Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player M, from country S
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club V, from country R
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
Facts relating to the preliminary issue of the competence of the DRC:
1.
On 1 February 2010, Player M, from country S (hereinafter player or Claimant / CounterRespondent) lodged a claim for breach of contract against the country R club, Club V
(hereinafter club or Respondent / Counter-Claimant), in front of FIFA.
2.
According to art. 16 par. 1 and par. 2 of the relevant employment contract, the contract
is governed by country R law and the “sporting statute and regulations”.
3.
According to art. 17 par. 2, disputes, controversies or misunderstandings that derive
from or are related to the employment contract will be submitted “only to the sporting
courts of jurisdiction of country R Football Federation or Professional Football League”.
4.
In its reply to the player’s claim, and based on art. 16 and art. 17 of the employment
contract, the club challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC).
5.
In this respect, the 2009 edition of the Statutes of the country R Football Federation and
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players of the country R Football
Federation were provided (hereinafter the RFF Regulations).
6.
The player, for his part, insists that the FIFA DRC is competent.
7.
In this respect, the player held that the clause at stake is too vague as it does not permit
to know in front of which local decision-making body one has to lodge a claim.
8.
Also, the player stressed that the DRC itself considered that the principle of equal
representation in the composition of the country R local deciding bodies is not
respected. Since the club did not submit any evidence invalidating the DRC
jurisprudence, one has to conclude that the jurisdiction of the local bodies remains
unacceptable and that the DRC is competent to pass a decision.
9.
Finally, the player stated that by having lodged a counterclaim before FIFA against him,
the club accepted the jurisdiction of the FIFA DRC.
Facts relating to the substance of the matter:
10.
On 26 June 2008, the player and the club signed an employment contract (hereinafter:
contract) valid as from 1 July 2008 until 1 July 2011, i.e. for 3 years.
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 2/13
11.
In addition to the aforementioned contract, the parties signed, on the same date and
for the same duration, a financial addendum (hereinafter: addendum). According to the
addendum, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts in EUR:
Sporting
seasons
(1 July to 30
June)
Down payments (first
one after registration of
the contract, other two
on 15th day of July)
2008/2009
2009/2010
2010/2011
24,000
30,000
30,000
Monthly salary
(twelve payments,
each due on the
15th day of each
month)
3,000
3,333
4,167
Season’s total
60,000
70,000
80,000
12.
In accordance with art. 1 par. IV of the addendum “all the above mentioned sums are
net and conditioned by the presence on the field at 60% of the matches (one match=60
minutes)”.
13.
Furthermore, according to art. 1 par. VI of the addendum, the club shall pay to the
player the following bonuses:
EUR 60,000 if the club ranked 1st or 2nd in the Champion League in the season
2008/09;
EUR 30,000 if the club participates in the UEFA CUP or wins the country R Cup;
EUR 3,000 as victory bonus, either for home or away matches;
EUR 6,000 for victories against Club D, Club R, Club C, Club P;
EUR 12,000 for a victory against Club S.
14.
On an unspecified date, the player put the club in default of its contractual obligations
and asked the club to provide him with proper work conditions, as stipulated in the
contract.
15.
Additionally, and via a second correspondence, the player put the club in default of
payment of three monthly salaries in the amount of EUR 3,333 each (October,
November, December 2009), EUR 543 related to the monthly salary of July 2009, and
“arrears until 15 July 2009”, representing an amount of EUR 30,000.
16.
In addition to the aforementioned, the player held that, on 21 January 2010, he wrote
to the club to inter alia ask it to pay him EUR 44,428 within the following six months.
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 3/13
17.
By means of a letter dated 27 January 2010, the player inter alia informed the club that
considering his “humiliating conditions of work” and the “overall contractual debt”, he
was left with no other option but to terminate the contract with immediate effect.
18.
On 1 February 2010, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the club in
front of FIFA, claiming that the club failed to comply with its contractual obligation to
provide him with “elementary and decent training conditions”.
19.
Additionally, the player asked to be awarded payment of the amount of EUR 142,334
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010, which was detailed as follows:
EUR 2,608 as outstanding salaries and bonuses related to the sporting season
2008/09 (out of a total contractual amount of EUR 69,000, which includes the three
bonuses of EUR 3,000 each, the player declares having only received EUR 66,392);
EUR 43,061 as outstanding salaries related to the sporting season 2009/10 and
calculated as from the beginning of said season until the contract termination, i.e.
27 January 2010 (out of EUR 53,331 that the player claims he should have been
paid, the player declares having only received EUR 10,270);
EUR 16,665 as compensation for breach of contract in relation to the sporting
season 2009/10, calculated as from the contract termination, i.e. 27 January 2010,
and composed of five monthly salaries (February 2010 up to and including June
2010);
EUR 80,000 as the whole contractual value of the entire sporting season 2010/11.
20.
In this respect, the player explained that, on 12 January 2010, the head coach of the
club informed him without giving any further explanation that he, as well as two other
players, would not be in the squad of players competing for the remaining half of the
season.
21.
Consequently, the player allegedly had, inter alia, to train under the guidance of the
reserve team’s coach.
22.
The following day, the player allegedly was denied the right to use the club’s
equipment, the football pitch or the changing rooms.
23.
According to the player, the reasons for the club’s refusal to pay him the amounts that
were outstanding before the termination of the contract were never explained to him
at the time, only afterwards the club would have informed him that the situation was
caused by the fact that the player’s participation in matches never reached the 60%
criterion set forth in the contract.
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 4/13
24.
In view of this, the club considered that it did not have to pay the amounts at stake. In
the player’s opinion, this clause consists of a “secret clause” which was never brought to
his attention during the negotiations.
25.
In this respect, the player pointed out that the contract he signed was drafted in
country R and that he does not understand this language.
26.
In addition to the arguments it submitted in relation to the competence of the DRC, the
club presented its position as to the substance of the matter at hand. The club sustained
that the player did not have any valid reason to lodge a claim for compensation against
the club.
27.
The club highlighted that the player accepted some “compulsory clauses in connection
with his remuneration” and cannot claim all of a sudden that he did not understand
them or that they were secret.
28.
In addition, the club asserted that the player’s situation is different from his teammates’
situation, since, as opposed to his teammates, the player has only been sanctioned by
the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Football League and neither the DRC of
the country R Football Federation nor the DRC of the Professional Football League have
ever passed any decision on a dispute opposing the player and the club.
29.
Additionally, the club considered that the player did not respect his contractual
obligations towards the club and that he terminated the contract without having any
“just (sports) cause”. Therefore, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player on 31
May 2010.
30.
In this respect, the club stated that, according to art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, the
payments of the relevant amounts are conditioned by the player’s participation in 60%
of the matches, one match being validated provided the player played 60 minutes.
31.
Considering that the player allegedly only participated in 7 out of 34 matches of the
national championship league I during the season 2008/09, i.e. 20,58% of the 34
matches, according to the club, the player was only entitled to receive 20.58% of EUR
60,000, i.e. EUR 12,348.
32.
In addition, the club held that considering that the player allegedly only participated in
2 out of 34 matches in the season 2009/10, he was only entitled to receive EUR 4,116,
i.e. 5.88% of EUR 70,000.
33.
In continuation, the club asserted that since it paid EUR 48,000 to the player as
“advances on his financial rights”, the player received more money than what the club
finally owed him and that the club is entitled to request a partial reimbursement.
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 5/13
34.
In particular, the club claimed reimbursement by the player of the amount of EUR
31,536 (EUR 48,000 – [(EUR 4,116 + EUR 12,348]), which corresponds to the difference
between the amounts the player allegedly received in advance and the amount he was
finally entitled to receive based on his appearances in matches and up to the date on
which the player terminated the contract with the club.
35.
In addition to the aforementioned amount, the club claimed EUR 110,000 as
compensation for the loss of the opportunity to use the player’s services, this amount
being an estimation “which corresponds to half of the remuneration which would have
been paid to the player would the services of the latter have been needed at least for
the minimum number of matches as from which he was entitled to a full remuneration,
namely EUR 30,000 for the remaining part of the season 2009/2010 and 80,000 for the
season 2010/2011”.
36.
In continuation, the club claimed EUR 100,000 for the lost opportunity to transfer the
player to another club. This estimated amount was based on the “theoretical value of
the player’s employment contract coupled with the current market conditions for a
player of the [same] age”.
37.
In reply to the club’s counterclaim, the player contested the club’s arguments, rejected
the counterclaim and maintained his position in full.
38.
Concerning the club’s counterclaim relating to the amount of EUR 31,536 as well as the
club’s reference to art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, the player argued that such clause
has to be qualified as null and void as it is abusive and potestative, the player’s presence
on the field being subject to the club’s decision to field him or not. In case one would
follow the club’s reasoning, it could be that a player would not receive any salary at all.
39.
Also, the player stressed that the club itself never executed the contract the way it
should have, if said clause had to be enforced or to be construed the way the club now
interprets it. In this respect, the player highlighted that the club admitted having paid
him about EUR 66,392 during the sporting season 2008/09, i.e. 96,22% of his yearly
salary, whereas the club now holds that the player only took part in 20,58% of the
club’s matches. Also, the club’s payments during the execution of the contract were
never presented to him as being payments in advance.
40.
In light of the above, the player concluded that it can be seen from the parties’ conduct
that the clause at stake “never formed a part of the agreement in force between the
player and the club” and that the club’s request that the player shall reimburse the
amount of EUR 31,536 has to be rejected.
41.
The player then addressed the club’s claim in the total amount of EUR 210,000 as
compensation for breach of contract, which he considers as unjustified. In this respect,
the player asserted that the club is claiming EUR 110,000 for the loss of the opportunity
to use the player’s services, whereas, in the player’s opinion, the termination of the
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 6/13
contract actually resulted in the club not having to pay his salaries. According to the
player, there were, therefore, no damages for the club, but savings.
42.
Secondly, the player stated that the amount requested by the club in relation to the loss
of the opportunity to use the player’s services is ironic, since the club requested
compensation on the basis of the full salaries due to the player, although the club states
that the player’s salaries would depend on his reaching the quota of appearances
indicated in art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, which he, according to the club, never
reached during the execution of the contract. Anyhow, according to the player’s
calculation, the amount theoretically due to the player after the contract termination
and which is claimed by the club amounts to EUR 96,665 (EUR 16,665 + EUR 80,000) and
not EUR 110,000.
43.
In connection with the amount of EUR 100,000 claimed by the club in relation to the
lost opportunity to transfer the player to another club, the player replied that the club
did not present any evidence in relation to a plan or negotiations about a future
transfer of the player.
44.
Finally, the player argued that the club cannot claim compensation on both bases at the
same time, since either the player would have played for the club, or he would have
been transferred to another club. In this regard, the player rejected the club’s
calculation of the player’s market value and stressed that it is not justified or evidenced
in any way.
45.
After the parties exchanged their respective positions, the player informed FIFA that, at
the club’s initiative, the parties had entered into negotiations in view of an amicable
settlement.
46.
The player submitted a settlement agreement dated 27 March 2012 signed by the club
and by means of which the club agreed to pay the player EUR 110,000 in full and final
settlement of the matter at hand. Furthermore, should the club fail to pay the player
EUR 110,000 in compliance with a detailed schedule, it would be liable to pay to the
player the amount of EUR 142,334, i.e. the amount claimed by the player in front of the
DRC, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010.
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 matter at hand. In this
respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 February
2010. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the
Procedural Rules).
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 7/13
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 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on
employment-related disputes between a club and a player with an international
dimension.
3.
Having said that, the DRC stated that it would, in principle, be the competent body
to decide on the present litigation involving a country S player and a country R club
regarding an employment-related dispute.
4.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
contested the competence of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber to deal with the
present case on the basis of art. 17 par. 2 of the employment contract, stating that
any dispute arisen between the parties should be submitted to the deciding bodies
of the country R Football Federation and of the country R Professional Football
League.
5.
The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for his part,
rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present
matter.
6.
Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art.
22 lit. b) of the 2012 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. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles
contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard
Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
7.
While analysing whether it is competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute actually contains a clear and
specific jurisdiction clause, which is one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in
order to establish that another deciding body than the DRC is competent to deal with
an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international
dimension.
8.
Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to art. 17 par. 2 of
the contract, which stipulates that disputes, controversies or misunderstandings that
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 8/13
derive from or are related to the employment contract signed by the parties will be
submitted “only to the sporting courts of jurisdiction of country R Football Federation
or Professional Football League”.
9.
The members of the DRC were of the opinion that art. 17 par. 2 of the employment
contract differs between different unspecified deciding bodies and does not explicitly or
clearly refer to one specific national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art. 22
lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the Chamber
concurred that said clause cannot be considered as a clear arbitration clause in favour of
a specific national deciding body. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that this lack
of clarity is also reflected in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation since
it refers to the alleged competence of the deciding bodies of both the country R
Football Federation and Professional Football Federation, without further precision.
10.
Having established that the basic condition of the inclusion of a clear and specific
jurisdiction clause in the relevant employment contract has not been fulfilled in the
present matter, the Chamber deemed unnecessary to proceed with a detailed analysis of
the question as to whether the national deciding bodies referred to in art. 17 par. 2 of
the employment contract meet the standards and principles mentioned under number
II./6. above.
11.
Nonetheless, as a side note, the Chamber deemed it fit to point out that on previous
occasions the DRC has established that the national deciding body under the 2009
regulations presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its
position does not meet the standards and principles mentioned under number II./6.
above.
12.
In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to
be rejected and that the DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to
the substance.
13.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations
should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2012)
and considering that the claim in front of FIFA was lodged on 1 February 2010, the 2009
edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance
(hereinafter: Regulations).
14.
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 above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 9/13
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
15.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintaining
that he terminated the employment contract with just cause after previously having
put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default of payment of his remuneration.
Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asks to be awarded his
outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the
employment contract.
16.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that according to the Respondent / CounterClaimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally put an
end to the employment contract, as a result of which it lodged a counterclaim
against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asking to be awarded reimbursement by
the player of monies that he allegedly had received in excess of his entitlements as well
as compensation.
17.
In view of the above, the Chamber highlighted that the central issue in the matter
at stake is to determine as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just
cause to terminate the employment contract and, in the affirmative, to determine
the consequences thereof.
18.
Having said this, the Chamber started its analysis of the matter by reverting to the
financial aspect of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and, by doing so,
primarily reverted to the remuneration system stipulated in art. I par. IV of the
addendum, which is invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its
defence and counterclaim. In this respect, the DRC recalled that according to art. 1
par. IV of said addendum, the player would only be entitled to a monthly
remuneration provided he participated during at least 60 minutes in 60% of the
matches played by the club.
19.
Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
deemed that said article was to be considered invalid as it was neither explained to
him at the time of the signature of the contract in country R nor even implemented
by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant itself during the execution of the contractual
relation.
20.
In addition, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, for its
part, held that such remuneration system was known to and accepted by the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent, who is not in a position to contend it in front of FIFA
after having accepted it in writing.
21.
With respect to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent ‘s allegation that the contents of
the relevant addendum, which he concluded with the Respondent / Counter-
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 10/13
Claimant, had not been explained to him, as a result of which the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent appears to imply that he had no knowledge of the abovedescribed remuneration system, the Chamber deemed it relevant to emphasise that
a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise
contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that such argument could not be upheld.
22.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber found that according to art. 1 par. IV of
the addendum, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was, inter alia, able to
unilaterally decrease any payments due to the player as, obviously, the decision on
the lining-up of players in a match is normally left fully to the discretion of the club.
23.
In light of the above, such clause appeared to be unilateral and to the benefit of the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant only.
24.
Considering its potestative character, the members of the Chamber concluded that
art. 1 par. IV of the addendum was not acceptable and could not be validly invoked
as a reason for the non-payment of the player’s remuneration. Accordingly, the DRC
rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant line of defence based on art. 1 par. IV
of the addendum.
25.
Furthermore, and referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
wished to point out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument that it paid
EUR 48,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as an advance on his future salaries
was not corroborated by any documentary evidence since, after a careful study of
the documents at its disposal, the Chamber could verify that none of the payment
receipts submitted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its
contention bear the indication that the payment at stake was an advance payment.
26.
Following its analysis, the Chamber found that in its submissions, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had not presented any other explanations or justification in
connection with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim regarding the nonpayment of his remuneration.
27.
In view of all the foregoing, the DRC held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
argumentation was to be dismissed and concluded that in light of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s serious non-respect of its contractual obligations, the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 27
January 2010 and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the
early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant / CounterRespondent.
28.
Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for
the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant /
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 11/13
Counter-Respondent, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of
such termination.
29.
In doing so, the Dispute Resolution Chamber first of all referred to the provisions of art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with which the party in breach shall pay
compensation. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that in addition to
his claim related to the payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR
45,669, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim of the total amount of EUR 142,334
includes a request for compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR
96,665, which corresponds to his calculation of the residual value of the employment
contract in the matter at stake.
30.
On the other hand, the Chamber paid particular attention to the fact that during
the proceedings in the matter at hand, by means of a document dated 27 March
2012 and duly signed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant agreed to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent EUR 110,000
in full and final settlement of the matter. In addition, the Respondent / CounterClaimant agreed that should it fail to pay the aforesaid sum, it shall pay to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent the total amount of EUR 142,334 plus 5% interest on
said amount calculated as from 12 January 2010, which fully corresponds to the
total amount claimed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in front of the DRC and
which includes outstanding remuneration as well as compensation.
31.
In view of all of the above, after having duly taken into account the specificities of
the present case, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
Club V, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player M, the amount of
EUR 142,334 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010 until the date of effective
payment.
32.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
by rejecting the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim against the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player M, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is accepted.
3.
The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club V, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 142,334 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010 until the date of effective payment.
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 12/13
5.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated
time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
6.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance
is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player M, from country S / Club V, from country R
Page 13/13