Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 August 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Mick McGuire (England), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on the claim presented by the club,
A, from X,
as “Claimant”
against the player,
B, from Y,
as “Respondent 1”
and the club,
C, from Z,
as “Respondent 2”
regarding a dispute about an alleged
breach of an employment contract and the inducement to
breach of an employment contract arisen between the parties involved
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 30 March 2006, club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the player B
(hereinafter: the Respondent 1) signed an employment contract valid from 1 April
2006 to 30 November 2008.
2.
A copy of the said employment contract was remitted to the Dispute Resolution
Chamber.
3.
According to the said employment contract, the Respondent 1 was entitled to a
lump sum of USD 25,000, a net monthly salary of 40,000, a bonus for each match
played for the Claimant and a bonus of 10,000 for each match for the Y national
”A” team. The Claimant was also responsible for the paying of the Respondent 1’s
rent, driving hours, the rental of a vehicle for a maximum amount of 2,500 per
month and four return tickets between X and Y per year.
4.
On 26 August 2006, the Respondent 1 signed an employment contract with club C
(hereinafter: the Respondent 2) valid until the end of the 2008/2009 season.
According to this contract, the Respondent 1 was entitled to a monthly salary of
EUR 7,000 as well as various bonuses based on matches played and results in
accordance with the Z Professional Football Charter.
5.
In a letter dated 14 November 2006, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA
against the Respondent 1 for breach of contract due to his failure to take up his
position. The Claimant primarily seeks execution of the employment contract by
the Respondent 1 or, on a subsidiary basis, compensation of 1,632,000 and the
imposition of a sporting sanction against him. According to the Claimant, the
Respondent 2 should be found guilty of having induced the Respondent 1 to
breach of contract and is therefore jointly liable for the payment of compensation.
The Claimant also seeks the imposition on the Respondent 2 of a ban on
registering players for two registration periods.
6.
The Respondent 1 denied having ever intended to sign an employment contract
with the Claimant and never considered himself under any obligation to the latter.
7.
The Respondent 2 rejected the claim of the Claimant as unfounded and alleged
that it had signed a contract with the Respondent 1 in accordance with the
applicable regulations on the transfer of players and that it registered the
Respondent 1 in Z after having obtained his International Transfer Certificate on 1
September 2006. The Respondent 2 further alleged that the Claimant did not
receive the authorisation of the Respondent 1’s former club, club D (hereinafter:
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
2
8.
The Football Association of X confirmed having had requested the Football
Federation of Y to issue an International Transfer Certificate for the Respondent 1
by means of its faxes dated 28 March and 12 April 2006.
9.
The Claimant alleged that it had conducted negotiations with the Respondent 1’s
former club, D, concerning transfer compensation.
10.
The file also contains a letter dated 20 April 2006 in which club D informed the
Football Federation of club Y of its opposition to the issuance of the International
Transfer Certificate for the Respondent 1 as requested by the Football Association
of X. In the said letter, club D explained, among other things, that the Respondent
1 had expressed a desire not to take up the Claimant’s contract offer. The letter
further states that the club does not accept the Claimant’s offer for the transfer of
the Respondent 1 and that the Respondent 1 is at an advanced stage in
negotiations with other European clubs.
11.
The Claimant informed that it had made an initial attempt to resolve the problem
directly with the president of club D and that a meeting in G had been arranged
for 28 August 2006 for this purpose but eventually had not taken place.
12.
After having learnt that a contract between the Respondent 1 and the
Respondent 2 had been signed, the Claimant sent a fax on 28 August 2006 to both
the Z Football Federation and the Respondent 2 in order to draw their attention
to the fact that the Respondent 1 was under contract with the Claimant and that
he was not entitled to play for the Respondent 2.
13.
The Claimant is of the opinion that the Y club and in particular its president, Mr. L,
is chiefly to blame for the breach of the contract committed by the Respondent 1.
It therefore requests FIFA to check whether the president of club D can be
sanctioned under article 17.5 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer
of Players.
14.
On 15 January 2007, the Respondent 2 asserted that the Claimant’s claims were
unfounded and contrary to international player transfer regulations.
15.
The Respondent 2 confirmed having signed on 26 August 2006 a pre-transfer
agreement with club D for the transfer of the Respondent 1. Subsequently, on 26
August 2006, an employment contract was signed by and between the
Respondent 1 and the Respondent 2. A copy of the said employment contract was
remitted to the Dispute Resolution Chamber. On 1 September 2006, the Football
Federation of Y had issued the International Transfer Certificate of the
Respondent 1 to the Z Football Federation. The Respondent 2 believes that it is
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
3
clear from the documents it remitted that the transfer of the Respondent 1 was
conducted in accordance with the applicable FIFA regulations on the international
transfer of players.
16.
Indeed, it is abundantly clear to the Respondent 2 that the Claimant has no right
to the services of the Respondent 1 because it did not receive the Y club’s
agreement to the transfer of the Respondent 1. The contract between the
Claimant and the Respondent 1 was signed without the prior agreement of the
Respondent 1’s former club. In addition, the Respondent 2 alleged that the
Claimant exploited the circumstances of the Respondent 1, who speaks neither
English nor X, by presenting him a contract the meaning of which he could not
understand.
17.
Furthermore, the Respondent 2 asserted that the employment contract the
Claimant allegedly signed with the Respondent 1 only bore the latter’s signature
on the first and last pages and that there is no other sign attesting the
authenticity of the said document. The same allegedly applies to annexes 1 and 2
to contract, which do not bear the Respondent 1’s signature.
18.
The Respondent 2 further asserted that, although the Claimant allegedly signed
an employment contract with the Respondent 1 valid as from 1 April 2006, the
Claimant nevertheless submitted on 13 April 2006 a new contract offer to club D
for the transfer of the Respondent 1. Moreover, according to the Respondent 2,
the position of the Football Federation of Y which on 4 May 2006 refused to issue
the International Transfer Certificate for the Respondent 1, was equally clear.
Despite that, on 3 July 2006, i.e. three months after allegedly signing the
employment contract with the Respondent 1, the Claimant appears to have
submitted a new offer to club D concerning the amount of the relevant transfer
compensation.
19.
The Respondent 2 requested the dismissal of the claim. In particular, it asserted
that the Claimant had had the opportunity to appeal to the relevant decisionmaking body of FIFA further to the Football Federation of Y refusal to issue an
International Transfer Certificate for the Respondent 1.
20.
The Respondent 1 explained in his statements that he went for trials with several
European clubs, including the Claimant. Moreover, he stated that the trials with
the Claimant were difficult because he only speaks O and Z. Nevertheless, he
confirmed having signed a document in English, which, so he was informed,
confirmed that if his club, club D, and the Claimant would agree to his transfer, he
was prepared to negotiate an employment contract with the Claimant.
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
4
21.
In this regard, the Respondent 1 emphasized that he did not agree to an
employment contract with the Claimant because this would have required the
prior agreement of the president of club D.
22.
In addition, the Respondent 1 explained that he returned to Y and continued to
play for club D. The president of club D told him that he had not accepted the
Claimant’s offer related to his transfer and that he could only leave club D with his
agreement. The Respondent 1 explained having then travelled to Z together with
the president of club D and went for a trial, among other clubs, with the
Respondent 2. Only when the president of club D explained to him that he had
agreed upon his transfer to the Respondent 2 did he sign an employment contract
with the Respondent 2.
23.
In response to the Respondent 2’s statements, the Claimant asserted that the
documents submitted do not refute the fact that the Respondent 1 signed a valid
employment contract with it.
24.
The Claimant also asserted that its letter of 27 August 2006 addressed to the
Respondent 2 and the Z Football Federation, in which it pointed to its contractual
relationship with the Respondent 1, did not prevent the Respondent 2 and the Z
Football Federation from registering the Respondent 1 for the Respondent 2.
25.
The Claimant further alleged that the prior agreement of D was not necessary for
it to enable an employment contract to be signed with the Respondent 1. In this
connection, the Claimant reiterated that as an amateur, the Respondent 1 was not
contractually bound to club D and that the Respondent 1 was therefore free to
sign an employment contract with a new club at any time.
26.
With regard to the Respondent 1’s alleged lack of knowledge of English, the
Claimant responded that an interpreter was made available to him from the first
day, who was also present at the signing of the contract and translated its content
to him.
27.
Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the statement made by both Respondents
do not refute the existence of a valid employment contract entered into by and
between the Respondent 1 and the Claimant. The Claimant further stated that at
the time of the signing of the contract, the Respondent 1 did not raise any
objection relating to the necessity of a prior agreement with club D.
28.
In its last statement, the Respondent 2 indicated that it stands by its previous
statements. It also reiterated that the Respondent 1 was not at liberty to sign a
contract with the Claimant. Moreover, the Respondent 2 also raised the question
why the Claimant made further offers to club D for the transfer of the Respondent
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
5
1 if, as the Claimant alleged, the Respondent 1 was a free agent. Finally, the
Respondent 2 asserted that the Claimant did not receive an International Transfer
Certificate for the Respondent 1 from the Football Federation of Y.
29.
The Respondent 1 also submitted his final position by means of which he
explained that he never intended to sign an employment contract with the
Claimant without the prior authorisation of his club, club D.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 November
2006, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing
Procedures (edition 2005) on matters pending before the decision making bodies
of FIFA are applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the abovementioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its
jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the current version of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In accordance
with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 (b) of the aforementioned
Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player that have an international
dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation involving a X club on the one hand and a player
from Y and a Z club on the other hand regarding a dispute arisen in connection
with the possible breach of an employment contract and the inducement to such
breach of contract.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand,
to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the relevant contract at the
basis of the present dispute, i.e. the contract signed between the Claimant and the
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
6
Respondent 1, was signed on 30 March 2006 and the claim was lodged at FIFA on
14 November 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that
the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005;
hereinafter; the Regulations) are applicable to the case at hand as to the
substance.
5.
Entering into the substance of the matter the members of the Chamber
acknowledged the documentation contained in the file, and in view of the
circumstances of the matter at stake, focused its considerations on the question
whether an unjustified breach of the employment contract signed by and
between the Claimant and the Respondent 1 occurred and, in the affirmative,
which party is responsible for such breach of contract, whether inducement to
breach of contract occurred and to verify and decide if sanctions for breach of
contract and inducement to breach of contract have to be applied.
6.
As far as the question is concerned whether a breach of contract occurred, the
Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant and the Respondent 1
signed on 30 March 2006 a employment contract which was to be valid until 30
November 2008.
7.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the Respondent 1’s
objections according to which he never intended to sign an employment contract
with the Claimant and never considered himself contractually bound to the
Claimant.
8.
In this context, the Chamber also noted the Respondent 2’s statements in support
of the position submitted by the Respondent 1, according to which the Claimant
never received the relevant necessary authorization for the transfer of the
Respondent 1 from the latter’s former club, club D. Moreover, the Respondent 2
maintained that the employment contract allegedly signed between the Claimant
and the Respondent 1 does not bear the latter’s signature on every single page.
Finally, the Respondent 2 invoked the Respondent’s alleged lack of knowledge in
English and X and that the Claimant exploited such circumstance by presenting
the Respondent 1 a contract, the terms of which the Respondent 1 was unable to
understand.
9.
Considering the above arguments raised by the Respondent 1 and the Respondent
2, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that these statements do not speak
against the validity of the contract. In fact, the Chamber held that the contract
appears to have been duly signed by and between the Claimant and the
Respondent 1. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that no indications are on
hand, either in the contract or by means of a prior agreement between the
signatories, that the relevant contract would have need the signatures of the
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
7
parties on every single page. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the
Respondent 1 is personally liable for his legal acts, i.e. for the signing of the
employment contract with the Claimant. The Chamber particularly underlined that
the Respondent 1, should he really not have understood the terms of the
employment contract that he entered into with the Claimant, could have asked
the Claimant for a translation prior to signing such document.
10.
Finally, the Chamber deemed it also appropriate to mention that, as a general
rule, the validity of an employment contract entered into between two parties
does not depend on a third party’s prior approval. Yet, the relevant employment
contract signed between the Claimant and the Respondent 1 did not contain any
conditional clause to this effect, i.e. the prior consent of the Respondent 1’s
former club, club D.
11.
In conclusion to the aforementioned, the Chamber held that the employment
contract submitted to the file and signed by the Claimant and the Respondent 1
on 30 March 2006 was valid, comprised all principle elements necessary for a
contract to be considered validly concluded “essentialia negotii”, i.e. the place of
work, the period of validity, the salary etc. and therefore the arguments raised by
the Respondent 1 and 2 related to the contract’s invalidity have to be rejected.
12.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the undisputed fact that, on 26 August
2006, the Respondent 1 and the Respondent 2 signed an employment contract
valid until the end of the season 2008/2009.
13.
In view of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized that, as a
general rule, the signing of an employment contract by a player with a new club
that starts to run before the employment contract between the player and his
former club expired or was prematurely terminated by mutual agreement is to be
considered as a breach of contract.
14.
The members of the Chamber held that the Respondent 1 was unable to provide
proof or documentary evidence that he got the approval of the Claimant to enter
into a new employment contract with another club, i.e. the Respondent 2, or that
he had just cause to terminate the contract with the Claimant. Thus, the Chamber
stated that the Respondent 1 evidently acted without the approval of the
Claimant when signing a new employment contract with the Respondent 2.
15.
As a result of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber came to the conclusion
that by signing an employment contract with the Respondent 2, the Respondent 1
had breached the contract binding him to the Claimant. The members present at
the meeting recalled that the Respondent 1 neither had the approval of the
Claimant to sign an employment contract with the Respondent 2 nor did he
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
8
invoke a valid just cause before the Chamber for having not assumed his duties
under the employment contract he entered into with the Claimant.
16.
In this respect, the Chamber drew the parties attention to the contents of art. 18
par. 5 of the Regulations, according to which, in case a Professional enters into
more than one contract covering the same period, the same provisions concerning
the consequences of terminating a contract without just cause apply. The
Chamber held that such provision fully applies to the case at stake, whereby the
Respondent 1 concluded an employment contract with the Respondent 2, while
being under contract with the Claimant. The Chamber therefore unanimously
reached the conclusion that the Respondent 1 is liable to pay compensation for
contractual breach and is to be sanctioned as if he had terminated the contract
with the Claimant without just cause.
17.
Having established that the Respondent 1 had breached the employment contract
with the Claimant, the Chamber turned to the question whether the Respondent 1
is accountable for compensation for breach of contract and if sporting sanctions
shall be applied on him for breach of contract without just cause.
18.
As far as compensation for breach of contract is concerned, the Chamber referred
to the aforementioned considerations, the behaviour of the parties concerned in
the matter at stake whilst also taking into account the request for compensation
submitted by the Claimant in the amount of 1,632,000, amount corresponding to
approximately USD 282,000.
19.
Thereto, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to add that the
Claimant, after it apparently was unable to receive the Respondent 1’s
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) from the Football Federation of Y,
reinforced negotiations with the Respondent 1’s former club, club D, related to
the amount of transfer compensation. Yet, the Chamber could not grasp why the
Claimant did not refer the matter related to the issuance of the Respondent 1’ ITC
to FIFA’s competent deciding body, i.e. the Single Judge of the Players’ Status
Committee (cf. art. 23 par. 3 and Annex 3 of the Regulations) as provided for by
the Regulations. Thereby, the Claimant delayed the procedure to establish the, at
that time particularly urgent, question as regards the status of the Respondent 1.
20.
The Chamber considered these facts of the present case as mitigating
circumstances with regard to the amount of compensation for breach of contract
which the Respondent 1 is responsible to pay. Moreover, the Chamber put
emphasis to the fact that the Claimant did apparently not incur any amounts of
transfer compensation or other expenses when signing the Respondent 1.
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
9
21.
In view of the above, the members of the Chamber reached the conclusion that
the payment of compensation amounting to USD 150,000 by the Respondent 1 to
the Claimant appears to be appropriate.
22.
In continuation, the Chamber added that, in application of art. 17 par. 2 and art.
18 par. 5 of the Regulations, the Respondent 2 is jointly and severally liable for the
payment of the relevant compensation towards the Claimant in the amount of
USD 150,000.
23.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
Claimant’s request for sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent 1. In
this respect, the Chamber held that such sanctions can only be imposed on a
player found to be in breach of contract during the protected period (cf. art. 17
par. 3 of the Regulations).
24.
In this context, the Chamber referred to pt. 7 of the definitions in the introduction
part to the Regulations which provides that the protected period is “a period of
three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into
force of a contract, if such contract was concluded prior to the 28 birthday of the
Professional…”.
25.
The Chamber held that on 30 March 2006, when he signed the employment
contract with the Claimant, the Respondent 1 was, according to the said contract,
20 years of age. Moreover, the breach of that contract occurred on 26 August
2006 when the Respondent 1 signed a new employment contract with the
Respondent 2, thus before the lapse of three years from concluding the contract
with the Claimant.
26.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent 1 breached the
employment contract he entered into with the Claimant without just cause during
the protected period. As a consequence, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on
the Respondent 1.
27.
To this end, the Chamber referred to the contents of art. 17 par. 3 of the
Regulations stipulating the sporting sanctions for breach of contract during the
protected period as “a restriction of four months on his [i.e. the player’s] eligibility
to play in official matches. In the case of aggravating circumstances, the restriction
shall last six months”.
28.
With regard to the quoted provision, the Chamber emphasized that a suspension
of four months on a player’s eligibility to participate in official matches is the
minimal sporting sanction that can be imposed for breach of contract during the
protected period. This sanction, according to the explicit wording of the relevant
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
10
provision, can be extended in case of aggravating circumstances. In other words,
the Regulations intend to guarantee a restriction on the player’s eligibility of four
months as the minimal sanction. Therefore, the relevant provision does not
provide for a possibility to the deciding body to reduce the sanction under the
fixed minimum duration in case of mitigating circumstances.
29.
The Chamber held that it could not find any aggravating circumstances which
would allow the conclusion to impose a restriction higher than four months of the
Respondent 1’s eligibility to play in official matches. The deciding authority
therefore decided that a restriction of four months on the Respondent 1’s
eligibility to play in official matches shall be imposed. This sanction shall take
effect from the start of the season of the Respondent 1’s current club following
the notification of the present decision.
30.
In continuation, the Chamber turned to the question whether, in application of
art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the
Respondent 2 for a possible inducement to breach of contract during the
protected period.
31.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent 2, in order to
acquire the services of the Respondent 1, followed the administrative procedure
governing the international transfer of players. In fact, the Respondent 2 signed a
pre-transfer agreement with club D for the Respondent 1’s transfer on 26 August
2006 and subsequently requested and received the Respondent 1’s ITC from the
Football Federation of Y. The Chamber held that the Respondent 2, when signing
the employment contract with the Respondent 1 on 26 August 2006, could in
good faith belief that the Respondent 1’s former club was club D.
32.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant maintained
that it informed by fax both the Respondent 2 and the Z Football Federation of
the employment contract it signed with the Respondent 1. Yet, the Chamber
noted that the Claimant was unable to provide documentary evidence that its fax
dated 28 August 2006 was indeed received by its addresses, i.e. the Respondent 2
and the French Football Federation. What is more, the relevant fax of the
Claimant was, if at all, received by the Respondent 2 after it had already signed
the employment contract with the Respondent, i.e. on 26 August 2006.
33.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the Respondent 2 appears to
have been acting in good faith when it signed an employment contract with the
Respondent 1. Therefore, it held that the Respondent 2 did not induce the
Respondent 1 to breach of contract during the protected period and that no
sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the Respondent 2.
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
11
34.
As a consequence to all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided
that the Respondent 1 has to pay the Claimant the sum of USD 150,000 and that
the Respondent 2 is jointly responsible for paying the aforementioned amount of
compensation in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations. Equally, the
Chamber decided that a restriction of four months on the Respondent 1’s
eligibility to play in official matches shall be imposed.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent 1, player B, has to pay compensation in the amount of USD
150,000 to the Claimant, club A, within 30 days of notification of the present
decision.
3.
If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted to the FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the
necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
4.
The Respondent 2, club C, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
amount of compensation of USD 150,000 to the Claimant, club A.
5.
The Claimant, club A, is directed to inform the Respondent 1, player B, and the
Respondent 2, club C, directly and immediately of the account number to which
the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
every payment received.
6.
A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed
on the Respondent 1, player B. This sanction shall take effect from the start of the
first season of the Respondent 1’s current club following the notification of the
present decision.
7.
Any further requests of the Claimant, club A, are rejected.
8.
According to art. 61 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes this decision may be appealed
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be
sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receiving notification of this decision and
has to contain all elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by
the CAS, copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the
expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, the appellant
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
12
shall file with the CAS a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to
the appeal (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
General Secretary
Encl: CAS directives
Club A, from X / Player C, from Y; Club C, from Z
13