Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 December 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Eirik Monsen (Norw ay ), member
S tefano La Porta (Italy ), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er A, from country A
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club B, from country B
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 12 July 2017, the Player A, from country A (hereinafter: player or Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
contract) with the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: club or Respondent /
Counter-Claimant).
2.
The period of validity of the contract was agreed as follows: “This contract
shall remain in force the date of this agreement until 30 June 2018 (loan
period) and shall be extended (from 1 July 2018) until 31 December 2020
pursuant to the terms of this contract if and only if: Club C, from country C
exercise a Put-Option to transfer the permanent registration of the Player to
the Club by giving notice to the Club between the dates of 15 May 2018 and
15 June 2018 […]”.
3.
According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
on 11 July 2017, the Club C, from country C, and the club concluded a loan
agreement, according to which the player was temporarily transferred to the
club until 30 June 2018 against a payment of EUR 5,500,000. Said agreement
contains a “unilateral option” in favour of Club C to permanently transfer the
player to the club, which was to be exercised between 15 May 2018 and 15
June 2018.
4.
According to further information contained in the TMS, also on 11 July 2017,
Club C and the club concluded a transfer agreement, according to which the
player would be permanently transferred to the club on 1 July 2018, if the
“unilateral option” (cf. point I.3. above) was exercised by the country C club,
Club C against payment of EUR 22,500,000; an event which occurred on 16
May 2018.
5.
In accordance with the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, inter
alia, a monthly salary of EUR 726,190, payable on the 10th day of each month.
6.
Furthermore, the contract contains the following clause: “If the club wins a
competitive football match and the player begins the match in the starting XI,
he will be entitled to receive an additional EUR 22,500 NET” within 30 days.
7.
Moreover, art. 10.3 of the contract stipulates: “If a [bonus] payment is late and
it has still not been paid following 60 days of the Club being in receipt of
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 2 of 15
written notification of non-payment, the Club will be deemed to have
committed a serious breach of contract which shall grant the Player the right
to terminate his employment with the Club with immediate effect with just
cause”.
8.
According to art. 10.5 of the contract: “If the player terminates his
employment contract with the club following the granting of a right under
clause 10.1, 10.2 or 10.3, the club shall pay within the next 30 days after the
termination, the full outstanding total remuneration due until the end of the
contract (i.e. 31 December 2020) increased by an interest at 10% per annum
from the said date of termination until the date of effective payment”.
9.
Art. 10.7 of the contract reads as follows: “For the avoidance of a doubt, a
partial payment of the monthly wages/bonus/signing-on fee is considered as a
no-payment; only the full payment of the monthly wages/bonus/sign-on fee is
considered a payment”.
10.
On an unknown date, the player and the company “Company X” from the
from country X, signed an agreement (hereinafter: agreement), according to
which the player assigned his “image rights” until 31 December 2020 to the
company against a lump-sum payment of EUR 15,000,000.
11.
Said agreement contains, inter alia, the following wording: “The Assignor and
the Assignee have agreed that the Assignee shall be exclusively responsible for
and have under its control all commercial and promotional rights relating to
the Rights within the Territory”.
12.
Equally, clause 17.2 of the agreement reads: "The Court of Arbitration for
Sport shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes which may arise
out of or in connection with this Agreement. The parties agree to submit to
such jurisdiction. Any dispute shall be finally settled in accordance with the
Rules of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration of the Court of Arbitration for
Sport."
13.
On 13 February 2018, the player sent a notification to the club, requesting
payment of four match bonuses in the total amount of EUR 90,000 as well as
the payment resulting from the agreement in the amount of EUR 15,000,000.
14.
On 17 April 2018, the player sent another notification to the club, requesting
the total amount of “EUR 150,000” as bonuses as well as well as the payment
resulting from the agreement in the amount of EUR 15,000,000.
15.
On 6 August 2018, received by the club on 9 August 2018, the player sent a
letter to the club by means of which he unilaterally terminated the contract.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 3 of 15
The player referred to art. 10.3 of the contract and argued that bonus
payments in the amount of EUR 90,000 as well as the payment related to his
image rights, i.e. EUR 15,000,000, remained outstanding.
16.
On 13 September 2018, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of
FIFA, claiming that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the
contract. Therefore, the player requested to be awarded payment of the
following monies:
- EUR 22,804,452 corresponding to 13 match bonuses of EUR 22,500 as well
as his salaries as of July 2018 until December 2020, plus interest of 10% p.a.
as of 9 August 2018;
- EUR 15,000,000 corresponding to the lump-sum resulting from the
agreement, plus interest of 10% p.a. as of 9 August 2018.
17.
In particular, the player held that he terminated the contract with just cause
since the club failed to comply with its financial obligations and since the
parties defined in the contract what would constitute a “just cause” to
unilaterally terminate it.
18.
In this regard, the player maintained that he complied with art. 10.3 of the
contract, put the club in default and terminated the contract after the
remittance remained unpaid within 60 days. He held that the club did not
react to his notifications sent in February and April 2018.
19.
Regarding arts. 10.3, 10.5 and 10.7 of the contract, the player argued that the
club drafted the contract and implemented the detailed clauses due to the
fact that the player raised concerns during the negotiations that he would not
receive the promised money in country B.
20.
The player listed 13 matches between 29 July 2017 and 20 May 2018, in which
he deemed to be entitled to receive the bonus payment (cf. point I.6. above)
in accordance with the contract.
21.
Moreover, the player held that the last payment remitted by the club was the
salary of June 2018.
22.
In addition, the player maintained that the club is obliged to remit the
amount resulting from the agreement even though it was signed with the
company. According to the player, the contract and the agreement are directly
linked.
23.
In this context, the player purported that said agreement was signed on the
same day and in the same location than the contract. He submitted a
statement of his previous lawyer, who stated having drafted such agreement
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 4 of 15
on instructions of the club. Further, the player submitted pictures of himself
allegedly signing the agreement and pictures of the alleged chairman of the
company.
24.
In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and held that the player left
without authorisation.
25.
Firstly, regarding the agreement, the club held that it is not bound by such
document since the agreement was signed between the player and a company
from country X.
26.
Secondly, the club argued that it fulfilled its financial obligations and that
there were no payments due in addition to the contract. In this context, the
club held that it always paid bonus payments in cash and that the player
signed receipts. Along these lines, the club presented several payment
receipts, allegedly signed by the player, however in the language of country B
only.
27.
Moreover, the club argued that even if bonus payments would have remained
outstanding, the player would not have had just cause to terminate the
contract since such payments would only constitute a small part of his
remuneration. Consequently, according to the club, the player did not have
just cause to terminate the contract.
28.
As such, according to the club, the player breached the contract and it is
entitled to receive compensation.
29.
Upon request of the FIFA administration to specify its request for
compensation, on 7 November 2018, the club submitted a correspondence
which reads, in its relevant part, as follows: “In order to promote the
mediation between the Club and the Player A, the Club, while reserving all
rights of claiming financial compensation otherwise, hereby withdraw the
claims for compensation here in this procedure […]”.
30.
On 13 November 2018, FIFA informed the parties that the investigation-phase
of the present matter had been concluded and that, pursuant to art. 9 par. 4
of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the parties were not authorised to
supplement or amend their requests nor to specify further evidence on which
they intend to rely and that hence no further submissions would be admitted
to the file.
On 16 November 2018, the player signed a new employment contract with the
Club C, from country C, valid as from 16 November 2018 until 30 June 2023,
including the following salary:
31.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 5 of 15
- EUR 315,000 during the period in which Club C participates in country C’s
first Division;
- EUR 100,000 during the period in which Club C participates in country C’s
second Division.
32.
On 3 December 2018, the club lodged a new counterclaim against the player
and his new club.
33.
On 4 December 2018, the FIFA Administration informed the club that,
considering its letter of 3 December 2018, it will be up to the DRC to decide
whether or not take into account its new counterclaim. Equally, the FIFA
Administration informed the club that a claim against an alleged player’s new
club in accordance with art. 17 is always accessory to a claim against the player
himself.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter
at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 13 September 2018. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition
2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 and par.
2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition June 2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in
principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
player and a club.
3.
Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber noted that the
player’s claim is based on two different agreements. In particular, the player is
claiming an alleged outstanding amount of EUR 15,000,000, which is provided
in the image-rights agreement signed between him and a company.
Therefore, the Chamber considered that it had to verify whether, for formal
reasons, it was competent to deal with this specific component or not.
4.
With the above in mind, the Chamber wished to recall that it is competent to
deal with employment-related disputes. This is, disputes which are directly
connected to an employment relationship between a player and a club. As
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 6 of 15
such, the Chamber held that it is, in principle, not competent to deal with
claims arising from image rights agreements.
5.
To elaborate further, the DRC tends to consider the concept of image rights as
non-employment-related which fall, as a general rule, outside the scope of art.
22 of the Regulations. However, such conclusion might be different if specific
elements of the contract suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the
actual employment relationship. Such elements, include, for instance and
without limitation, stipulations regarding bonuses, the use of a car or
accommodation, which are typical for employment contracts and not for
image rights agreements.
6.
Having stated the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the image rights
agreement and concluded that none of the above-described stipulations
appear to be included in said document. Conversely, the DRC put special
emphasis on the fact that the image rights agreement provides in its preamble
that “The Assignor and the Assignee have agreed that the Assignee shall be
exclusively responsible for and have under its control all commercial and
promotional rights relating to the Rights within the Territory” (emphasis
added).
7.
What is more, the Chamber noted that the club is not even a signatory to the
image rights agreement and that said agreement does not create any rights or
obligations between the player and the club. In other words, it is questionable
whether the club has standing to be sued in relation to claims arising of the
image rights agreement. In this regard, the DRC deemed it fit to stress that the
allegations of the player regarding an alleged connection between his
employment with the club and the image rights agreement are insufficient, in
and of themselves, to outweigh the above-mentioned considerations, even
more considering that the player failed to submit corroborating evidence
regarding a possible link between the employment contract and the
agreement.
8.
Consequently, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that it was not
competent to entertain the claim of the player based on the image rights
agreement. The members of the Chamber felt comforted with their conclusion
also considering that it would appear that the parties to said agreement
agreed for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
9.
In continuation, and before entering into the substance of the matter, the
Chamber deemed it necessary to address the admissibility of the club’s
counterclaim lodged on 3 December 2018.
In so doing, the Chamber deemed worthy to mention first that, upon being
notified of the player’s claim, the club lodged a first claim for compensation,
which it subsequently withdrew by means of its correspondence dated 7
10.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 7 of 15
November 2018 (cf. point I.29. above). The Chamber recalled that the club
expressly stated: “In order to promote the mediation between the Club and
the Player A, the Club, while reserving all rights of claiming financial
compensation otherwise, hereby withdraw the claims for compensation here
in this procedure […]”. As a consequence, the investigation phase of the
matter was closed on 13 November 2018.
11.
The Chamber then noted that thereupon the club submitted further
unsolicited comments and lodged a new counterclaim, towards the player and
his new club, claiming compensation for breach of contract.
12.
With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber recalled art. 9 par. 4 of
the Procedural Rules, which provides inter alia for the following: “The parties
shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their requests or their
arguments, to produce new exhibits or to specify further evidence on which
they intend to rely, after notification of the closure of the investigation.”
13.
It necessarily follows that, in principle, the second counterclaim of the club,
lodged after the closure of the relevant investigation-phase, cannot be
admitted to the file and is therefore inadmissible. In the Chamber’s view, any
other conclusion would lead to a potential circumvention of the Procedural
Rules.
14.
What is more, the Chamber was of the opinion that to admit the new
counterclaim of the club, after it had expressly withdrawn its first
counterclaim, could potentially violate the principle of good faith. Indeed, the
Chamber recalled that, according to CAS jurisprudence (2010/A/2112), the
principles of Swiss procedural law dictate that a claim withdrawal against a
party is only possible if that party agrees.
15.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the second counterclaim of the
club is inadmissible.
16.
Having determined the above, 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 (edition June 2018), and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 13 September 2018, the June 2018 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
17.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this
respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts
as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 8 of 15
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. In particular,
the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the
Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the
application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
18.
The Chamber first acknowledged that, on 12 July 2017, the parties signed an
employment contract, according to which the player was contractually bound
to the club until 31 December 2020, in accordance with the exercised option
(cf. points I.2. to I.4. above).
19.
In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that in line with the above-mentioned
employment contract, the player, inter alia, was entitled to receive a monthly
salary of EUR 726,190 as well as a bonus of EUR 22,500 per match, presumed
the contractually agreed requirements (cf. point I.6.) were fulfilled.
20.
The members of the Chamber further noted that the player lodged a claim
against the club maintaining that he terminated the contract in accordance
with its art. 10.3 and therefore with just cause.
21.
In this regard, the Chamber took note that the player requested to be
awarded the alleged outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of the employment contract.
22.
The members of the DRC acknowledged that, conversely, the club rejected
such argumentation, argued that the player left without authorisation and
that it remitted all remuneration due to the player. As such, the termination
of the contract by the player should be considered as without just cause.
23.
On account of the above, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the
underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the
parties, was to determine as to whether the player had just cause to terminate
the employment contract on 9 August 2018 and to decide on the
consequences thereof.
24.
In this context, 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.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 9 of 15
25.
In so doing, the DRC took note that before terminating the contract on 9
August 2018, the player had sent a default notice to the club on 13 February
2018 requesting, inter alia, payment of EUR 90,000, corresponding to four
outstanding match bonuses (cf. point I.6. above). The Chamber further
established, that the player sent a second default notice to the club on 17
April 2018, requesting payment of EUR 150,000, corresponding to match
bonuses as well.
26.
Subsequently, with his correspondence dated 6 August 2018, received by the
club on 9 August 2018, the player terminated the contract, referring to art.
10.3 of the contract and arguing that he did not receive the bonus payments
mentioned in his default notices.
27.
Moreover, the Chamber noticed that the club argued having remitted the
relevant bonus payments in cash. In this regard, the club submitted
untranslated receipts, allegedly signed by the player. The Chamber also took
note of the club’s argument, that even if bonus payments remained
outstanding, the player had no just cause to terminate the contract, since said
amounts would only constitute a small part of the player’s total remuneration.
28.
At this point, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 1 lit. e)
of the Procedural Rules, all documentation provided in the context of a
dispute in front of FIFA should be presented in the original version and, if
applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French,
Spanish and German). What is more, the Chamber emphasised that by means
of its letter dated 26 September 2018, the FIFA Administration warned the
club that failure to submit untranslated documents might result in the
document in questioned being disregarded by the DRC. Bearing in mind the
wording of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber concluded that the
above-mentioned documents provided by the club without translation could
not be taken into account. Consequently, the members of the DRC deemed
that no substantial evidence was provided by the club with regard to the
alleged remittance of the claimed bonuses. Taking into account the
documentation on file, the Chamber established that the bonus payments
claimed by the player should be considered as outstanding.
29.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 10.3 of the contract,
which is at the basis of the player’s termination of the employment
relationship.
30.
For the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to recall the content of said
art. 10.3 which reads: “If a [bonus] payment is late and it has still not been
paid following 60 days of the Club being in receipt of written notification of
non-payment, the Club will be deemed to have committed a serious breach of
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 10 of 15
contract which shall grant the Player the right to terminate his employment
with the Club with immediate effect with just cause”.
31.
At this stage, the members of the Chamber deemed appropriate to remark
that according to the fundamental principle of contractual stability,
employment 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”.
32.
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.
33.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to 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. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
34.
With the above considerations in mind, the members of the Chamber
emphasised that the player’s monthly salary was of EUR 726,190 and that the
player in his termination notice referred to outstanding bonuses of EUR 90,000
(cf. point I.15. above). Therefore, the club had a debt of slightly more than
10% of one monthly salary towards the player. Even if one would consider the
second default notice, i.e. for EUR 150,000, or the bonus amount presently
claimed, i.e. EUR 292,500, the maximum amount the club was in default would
correspond to only about 40% of one monthly salary of the player. In any
case, the Chamber underlined that, in his termination letter, the player only
referred to outstanding match bonuses of EUR 90,000.
35.
Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that, on the basis of the
evidence and arguments on file, it cannot be concluded that at the moment of
the termination of the contract there were objective criteria, which could not
have reasonably permitted the continuation of the employment relationship
between the parties. Indeed, it is well-established jurisprudence of the
Chamber that, when dealing with a unilateral termination of a contract due to
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 11 of 15
outstanding remuneration, said remuneration should not be insubstantial or
completely secondary. In casu, in the Chamber’s opinion, outstanding bonuses
which do not even amount to one monthly salary cannot be considered as
being substantial, also bearing in mind the total amount of salaries, which the
player had apparently already received from the club, i.e. EUR 8,714,280.
36.
Along those lines, the DRC emphasised that, albeit parties are free to
determine in the relevant employment contract the circumstances which can
lead to a justified termination, the relevant definition of what constitutes a
just cause must be in line with the principles enshrined by the Regulations and
its interpretation according to the DRC jurisprudence as otherwise the
fundamental principle of contractual stability would clearly be jeopardised. In
other words, the parties’ contractual freedom to define what constitutes a just
cause is limited by the Regulations and its application by the DRC.
37.
Based on all the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber considered that
the player had terminated the contract without just cause on 9 August 2018
and decided therefore to reject the player’s claim for compensation for breach
of contract.
38.
Notwithstanding the above, due to the fact that the club acknowledged that
it had to pay the match bonuses claimed by the player, but failed to provide
evidence that said amounts were in fact paid, the Chamber concluded that, in
accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club is
liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of
EUR 1,018,690, corresponding to EUR 292,500 outstanding match bonuses as
well as the player’s salary for July 2018.
39.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided
to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 9 August 2018, until
the date of effective payment.
40.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the
Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding
body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
41.
In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned
provision, it has competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in
particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the sanction shall consist in
a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 12 of 15
until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire
and consecutive registration periods.
42.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not pay the amount due to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent/CounterClaimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
43.
Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted
immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due
amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
44.
The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations on the present
matter by rejecting any further claim of the player.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 13 of 15
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted,
insofar as it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, has to pay to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of
EUR 1,018,690 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 August 2018 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
It is established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, has
terminated the employment relationship with the Respondent/CounterClaimant, Club B, without just cause.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is inadmissible.
6.
The
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
is
directed
to
inform
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount
mentioned under point 2 above.
7.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the
due amount in accordance with point 2 above to FIFA to the e-mail address
[email protected], duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
8.
In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2
above is not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as
from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of the relevant
bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Respondent/CounterClaimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
9.
The ban mentioned in point 8 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 14 of 15
10.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the
end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to article 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:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl: CAS directives
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 15 of 15