Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 October 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player C, from country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club A, from country Q
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 25 July 2010, Player C, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
player), and Club A, from country Q (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed
a “settlement agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement), by means of
which the parties agreed that “the contract starts on first August 2010 for
three years”.
2.
According to articles 2 to 4 of the agreement, the Respondent undertakes
to provide the Claimant with the following amounts:
- USD 450,000 as global remuneration per season, USD 200,000 of
which are payable “upon the signature” and USD 250,000 payable in
10 equal instalments of USD 25,000, as from 1 August 2010;
- economy air tickets country B-country Q-country B, for the player and
his family;
- a furnished apartment;
- a car;
- medical treatment in country Q hospitals;
- win bonuses.
3.
On 1 August 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) and a “Football Player
Contract Schedule” (hereinafter: the annex), both valid as from the date
of signature until 30 June 2013.
4.
According to art. 2 of the annex, the Respondent undertakes to pay the
Claimant USD 450,000 as global salary per season, USD 250,000 of which
are payable “upon the signature” and USD 200,000 payable in 10 equal
instalments of USD 20,000, from 1 August until 1 May of the following
year.
5.
Furthermore, art. 4 par. 2 lit. c) of the contract stipulates that “During the
contractual period, the Club A [the club] will make the following elements
available to the player: c) Sports-oriented medical and therapeutic care”.
6.
Article 7 paragraphs 3 to 5 of the contract establish that “3. In the event
that the player shall become incapacitated by reason of sickness or injury
for a period between three and six months, establish by independent
medical examination, the Club A shall be entitled to reduce the player’s
monthly salaries for a percentage of 50% of their amount. 4. In the event
that the player shall become incapacitated by reason of sickness or injury
for a period between higher than six months, established by independent
medical examination, the Club A shall be entitled to terminate this
2/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
contract upon on month’s written notice to player. 5. Country Q
legislation regarding sickness and accidents applies to both parties to the
contract. Any provisions in the Regulations of the country Q Football
Association and country Q Stars League Management governing this
matter also apply”.
7.
In addition, art. 10 of the contract, entitled “termination by the club or
the player”, stipulates that “The Club A [the club] may terminate this
contract before its expiring term and the first party [the club] will by to
the second party [the player] amount of two month salary only”.
8.
On 24 May 2011, by means of its “Professional athlete clearance form”,
the Respondent informed that “Player C has ended his services on 31 May
2011”.
9.
On 2 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent for breach of contract without just cause, requesting the
payment of compensation in the total amount of USD 1,596,000, made up
of:
- USD 900,000 corresponding to the remaining value of the contract;
- USD 336,000 corresponding to the loss of all benefits due as per the
contract, i.e. air tickets (USD 60,000), a car (USD 60,000), a furnished
apartment (USD 144,000), medical treatment (USD 12,000) and match
bonuses (USD 60,000);
- USD 270,000 corresponding to additional compensation in the
minimum amount of 30% of the remaining value of the contract, as
the breach occurred in the protected period;
- USD 90,000 corresponding to additional compensation in the
minimum amount of 10% of the remaining value of the contract, as
the player had to interrupt his recovery treatment.
10.
In addition, the Claimant requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on
the Respondent.
11.
The Claimant alleges that, after being injured during a match on 25
March 2011, he was sent by the Respondent for treatment and, while still
in treatment, the club unilaterally terminated his employment contract,
on 25 May 2011, without giving him any explanation for having taken
such decision. As a consequence, the Claimant had to interrupt his
treatment and his recovery was delayed; therefore, he was not able to
find new employment after the alleged breach.
3/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
12.
According to the Claimant, based on art. 10 of the contract, the
Respondent proposed to pay him compensation in the amount of 2
monthly salaries. The Claimant, however, considers the aforementioned
article as an abusive clause, drafted in favour of the Respondent only, and
therefore it should not be taken into account for the calculation of the
amount of compensation due to the Claimant for the Respondent’s
unilateral breach. Moreover, the Claimant points out that the breach
occurred during the protected period.
13.
In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent rejected all the
allegations of the player. The Respondent claims having always complied
with its obligations as per the contract and having terminated the latter
with just cause. In this regard, the Respondent claims that the parties
agreed upon the inclusion in the contract of a compensation clause valid
for both parties, as indicated the title of art. 10: “termination by the club
or the player”. Therefore, such clause should be considered as valid and
binding.
14.
In particular, the Respondent claims having acted in accordance with art. 4
par. 2 lit. c) and art. 7 par. 3 to 5 of the contract.
15.
In addition, the Respondent states to have made a major investment by
hiring the Claimant and paying his former club the total amount of USD
500,000. The Claimant, however, got injured on 25 March 2011 and was
prevented from rendering his services to the Respondent for the
remaining sporting season. As a consequence, the Claimant was,
according to the Respondent, provided with high quality treatment in the
country Q Hospital, officially credited by F-MARC as a FIFA Medical Centre
of Excellence, equipped with “state of art facilities” and “staffed by some
to the world’s leading sports medicine practitioners and researchers”.
16.
According to the medical report dated 19 May 2011, “Player C [the player]
has right knee distal MCL strain grade 2-3 and he is now 8 weeks postinjury and progressing as expected. He should continue physiotherapy
rehabilitation for knee ROM and start to increase weightbearing function
including straight line running and cycling. He is not to return to the club
training until he has complete sport-specific rehabilitation”. In view of
said circumstances, the Respondent was no longer interested in the
services of the Claimant and contacted him in view of proposing the
amicable termination of the contract, upon the payment of 2 monthly
salaries, in accordance with art. 10 of the contract. According to the
Respondent, the Claimant did not contest having received its proposal and
having subsequently rejected it. Therefore, it decided to submit the
4/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
relevant clearance form to the Professional Player’s Committee, dated 24
May 2011 (cf. point I.8. above).
17.
The Respondent further claims that, as per art. 7 par. 3 of the contract, it
would have been entitled to reduce the Claimant’s salary by 50% during
his treatment. Nonetheless, acting in good faith towards him, it never
proceeded to any reduction in that regard. The Claimant, however,
lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting an
excessive amount of compensation.
18.
In view of the aforementioned, the Respondent claims having terminated
the contract with just cause, based on art. 10 of the contract, which is fully
reciprocal and was freely accepted by both parties, as they are allowed to
include a specific compensation clause in the contract. The Respondent
emphasizes that the title of art. 10 makes it clear that both parties are
entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract upon the payment of
compensation to the other party and points out that, by mistake, the
expression “the player” was not added after “the Club A”, i.e. the
Respondent. According to the Respondent, the aforementioned article is
in line with both the FIFA Regulations and the country Q Football
Association Regulations.
19.
Furthermore, the Respondent claims that it terminated the contract
before the end of season 2010/2011 and that the Claimant found new
employment with the county B club, Club S, in July 2011. Therefore, the
termination has not caused any harm to the Claimant’s career.
20.
In the event that the Dispute Resolution Chamber considers art. 10 of the
contract as non-applicable, the club claims that the amount of
compensation due to the Claimant should be calculated taking into
account his new salary with Club S.
21.
Finally, the Respondent claims that the Claimant’s claim for compensation
and sporting sanctions should be entirely rejected.
22.
In his replica, the Claimant rejects the Respondent’s argumentation
related to art. 10 of the contract, since this article explicitly mentions that
the Respondent only is entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract
upon the payment of compensation, in spite of the article’s title.
23.
In this case, the aforementioned article cannot be applied, since it violates
the principles of the social role of the contract, of the objective good faith
and of the equal rights of the parties.
5/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
24.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent admits that the termination
was not mutually agreed by the parties and asserts that he would like to
have maintained the contract. By unilaterally terminating the contract,
the Respondent violated the principle of contractual stability, during the
protected period and, therefore, is liable to pay compensation and suffer
sporting sanctions, according to art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations.
25.
The Claimant further claims that, not having the financial means to bear
himself the costs of his rehabilitation treatment, he turned to his former
club, Club S for support in this regard. The Claimant was in treatment as
from 11 June 2011 until 23 July 2011 and on 20 June 2011 he signed a
new employment contract with Club S, valid as from the date of signature
until 19 June 2013, for a monthly salary of currency of country B 5,000.
26.
In this respect, the Claimant claims having suffered considerable damages
to his career and to his finances, since he only participated in very few
official matches during the season 2011/2012 and had his annual income
reduced from USD 450,000, plus extra benefits, to approximately USD
40,000. Moreover, in August 2012, Club S informed the Claimant that it
was no longer interested in his services and would transfer him on a loan
basis to Club T, as from 22 August 2012 until 15 December 2012, also for a
monthly salary of currency of country B 5,000. Even though the Claimant
returned to Club S after the end of his loan, his future with such club and
in football is uncertain. Therefore, the Claimant reinstates the entire
content of his claim.
27.
In its final position, the Respondent maintains its previous argumentation
and insists on the validity of art. 10 of the contract, in accordance with art.
17 par. 1 and 2 of the FIFA Regulations. Furthermore, the Respondent
claims that it is not disputed by the Claimant that the Respondent
respected all of its contractual obligations during its employment with the
latter.
28.
In addition, it states that already on 20 June 2011 the Claimant found new
employment with Club S, immediately after the termination of the
contract with the Respondent, and was subsequently transferred to
another country B club, Club T, in August 2012. The Respondent denies
being in any way responsible for any damages to the Claimant’s career
subsequent to the termination of the contract with it.
29.
The Respondent further points out that, combining the medical report of
19 May 2011 of country B Hospital and the undated medical report of
6/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
Club S’s medical department, the Claimant’s injury had already
ameliorated to a significant extent when the termination occurred. In this
respect, the Respondent refers to the medical report of Club S, in which it
is stated that “the athlete evolved satisfactorily in four weeks, who was
release without restriction to physical technical conditioning work on 23
July 2012”. Thus, the Respondent denies that the termination of the
contract has been triggered by the Claimant’s injury, since by the time of
termination the Claimant was almost completely recovered from his
injury.
30.
Consequently, the fact that the Claimant did not take part in many official
matches during the season 2011/2012 has no relation to his injury
whatsoever, but was a technical decision of Club S. The Respondent
further claims that, as per several publications on well trusted football
databases, it can be noted that the Claimant was regularly fielded with
Club S as from 26 January 2012 until 13 May 2012 and as from 1 February
2013 up to date, i.e. 18 matches, and with Club T as from 26 August 2012
until 21 October 2012, i.e. 9 matches.
31.
Finally, the Respondent requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber to reject
the Claimant’s claim in its entirety, to establish that the Respondent has
not breached the contract without just cause, to order that, in case the
Claimant is considered entitled to compensation, that this amount should
not exceed USD 40,000, and to order the Claimant to bear all costs of
proceedings.
32.
The Claimant informed FIFA that he has been subsequently registered
with the following country B clubs:
- Club S, as from 20 June 2011 to 21 August 2012, for a monthly salary
of currency of country B 5,000;
- Club T, as from 22 August 2012 until 15 December 2012, for a monthly
salary of currency of country B 5,000;
- Club S, as from 16 December 2012 until 13 February 2013, for a
monthly salary of currency of country B 5,000;
- Club F, as from 14 February 2013 until 1 May 2013, for a monthly
salary of currency of country B 1,300;
- Club L, as from 2 May 2013 until present, for a monthly salary of
currency of country B 1,000.
7/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 2 June 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is
applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in
conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2012), it is competent to decide on the present
litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension, between a country B player and a country Q
club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: 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
(editions 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 2 June 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is
applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the 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.
5.
In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was
undisputed by the parties that, on 25 July 2010, they signed an agreement
valid as from 1 August 2010 for three years, in accordance with which the
Claimant was entitled to receive USD 450,000 as global remuneration per
season, of which USD 200,000 are payable “upon the signature” and USD
250,000 in 10 equal instalments of USD 25,000, as from 1 August 2010;
economy air tickets country B-country Q-country B, for the player and his
family; a furnished apartment; a car; medical treatment in country Q
hospitals; and win bonuses.
8/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
6.
The DRC further acknowledged that it was also undisputed by the parties
that, on 1 August 2010, they signed an employment contract and a
“Football Player Contract Schedule”, both valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2013, and according to which the Respondent
undertook to pay the Claimant USD 450,000 as global salary per season,
USD 250,000 of which are payable “upon the signature” and USD 200,000
payable in 10 equal instalments of USD 20,000, from 1 August until 1 May
of the following year.
7.
The DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that on 24 May
2011 the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contractual relation in
writing with effect as from 31 May 2011, while the Claimant was
undergoing therapy, due to an injury sustained during a match. The
Claimant further maintains that, based on art. 10 of the contract, the
Respondent proposed him the payment of compensation in the amount
of 2 monthly salaries, which he refused. The Claimant considers art. 10 of
the contract as abusive and advantageous for the club only. Therefore, he
deems that such article is not applicable.
8.
Based on the aforementioned, on 2 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a
claim against the Respondent for having terminated the contract
unilaterally and without just cause, requesting the payment of
compensation in the total amount of USD 1,596,000, as broken down in
point I.9. above.
9.
Subsequently, the DRC noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent
rejects the Claimant’s allegations and insists on the fact that it terminated
the contract with just cause, based on its art. 10, which was agreed upon
by the parties. In addition, the Respondent points out that, in spite of its
wording, the aforementioned article grants both parties equal and
reciprocal conditions to terminate the contract, as established in its title:
“termination by the club or by the player”.
10.
Moreover, the Respondent explains that in March 2011 the Claimant
suffered an injury, subsequent to which high quality medical treatment
was offered to him by the club. In spite of having been allowed to reduce
the Claimant’s salaries by 50%, as per art. 7 par. 3 of the contract, the
Respondent continued paying his full salary. In view of the fact that the
Claimant would not anymore be able to play during that season, the
Respondent proposed the termination of their cooperation in exchange of
2 monthly salaries, as per art. 10 of the contract. As the Claimant refused
it, the Respondent claims having had no other choice but to terminate the
contract unilaterally on 24 May 2011. The Respondent asserts that the
9/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
Claimant’s injury was not the reason for the termination. In fact,
according to the Respondent, the termination of the contract did not
harm the Claimant’s career in any way, since shortly after that he found
new employment with the Club S, from country B.
11.
In view of the aforementioned, the Respondent deems to have
terminated the employment contract with just cause on 24 May 2011,
based on art. 10 of the contract, and requests that the DRC reject the
Claimant’s claim entirely or, alternatively, that it reduces the amount of
compensation due to him taking into account his new salary with Club S.
12.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the
underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and
the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether the
employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without
just cause by the Respondent, and which party was responsible for the
early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also
underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment
contract had been breached by one of the parties without just cause, it
would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that
caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.
13.
In view of the aforementioned arguments of both parties, the Chamber
decided to first focus its attention on the analysis of the contents of art.
10 of the contract, upon which the Respondent bases the termination and
which the Claimant considers invalid.
14.
In this respect, the DRC deemed it important to recall the wording of art.
10 of the contract, which stipulates that “The Club A may terminate this
contract before its expiring term and the first party will by to the second
party amount of two month salary only”. In addition, the Chamber
acknowledged that the aforementioned article bears the title
“termination by the club or the player”.
15.
In this regard, the members of the DRC considered that the possibility
granted to the Respondent to prematurely terminate the contract by
paying the Claimant a relatively insignificant amount of compensation
appeared to be of a highly arbitrary nature, entailing that, de facto, it is
left to the complete and utter discretion of the Respondent whether or
not it was willing to continue the contractual relationship with the
Claimant.
16.
Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, even though the
aforementioned art. 10 bears the title “termination by the club or the
10/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
player”, its wording clearly only refers to the entitlement of the
Respondent to terminate the contract, by paying the Claimant the
amount of two monthly salaries.
17.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber was of the opinion that art. 10 of
the contract invoked by the Respondent in order to terminate the
contract on 24 May 2011 was clearly potestative and that, consequently,
the respective argumentation of the Respondent in this respect could not
be upheld by the DRC.
18.
In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that both parties mentioned
in their argumentation the fact that the Claimant, due to an injury
sustained while playing, was undergoing therapy by the time the contract
was terminated. In addition, the DRC equally took note of the
Respondent’s argument, according to which it continued paying the
Claimant his full salary, in spite of the fact that it could have reduced it by
50%, as per art. 7 par. 3 of the contract.
19.
In this regard, and regardless of the fact that the Respondent maintains
that the Claimant’s injury was not the reason for the termination of the
contract, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of its
well-established jurisprudence, according to which an injury or health
condition of a player cannot be considered as a valid reason to cease the
payment of a player’s remuneration and even less so to terminate an
employment contract.
20.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that both the Claimant
and the Respondent declare that the player, having been offered the
termination of the contract in exchange of the payment of compensation
in the amount of 2 monthly salaries, based on art. 10 of the contract,
clearly refused the Respondent’s proposal. In spite of the Claimant’s clear
refusal, the Respondent submitted the relevant “clearance form” to the
Professional Player’s Committee on 24 May 2011 and, thereby, unilaterally
terminated the contract with the Claimant, with effect as from 31 May
2011.
21.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent did
not have a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract
and, therefore, decided that the Respondent is to be held responsible for
the breach of contract without just cause.
22.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber focused its
attention on the consequences of the breach of contract without just
cause on the part of the Respondent. Taking into consideration art. 17
11/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is
entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding
payments on the basis of the relevant contract.
23.
In continuation, after having established that no payments for services
rendered by the Claimant remained outstanding, the Chamber focussed
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 law of the country concerned, the
specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular,
the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the
existing contract and/or the new contract, the 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.
24.
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.
25.
In this regard, the Chamber referred to its previous considerations with
regard to art. 10 of the contract and unanimously concluded that due to
its unilateral and potestative character such article could not be validly
applied.
26.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the
employment contract with the Respondent, as from 1 June 2011 until 30
June 2013. The Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 900,000, i.e.
USD 450,000 per remaining season, serves as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
27.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had
signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant
period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce
his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment
contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
12/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
28.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that, after the termination of his
contract with the Respondent, the Claimant signed several new
employment contracts with the country B clubs, Club S, Club T, Club F and
Club L, as detailed in point I.32. above, in accordance with which the
Claimant earned an income of approximately USD 57,000, and that
according to the Chamber’s current jurisprudence, the total remuneration
the Claimant received under such contracts would be used to mitigate the
amount of compensation due to him by the Respondent.
29.
In addition, and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case
at hand, the Chamber equally wished to take into consideration the fact
that, in spite of the fact that art. 10 of the contract is invalid, the
Claimant, by signing the contract containing the aforementioned clause,
created for the Respondent the expectation that it would actually be
allowed to terminate the contract at any time, by paying the Claimant
only the amount of 2 monthly salaries. In this respect, the Chamber
wished to remind the parties that a party signing a document of legal
importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and shall
thus be aware of and bear the possible consequences thereof.
30.
For all the above reasons, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of
the Claimant and to hold the Respondent liable to pay the Claimant the
amount of USD 700,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
31.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the
present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the
Claimant is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days
as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD
700,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned time
limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of
the above-mentioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted,
13/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q
upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
a formal decision.
4.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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
14/14
Player C, from country B / Club A, from country Q