Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 January 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairman
Todd Durbin (USA), member
Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member
CLAIMANT:
A, country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT:
B, country B
Represented by
Page 2 of 14
I.
Facts
1.
On 24 April 2019, the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019
until 31 May 2021.
2.
The contract stipulated, inter alia, the following financial conditions:
Clause 5: “The Club shall pay the Player a salary of US$15,000 (United States Dollars
Fifteen Thousand Only) net per month from 1st July 2019 to 31st May 2021.”
Clause 15: “This ANNEX is firstly subject to the football authority of the FA of Country B,
the Confederation and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).
Where it is allowed under the relevant FIFA regulations, it is also subject to the Laws of
Country B.”
3.
Clause 17 of the contract stipulated the following:
“7. Dispute Resolution
17 .1 This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of Country B.
17.2 Notwithstanding any provisions in any Country B FA Regulations or Football
Regulations but subject to applicable laws in Country B, any dispute (whether
contractual or non- contractual, and including any disputes in relation to interpretation
of clauses of this Agreement) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall
be referred to and determined by the NDRC in accordance with the NDRC Regulations.
The Club and the Player that they shall be bound by any decisions or judgments of the
NDRC on such dispute (including any allocation of costs). If the NDRC determines that it
does not have jurisdiction (as set out in the NDRC Regulations) over such dispute, the
dispute shall be referred to the appropriate body(ies) specified in the Football
Regulations. If no such body(ies) is specified, the courts of Country B shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to settle such dispute.”
4.
On 23 March, the Country B Professional League was suspended due to the COVID-19
outbreak.
5.
On 9 April 2020, the Respondent's President, together with senior management staff
from the Respondent, met with the coaches and players in a Zoom meeting, in
which he explained the FIFA guidelines and Country B FA paper in respect of the
disruption caused to football activity by the Pandemic.
6.
According to the player, on 21 April 2020, the President of the Club, Mr. xxx, in the
WhatsApp group with the players sent a message emphasizing that “since we failed to
reach a collective agreement, we have to work individually with each player and please
wait for your turn.”
7.
On 22 April 2020, the club sent a correspondence to the player, indicating that, in view
of the COVID-19 pandemic, his salary will be reduced in a percentage between 22.50%
an1.67%.
Page 3 of 14
8.
On 23 April 2020, the player sent a message to the club, and expressed his disagreement
with the salary reductions
9.
On 6 May 2020, the club sent a correspondence to the club acknowledging that he is
“unwilling to accept the proposed schemed” and expressing that it is open to receive an
offer, including a transfer.
10. On 3 June 2020, the player insisted that he still rejects any deduction to his salary,
11. On 3 June 2020, the club replied to the player’s letter, and insisted that it is still open to
a proposal.
12. On 17 June 2020, the player sent a letter to the club, expressing that
“under no circumstances FIFA had declared as a valid excuse the “force majeure” in
order to unilaterally modify and alter the terms and conditions agreed in the employment
contract” .
13. On 2 July 2020, the player insisted in his rejection to an “unilateral imposition of
reducing” his salaries.
14. On 28 August 2020, the player sent a letter to the club, requesting the payment of his
salaries of, May and June 2020 salaries which were unilaterally and unlawfully reduced
and hence unpaid.
15. On 8 September 2020, the player sent a letter to the club requesting the payment of an
outstanding amount of USD 10,155.24.
16. On 22 September, the Claimant initially lodged a claim for outstanding
remuneration before FIFA against the Respondent and requested the payment of the
following amounts, corresponding to “unilateral reductions which should have been
paid”:
i. April 2020 monthly salary: USD 3,385.08, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2020;
ii. May 2020 monthly salary: USD 3,385.08, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2020;
iii. June 2020 monthly salary: USD 3,385.08, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2020.
17. In addition, the Claimant requested “in any case, order the Respondent to pay the
Claimant a contribution for the legal costs incurred in the present matter.”
18. According to the player, he “has always been sympathetic and sensitive with the
difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, showed his good faith and good will to
find an amicable and proportionate solution.”
19. The player considered that “the Club has been deliberately lying and twisting the facts
with the only aim to finally apply the Unilateral Reduction imposed by means of its letter
dated 22 April 2020” and noted that this “can only be seen (…) as a complete
unacceptable behavior, which shall be consequently punished.”
Page 4 of 14
20. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to the financial difficulties arisen due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, as it noted that its income during the second quarter of 2020
was reduced by 63.2. The Respondent attached a statement issued by an auditor in this
respect.
21. On 1 October 2020, and during the proceedings already initiated before FIFA, the player
sent a letter to the club, requesting to be registered.
22. On 5 October 2020, the club replied to the aforementioned letter indicating the
following:
“(…)
According to COUNTRY B FA regulations, only 5 foreigners and 1 Confederation
foreigners may be registered at any one time. For the Restart, our Head Coach has
selected six foreigners to register accordingly and consequently, 2 foreigners were not
registered, you being one of them. The Head Coach may register you later at his
discretion during future registration periods for the 2020-2021 season.”
23. On 6 October 2020, the player sent a “final notice to register him”, indicating the
following:
“In this sense, I would like to state that the excuses explained in your letter dated 5
October 2020 to deregister me cannot be seen, under any circumstances, as valid.
Especially, emphasis shall be made on the groundless reason that I am not registered
because the foreigners’ quota has been already covered”
(…)
The sad reality is that there are several factors which all point out to the same direction,
which is no other that my registration will never occur, since the Club is no longer
interested in my services.
(…)
Therefore, I give the Club until 11 October 2020at the latest to inform me whether it will
proceed with my registration for the last match of the season 2019/2020 AND for the
following season 2020/2021.”
24. On 12 October 2020, the player sent a termination letter to the club stating the following:
“the well-established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC is crystal clear in this regard and it
establishes that among 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. In this context, by refusing to register a player, a club is effectively
barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to competition and, as
such, violating one of his fundamental rights as a football player.”
25. The club replied to the aforementioned letter as follow:
“There is no ground for your claim of termination with just cause. Your assertion that
you are unilaterally terminating your employment contract with us prematurely is a
breach of the employment contract, which we demand to be ratified immediately by your
ongoing execution of the said employment contract.
Page 5 of 14
Specifically, the Club will start the 2020/21 preseason training on Wednesday
14 October, 2020 at 3 p.m. at the Club B Centre. You are expected to attend this and all
subsequent official training sessions. “
26. On 16 October 2020, the player lodged a new claim before FIFA for breach of contract
without just cause. The player requested in this respect to “accumulate the present
proceedings to the FIFA proceedings ref.no. xxxxx”.
27. In particular, the player requested the payment of the following amounts:
i. USD 6,000 net, as outstanding salaries for the first 12 days of October 2020 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 12 October 2020,
ii. USD 134,484.37 net as compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020,
iii.USD 45,000 net as additional compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October
2020.
28. In addition, the player requested the payment of the “legal costs”.
29. In this respect, the player argued that, following the restart of the competition in
September 2020, the club forced him to train alone.
30. Within this context, the player argued that “the Club deliberately deregistered him with
the COUNTRY B FA, considering that he was indeed registered before the COVID-19
suspension ofthe competition took place.”
31. The club was invited to reply to the claim for breach of contract without just cause.
32. In this respect, the club considered that the matter shall be “transferred to the NDRC of
the COUNTRY B FA” in view of the contents of clause 17.2 of the contract.
33. On the question of registration, the Respondent argued that the Country B Football
Association confirmed that “at all material times a registered player pursuant to Article
5 of the COUNTRY B FA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players”.
34. In this respect, the Respondent wished to emphasize that that any discussions of the
Claimant not being "registered" has always been referring to the quota of foreign players
and therefore related to the Foreign Player Cap and the corresponding Players List
provided in the League Regulations, and not "registration" pursuant to the COUNTRY B
FA RSTP as such.
35. Within this context, the Respondent explained that, under any circumstance, the quota
of foreign players was always expected to sort itself out shortly as several of the
Respondent's foreign players were applying for their Country B citizenships.
36. In addition, the club explained that, “during the Restart Period, all players had to
undergo COVID-19 tests. Between 3 September 2020 and the Claimant's unilateral
departure, there were 8 tests (on 3/9, 10/9, 17 /9, 22/9, 25/9, 29/9, 2/10 and 9/10) and the
Respondent ensured that the Claimant took part in all 8 tests.” According to the club,
“this is indicative of the Respondent's intention in trying to keep the Claimant ready for
Page 6 of 14
participating in matches, if and when the Respondent decides to add the Claimant to the
Players List.”
37. Was a result, the club concluded in this respect that it “had made available a foreign
player slot on its Players List for the 2020-2021 season after not signing a new
foreign player, and made available for the Claimant a new apartment after 16 October
2020, which he ultimately turned down.”
38. On 6 November 2020, the player sent an unsolicited correspondence acknowledging
“the payment of his salary as from 1 October 2020 until 11 October 2020”.
39. In view of the above, the player amended his claim as follows:
i. USD 624.78, as outstanding salaries related to the exact date of 12 October 2020, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 12 October 2020, when the outstanding salary became due
until effective date of payment. The player acknowledged that said amount may be
granted as part of his compensation.;
ii. USD 132,513.57net as compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020,
iii. USD 45,000 net as additional compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October
2020,
40. On 10 November 2020, the Country B Football Association provided the following
statement to FIFA:
“The Player has been registered as a professional player of the Club from 23 August
2019 to now, in accordance with the COUNTRY B FA RSTP. His registration met all
requirements under the COUNTRY B FA RSTP regarding his contract, work permit, ITC,
and preseason medical check-up. His contract is valid until 31 May 2021.
(…)
We confirm that the Player was in the Club's List during the original 2019-2020 season
until 30 June 2020. During the restart of the 2019-2020 season, the Club has submitted
the List under the League Rules without including the Player. However, the Club
submitted the 8 test results of Player's COVID-19 sputum tests which were all tested
negative. The Player was eligible to be added to the Club's List, if and when so decided
by the Club.
The COUNTRY B FA RSTP and the League Rules are available for download at the
COUNTRY B FA website (www.Country B FA.com).”
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and emphasised 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, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is in principle competent to deal with matters which concern employment-
Page 7 of 14
related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs. Therefore,
it would be competent to deal with a matter concerning a player from Country A and a
club from Country B.
3. However, in relation to this, the Chamber noted that the Respondent considered that the
matter shall be “transferred to the NDRC of the COUNTRY B FA” in view of the contents
of clause 17.2 of the contract, which stipulate the following:
“17.2 Notwithstanding any provisions in any COUNTRY B FA Regulations or Football
Regulations but subject to applicable laws in Country B, any dispute (whether
contractual or non- contractual, and including any disputes in relation to interpretation
of clauses of this Agreement) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall
be referred to and determined by the NDRC in accordance with the NDRC Regulations.
The Club and the Player that they shall be bound by any decisions or judgments of the
NDRC on such dispute (including any allocation of costs). If the NDRC determines that it
does not have jurisdiction (as set out in the NDRC Regulations) over such dispute, the
dispute shall be referred to the appropriate body(ies) specified in the Football
Regulations. If no such body(ies) is specified, the courts of Country B shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to settle such dispute.”
4. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal
with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal,
guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of
players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be
imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the
Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the
members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1
January 2008.
5. Equally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber reminded the parties of the contents of art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “any party claiming a right on the
basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”.
6. In application of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber understood that, in the
matter at stake, it is up to the Respondent to prove that the Country B NDRC effectively
guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs.
7. In this respect, and after observing the evidence provided by the parties, the Chamber
noted that the Respondent did not provide any evidence on the effective and actual
composition of the Country B NDRC, or that said body effectively guarantees fair
proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
8. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber arrived to the conclusion that, from
the evidence on file that was gathered within the course of the present investigation, it
cannot be established that the Country B NDRC respects the principle of equal
Page 8 of 14
representation of players and clubs in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations.
Therefore, the Chamber considered that it is competent to deal with the present matter.
9. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. Entering into the substance of
the matter, the DRC continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as
the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only
to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
10. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the
Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present
matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance
with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and
considering the date when the claim was lodged, the June 2020 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand.
11. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into
the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case
as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
12. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties concluded an employment contract
valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021, according to which the player was entitled
to a monthly salary of USD 15,000.
13. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, on 22 September 2020, the player lodged a claim
before FIFA against the club, initially claiming the payment of outstanding remuneration.
14. However, the Chamber observed that, during the proceedings, the matter evolved from
being a related to outstanding remuneration only, to a matter related to breach of
contract without just cause due to the alleged non-registration of the player. In
particular, the Chamber observed that the player lodged a new claim on 16 October 2020,
arguing that he terminated the contract on 12 October 2020 due to his alleged nonregistration. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that said new claim was consolidated
under the same procedure. Thus, the Chamber observed that the initial element about
outstanding remuneration was apparently resolved between the parties, and that the
legal issue at stake is therefore to determine whether the player had a just cause to
prematurely terminate the contract.
15. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only
when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation
of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated
prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for
an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfillment of his contractual duties, such measures
Page 9 of 14
REF 20-01363
must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of
an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
16. In view of the above, the Chamber observed that, during the course of the investigation,
a document issued by COUNTRY B FA confirmed that the player was “at all material
times a registered player pursuant to Article 5 of the COUNTRY B FA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players”.
17. Nevertheless, the Chamber also noted that, on 5 October 2020, that the club indicated to
that “(…) According to COUNTRY B FA regulations, only 5 foreigners and 1
Confederation foreigners may be registered at any one time. For the Restart, our Head
Coach has selected six foreigners to register accordingly and consequently, 2 foreigners
were not registered, you being one of them. The Head Coach may register you later at
his discretion during future registration periods for the 2020-2021 season.”
18. At this point, the members of the DRC first of all considered important to point out, as
has been previously sustained by the DRC, that among 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.
19. In this context, the DRC emphasized that the registration of a player cannot be left to the
discretionary power of a coach. Indeed, the members of the Chamber underlined that, by
refusing to register a player, a club is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, the
potential access of a player to competition and, as such, violating one of his fundamental
rights as a football player.
20. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the Respondent clearly expressed its
lack of interest for the player’s services.
21. In this respect, the Chamber referred to, art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate
that “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.”
22. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the club acted in an abusive manner
and, as a result, the player could reasonably expect that the club was not interested in his
services anymore. Hence, he had a just cause to terminate the contract.
23. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the
termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber decided that,
in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the club is liable to pay compensation
to the player.
24. In this respect, 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 firstly 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
Page 10 of 14
REF 20-01363
law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria,
including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the
existing contract and/or the new contract, the 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.
25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all 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.
26. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player 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.
27. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other
benefits due to the player 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.
28. Bearing in mind the foregoing, 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, i.e. 12 October 2020 until 31 May 2021, and
concluded that the Claimant would have received in total USD 114,150 [i.e. USD 15,000*
7,61=7+(19/31=0,61), equaling 19 days of October 2020 as well as the full months of
November 2020 until May 2021)]. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount
of USD 114,150 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
29. 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 breach of
contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
30. In this respect, the Chamber verified that the player did not conclude any new contract
afterwards.
31. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s claim
Page 11 of 14
REF 20-01363
and that the club must pay the amount of USD 114,150 as compensation for breach of
contract in the case at hand.
32. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent
must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount as of the
date of the new claim, i.e. 16 October 2020.
33. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claims lodged by the parties are rejected.
34. As to the requested legal fees, the Chamber referred to art. 18 pars. 2 and 4, according
to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to
the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related
disputes between a club and a player are free of charge” and “no procedural
compensation shall be awarded in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee and the
DRC.”
35. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber 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.
36. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out 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.
37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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.
38. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
Page 12 of 14
REF 20-01363
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- USD 114,150 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
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.
6.
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).
7.
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. 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).
2. 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.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
REF 20-01363
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 14 of 14