DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7925
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 April 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sharaf Eldin
Shibioub Ali Abdelrahman
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Laurel Vaurasi (Fiji) , member
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
CLAIMANT:
Sharaf Eldin Shibioub Ali Abdelrahman , Sudan
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Kiyovu Sports Association, Rwanda
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7925
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 11 June 2022, the Sudanese player, Sharaf Eldin Shibioub Ali Abdelrahman (hereinafter: player or
Claimant) and the Rwandan club Kiyovu Sports Association (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract).
2. Article 2.1. of the contract stipulated the following:
“The Club engages the Player as a professional football on the terms and conditions of this
contract and subject to rules for two seasons.”
3. In accordance with the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
seasons in Rwanda are indicated as follows:
a. 2021/2022: 16-10-2021 to 18-06-2022
b. 2022/2023: 19.08.2022 to 04.06.2023
c. 2023/2024: TBA
4. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following:
“Throughout his engagement the Club shall pay to the Player the remuneration of fifty-five million
Rwandan francs (55,000,000rwf)
-
Signing fee is twenty million Rwandan Francs (20,000,000rwt) Given before the preseason
-
First year (season year) fifteen million Rwandan francs (15,000,000rwf) whereby he will receive
one million five hundred Rwandan francs (l,500,000rwf) paid monthly over a period of ten months.
-
Second year (season year) twenty million Rwandan francs (20,000,000rwf) whereby he will receive two
million Rwandan franc (2,000,000rwf) paid monthly over a period of 10 months.
-
Winning bonus is thirty thousand Rwandan Francs (30,000rwf).
-
The club will be in charge of taking care of the accommodation for the player during the time of this
contract.
-
Transport during working hours is provided by the club through the team's bus for every
player.
-
The player gets one ticket per season on to travel home and back.”
5. On 15 August 2022, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, inter alia, stipulating the
following:
“Since the Employment Contract signed by the Parties, the Player was asking the club repeatedly to fulfill
its obligations and to pay him the signing fee agreed by the above-mentioned article, unfortunately since
day one, the Club was seriously refusing to pay the Player his financial right on its due date.
Moreover, the Club refused to pay the player his salaries due of July and August 2022 which is equivalent
to an amount of RWF (3,000,000).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7925
Furthermore, the Club prevented the Player of attending the pre-season with the team, as the player
neither receive an entry visa to join the team before the pre-season started nor received any flight tickets
or information regarding his accommodation in Rwanda; all of which were stated in article 5 of the
employment contract, while the Player knew from the Club’s social media account that the pre-season
started on the 26th of July 2022.
In view of the above, the Club has committed serious violations of the Employment Contract itself and to
all national and international regulations, in particular, to articles 13, 14 and 14bis of FIFA regulation
“FIFA/RSTP”.
Therefore, we are granting you fifteen (15) days as a deadline to resolve all violations committed towards
the Player amicably, in case of failure to settle this matter amicably, the Player will be allowed to terminate
the Employment Contract unilaterally with just cause, and lodge a claim before FIFA Football Tribunal
(DRC), requesting the Club to pay the Player all his outstanding salaries plus the residual value of the
contract as compensation according to the article of 17 of FIFA/RSTP.”
6. On 17 August 2022, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, stipulating the following:
“Its with regret that we receive your letter, we would like to remind your client that on 22 July
2022 he sent an email to the team informing the team he terminate the contract.”
7. On 18 August 2022, the Claimant sent a second notice to the Respondent, inter alia, mentioning the
following:
“the Player confirms that he did not send the Club any emails requesting termination of the Contract, and
all communications between the Club and the Player should be made through his official email address
that mentioned on the Contract itself “[email protected]” and no one has the right to talk or take
any legal action on behalf of the Player without disclosing his mandate or the Power of Attorney that give
him the power to talk on behalf the Player, consequently, the Player is not responsible for any emails were
sent to the Club other than his official email that mentioned in the Contract itself or from his official
attorney Mr. Islam Hisham.
Moreover, the Player emphasizes that he did not ever receive any amounts from the Club, and if you mean
the flight tickets or the accommodation you made to the Player when you asked him to come to your Club
to sign the Employment Contract on 11 June 2022. We would to draw your attention that these obligations
are deemed the main obligations of the Club, and the Player should not be asked to refund these amounts
whatsoever, and thus, this act is considered blackmail and a threat to the Player, as you did not want to
fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Player, but furthermore, you asked him also to refund you
amounts without any legal basis, which is considered a serious breach to the Employment Contract itself
and to all national and international regulation, especially FIFA-RSTP.
Bearing in mind, that all acts committed by you towards the Player, without any doubt, are considered
Serious breaches, whereby the Club did not comply with its contractual obligations, the Club failed to pay
the Player his signing fee as well as failed to pay the salaries of July and August 2022, and prevented the
Player of attending pre-season with the team without any justifying reason.
Therefore, we are granting you until “30 August 2022” as a final deadline to resolve all
violations Committed towards the Player amicably, otherwise, the Player will has no other
option except to terminate the Employment Contract unilaterally with just cause under the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7925
article of 14 and 14 bis of FIFA RSTP, and lodge a claim before”
8. On 1 September 2022, the Claimant sent a termination letter to the Respondent in accordance with
articles of 14 and 14 bis.
9.
On 3 September 2022, the Respondent sent a correspondence to the Claimant, inter alia indicating:
“we again remind you that the termination of the contract comes from you”
10. On 7 September 2022, the Claimant via email further confirmed that he had not terminated the
contract on 22 July 2022 and that he “did not send any email from his official email that mentioned
clearly on the Employment Contract “[email protected]”, and no one has authorization to take this
action on behalf of him expect Mr. Islam Hisham as a lawyer under the Power of Attorney dated 11 August
2022.”
11. On 9 September 2022, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant, again stipulating that the
correspondence was conducted via the Claimant’s agent and that it would sue the Respondent for
unprofessional behaviour.
12. The Claimant informed FIFA that he did not sign a new contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 20 October 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
Position of the Claimant
14. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with its contractual obligations.
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“1)
To accept this claim against the Respondent.
2)
To consider the Respondent liable for breach for breach without just cause of the Employment Contract
3)
To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the outstanding salaries in the amount of RWF
(23,950,000) “twenty-three million, nine hundred fifty thousand RWF corresponding to pro rata salary of
RWF 950,000 as June 2022 salary, RWF 1,500,000 as July 2022 salary and RWF 1,500,000 as August 2022
salary ”
4)
To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in amount of RWF
(31,080,000-/RWF) “thirty-one million and eighty thousand RWF”
5) To condemn the Respondent to pay the claimant an additional head of compensation under the specificity
of sport as provided for under FIFA RSTP in the amount of RWF (16,500,000) “sixteen million and five
hundred thousand RWF”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7925
6)
To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum over entire amounts
requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the effective payment.
7)
To ban the Respondent from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two
registration periods under article 17, paragraph 4 of the FIFA RSTP;
8)
To impose the Respondent whatever sanctions this honorable Chamber deems fit in accordance with
article 12 bis of the FIFA RSTP.
9)
To fix a sum of USD (5,000-/) “five thousand dollars”, to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, to
help the payment of its legal fees and costs.
10) As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs of the present
proceedings, if any.”
b.
Position of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Respondent, inter alia, mentioned the following:
“The player through his Agent sent an E-mail determination he terminates the contract on 22 nd July 2022.
- On 23rd July 2022 the club replied and accepted the request on one condition to refund the
expenses such as accommodation and transport
- On July 26th 2,022 the team started pre-season
- In the contract the club mentioned article 5 of the contract that the fees in the contract will be
paid before the team starts the pre-season, but as you can see the player terminated the
contract before the team start the pre-season. Which means the club couldn't force the player
to play for the team.
- The player sent a mail and messages showing that he does not want the club anymore and he
said once that don't want to play for the team.”
17. In conclusion, the Respondent indicated that “there is no just cause for either lack of payment
of the salary for two months, we request the fair decision regarding the matter because the player didn't
lose anything and if he lost any interest, it should be on his fault.”
c.
Additional Comments Claimant
18. The Claimant indicated the following:
(a)
In response to the allegations related to the alleged agent:
-
the Respondent’s alleged that there are two agents signed on the last page of the Contract while at the
same time it alleged that Moyassar R Fedil represented the Claimant in this Contract, which is not true
and false because if we review the last page of the Contract provided by the Respondent itself, we will find
that Mr. Moyassar was representing the Club in that deal, not the Player.
-
the agent because he not authorized to terminate the contract on behalf of the Player.
Accordingly, it was Respondent direct obligation to perform the due diligence in regard to the legal power
of somebody to act on other’s behalf, hence the Respondent only itself shall be liable for failure to comply
with the due diligence and bear the consequences of it.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7925
-
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the alleged agent did not represent the Claimant in the Contract nor has
an authorization to take any legal action on his behalf, and thus, the action made on 22 July 2022 is
attributed to the agent himself and does not form any legal effect to the Claimant nor the Contract.
(b)
In response to the allegations related to the email dated 22 July 2022 of the alleged termination:
it will be noted that this email did not an act of termination, but it was not less not more mere a
complaint about the Respondent’s breaches and a “proposal or request” of termination
(c)
In response on the allegations related to WhatsApp messages:
-
As it is clear, that the introduction of the contract (1st page) contains the email of the Claimant, evidently
this was the mean of communication between the parties bound by the Contract. Therefore, any
WhatsApp messages should be disregarded as a mean of communication related to the Contract.
-
Moreover, the Respondent in this message confirm that the WhatsApp message is not an official way by
asking the Claimant to send them an official letter from his official email
(d)
In response on the allegations related to the validity of the Contract:
-
From all the above, it is undisputed that the Contract is binding and valid as from the date of signing
i.e., from 10 June 2022.
-
It is undisputed that the Respondent itself recognize that the Contract entered into force since 10
June 2022.
19. In conclusion the Claimant reiterated his claim as per the relief sought.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7925
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 20 October 2022 and submitted for decision on 27
April 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022 edition of the Procedural
Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition
of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
21. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player from Sudan and a club from Rwanda.
22. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 20 October 2022, the October 2022 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
23. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall
carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4
of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties,
including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
c.
Merits of the dispute
24. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established; the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7925
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The foregoing having been established the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter
and took note of the fact that according to the Claimant, the Respondent terminated the contract
without just cause, while the Respondent argued that the Claimant terminated the contract as per
a termination letter which was issued by the Claimant’s agent on his behalf.
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence
presented by the parties, when the contract was effectively terminated, and, by which party,
secondly whether such termination was with or without just cause and who should bear the
consequences of said termination.
27. The Chamber took note that the Claimant opposed the argumentation of the Respondent and
argued that an agent was not authorised to issue a termination letter on his behalf, and that the
Respondent on its account, mentioned that the Claimant had made it clear as per his WhatsApp
correspondence that he had wished to terminate his contract.
28. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber went on to analyse the documentation provided by
both parties in support of their respective positions and remarked that the allegations of the
Respondent, are not supported by any corroborating evidence.
29. By referring to article 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber was firm to determine that the
Respondent failed to provide any substantiating documentation to demonstrate that the Claimant’s
agent as it claims was authorised to terminate the contract on behalf of the Claimant. As a
consequence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent’s position in this regard could not be
upheld.
30. Additionally, the Chamber addressed the WhatsApp correspondence and held that in the said
correspondence the Respondent requested a formal termination via official communication,
accordingly it seems that as per its request the formalities were complied with.
31. What is more, the Chamber established that it is clear that a formal termination letter was issued by
the Claimant on 1 September 2022. Therefore, following the above and in the absence of any
corroborating evidence, the Chamber had to rely on the allegations of the Claimant.
32. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with
which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the
player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the
debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club
to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
33. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration corresponding
to signing fee, June 2022 salary, July 2022, August 2022 salary. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7925
the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 18 August
2022, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 1 September 2022.
34. The Chamber also noted in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties, which it
failed to do.
35. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract on 1 September, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
36. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
37. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., RWF 23,950,000
corresponding to the following:
-
RWF 20,000,000 as signing fee
RWF 950,000 as June 2022 salary
RWF 1,500,000 as July 2022 salary
RWF 1,500,000 as August 2022 salary
38. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on
the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
39. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be
calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute,
with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up
to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
40. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties
had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-7925
41. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
42. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from the date of its
unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
RWF 31,050,000 (i.e.,1 September 2022 until June 2024 corresponding to RWF 11,050,000 – balance
of year one and RWF 20,000,000 – year 2.) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
43. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment contract
with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been
enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well as art.
17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be
taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
44. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
45. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player
did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract, as a general rule,
the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated.
46. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of USD RWF 31,050,000, i.e. (1 September 2022 until June 2024 corresponding to RWF
11,050,000 – balance of year one and RWF 20,000,000 – year 2), as the residual value of the contract.
47. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at the rate of
5% p.a. as of 1 September 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
48. In continuation, bearing in mind the foregoing considerations, the Chamber referred to art.12bis
par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for
more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that the Respondent
failed to comply with its financial obligations in line with the contract, without a prima facie
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-7925
justification, and was duly notified of the contractual breach by the Claimant, who granted the
Respondent at least 10 days to cure its default, to no avail.
49. The Chamber established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has competence to
impose sanctions on the Respondent.
50. Moreover, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a
repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe
penalty.
51. Bearing in mind the above and taking into account that this is a first offense of the Respondent in
the past two years, the deciding body decided to impose a warning on the Respondent.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
52. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par. 1 and 2
of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also
rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant
amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
53. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the
relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of
the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
54. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4,
and 7 of the Regulations.
55. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
56. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
57. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “Procedures are
free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent, or match agent”.
Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-7925
58. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of
the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these
proceedings.
59. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of
the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-7925
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sharaf Eldin Shibioub Ali Abdelrahman, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kiyovu Sports Association, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- RWF 23,950,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
- on the amount of RWF 20,000,000 as from 26 July 2022
- on the amount of RWF 950,000 as from 1 July 2022
- on the amount of RWF 1,500,000 as from 1 August 2022
- on the amount of RWF 1,500,000 as from 1 September 2022
- RWF 31,050,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 1 September 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including
all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following
consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up
to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the
event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art.
24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-7925
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15