Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15399
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Issaka Abudu
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Issaka Abudu, Ghana
Represented by Slim Boulesnam
RESPONDENT:
Salmiya SC, Kuwait
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15399
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 March 2023, the Ghanaian player Issaka Abudu (hereinafter: the Claimant, the Player
or the Second Party) and the Kuwaiti club Salmiya SC (hereinafter: the Respondent, the Club
or the First Party) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with article 4 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant the following remuneration:
“The First Parry shall pay to the Second Party a total amount of the contract US $550,000/- (Five
Hundred Fifty Thousand US Dollar), this amount will pay as follow:
A} The First Season 2023/2024:
- US $100,000/- will pay in 15/07/2023.
- US $150,000/- will pay as a monthly salaries [sic] on Ten monthes [sic], US $ 15,000/00 at the
end of each month (from September 2023 to June 2024).
B} The Second Season 2024/2025:
- US $120,000/- will pay in 15/07/2024.
- US$180,000/- will pay as a monthly salaries [sic] on Ten monthes [sic], US $ 18,000/00 at the
end of each month (from September 2024 to June 2025).”
3.
In addition, article 6 of the Contract stipulated the following:
“The first party will provide a furnished apartment to the second party, with a maximum monthly
rent of KD 250/- (only Two Hundred and Fifty Kuwaiti Dinars only).”
4.
Furthermore, articles 7 and 9 of the Contract read as follows:
Article 7
“The First Party to provide a car for the Second Party during the duration of the contract or paid
KD 150/ - as a car allowance monthly until the end of the contract.”
Article 9
“The Second Party shall be entitled to (4) trip economy class air tickets, for him, And [sic] his wife
and children from, (Ghana/ Kuwait/Ghana) to home country, during the contract period, to be
issued with the authority of the club, Tickets are uncashable [sic].”
5.
Lastly, article 21 of the Contract read as follows:
“Any dispute arising between the Parties hereto in connection with the execution or construction
of this Agreement shall be subject to the National Sports Arbitration Tribunal (NAST), and
International Federation of Association Football (FIFA).”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15399
6.
By correspondence dated 2 July 2024, the Claimant sent the following default notice to the
Respondent:
“Dear Sir/Madam
We are writing to draw your attention to the situation of the Ghanaian player Issaka
Abudu (a power of attorney is attached).
In particular, we have come to give you formal notice to remedy the numerous breaches
and violations currently being committed by your club.
The player signed a contract valid from 1st July 2023 to 30 June 2025.
It was therefore with great surprise that the player informed us that you had asked him to look
for anew club, given that the coach is not keeping him for technical reasons and that
you have not called him up with the rest of the first team for the training camp to be
held in Bosnia on 5 July 2024. The player was even informed that a new player had been
recruited to replace him.
In addition, we note that your management have verbally asked the player to accept a
mutual termination of the employment contract. Please note that according to article 14.2
of the FIFA RSTP, your current behaviour is illegal. We are counting on your willingness to put
an end to this breach of your obligations.
In addition, the club failed to pay the players for months of March to June 2023, hence breaching
its essential obligation of payment. We therefore reiterate the player's desire to honour his
employment contract and invite you to provide us with
• An unambiguous clarification of your contractual intentions within the next 48 hours.
• Pay the player’s salaries for the months of March, April, May and June for a total of
USD 60 000 within the next 7 days.
• Immediately obtain visas for Kuwait and Bosnia.
• Take all necessary steps to ensure that the player is reinstated in the club's first team.
Finally, I ask that you email us any documents of any kind (e.g. receipts, proposed
agreements, certificates, etc.) before they are presented to the player. The player will not
sign any document presented by your club if it has not been validated by us.
In the event of a prolonged failure to comply beyond the deadline provided, we refer
you to the FIFA RSTJ, and in particular to articles 12bis, 14, 14bis, 17 and 22 l. The player
reserves the right to initiate any proceedings before the FIFA Football Tribunal in order to assert
his rights, which are currently being violated, and in particular to terminate the contract with
just cause. We are counting on your willingness to put an end to this situation of violation of
your obligations and would ask you to accept the expression of our distinguished greetings.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15399
7.
On 22 July 2024, the Claimant terminated the Contract with the Respondent.
8.
On 2 September 2024, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Libyan club
Olympi Azzawiya SC for the season 2024-2025.
9.
According to his employment contract with the Libyan club Olympi Azzawiya SC, the
Claimant is entitled to the following remuneration:
“[…] $130,000 USD (one hundred thirty thousand US dollars) for the 2024/2025 sports season,
to be paid as follows:
1. $65,000 USD Sixty Five [sic] Thousand US Dollars upon signing the contract and the player’s
arrival in Libya.
2. $32,500 USD to be paid to the second party by 15/02/2025.
3. $32,500 USD to be paid to the second party by 20/07/2025.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 30 July 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. According to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause on 22 July 2024 as
the Club informed him at the end of the season 2023-2024 that he was not in the coach’s
plans for the next season and asked him to find a new club.
12. In addition, the Player mentioned that he had found out on social media that he had not
been called up for the training camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina starting on 5 July 2024 and that
a new player had been recruited to replace him.
13. Considering the foregoing, the requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
-
Outstanding salaries amounting to USD 180,000, plus 5% interest.
i.
Monthly salary of March 2024 amounting to USD 15,000, plus 5% interest as
from 1 April 2024.
ii.
Monthly salary of April 2024 amounting to USD 15,000, plus 5% interest as
from 1 May 2024.
iii.
Monthly salary of May 2024 amounting to USD 15,000, plus 5% interest as
from 1 June 2024.
iv.
Monthly salary of June 2024 amounting to USD 15,000, plus 5% interest as
from 1 July 2024.
v.
Instalment of USD 120,000 for the season 2024-2025 due on 15 July 2024, plus
5% interest as from 15 July 2024.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15399
-
Compensation of the residual value of the Contract amounting to USD 180,000, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 22 July 2024.
2 flights ticket Kuwait-Accra to be calculated by FIFA Travel, plus 5% interest as from
22 July 2024.
Accommodation allowances from July 2024 to June 2025 amounting to KWD 3,000.
Car allowances from July 2024 to June 2025 amounting to KWD 1,800.
Additional compensation amounting to 6 monthly salaries.
(Freely translated from French)
b. Position of the Respondent
14. According to the Respondent, FIFA does not have jurisdiction to decide over the present
dispute, as article 21 of the Contract refers to the National Sports Arbitration Tribunal of
Kuwait (hereinafter: the NAST) as the competent decision-making body to hear any dispute
between the parties.
15. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the NAST meets the minimum standard outline
in FIFA’s Circular no. 1010 as it ensures fair proceedings and equal representation for both
players and clubs.
16. Subsidiarily, the Respondent indicated that, in the event that FIFA is competent to hear the
present dispute, the amount of compensation to be paid to the Claimant must be mitigated
in accordance with his actual employment contract, if any.
c. Replica of the Claimant
17. In its replica, the Claimant argued that article 21 of the Contract does not grant exclusive
jurisdiction to the NAST, but rather the possibility to choose between the NAST and FIFA.
18. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the NAST is not a dispute resolution chamber, but
rather an arbitration tribunal which is not free of charge. In this context, it is the opinion of
the Claimant that the principle of parity and equal influence between employees and
employers in its composition is not respected in accordance with FIFA’s Circular no. 1010.
The Claimant also noted that there is no players’ union in Kuwait nor a union member of
FIFPRO.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
19. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its initial position, i.e. that FIFA does not have
jurisdiction to deal with the present matter and that the NAST is the competent decisionmaking body pursuant to the clear and exclusive clause of article 21 of the Contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15399
20. In addition, the Respondent referred to the Procedural Rules of the NAST to argue that it
complies with the following minimum procedural standards:
“Principle of parity when constituting the arbitration tribunal (Articles (14) to (20) of the
Procedural Rules);
Right to an independent and impartial tribunal (Articles (2), (7) (12) of the Statutes and (15) and
(16) of the procedural Rules);
Principle of a fair hearing (Article (7) of the Statutes and (25) to (46) of the Procedural Rules);
Right to contentious proceedings (Articles (25) to (46) of the Procedural Rules);
Principle of equal treatment (Article (7) of the Statutes and (15) of the procedural Rules).”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 30 July 2024 and submitted for decision on 3
December 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
22. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 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 Ghanaian player
and a Kuwaiti club.
23. The Chamber however noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the NAST, alleging that it is competent to deal with any dispute
deriving from the Contract, in accordance with its article 21.
24. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate
the present claim, sustaining that the jurisdiction clause in question is not exclusive as it
also refers to FIFA and that the NAST does not contain equal representation of players and
clubs, as there is no players’ association in Kuwait nor a players’ association member of
FIFPRO.
25. At this point, the Chamber reverted to the Transitional measures established in art. 26 par.
1 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions October 2024,
June 2024 and February 2024), according to which “Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15399
apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January 2025. Any other case shall be assessed
according to the previous regulations.”
26. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the May 2023 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter, the Regulations), FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employmentrelated dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension. Nevertheless,
the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an independent
arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be
included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable
on the parties. Furthermore, the independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee
fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute
Resolution Chamber Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
27. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the Contract
at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in
favour of the NAST of Kuwait. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the wording of article
21 of the Contract, which read as follows:
“Any dispute arising between the Parties hereto in connection with the execution or construction
of this Agreement shall be subject to the National Sports Arbitration Tribunal (NAST), and
International Federation of Association Football (FIFA).”
28. In this context, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber
concluded that article 21 of the Contract did not clearly and exclusively establish the
competence of the NAST of Kuwait, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. c) of the
Regulations. In particular, the Chamber highlighted that the said article refers to both the
NAST and FIFA.
29. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the CAS jurisprudence, according to which if a
contractual clause provided for the case to be held before alternative fora, the party that
commenced proceedings in the case should be entitled to select the forum before which it
would be heard. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the Player was entitled to opt
for lodging a claim against the Cub before FIFA.
30. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for
establishing the competence of the NAST was not met, and therefore, without the need to
enter the analysis of any further requirement, it established that the Club’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to
consider the present matter as to the substance
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15399
31. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 (October 2024 edition), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 30 July 2024, the June 2024 edition of said regulations is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
32. 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
33. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of just cause for the early termination of the
Contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations
by the Respondent as per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
36. 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).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15399
37. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the monthly salaries from March 2024 to June 2024. Furthermore, the
Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 2 July
2024, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 22 July 2024.
38. The Chamber also noted that 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. Nonetheless, the Respondent did not provide any evidence to prove the
payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
39. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
40. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of the Contract committed by the Respondent.
41. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination of
the Contract, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amount to USD
180,000 and KWD 400. In particular, the Chamber determined that the Player’s outstanding
remuneration correspond to his monthly salaries from March 2024 to June 2024, his
accommodation allowance for the month of July 2024, his car allowance for the month of
July 2024, as well as the bonus for the season 2024-2025.
42. 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 its termination, i.e. the
monthly salaries (i.e. USD 15,000 times 4), the accommodation allowance (i.e. KWD 250),
the car allowance (i.e. KWD 150) and the bonus for the season 2024-2025 (i.e. USD 120,000).
43. 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 corresponding to the monthly salaries and bonus
for the season 2024-2025, as from their corresponding due dates until the date of effective
payment.
44. 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 referred to art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
45. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15399
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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request and article 9 of the Contract, the
Chamber awarded him two one-way economy flight tickets from Kuwait to Ghana.
Consequently, the Chamber referred to FIFA Travel and was able to establish that the value
of said flight tickets amounts to USD 1,050.
49. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 195,403.73 (i.e. the monthly
salaries from September 2024 to June 2025, the accommodation allowances from August
2024 to June 2025, the car allowances from August 2024 to June 2025 and the value of two
flights tickets from Kuwait to Ghana) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of the Contract.
50. 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.
51. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Libyan club Olympi Azzawiya SC for the
2024-2025 season. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was
entitled to USD 97,500 until the end date of the Contract, i.e. 30 June 2025. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD
97,500.
52. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15399
53. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
54,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player under the Contract.
54. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount
of USD 151,903.73 to the Player (i.e. USD 195,403.73 minus USD 97,500 plus USD 54,000),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of the Contract in the present matter.
55. 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 22 July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
56. 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. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
principle, of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amounts are paid.
57. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
58. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 11 July 2024 and notified on 25 July 2024, a transfer ban has been imposed on
the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the case FPSD14312.
59. Accordingly, the Chamber established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not
apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
60. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is
not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15399
61. 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.
d. Costs
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15399
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Issaka Abudu.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Salmiya SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- KWD 400 as outstanding amount;
- USD 180,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- Over the amount of USD 15,000 as from 1 April 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- Over the amount of USD 15,000 as from 1 May 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- Over the amount of USD 15,000 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- Over the amount of USD 15,000 as from 1 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- Over the amount of USD 120,000 as from 16 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
- USD 151,903.73 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
22 July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15399
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15