Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 January 2017,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Johan v an Gaalen (S outh Africa), member
Wouter Lam brecht (Belgium ), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Play er A, Country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club C, Country D,
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country F
as Intervening party
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 6 August 2013, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant / CounterRespondent or the player), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club), signed an employment contract valid
from 6 August 2013 until 31 May 2016.
2.
In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to receive the following
remuneration and amenities:
a. EUR 158,000 for the 2013/2014 season, as follows:
i.
EUR 30,000 to be paid upon signature of the contract;
ii.
EUR 60,000 to be paid in three cheques of EUR 20,000 on 30
September 2013, 31 October 2013 and 30 November 2013;
iii.
EUR 68,000 to be “paid per match”, i.e. 34 matches x EUR 2,000.
b. EUR 183,000 for the 2014/15 season, as follows:
i.
EUR 35,000 to be paid on 2 August 2014;
ii.
EUR 70,000 to be paid in three cheques: a cheque of EUR 20,000 on
30 September 2014, a cheque of EUR 25,000 on 31 October 2014 and
a cheque of EUR 25,000 on 30 November 2014;
iii.
EUR 78,000 to be “paid per match”, i.e. 34 matches x EUR 2,294.
c. EUR 208,000 for the 2015/2016 season, as follows:
i.
EUR 40,000 to be paid on 2 August 2015;
ii.
EUR 82,000 payable in three cheques: a cheque of EUR 27,000
payable on 30 September 2015, a cheque of EUR 27,000 payable on
31 October 2015, a cheque of EUR 28,000 payable on 30 November
2015;
iii.
EUR 86,000 to be “paid per match”, i.e. 34 matches x EUR 2,529.
d. Four “round trip tickets to City G per season”;
e. “provided with a rent-a-car”;
f. “the player shall reside at the hotel”;
g. “paid per match” payments are to be paid 100% if the player has started
the match, paid 75% if the player enters the field as a substitute, and 50%
if the player is on the bench but does not participate in the game.
3.
The contract also provides that “the club shall be entitled to terminate this contract
unilaterally in the event that the club degrades to a lower division”.
4.
On 9 July 2014, the player put the club in default of its obligation to allow the player
to train with the first team within the following forty-eight hours. In addition, the
player notes that the club’s intention was to terminate the contract.
5.
On 10 July 2014, the club replied to the default notice stating that the player is a
registered member of the team but that it is the coach’s decision as to whether he
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
2/12
will be part of the team for the upcoming season. It attached a letter dated 9 July
2014 stating that the attachment was a “training program” which in fact states that
the player is invited to preseason training on 10 July 2014.
6.
On 25 July 2014, the player put the club in default of fees allegedly due to the
player’s agent in the amount of “17,500”. In addition, he put the club in default of
the provision of a rent-a-car and a reminder that the instalment of EUR 35,000 falls
due on 2 August 2014.
7.
On 6 August 2014, the player put the club in default of its obligations to let the
player train with the first team, to provide him with accommodation and a car, to
refund the price of the flight ticket from City G to Country D and to pay the
instalment of EUR 35,000 which fell due on 2 August 2014.
8.
On 8 August 2014, the club replied to the default of the player by stating that the
player’s presence in the first team was not a contractual obligation of the club, that
in light of Football Regulations of Country D the club had decided that it would not
register the player as a foreigner for the upcoming season all-the-while continuing to
perform its obligations towards the player. It further states that the player will train
with the supervision of a trainer, and that he would be allowed to train with the
under 21s team during the season. It acknowledges a delay in the payment of the
EUR 35,000 due on 2 August 2014, which it asserts does not constitute an essential
breach of contract. It also claims that the player’s allegations regarding
accommodation are false, recalling that the club’s facilities were under reconstruction
and the club organised that the player would be in a hotel. The club states that “all
the hotel costs belong to us and will be paid by our club”, adding that the player has
to provide payment receipts in order to be reimbursed. In this letter, the club offered
an immediate and mutual termination where the club would pay the player EUR
50,000 which includes the EUR 35,000 due on 2 August 2014, as compensation for the
premature termination.
9.
On 11 August 2014, the player referred to the letter of the club dated 8 “July” 2014
and formally terminated his employment contract on the basis that the club is in
irremediable breach of contract.
10. On 8 August 2014, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club asking that
he be paid the total amount of EUR 392,500, plus 5% interest p.a. from the due date
until the date of effective payment, pertaining to:
a. EUR 36,500 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the instalment of
EUR 35,000 due on 2 August 2014 and a “per match” payment of EUR 1,500
(i.e. 75% of EUR 2,000 as the player only partially participated in the match);
b. EUR 356,000 as compensation for breach of contract by the club pertaining
to the residual value of the contract; and,
c. the imposition of sporting sanctions.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
3/12
11. In this regard, the player claims that he was informed by telephone on an unspecified
date that his services would no longer be required for the following season. The
player alleges he was then made to buy his own flight ticket in the amount of EUR
180 from City G in order to join the team for preseason training which was due to
start on 8 July 2014, as was mentioned on the club’s website. The player claims he
was never informed of the starting date of preseason and that upon arrival at the
club he was informed once again that his services were no longer required.
12. In this regard, and as to the attachment of the club’s letter of 10 July 2014, the player
notes that said attachment was not a “training program” but a convocation, and that
the address was not that of the club’s training facility. Additionally he claims that
when he did turn up to training, he was made to train alone, some of the time
without a coach.
13. The player alleges that after having put the club in default a second time the club’s
only reaction was allegedly to change the locks of the flat whilst the player was at
training. The player was eventually allowed to return to the flat with a member of
the club’s staff to recuperate his things, but was told he had to find his own
accommodation. In this regard, the player stayed in a hotel in which he had stayed
with the team, at his own expense.
14. The player also claims that on the 5th and 6th of August 2014 he trained alone,
which is contrary to the obligations deriving from the professional contract of a
football player.
15. The player notes that the club’s website indicated on 17 July 2014 that “in line with
the decision taken by the board of directors of the club Director H, Director J,
Director K, [the player] e Director L we will have to resolve the contract and we will
have to part ways”.
16. The player therefore considers that from all the elements he has presented, it is
undoubtable that the club has failed in its obligations towards him, has allegedly
acknowledged them all, and it therefore breached the contract without just cause, in
particular as this breach occurred during the preparation phase of the upcoming
season. Consequently, the player asserts he left Country D on 12 August 2014.
17. In its reply, the club asserted that the Football Federation of Country D (hereinafter:
the Football Federation M) had imposed foreign player quotas on all clubs
participating in the League N for the 2014/15 season and it therefore decided on the
basis of “a sporting decision” made by the coach and the technical staff, to not
register the player. It claims to have invited the player to preseason training on 9 July
2014 and claims that the allegations of the player’s alleged reply to said notification
were false and that it explained to the player that despite not playing for the first
team, its contractual obligations would be respected.
18. The club further states that the claim was lodged before the player had even formally
terminated his employment contract and claims that the termination was made
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
4/12
without just cause on 11 August 2014. In addition, it claims to have acted in good
faith in offering the player a mutual termination option, thereby demonstrating its
good faith.
19. In continuation, the club explained that the player’s assertion that a coach cannot
exclude a player from the first team is false and “against the nature of football”,
adding that it is not a contractual obligation. The club also asserts that because of
the Football Federation M foreign player quota it is sportingly impossible for a player
who is not eligible to play a whole season to train with the first team. The club
denies that the player trained alone, and that the post on the website was actually
made on 16 August 2014, at which time the player had already terminated his
employment contract and left the country. It denies having expelled the player from
his and that the player had been lodging in a hotel at the club’s expense claiming
that its correspondence of 8 August 2014 confirms that the situation was temporary.
The club claims that three days after the letter of 8 August 2014, the player
terminated the contract at a time where the club was not in breach of its contractual
obligations.
20. The club stated that the letter of 8 August 2014 explained to the player that the
delay in the payment due on 2 August 2014 was due to a temporary and minor cashflow problem. Furthermore, it claims that had the player accepted the mutual
termination offer, he would have been paid EUR 15,000 upfront, instead he
terminated the employment contract. Additionally, the club states that a nine day
delay in payment does not constitute just cause to terminate an employment
contract.
21. The club continued by stating that any claim for compensation pertaining to “per
match” payments should be rejected as the entitlement would only be due if the
player had played. The club explained that in his first season, he had only played in
eleven of thirty-four matches. In addition, it claims that solely because of the unjust
termination, no compensation should be due.
22. On account of all the above, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player, on
the basis that the player had terminated the contract without just cause. It claims
that because the player unilaterally terminated the contract, and was subsequently
able to find a new club there is no doubt that had the player been transferred it
would have received compensation for the transfer and therefore claims EUR 100,000
from the player.
23. In spite of having been invited to do so, the player did not respond to the club’s
counterclaim.
24. Upon FIFA’s request, Club E, stated that it was aware of the contractual dispute
between the player and the club lodged before FIFA. It had been given copies of
letters on file. It states that it was made aware of the situation in December 2014,
and eventually offered the player a contract in January 2015. The ITC request was
rejected by the Football Association of Country D, and Club E considers that the PSC
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
5/12
single judge awarded the club the right to provisionally register the player on the
basis of the merits of the case lodged in front of the DRC. It also stated that the
player and Club E had mutually terminated the employment relationship between
them on 30 June 2015.
25. In response to FIFA’s pertinent request, the player informed FIFA that he had signed
the following employment contracts:
a. on 15 January 2015 valid until 30 June 2017 with Club E (Country F) which
was terminated by mutual consent on 30 June 2015. During this period the
player was entitled to EUR 5,200 per month payable on the 15th day of “the
next calendar month”;
b. on 16 July 2015 valid until 1 June 2018, with Club O (Country B) during
which time the player would be entitled to EUR 800 per month.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this
respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 August
2014. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014 edition; hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination
with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2016
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 of Country B, a Club of Country D and a Club of Country
F.
3.
Furthermore, 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
paras. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2016 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 August 2014, the 2014
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber started by acknowledging all the aforementioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. The Chamber, however,
emphasised that in the following considerations it will only refer to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
6/12
5.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the player and the club signed an
employment contract valid from 6 August 2013 until 31 May 2016.
6.
Subsequently, the members of the DRC noted that, on the one hand, the player
asserts that the Respondent has breached the contractual relationship without just
cause by failing to pay the instalment due on 2 August 2014 and outstanding “per
match” payments as well as excluding him from training with the club’s first team. In
this regard, the Chamber acknowledged the documentation provided by the
Claimant consisting of default notices dated 9 July 2014, 25 July 2014 and 6 August
2014 as well as the relevant replies of the club. The Chamber noted that the player
terminated his employment contract on 11 August 2014 after having received the
document dated 8 August 2014 from the club, in which it informs the player inter alia
that he would not be able to be registered for the team in light of Football
Federation M foreign player quotas, that he would be trained by a personal trainer
and would not be allowed to train with the first team. In light of all of the above, the
player claims that he had just cause to terminate the contract.
7.
On the other hand, the DRC noted that in reply to the player’s claim, the club claims
that in light of the Football Federation M quotas on foreign players, it made the
“sporting decision” to not register the player. The club further argues that since the
player was not registered, it was not possible for him to train with the first team. The
Chamber further noted that the club acknowledged the delay in payment of the
instalment of 2 August 2014, and indicated that a short delay in payment does not
constitute just cause to terminate an employment contract and that “per match”
payments should not all be due in the calculation of any potential compensation
since the player did not participate in all the club’s matches.
8.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber took due note that the club lodged a
counterclaim against the player, to which he did not reply, and his new club, Club E,
on the basis that he had terminated the employment contract without just cause and
the club requested compensation of EUR 100,000 since the player was able to find
employment elsewhere, thereby indicating that the club would have received
compensation for the transfer of the player.
9.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note that Club E, in reply to the
counterclaim of the club, asserted that it had been made aware of the ongoing
dispute between the player and the club, and considered that on the basis of the
documentation provided to it in December 2014, it offered a contract to the player in
January 2015. The DRC further noted that Club E considered this justified on the basis
that the Players’ Status Committee single judge had awarded Club E the right to
provisionally register the player.
10. In light of all of the above, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue
concerning this dispute was to determine whether the player had just cause to
prematurely terminate the contractual relationship in light of the club’s alleged
breach. Consequently, the Chamber underlined that should a party be found to have
been in breach of its obligations without just cause, it would be necessary for the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
7/12
DRC to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of
the relevant employment contract.
11. In view of the above, the DRC first noted that the player inter alia based his
unilateral termination on the fact that he was excluded from first team training and
had previously put the club in default multiple times. He equally argued that the club
acknowledged having excluded him from training with the club’s first team on the
basis of the “sporting decision” not to register him and acknowledged that the
instalment due on 2 August 2014 had remained outstanding in its reply to the player
of 8 August 2014. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the club acknowledged
having not registered the player for the 2014/2015 season in its reply to the claim, on
the basis of a “sporting decision”.
12. In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged the club’s argument that
because the player was not registered on the basis of a “sporting decision” it was
impossible for him to train with the first team.
13. With the above in mind, the Chamber considered it important to first recall, as has
been previously sustained by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, that amongst a
player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract is not only his right to a
timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be
given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official
matches.
14. In continuation, with regard to the argument of the club that it was a “sporting
decision” club to not register the player, the Chamber noted that a decision not to
select a player for a particular match is typically of a technical nature, resulting in the
fact that the manager considers other players to be in a better position at that
specific moment to help the team reach its goals falls within the context of the
nature of football. To the contrary, the Chamber deemed that in the present matter,
by not registering the player for the relevant season, the club effectively barred, in
an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to competition, and as such is
violating one of the fundamental rights of a football player.
15. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to clarify that the decision of an Association
imposing an obligation on its affiliated clubs to respect quotas for foreign players
cannot be held against the player, notably since a player has no possible way
influencing the respect of this administrative formality. The members of the Chamber
therefore noted that the club, in casu, cannot use the Decision of the Football
Federation M relating to foreign player quotas to justify the non-registration of a
player. Nevertheless, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
also took due note that the club had failed to submit any documentary evidence
relating to the allegation that the Decision of the Football Federation M meant the
club could not register the player.
16. From all of the above, the Chamber established that the non-registration of the
player for the relevant season constitutes a material breach of contract since it de
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
8/12
facto prevents a player from being eligible to play for his club. The members of the
Chamber agreed that in light of this consideration and the club’s acknowledgement
that it had not registered the player, the player had just cause to terminate the
employment contract due to the breach of the club.
17. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the club had lodged a counterclaim against
the player on the basis that he did not have just cause to terminate the employment
contract. Bearing the aforementioned considerations in mind, in particular those
established in point II.14 above, the Chamber was of the opinion that it must reject
the counterclaim of the club.
18. In continuation, having established that the club is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player, the Chamber
focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into
consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player
is entitled to receive an amount of money from the club as compensation for the
termination of the contract with just cause in addition to any outstanding payments
on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
19. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the player claimed that the
instalment due on 2 August 2014 had remained outstanding as well as his “per
match” payments due for the 2013/2014 season. In addition, the DRC noted that the
club had acknowledged in its correspondence dated 8 August 2014 and in its reply to
the claim that the instalment in the amount of EUR 35,000 due on 2 August 2014 had
indeed remained unpaid. The Chamber further noted that it had remained
undisputed by the club that the player was entitled to his “per match” payment in
the amount of EUR1,500 as claimed as outstanding remuneration.
20. In view of all of the above, in particular taking into account that the club did not
contest that either amount were due and had remained unpaid, the Chamber
decided that in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the club must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the player and is therefore to
be held liable to pay the player the total amount of EUR 36,500 as outstanding
remuneration.
21. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to
award the player interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the total amount of USD 36,500 as
of the day following the day on which both amounts fell due.
22. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members
of the Chamber first recapitulated that in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless
otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due
consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and
further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other
benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
9/12
time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
23. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable
by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the
Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
24. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The
Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of
criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation
payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the
discretion of the deciding body.
25. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and
other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The
members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the
existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of
compensation.
26. Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its
date of termination with just cause by the player, i.e. 11 August 2014, until the
original expiry of the employment contract on 31 May 2016. The Chamber concluded
that the player would have received a total of EUR 192,000 as fixed remuneration
had the contract been executed until its original expiry date. The members of the
Chamber were eager to point out that the contractually provided for “per match”
payments could not be included in the calculation of compensation for breach since
said payments are linked to matches to be played in the future, i.e. after the
termination of the relevant contract, and, therefore, are fully hypothetical.
Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject this portion of the claim. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 192,000 serves as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation due for breach of contract in the case
at hand.
27. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means
of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract
shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
10/12
breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his
damages.
28. The Chamber recalled that on 15 January 2015 the player signed an employment
contract with Club E, in accordance with which he would be entitled to EUR 5,200 per
month. The Chamber noted that both the player and Club E had indicated that the
contract was terminated by mutual consent on 30 June 2015. Furthermore, the DRC
noted that on 16 July 2015, the player had signed an employment contract with Club
O, valid until 1 June 2018, which provides for the monthly salary of EUR 800. These
employment contracts enabled the player to earn income of, and therefore mitigate
his damages by, the amount of EUR 40,000.
29. Consequently, on account of all the aforementioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, as well as the player’s general obligation to mitigate
his damage, the Chamber decided the club was to pay to the player EUR 152,000,
which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of
contract in the case at hand.
30. In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that the
club must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation
due as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 8 August 2014, until the date
of effective payment.
31. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected, and that in
light of all of the above, the counterclaim of the club is rejected.
III. Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the notification of the present decision
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 36,500 plus 5% interest p.a. until
the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2014 on the amount of EUR 1,500;
b. 5% p.a. as of 3 August 2014 on the amount of EUR 35,000.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for
breach of contract amounting to EUR 152,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 August
2014.
4.
In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within the
stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
11/12
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
6.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
7.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances
are to be made and to notify Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS
directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the
elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we
enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the
statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments
giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
12/12