2023/A/9639.

Can a player submit new bank statements at CAS that were accidentally omitted before the FIFA DRC?

Yes, in appropriate circumstances. In Adilson Gancho Silva v. PSM Makassar, the player had mistakenly submitted December 2024 bank statements twice instead of January 2025 statements before the FIFA DRC. CAS admitted the January 2025 statements as new evidence under Article R57 of the CAS Code because the error was inadvertent, created no advantage for the player, and there was no indication of bad faith.

Can CAS order FIFA to impose a registration ban on a club that fails to pay a player?

No. The Sole Arbitrator in Adilson Gancho Silva v. PSM Makassar rejected the player's request that FIFA be directed to impose sporting sanctions under Article 24 of the FIFA RSTP, holding that the imposition of such sanctions falls exclusively within FIFA's disciplinary competence. CAS, acting as an appellate tribunal, has jurisdiction only to revise FIFA's determination of sanctions, not to order their imposition, consistent with CAS 2018/A/6044 and CAS 2024/A/10431.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.