Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
BY:
Livia Silva Kägi (Brazil), Acting Deputy Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), Member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Club B, Country B
Represented by
INTERVENING PARTY:
Club C, Country B
Page 2
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 August 2020, the Country A player, A (hereinafter: the player) and the Country
B club, B (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract), valid as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2022, with the possibility
to extend its duration until the end of the 2022/2023 season upon agreement of both
parties, option that was not exercised.
2.
According to clause 3.1 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player during
the 2021/2022 season, inter alia, the following remuneration:
- EUR 150,000 as monthly salary, payable between 31 August 2021 and 31 May 2022;
- EUR 150,000 as fix payment, payable by 15 September 2021.
3.
Clause 3.23 of the contract reads as follows: “The fix payment is made to the Player
with the assumption that the Player will serve to the Club for the whole season. If the
Player, leaves (via permanent/loan transfer or termination) the Club with any reason
before the end of the season, then the fix payment will be subject to a pro-rata
calculation. If the result of the calculation exceeds the payment made to the Player,
then the Player shall return the exceeding amount to the Club within 10 days following
the Club's notification. Hereby the Player gives his consent that If the Player has
unpaid receivables, then the exceeding amount shall be deducted therefrom”.
4.
On 31 January 2022, the club proposed the player to sign a document named “Mutual
Termination of Employment Contract and Settlement Agreement” (hereinafter: the
termination agreement), whereby the club offered the player EUR 900,000 as
settlement amount, payable as follows:
-
5.
EUR 200,000 by 1 February 2022 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 200,000 by 31 May 2022 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 200,000 by 31 August 2022 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 200,000 by 31 December 2022 until the date of effective payment.
On 3 February 2022, the club informed the player of the following elements, which
may have an impact on the continuation of the contract:
-
The economic situation of the club, risking be relegated from xxx League and lose
income;
The player’s continuous injuries;
The player’s poor performance;
The necessity to terminate the contract in order to sign new international players.
Page 3
6.
In addition, the club -thereby- urged the player to sign the mutual termination
agreement provided by the club to the player, in accordance with which the club
undertook to pay a final amount of EUR 900,000 to the player as termination fee.
7.
By means of its correspondence dated 4 February 2022, the club unilaterally
terminated the contract on the grounds that the player refused to sign the
termination agreement and allegedly requested to receive a higher amount as
settlement, i.e. EUR 1,750,000.
8.
On 8 February 2022, the player signed a new contract with the Country B club, Club
C, valid as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2022, whereby the player is
entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 50,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Claim of the player
9.
On 10 March 2022, the player lodged a claim against the club before the Football
Tribunal, requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of EUR 900,000 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
the respective due dates, broken down by the player as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 300,000 net
-
EUR 150,000 as salary of December 2021;
EUR 150,000 as salary of January 2022.
Compensation for breach of contract (already mitigated): EUR 400,000 net
-
EUR 400,000 as residual value of the contract, i.e. the salaries payable as from
February until May 2022 in the amount of EUR 600,000, minus the new income
received with his new club during the overlapping period, i.e. EUR 200,000
(600,000 - 200,000 = 400,000).
Additional compensation: EUR 200,000 net
-
EUR 200,000 as additional compensation. In this respect, the player explained that,
insofar as by the date of termination of the contract, the club had overdue
payables (2 monthly salaries), the club shall pay an additional compensation,
which would exceed the residual value of the contract and, thus, the overall
Page 4
compensation due to the player shall be increased to the residual value of the
contract.
10. In his claim, the player argued that “in despite of some injuries, A has played 352
minutes with First team of B during the season 2021/2022 (i.e. 262 minutes in xxx
League and 90 minutes in Country B Cup), however, without explanation neither
justification, B doesn’t select A in First team from 26 December 2021”.
11. Furthermore, the player explained that, despite him complying with his contractual
obligations, the club failed to pay to the player the amount of EUR 300,000
corresponding to the salaries of December 2021 and January 2022 without any prima
facie contractual basis.
12. In this context, the player held that the club has unilaterally terminated the contract
without just cause on 4 February 2022, on the grounds of the reasons provided by the
club in its correspondence dated 3 February 2022, whereby the club referred to the
following events: the player’s injuries, the player’s alleged poor sporting performance
and the lack of interest in the player’s services, the club opting to terminate his
contract in order to sign new foreign players.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
13. In its reply, the club argued, that, on 4 November 2020, the club organized training
sessions in a training camp in City Country B, which would last until 14 November
2020. In this context, the club argued that the player only arrived at the camp on 6
November 2020 and that, after testing positive for Covid-19, he was isolated. In this
respect, the club held that, despite the health authorities recommending not
traveling, the player travelled to Country A.
14. Moreover, the club stressed that, in November and December 2020, after
complaining about an injury, the club instructed the player to go to a hospital, where
MRI scans were made, finding some “abnormalities”. In this context, the club
explained that “it came out that the Player needed to be operated. A did not want to
get operated in Hospital G in Country B. The Club found him a prestigious surgeon in
Country H, then he accepted to be operated. Even though the Club was not obligated
to compensate the Player’s operation which will be made outside of Country B and
Hospital G, the Club respected the Player’s decision and paid 6.500,00.-EUR for his
surgery expenses”.
15. In this respect, the club argued that, during the 2020/2021 season, “the Player played
at 19 games out of 45 games and fielded 1012 minutes approximately 54 minutes per
game and scored 9 goals”.
Page 5
16. In addition, the club explained that, in May 2021, the player informed the club about
his will to leave the country since he could not adapt to the city nor his teammates
and that he missed his family (note: no supporting documentation provided but
witness statements). In this context, the club explained that if the player could not be
convinced by the club to stay and continue with the contract, a mutual termination
agreement would need to be concluded.
17. Furthermore, the club argued that, at the beginning of the 2021/2022 season, the
player “was constantly complaining about his health status, could not concentrate on
getting healed, missed too many trainings, and being not trained with the team for a
long time, it made him to get in the squad even harder”.
18. Moreover, the club held that, after the Christmas holidays of the said season, the
players were summoned to join the club on 4 January 2022, but the player -again- got
Covid-19 and could not travel to Country B until 14 January 2022. In this regard, the
club argued that the player was not vaccinated and, thereby, was risking the breach
of his contractual obligations, which he did by failing to join the team on the instructed
dates. In order to illustrate the aforementioned, the club held that “during the
2021/2022 season’s first half, the Player played at 9 games out of 24 games and
fielded 262 minutes approximately 32 minutes per game and could not score any
goals”.
19. Furthermore, the club argued that, between the 26th of September 2021 and the 31st
of January 2022 “the team made 100 trainings and the Player only participated 48 of
them”.
20. The club explained that the parties initiated (again) conversation aiming at the mutual
termination of the contract, since the player’s lack of interest in the continuation of
the contract was blatant and since the club needed to sign international players in
order to avoid relegation. In this respect, the club held that, despite initially agreeing
(verbally) to sign a mutual termination agreement against payment of a certain
amount of money, the player finally decided not to sign it.
21. In this context, the club explained that the player’s agent informed the club that the
player’s wish was to receive a termination fee of EUR 1,750,000 and that, otherwise,
he would not mutually terminate the contract.
22. In this regard, the club held that, upon receipt of the aforementioned conditions, the
club “realized that the Player is trying to get advantage of the situation, he honestly
has no real intention to mutually terminate the Employment Contract but trying to
Page 6
get the most from the Club using the Club’s difficult position” and decided to
unilaterally terminate the contract on 4 February 2022.
23. In view of all of the above, the club argued that it terminated the contract with just
cause and requested to be awarded compensation for breach of contract in the total
amount of EUR 1,192,464.56, plus 5% interest p.a., broken down by the player as
follows:
Compensation for breach of contract: EUR 1,192,464.56
-
EUR 600,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the contract, i.e. the salaries of February, March, April and May
2022 in the amount of EUR 150,000 each;
-
EUR 50,000 corresponding to the last 10 days of January 2022 (the club argues that
the player was absent since 21 January 2022 and did not render any services as
from the said date) and, thus, calculates, on a pro-rata basis, the amount of money
due for the said period);
-
EUR 542,464.56 “as the unamortized amount of the fix payment as it is stated
under Article 3.23 of the Employment Contract plus 5% interest per annum
accrued from the 10th day after the Claimant/Counter Respondent receives our
reply letter of today until the date of effective payment”.
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim of the club
24. In its reply to the counterclaim, the player reiterated his previous arguments, rejected
the arguments of the club and held that the letter sent by the club on 3 February 2022
is clear when establishing the reasons that led the club to terminate the contract: the
player’s injuries, the player’s alleged poor sporting performance and the lack of
interest in the player’s services, the club opting to terminate his contract in order to
sign new foreign players.
25. In addition, the player argued that his non-participation in matches was a
consequence of the club’s decisions, the latter failing to select him as from 26
December 2021.
26. As for his absence during the month of January 2022, the player held that it was
motivated by his injury and such an event cannot trigger the lack of payment of his
monthly salary.
Page 7
27. Furthermore, the player stressed that the club acknowledged having a debt of EUR
300,000 towards him, i.e. the salaries of December 2021 and January 2022).
28. Moreover, the player argued that clause 3.23 is not applicable to the case at hand,
insofar as -as per its wording- it would only apply to scenarios where the player leaves
the club and, in casu, the club was the party unilaterally terminating the contract.
29. In this context, the player reiterated that the club terminated the contract without just
cause on 4 February 2022 and, consequently, shall pay the player a compensation for
breach of contract as well as his outstanding moneys, as requested in his claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. 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. In this
respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 March 2022
and submitted for decision on 27 October 2022. Taking into account the wording of
art. 34 of the June 2022 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
31. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 edition), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Country A player and a Country B club with the intervention of another Country B
club.
32. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022
edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 March 2022, the
March 2022 edition edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
Page 8
33. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis
of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it
may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the
evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
34. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter and recalled that this is a case where the player is requesting outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from the club, the latter
lodging a counterclaim against the player, requesting to be awarded a compensation
for breach of contract from the player.
36. In this respect, the DRC stressed that the following events are not disputed by the
parties:
-
The club failed to pay the salaries of December 2021 and January 2022 to the
player;
-
The player was injured during the month of January 2022, reason why he
could not render sporting services during the said month;
-
Despite some conversations being held concerning the mutual termination
of the contract, no mutual termination thereof was concluded between the
parties;
-
On 3 February 2022, the club informed the player, inter alia, about the
following: that the club was risking its relegation from xxx League to xxx
League, that his performance was not sufficient following his injuries and his
non-participation in trainings as a consequence of the player getting Covid19 without being vaccinated, that the player refuses to sign a mutual
termination agreement, that the club is forced to terminate one of their
Page 9
ongoing contracts with foreign players in order to sign a new foreign player.
In addition, the club urged the player to sign the mutual termination
agreement;
-
The club unilaterally terminated the contract on 4 February 2022 on the
grounds of the impossibility to reach a mutual termination agreement.
A. Did the club terminate the contract with just cause on 4 February 2022?
37. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club does provide several reasons that
led to the club’s unilateral termination of the contract:
i. The player’s injuries and poor performance
38. In this regard, the DRC stressed that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, the poor performance of a player cannot be used as a valid
argument to motivate the player’s dismissal, as it is as subjective factor which goes in
clear detriment of the principle of contractual stability. As such, the DRC concluded
that any termination based on the alleged poor performance of a player cannot be
considered as valid reason to terminate an employment contract.
39. In addition to the above, the Chamber stated that the fact that the said alleged poor
performance was motivated by injuries suffered by the player only adds seriousness
to the violation committed by the club by invoking poor performance as a reason
leading to the termination of the contract.
ii. The player’s non-participation in training sessions due to him suffering
Covid-19 and his low participation in matches
40. In this respect, the DRC maintained that the absence of an employee due to a medical
leave cannot be used against the player in the sense sought by the club.
41. What is more, continued the Chamber, apart from the alleged absences of the player
in November 2020 and January 2022, motivated by health circumstances, it seems
that no other absence of the player was registered and no default notice was sent by
the club urging the player to show up at the cub or participate in trainings / matches,
nor any disciplinary proceedings seem to have been opened by the club against the
player.
42. Furthermore, the DRC pointed out that the allegations of the player shall be accepted
when the latter stated that his participation in official matches does not depend on
Page 10
him but on the coach’s decision and, therefore, the said event cannot be used in his
detriment.
iii. That the parties had already reached a verbal agreement as to the
termination of the contract, the player failing to sign the relevant
contract
43. In this regard, the club has failed to prove that a termination agreement was actually
reached between the parties, the club only providing Whatsapp messages allegedly
exchanged with the player’s agent, which content is not conclusive.
44. Hence, in the absence of any valid termination agreement binding the parties to its
content, it is our opinion that no mutual termination agreement was ever concluded
between the parties.
iv. The club’s quota to sign another foreign player to avoid relegation
45. In this respect, the Chamber was of the opinion that the club’s intention was crystalclear: the club was not satisfied with the player’s performance and, upon his refusal
to conclude a mutual termination agreement under the conditions proposed by the
club- the club opted to unilaterally terminate the contract in order to be able to sign
another foreign player, which cannot be accepted.
46. In view of all of the above, the DRC concluded that the club unilaterally terminated
the contract without just cause on 4 February 2022, considering that the termination
of a contract is an ultima ratio measure and that the arguments provided by the club
-via its letter dated 3 February 2022- jointly constituted the reason leading to the
termination of the contract, none of which can be considered as a valid reason to
support the termination of an employment contract.
47. Thus, the DRC came to the conclusion that the claims of the club need to be rejected,
including: its claim to receive a compensation for the alleged period during which the
player did not provide services in January 2022, its claim to receive a compensation
for breach of contract corresponding to the residual value of the contract and its claim
to receive a compensation for breach of contract as per clause 3.23 of the contract.
ii. Consequences
48. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by
the Respondent.
Page 11
49. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounts to EUR 300,000
(salaries of December 2021 and January 2022).
50. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the
termination, i.e. EUR 300,000.
51. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows: on the amount
of EUR 150,000, as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective payment; and on
the amount of EUR 150,000, as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
52. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, 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 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.
53. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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.
54. 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.
55. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms
of the contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Page 12
56. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of 600,000 (i.e. salaries due
as from February until May 2022 in the amount of EUR 150,000 each) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
57. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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 as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, 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.
58. Indeed, the player found employment with Country B club, Club C. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR
50,000 per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his
damages in the total amount of EUR 200,000, that is, 4 times EUR 50,000 (salaries of
February, March, April and May 2022).
59. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations,
according to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly
salaries as additional compensation should the termination of the employment
contract at stake be due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber
confirmed that the contract was terminated by the club and not by the player and,
hence, concluded that no additional compensation shall be awarded to the player.
60. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the
amount of EUR 400,000 to the player (i.e. EUR 600,000 minus EUR 200,000), which was
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
61. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 10 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art.
24 par. 1 and 2 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
Page 13
the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
63. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid.
The overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire
and consecutive registration periods.
64. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay
the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days
of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become
immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of
the Regulations.
65. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is
attached to the present decision.
66. The DRC 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. 24
par. 8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
67. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
68. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall
be awarded in these proceedings.
69. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 14
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, B, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter Respondent, the following amount(s):
- EUR 300,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a., as follows:
- On the amount of EUR 150,000, as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 150,000, as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
- EUR 400,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
10 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification
of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration the ban shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still
not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
Page 15
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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 17 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 16