Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 November 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Roy Verm eer (the Netherlands), member
Johan v an Gaalen (South Africa), member
Wouter Lam brecht (Belgium), member
Pav el Piv ov arov (Russia), member
on the matter between the player,
Play er A , Country B
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
Club C , Country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country B
as Respondent II
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 17 January 2014, the player of Country B, Player A, (hereinafter; the player)
and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter; Club C) entered into an
employment contract (hereinafter; the contract) valid as of 2 January 2014 until 1
January 2017.
2.
According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive from Club C an
“annual compensation” of USD 200,000 for the year 2014, USD 225,000 for the
year 2015 and USD 250,000 for the year 2016. The “annual compensation” was
payable in 11 equal instalments between February and December of each year.
3.
Clause 3.7 of the contract reads as follows: “[the player] must notify [Club C] in
advance when concluding a contract which gives the right to any kind of
monetary or material benefit from third parties”.
4.
Moreover, clause 4.7 of the contract states that “[Club C] club shall provide [the
player], his wife and children (01) air ticket in business class for round trip City
F/Country B to City G/Country D, to be used during season”.
5.
Clause 7 of the contract provides that “if [the player] (…) fails to comply with or
terminates this agreement, the contractual penalty shall be EUR 3,000,000”.
6.
For its part, clause 8.4 of the contract states that “in case the player breaches any
of [its obligations], the club will have the right to unilaterally terminate this
agreement, and will be released from any outstanding compensation, as well as
apply a penalty”.
7.
On 16 January 2014, Club C, the player and the company “Company H”
(hereinafter; the company) concluded an “Agreement of Temporary Assignment
of Image Rights of Professional Football Athlete” (hereinafter; the image-rights
agreement), whereby the company, which was the “sole holder” of the player’s
image rights, assigned them to Club C on a temporary basis until 1 January 2017.
8.
According to the image-rights agreement, Club C committed to pay to the
company USD 200,000 for the year 2014, USD 225,000 for the year 2015 and USD
250,000 for the year 2016.
9.
On 1 January 2015, Club C and the club of Country B, Club E (hereinafter; Club E)
concluded an agreement for the temporary transfer of the player from Club C to
Club E until 31 December 2015 (hereinafter; the loan agreement).
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 2 of 13
10.
Clause 1.4 of the loan agreement reads, inter alia, as follows: “Club C must
authorise in writing any sub-loan of the player (…) In the event of a sub-loan, the
possible loan fee obtained will be due to Club C, as well as in the event the player
receives a higher salary than paid by Club E, the difference must be subtracted
from the amount paid by Club C to the player”.
11.
According to clause 4 of the loan agreement, during the loan spell Club C
committed to pay to the player an “annual salary” of USD 155,000 and Club E a
monthly salary of currency of Country B (Currency of Country B) 15,000 (~USD
5,600).
12.
On 3 September 2015, Club C authorised Club E to sub-loan the player to another
club of Country B, Club J.
13.
On 8 January 2016, the player sent a letter to Club C requesting for the latter to
“send my flight ticket Country B – Country D so I can present myself to work”.
14.
On 20 January 2016, the player addressed a second letter to Club C requesting
that Club C i) provides the precise date and place where he needs to report, ii)
provides the “necessary business class tickets” and iii) to immediately “ask for the
return” of the player’s ITC as well as to register him for the upcoming season.
15.
On 23 January 2016, Club C replied to the player informing him that “We would
like to request you to return to Club C by Jan 30th 2016 and stay [at a] hotel in the
city (…) Also visa, flight ticket, and hotel room would be provided soon”.
16.
On 1 February 2016, Club C sent a further letter to the player requesting him to
clarify whether he had concluded any agreement with Club E, Club J or any other
third party related to “the exploitation of his image rights” during the loan spell.
In the affirmative, Club C requested the player to provide it with a copy thereof. A
similar request was sent on 3 February.
17.
On 3 February 2016, the player replied to Club C, inter alia, in the following
terms: i) he emphasised that the temporary assignment of his image-rights to Club
C was non-exclusive and ii) he stressed that “any eventual agreements” concluded
between him and “the clubs to which he has provided services” are confidential
and therefore he “is not comfortable to show any document”. On this same date,
the player went back to Country D.
18.
On 5 and 10 February 2016, further correspondence in this same sense was
exchanged between the parties.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 3 of 13
19.
On 16 February 2016, Club C notified to the player the unilateral termination of
the contract. In particular, after briefly recalling the exchange of correspondence,
Club C informed the player that “it has been brought to [its] attention (…) that
you have signed an agreement to assign your image rights to [Club J] for a fixed
monthly remuneration in addition to the monthly salary of Currency of Country B
20,000” and that “There are suspicious [that] you also received additional
remuneration from Club E and/or third parties”. Club C further stated that, in
spite of its multiple requests, the player failed to inform Club C about these
alleged extra payments which constituted a “serious breach of confidence and
good faith”. As such, Club C asserted that the termination of the contract was
with just cause.
20.
On 20 February 2017, the player lodged a claim against Club C in front of FIFA
requesting USD 250,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest
as of “5 September 2015” as well as legal fees.
21.
In particular, the player argued that Club C was no longer interested in his services
for the 2016 season as it neither requested his return, until it was formally
notified by the player, nor instructed “the return” of the player’s ITC. Moreover,
according to the player, upon his return to Country D “he did not join the club’s
first team” and instead Club C “created an unnecessary and unreasonable
discussion about the player’s image rights…”.
22.
In this respect, the player stated that i) he “himself” did not sign any agreement
with Club C regarding his image rights, ii) the image rights contract was entered
on a non-exclusive basis and iii) he was not forbidden to receive an “additional
payment from Club E or Club J ”. As such, the player asserted that “he could
receive any kind of payment from those clubs, such as bonuses of any nature”. In
any case, the player emphasised that he “never received any additional payment
from Club E or Club J regarding his image rights”.
23.
In view of the foregoing, the player concluded that the termination of the
contract by Club C was clearly without just cause.
24.
In its reply to the claim, after recalling the above-described facts, Club C first
stressed that “under the culture and law of Country D, the duties of trust, loyalty
and good faith are vested of significant importance…”.
25.
With the above in mind, Club C pointed out that the player committed several
breaches of the employment contract which justified its termination. In particular,
Club C argued that the player i) secretly received payments from Club E and Club J
in breach of art. 3.7 of the contract (cf. point 3 above), ii) secretly received
payments from Club E and Club J in breach of art. 1.4 of the loan agreement (cf.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 4 of 13
point 10 above) and iii) secretly negotiated employment contracts with Club J
and the Club K without having a valid authorisation from Club C; this in breach of
art. 18.3 of the FIFA Regulations.
26.
To elaborate further, Club C argued that while the player was registered on a subloan basis with Club J, it “discovered” that in addition to the annual salary that
Club C was paying him, the player was receiving an additional monthly salary of
currency of Country B 20,000 from Club J which is “a value higher than that paid
by Club E and without the correspondent discount” as per art. 1.4 of the loan
agreement.
27.
Furthermore, Club C asserted that upon the player’s return to Country D, it learnt
from “third parties” that the player had been receiving additional payments by
Club E and Club J allegedly for the assignment of his image rights. As such, Club C
stressed that it requested the player to provide every agreement that he signed
with both Club E and Club J, however to no avail.
28.
Consequently, Club C argued that the player breached art. 3.7 of the contract and
1.4 of the loan agreement. In this respect, according to Club C, the player’s
representative implicitly acknowledged the existence of further agreements (cf.
point 17 above).
29.
What is more, according to Club C, the player breached art. 18.3 of the
Regulations as, whilst on loan with Club J , it started negotiating with the latter
the extension of their contract beyond the loan spell “behind Club C’s back”. In
this regard, Club C enclosed press releases where the player is quoted reportedly
stating that “If it were up to me, I would do everything I could do stay”. In the
same vein, Club C pointed out that, irrespective of the fact that the player
eventually went back to Country D, it is clear that it was never his true intention
to render his services to Club C ever again. Therefore, according to Club C, all the
player’s default letters sent during January 2016 were just a simulation in order to
try to prove an alleged breach of contract committed by Club C.
30.
In view of the foregoing, Club C asserted that the player’s behaviour “show bad
faith (…) in particular under standards of Country D”.
31.
On account of all the aforementioned considerations, Club C stressed that it had
just cause to terminate the contract with the player due to a severe breach of
trust and hence lodged a counter-claim against him.
32.
Particularly, Club C first referred to clause 7 of the contract (cf. point 5 above).
However, “in the event FIFA should consider such a clause disproportionate”, Club
C stressed that art. 17 of the Regulations should apply. Club C further requested
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 5 of 13
for Club E to be declared as jointly and severally liable of any compensation due
by the player.
33.
Furthermore, Club C claimed the “reimbursement” of USD 5,093.22. Club C
calculated this amount considering clause 1.4 of the loan agreement in
connection with the salary of currency of Country B 20,000 that the player earned
with Club J as of September until December 2015 (cf. point 10 above).
34.
In his replica, the player reiterated the arguments of its reply.
35.
Moreover, the player denied that he ever received any amounts from Club E or
Club J besides his salary. In this regard, the player stressed that Club C did not
provide any evidence which could demonstrate its allegation.
36.
The player argued that it did not comply with the request of Club C to provide it
with his contracts as these were confidential and, in doing so, he would have
been in breach of contract. In any case, the player underscored that the amounts
that he earned with Club E and Club J are exactly those stated by Club C which
therefore was perfectly aware how much the player was going to receive whilst
on loan. As such, the player stressed that there is no possibility of him having
breached art. 3.7 of the contract.
37.
The player further claimed that in accordance with the Regulations of the
Football Association of Country D, clubs are only allowed to register 3 foreign
players which Club C had already done. As such, Club C allegedly “had no place to
register the player (…) for the 2016 season”.
38.
For its part, in its reply to the counterclaim, Club E stressed that “seems to be very
weak [to] pretend to apply a just cause (…) based on website publications”.
39.
Furthermore, Club E emphasised that the only amount that it paid to the player
during the loan spell was his monthly salary of currency of Country B 15,000. Club
E claimed that “[it] never existed any other kind pf payment from Club E” to the
player.
40.
In its duplica, Club C reiterated the arguments of its reply.
41.
Upon FIFA’s request, the player informed FIFA that he concluded two new
employment contracts in Country B. The first one with Club E valid as of 15 March
2016 and according to which he was entitled to a monthly salary of currency of
Country B 1,000 and the second one with the Club L valid as of 22 April 2016 until
31 December 2016 which provided a monthly salary of currency of Country B
2,500.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 6 of 13
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or
the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at
stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 20 February 2017. Consequently, the 2017 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
of the Procedural Rules).
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 2018), 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 player of Country B, a club of Country D and a
club of Country B.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2018), and considering that the Claimant’s claim was lodged on 26 December
2016, the 2016 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter; the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started
by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the 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.
5.
In so doing, the members of the Chamber first noted that Club C and the player
concluded an employment contract valid for 3 years, as of 2 January 2014 until 1
January 2017. Equally, the DRC took note that, during the second year of the
contract, the player was loaned to Club E and then sub-loaned to Club J and that,
thereupon, the player returned to Country D in February 2016.
6.
Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that on 16 February 2016, Club C
decided to unilaterally terminate the contract with the player due to an alleged
“serious breach of confidence and good faith”. In particular, the DRC took note
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 7 of 13
that, according to Club C, the player breached clauses 3.7 of the contract and 1.4
of the loan agreement.
7.
The members of the Chamber then took note of the player’s claim who argues
that the termination of the contract by Club C was without just cause. Particularly,
the Chamber observed that the player denied having concluded any image rights
agreements neither with Club E nor Club J and affirmed that the only amounts he
received from said clubs were connected to his employment contracts. As such,
the player denied the allegations of Club C.
8.
The player argued in that regard that Club C failed to present any evidence in
support of its position.
9.
The members of the Chamber took note that, conversely, Club C insisted that the
player breached clauses 3.7 of the contract and 1.4 of the loan agreement by not
informing it about certain image rights agreements that the player reportedly
concluded with Club E and Club J, in spite of having been obliged to do so. Club C
stressed that it learnt from third parties that the player had indeed signed an
agreement related to his image rights with the clubs of Country B. According to
Club C, the player’s representative implicitly acknowledged the existence of said
agreements by means of his letter of 3 February 2016.
10.
As such, according to Club C, it had just cause to terminate the contract on 16
February 2016.
11.
On account of all the above, the Chamber highlighted that the underlying dispute
in the present matter, considering the conflicting positions of the parties, was to
determine whether the employment contract had been prematurely and
unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by Club C. In so doing, the
Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the
present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing
in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party
claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
12.
The members of the Chamber equally deemed appropriate to remark the general
principle that contracts ought to be respected, as otherwise, consequences have
to be assumed by the relevant party. Further, the DRC took into consideration the
content of art. 14 of the Regulations, which provides that “a contract may be
terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of
compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”.
13.
The Chamber stressed that the definition of just cause and whether just cause
exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each particular case.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 8 of 13
14.
Furthermore, the Chamber recalled its longstanding and well established
jurisprudence which indicates that only a breach or misconduct which is of a
certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when
there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a
continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may
be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can
be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his
contractual duties, and vice versa, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an
employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
15.
With the above-mentioned principles in mind, the Chamber first stressed that,
even if it could transpire from clause 3.7 of the contract that, indeed, the player
was obliged to inform Club C about “any kind of monetary or material benefit
from third parties”, there is no evidence on file that the player ever concluded an
image rights agreement with any of the clubs of Country B. What is more, Club E
explicitly denied having ever concluded a contract with the player other than the
employment contract.
16.
Put differently, the Chamber pointed out that Club C did not provide evidence
which could prove, to the DRC’s satisfaction, that the player was in material
breach of the contract at the moment of its early termination by Club C. In this
respect, even if it could be established that the player failed to inform Club C that
it was earning currency of Country B 20,000 in accordance with his contract with
Club J, this, at most, can be seen as a minor disrespect of an obligation of the
player contained in the loan agreement; however it clearly cannot be considered
as a material breach of contract which would warrant its unilateral termination.
17.
In the opinion of the Chamber, in line with the principles described above, there
were other measures at Club C’s disposal in case it deemed that the player had
disrespected the contract, for example, without limitation, some kind of
disciplinary measure. The Chamber highlighted therefore that, at the moment of
the termination of the contract, there were no objective criteria which could not
have reasonably permit the continuation of the contractual relationship.
18.
In view of all the foregoing, the members of the DRC unanimously concluded that
Club C terminated the contract without just cause and should therefore bear the
consequences of such unjustified termination.
19.
Prior to analysing the consequences of Club C’s termination of the contract
without just cause, the members of the Chamber wished to address Club C’s claim
for reimbursement in the amount of USD 5,093.22.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 9 of 13
20.
The members of the Chamber noted that according to clause 1.4 of the loan
agreement “In the event of a sub-loan, the possible loan fee obtained will be due
to Club C, as well as in the event the player receives a higher salary than paid by
Club E, the difference must be subtracted from the amount paid by Club C to the
player”.
21.
he Chamber considered the above-mentioned clause clear and unambiguous. If,
deriving from a sub-loan, the player was to earn from any third club a salary
higher than the one he was receiving from Club E, the difference between the
player’s salaries should be deducted from the amounts paid by Club C.
22.
In this context, it remained undisputed that the player was receiving a salary from
Club E of currency of Country B 15,000 and of currency of Country B 20,000 with
Club J. Therefore, in view of the clear content of clause 1.4 of the loan
agreement, the DRC considered that the player should reimburse to Club C the
amount of currency of Country B 20,000, namely the difference of both salaries,
i.e. currency of Country B 5,000 as of September until December 2016. Along
these lines, the Chamber pointed out that the player did not challenge the
exchange rate to USD dollars presented by Club C which, in the DRC’s view,
appears to be accurate. As such, the player should reimburse the amount of USD
5,093.22 to Club C.
23.
Having established the above, and reverting to the consequences of the
termination of the contract without just cause, the Chamber decided that, taking
into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to
receive from Club C compensation for breach of contract.
24.
The Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable
to the player by Club C 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 player under the existing contract and/or the new contract,
the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
25.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that first of all, it 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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 10 of 13
26.
In this regard, the Chamber recapped that clause 7 of the contract stipulates the
following: “if [the player] (…) fails to comply with or terminates this agreement,
the contractual penalty shall be EUR 3,000,000”.
27.
While analysing the aforementioned clause, the members of the Chamber noted
that said clause provides for a scenario that did not occur, i.e. a breach of the
contract by the player. As such, and in accordance with the longstanding
jurisprudence of the DRC in this respect, the Chamber decided that the
aforementioned clause cannot be taken into consideration in the determination
of the amount of compensation due by Club C.
28.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Club C 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.
29.
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 employment contract until its natural expiration. In particular, the
Chamber concluded that the residual value of the contract amounts to USD
250,000 corresponding to the year 2016; amount which should serve as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
30.
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, 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.
31.
During the relevant period, the player entered into two new employment
contracts. The first one with Club E valid as of 15 March 2016 and according to
which he was entitled to a monthly salary of currency of Country B 1,000 and the
second one with the Club L valid as of 22 April 2016 until 31 December 2016
which provided a monthly salary of currency of Country B 2,500. As such, the DRC
concluded that the player had managed to mitigate his damages in the total
amount of currency of Country B 23,500 amounting to approximately USD 6,800.
32.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the DRC decided that the club must pay the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 11 of 13
player the amount of USD 243,200 which is to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand.
Equally, the Chamber decided to grant interest on said amount of 5% p.a. as of
the date of the claim, as per the player’s request and the DRC’s constant practice
in this regard.
33.
The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by rejecting any
further claim lodged by the parties.
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is ordered to pay to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification
of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD
243,200 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 20 February 2017 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is partially accepted.
5.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is ordered to pay to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this decision, the
amount of USD 5,093.22.
6.
In the event that the amount due to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in
accordance with the above-mentioned number 5. is not paid by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of
5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present
matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
7.
Any further claim lodged by the parties is rejected.
8.
The parties are directed to inform each other, immediately and directly, of the
account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 12 of 13
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal Officer
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 13 of 13