Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
Passed on 13 January 2021,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
BY:
Jon Newman, (USA), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
A, Country A
Represented by Mr.
RESPONDENT:
Club B, Country B
Represented by Mr.
Page 1 of 13
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 15 February 2018, the Country A player, A (hereinafter: the Claimant or player), the
Country A club, C, and the Country B club, B (hereinafter: the Respondent or club)
concluded a loan agreement whereby the player was loaned from C to the club from 15
February 2018 until 1 January 2019.
2.
The parties concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 15
February 2018 until 1 January 2019, according to which the player was entitled to a monthly
salary of USD 18,000.
3.
Art. 14 of the contract relates to illness and injury:
“1. Player shall promptly announce any illness or injury and obey Company’s instructions.
2. Company shall cover overseas accident travel insurance for the Player, Player’s spouse
and children secured during their stay in Country B, from first day of entering until leaving
from Country B, at the expense of Company. However, the insurance mentioned above
shall not apply to pregnancy and dental treatment, and illness or injury or after effect
existing since prior to the conclusion of the Contract.
3. In the case that the Player temporally becomes incapable of playing owing to illness or
injury directly originated from execution of this Contract (hereinafter called “Public Injury”),
Company shall pay Player’s base salary stipulated in Article 2, Clause 3 during Player’s
incapability. However, if this Contract is expired or terminated, the payment duty becomes
invalid at the point of time.
4. Company shall, at its cost, provide the Player with life insurance specified by the League
which covers death or after effects of an illness or an injury of the Player from the first day
of entering Country B until the end of the Service Period as described in Article 1 (Amount
of compensation: XXX 60,000,000)”
4.
The loan agreement contains the following clauses in relation to injury:
“Art. 4.1
B undertakes to subscribe all necessary insurances, covering any and all damages arising
out of an injury, accident inside or outside the professional activities, illness, natural or
accidental death, permanent disability, of the PLAYER during the period of the Loan. The
total amount insured shall correspond to USD 800,000, and C shall be named the
beneficiary of the said insurance.
Art. 10.1
At the end of the loan period, B assumes the responsibility for returning the PLAYER back
to C in perfectly healthy and physical conditions”.
5.
The player sustained an injury on his right knee while under contract with the club.
6. Following said injury, on 1 August 2018, the player underwent surgery for the reconstruction
of the anterior cruciate ligament with patellar tendon.
Page 2 of 13
7. Thereafter, the club authorised the player to travel to his home country, A, in order to
undergo the surgery and rehabilitation.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
8.
On 2 September 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA for outstanding
remuneration, reimbursement of medical costs and compensation for breach of contract.
A summary of the position of the parties is detailed below.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
9.
According to the Claimant, he had to bear, from his own personal savings, the entirety of
the expenses related to (i) medical fees of the operating doctor and his staff; (ii)
hospitalization after the surgery; (iii) exams; (v) doctor’s appointments, amongst other costs
strictly related to his recovery, in the total amount of XXX 61,300.80.
10.
As proof of the costs incurred after the surgery, the player submitted the following receipts
(cf. exhibit 3 of the claim, all amounts are in XXX :
− Invoice issued on 8 August 2018 by the Municipal Secretariat of Treasury of the
City Government of city Country A for an amount of XXX 18,035.77,
− Invoice issued on 8 August 2018 by the Municipal Secretariat of Treasury of the
City Government of city Country A for an amount of XXX 3,252.09,
− Invoice issued on 8 August 2018 by the Municipal Secretariat of Treasury of the
City Government of city Country A for an amount of XXX 212.14,
− Invoice issued on 9 August 2018 by the Municipal Secretariat of Treasury of the
City Government of city Country A for an amount of XXX 38,500.
11.
The Claimant insisted that the Respondent should reimburse him from such costs and, after
several conversations and attempts to solve the financial pendency, on 22 November 2018,
the club transferred him the amount of USD 14,741, which corresponded, on such date,
to XXX 56,148.46.
12.
According to the player, regardless of the exact dates on which he made the payments
concerning his medical fees, exams and ambulatory expenses, the event which gave rise to
the present dispute is the partial reimbursement of the mentioned expenses, which
occurred on 22 November 2018.
13.
The player deems that the club unjustifiably retained the sum of XXX 5,152.34 from such
reimbursement, which corresponded to approximately USD 1,355.87.
For several months the player tried to enter into an agreement with the club in respect of
the overdue amount. On 16 July 2020, the player formally notified the club to, amongst
other requests, pay the amount of XXX 5,152.34.
14.
Page 3 of 13
15.
In its letter dated 17 July 2020, the club informed the player that it had requested its
insurance company to reimburse the totality of the amount spent by the player but it had
only received the amount of USD 14,741.
16.
Furthermore, the player underlined that he was only released by the doctor to resume the
practice of any professional football-related activities on 20 May 2019, almost five months
after the expiry of the contract.
17.
The player argues that as from the moment he was injured, he was absolutely abandoned
and neglected by the club.
18.
After the expiry of the contract, the Claimant had to keep bearing the costs of the recovery
process on his own. The expenses the player had to cover from 1 January 2019, date on
which the contract expired, to 20 May 2019, totalized XXX 26,850, which corresponded to
approximately USD 7,065.
19.
In the Claimant’s opinion, considering that his injury is unquestionably and directly linked
to the performance of the contract, the burden to take responsibility for the costs related
to such injury is exclusively on the Respondent, regardless of the moment these costs were
incurred.
20.
The player highlighted that he had intended to extend the contract at least until he was
able to practice professional football again. Indeed, given that he had sustained an injury
while defending the colours of the club, the player deemed this to be a fair solution,
considering he was prevented from practicing his profession for several months, which
caused him not only physical and emotional distress, but put him in clear disadvantage in
terms of competitiveness in the football market.
21.
The club, however, ignored the player’s attempts to start negotiations in this respect.
22.
After the expiry of the contract as well as the loan, the player returned to C, a club in the
third Country A division. He then received a salary of only XXX 5,000 a month, which
corresponds to USD 936.32.
23.
The player experienced some difficulties to be reinserted in the football market, as he had
to struggle to find a club that would pay him a better salary after long months of harsh
recovery, and without any in-game rhythm to be part of a competitive roster.
24.
Eventually, the player found a slightly better opportunity with the club D, which he joined
on 25 June 2019, although he still earned the same salary of XXX 5,000.
The contract with D was terminated on 24 December 2019 and, shortly after, the player
joined E, with the same salary of XXX 5,000.
25.
Page 4 of 13
26.
In conclusion, the player claims that the injury, the club’s refusal to extend the contract and
the club’s negligence to pay the costs of the player’s rehabilitation process have harmed his
career beyond what is reasonable.
27.
For this reason, the player requests the payment of a compensation corresponding to USD
90,000, which corresponds to the exact amount of the 5 salaries the player would be
entitled to receive if the contract was to be renewed until his full recovery, i.e. between
January and May 2019.
28.
In this regard, the player referred to art. 14 par. 4 of the contract and deems that the
sentence “However, the insurance mentioned above shall not apply to pregnancy and
dental treatment, and illness or injury or after effect existing since prior to the conclusion
of the Contract” is invalid as it is an endeavour to circumvent the player’s right to be
compensated, in clear breach of basic universal legal principles.
29.
Equally, the Claimant referred to art. 10.1. of the loan agreement and concluded that the
Respondent shall bear the full responsibility of the costs and damage related to his injury
while playing for them. The Claimant states in this regard that “unfortunately, the Loan
Agreement did not establish a compensation to be paid by the Respondent in virtue of the
flagrant breach of said disposition contained in Article 10.1, but that does not mitigate the
Claimant’s right to seek compensation”.
30.
Finally, the Claimant held that he did not receive his entire salary for the month of December
2018. Indeed, the Respondent unlawfully discounted the amount of USD 9,000. In this
regard, the Claimant underlined that in its letter dated 17 July 2020, the Respondent
informed him that such discount was related to an “international moving delivery fee”,
although the Respondent never explained any of that to the Claimant, nor has the
Respondent informed him of such costs or presented him the amount related to the
mentioned services, which the Respondent did not request at any time.
31.
The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
−
−
−
−
−
USD 1.355,87 concerning the difference between the costs incurred by the Claimant
regarding his surgery, exams and treatment, from the date of the surgery, 1 August
2018, until 1 January 2019, and the amount reimbursed by club, considering that
the circumstance which gave rise to such demand is the partial reimbursement that
was performed by the Respondent on 22 November 2018;
USD 7,065, corresponding to the costs incurred by the player from 1 January 2019,
date of expiry of the contract, until 20 May 2019, date on which the player received
medical clearance;
USD 90,000 as compensation;
USD 9,000 as outstanding salary for December 2018;
5% interest p.a. on all amounts as from the date on which the club should have
performed the relevant payments until the date of effective payment.
Page 5 of 13
b.
Position of the Respondent
32.
According to the Respondent, the Claimant’s injury was sustained during a training on 12
July 2018. Upon the Claimant’s insistence, the Respondent authorised him to travel to
Country A on 21 July 2018 and he underwent surgery on 1 August 2018.
33.
The Respondent held that the injury should have been covered under the “oversea travel
accident insurance”. It did apply for coverage from its insurance company and in that
context the amount of USD 14,741 was paid to the Claimant.
34.
The club confirmed that the player never played another match for the club after his injury
and the contract expired on 1 January 2019.
35.
The Respondent further affirmed that it paid all of the Claimant’s salary in accordance with
the contract from 15 February 2018 until 1 January 2019.
36.
With respect to the salary of December 2018, the Respondent explained that it applied a
deduction in the total amount of XXX 922,610, allegedly with the player’s approval. Indeed,
the deduction was for an amount of XXX 301,719 for some goods which the player
purchased from the player (USD 2,681.47 based on the exchange rate of 10 December
2018) and XXX 620,891 for the relocation costs which the club allegedly had to pay on the
player’s behalf (USD 5,518 based on the exchange rate of 10 December 2018).
37.
With respect to the costs related to the player’s injury, the club referred to art. 14 par. 5 of
the contract, which implies that the club is responsible for contracting an insurance
premium, which covers death, after effects or injury to the benefit of the player. On the
other hand, the club is waived any duty or responsibility regarding the player’s death, after
effect and also damage of the player’s heirs or persons concerned, which the club finds a
fair and reasonable solution. Therefore, the club deems that art. 14 par. 5 is valid and should
be applied to the case at hand.
38.
The club further underlined that the insurance company paid the equivalent of XXX
61,380.80, i.e. USD 14,741 according to the exchange rate at the time of the payment, in
accordance with the insurance policy.
39.
The company confirmed this amount as being the total medical costs incurred by the player.
Thus, the insurance company has paid all costs due in full and does not owe the player any
arrears.
40.
According to the Respondent, the difference in amounts which the player claims is the
difference between the rate on which the insurance company paid in accordance with the
insurance policy and the rate which the player sets himself, in violation of the terms of the
insurance policy.
Page 6 of 13
41.
The Respondent mentioned that the insurance company would be ready to pay the
difference of USD 1,355.87 if the player proves that the company should have applied a
different conversion rate. The club held that the insurance company would proceed with
such payment if the player provides the relevant proof directly to the insurance company.
42.
With respect to the Claimant’s claim for costs incurred after the contract’s expiry, the
Respondent stated that it does not bear any responsibility for the player’s injury or after
effects in this respect.
43.
Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 4.1 of the loan, which implies that the player
can be reimbursed the medical costs incurred after the contract’ expiry from C, who is the
beneficiary of the relevant insurance.
44.
In addition, the club held that, on 31 July 2018, it was estimated that the player would
return to football after 6 months, while the player wrote in some WhatsApp messages
dated 16 February 2019 that, in essence, he is fully recovered.
45.
With regard to the Claimant’s claim for compensation, the Respondent stated that it does
not have any obligation to pay the player’s salary after the contract’s expiry, including the
difference between the salary included in the contract and the salary which the player
earned with other clubs.
46.
The Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant has no right to claim the extension of
the contract. In this context, the Respondent held that after the expiry of the loan, the
Claimant resumed his contract with C and consequently received the salary agreed with C.
The Respondent does not find it fair or reasonable that it should be expected to pay the
difference between the Claimant’s salary under the contract and his salary with C.
47.
The club also underlines that it is impossible to calculate the player’s actual damage since
he did not disclose any proof that he received XXX 5,000 per month with C.
48.
Finally, the club deems that the player does not have any rights arising from art. 10.1 of the
loan agreement.
49.
In conclusion, the Respondent rejects the Claimant’s claim entirely.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
Page 7 of 13
50.
First, the DRC Judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 2 September
2020 and submitted for decision on 13 January 2021. Taking into account the wording of
art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the November 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
51.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2021), he is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Country A player and a Country B club.
52.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition January 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 2 September 2020, the August 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
53.
The DRC Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC Judge stressed
the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
54.
In this respect, the DRC Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
55.
Merits of the dispute
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
Page 8 of 13
56.
The foregoing having been established, the DRC Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and first noted that the parties agree on the fact that the Claimant sustained an
injury on the field of play while being employed by the Respondent.
57.
In this regard, the parties strongly dispute the Claimant’s entitlement to the reimbursement
of his medical costs in relation to said injury while still employed by the Respondent and
beyond the expiry of the contractual relationship, as well as to a remaining part of the
Claimant’s salary for the month of December 2018. Equally, the parties are in disagreement
as to the Claimant’s right to receive compensation from the fact that the loan to the
Respondent was not extended and that following the end of his employment with the
Respondent, the Claimant could not find any employment opportunities of a similar value
than the value of his contract with the Respondent.
58.
The DRC Judge thus addressed each of the Claimant’s requests individually, paying due
consideration to the parties’ arguments and documents in support of their respective
positions.
As to the claim regarding the costs linked to the player’s surgery and rehabilitation during
the validity of the contract
59.
Clause 14 of the contract clearly states that the club shall cover expenses incurred during the
duration of the employment contract through insurance.
60.
In this regard, it remains uncontested that the club made a payment of USD 14,741 on 22
September 2018. The player claims that this corresponded to XXX 56,148.46 whereas he
incurred expenses in the total of XXX 61,380.80. The club, however, argues that the paid
amount corresponded to XXX 61,380.80 at the time of payment, which is the date to be taken
into account in accordance with their insurance policy.
61.
In view of the parties’ respective positions, the DRC Judge paid careful attention to the
documentary evidence on file in connection with the Claimant’s medical costs, in particular the
invoices provided by the Claimant. Upon careful analysis of these receipts, the DRC Judge found
that he could not reconcile costs in the total amount of XXX 61,380.80; however, he noted
that the parties seem in agreement that this is the total amount of costs which the Claimant
incurred.
62.
In view of the above, the DRC Judge deemed that he must determine whether the amount paid
by the Respondent, i.e. USD 14,741, indeed corresponded to the amount of XXX 61,380.80 on
the date of payment, i.e. on 22 September 2018.
63.
While emphasising that the Country A currency is a fairly fluctuating currency, the DRC Judge
proceeded to apply the currency rate according to the website www.oanda.com. According to
the said website, on 22 November 2018, XXX 61,380.80 corresponded to USD 16,253.40. In
other words, there is a difference of USD 1,512.40 between the amount due (USD 16,253.40)
and the amount which the Respondent paid (USD 14,741).
Page 9 of 13
64.
Having established the aforementioned, the DRC Judge held that the difference between the
amount paid and the amount actually due is important enough that it cannot be simply
attributed to an issue of conversion rate. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pay the claimed
difference of USD 1,355.87, which is actually lower than the one the DRC Judge calculated
using the aforementioned website.
65.
In view of the fact that the DRC Judge may not award amounts ultra petita, he concluded that
the Respondent is liable to reimburse the Claimant the amount of USD 1,355.87 as outstanding
reimbursement of costs, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 23 November 2018, i.e. the day following
the payment of USD 14,741.
As to the claim regarding the costs linked to the player’s rehabilitation after the expiry of the
contract
66.
As to this part of the Claimant’s claim, the DRC Judge verified the contractual stipulations, be
it the contract or the loan agreement. In this regard, the DRC Judge observed that the contract
clearly states that the club shall cover expenses incurred during the duration of the employment
contract only.
67.
Equally, the loan agreement refers to the Respondent’s obligation to take insurance to cover
any injury sustained during the period of the loan, but does not refer to any obligation which
would extend beyond that period.
68.
In view of the above, the DRC Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of
medical costs incurred after the expiry of the contract lacks contractual basis.
69.
Therefore, this part of the Claimant’s claim must be rejected.
As to the claim for outstanding remuneration (part of December 2018)
70.
The Claimant further claims he did not receive part of his salary for December 2018 and
therefore claims USD 9,000 in this respect.
71.
The DRC Judge took note of the Respondent’s argument in respect of the deduction it applied
when paying the Claimant’s December 2018 salary, namely that it had incurred some costs on
behalf of the Claimant in connection with the purchase of some goods as well as some
relocation costs. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that these deductions were made with
the Claimant’s approval.
72.
The DRC Judge finds, however, that there is no evidence that the Claimant had approved the
deductions made. In any case, the Respondent did not provide conclusive evidence that it
effectively incurred these costs, since the documents provided as evidence in this regard are
internal documents, which cannot be considered as objective. Furthermore, while examining
Page 10 of 13
these documents, the DRC Judge found that the exact nature of such alleged deductions
remained unclear.
73.
In view of the above considerations, the DRC Judge concluded that the Respondent could not
justify the non-payment of USD 9,000, which corresponds to part of the Claimant’s December
2018 salary.
74.
In accordance with the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must therefore
pay the Claimant the claimed amount of USD 9,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 January 2019,
i.e. as of the day following the due date of the December 2018 salary.
As to the claim for compensation for loss of income following the injury
75.
As a final point in his assessment of the present matter, the DRC Judge analysed the Claimant’s
claim for compensation for loss of income.
76.
First, the DRC Judge was adamant in his conclusion that there is no legal or contractual basis
for the player to claim compensation from the fact that the club refused to extend the contract.
Indeed, the parties’ autonomy in extending their contractual relationship must be respected; it
appears that the Respondent did not seek to extend theirs, and it was its right not to.
77.
With respect to the Claimant’s claim that he earned a salary inferior to the one he earned with
the Respondent after the expiry of the contract, the DRC Judge underlined that the player could
not prove that such fact was a direct result of the injury.
78.
In particular, the DRC Judge emphasised that the Claimant was on loan with the Respondent.
After the expiry of the loan, the Claimant returned to his club of origin, the Country A club C.
His salary with the latter club logically remained the one he earned prior to the loan, in
accordance with their employment contract, which was merely suspended during the loan
period. In other words, the Claimant’s salary following the expiry of the loan would in any have
been inferior to the one he earned with the Respondent, irrespective of the injury he sustained
while under employment with the Respondent.
79.
In conclusion, the DRC Judge could not find any conclusive evidence of the actual damage
incurred from the fact that his income decreased following the expiry of the contract with the
Respondent, nor could that the alleged damage was connected to the injury sustained while
under contract with the Respondent. Furthermore, the DRC Judge could not find any
contractual basis for such claim either.
80.
The DRC Judge, therefore, held that such claim for compensation must be rejected.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
Page 11 of 13
81.
Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 52. above, the DRC Judge
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its
decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from
the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
82.
In this regard, the DRC Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
83.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
provided that the decision is final and binding, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
84.
The DRC Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis
par. 3 of the Regulations.
85.
Lastly, the DRC Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, A, the following amounts:
- USD 1,355.87 as reimbursement of medical costs plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23
November 2018 until the date of effective payment,
- USD 9,000 as outstanding salary plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2019 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant
bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
Page 12 of 13
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with
this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA
languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank
details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1.
2.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end
of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or
a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 13 of 13