DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11692
Decision of the
Players’ Status Chamber
passed on 6 November 2023
regarding a contractual dispute concerning
the player Opoku Ampomah
BY:
Jesús Arroyo, Spain
CLAIMANT:
K.V. R.S. Waasland-SK Beveren, Belgium
Represented by Kristof de Saedeleer
RESPONDENT:
Fortuna Dusseldorf, Germany
Represented by Blueport Legal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11692
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 July 2019, the Belgian club, K.V. R.S. Waasland-SK Beveren (hereinafter: the Claimant)
received an offer (hereinafter: the Offer) from the German club, Fortuna Dusseldorf
(hereinafter: the Respondent) for the transfer of the services of the player Opoku
Ampomah (hereinafter: the player).
2.
The Offer included the following terms and conditions, quoted verbatim:
“Transfer fee
2.75 Mio.
Payable in 3 installments:
15.07.19
15.07.20
15.07.21
1 Mio.
850 T€
900 T€
Non-relegation
1 - 12 place in 1. Bundesliga
Every 15 games
DFB Cup 1/8-Final
DFB Cup 1/4-Flnal
DFB Cup 1/2-Flnal
DFB Cup Final
Participation UEFA Europa League
250 T€
100 T€
100 T€
50 T€
100 T€
100 T€
150 T€
500 T€
Bonus of 1 Mio. is guaranteed if [the Respondent] sells the player or contract ends.
Maximum bonus 1.5 Mio.
Sell-on fee 15 % above the already paid net transfer and bonus fees.
[The Claimant] assumes the solidarity and training compensation.
The offer is valid only if the player passes the medical check”.
3.
Also on 3 July 2019, the Claimant replied to the Offer and stated inter alia as follows, quoted
verbatim:
“To take your offer in consideration this offer must change on several points:
1/ confirmation that the bonus can be reached every year [the player] is under contract
in your club. So if your club stay 3 years in 1. Bundesliga we can obtain for example 3
times the non-relegation bonus. I think it was confirmed but it is not written in the
proposal.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11692
2/ payment instalments: 50% 15/7/2019 and 50% 15/7/2020. It's impossible to wait 1
year because we have to re-invest the money in other players.
3/ the guarantee that in each case your club pays in 3 years a minimum of 1.000.000 €
bonus and not only when your club resells the player.
Thank you for your reaction”.
4.
On 10 July 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a transfer agreement by
means of which the services of the player were permanently transferred from the former
to the latter (hereinafter: the Transfer Agreement).
5.
Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of the Transfer Agreement read as follows:
“3.2. Appearance bonus
In case the Player forms part of the starting line up or as a substitute in every 15 official
matches for [the Respondent] the latter will pay [the Claimant] each time an additional
net amount of 100.000,00 EUR (in words: one hundred thousand Euros) on top of the
Transfer Fee upon.
Official matches in this regard being matches in the matches of 1 & 2 Bundesliga, the
DFB-Cup and the European Competitions (Champions League, Europa League) of [the
Respondent] (including pre-rounds).
If the player plays from the beginning or in case of a substitution for at least 45 minutes
this will be count as 1 appearance (in words: one). If the player plays in case of a
substitution less than 45 minutes in a match, the appearance will be counted and
cumulated as ‘0,5’ of one appearance (in words: zero point five or ‘half’) Decisive is the
respective official match report.
3.3. Future qualifications
[The Respondent] will pay the following amounts to [the Claimant]:
a)
500.000,00 EUR (in words: five hundred thousand Euros) each time [the
Respondent] qualified for the European competition (Champions League and/or
Europa League) under the condition that the Player is in the Services of [the
Respondent] under his initial and/or extended contract;
b)
250,000 EUR (in words: two hundred and fifty thousand Euros) each time [the
Respondent] did not relegate under the condition that the Player is in the Services
of [the Respondent] under his initial and/or extended contract;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11692
c)
100.000,00 EUR (in words: one hundred thousand Euros) each time [the
Respondent] ends between place 1 and 12 in the 1st Bundesliga under the
condition that the Player is in the Services of [the Respondent] under his initial
and/or extended contract;
d)
50.000,00 EUR (in words: fifty thousand euros) each time [the Respondent]
reaches a 1/8 FINAL of the DFB Cup under the condition that the Player is in the
Services of [the Respondent] under his initial and/or extended contract;
e)
100.000,00 EUR (in words: one hundred thousand Euros) each time [the
Respondent] reaches a 1/4 FINAL of the DFB Cup under the condition that the
Player is in the Services of [the Respondent] under his initial and/or extended
contract;
f)
100.000,00 EUR (in words: one hundred thousand Euros) each time [the
Respondent] reaches a 1/2 FINAL of the DFB Cup under the condition that the
Player is in the Services of [the Respondent] under his initial and/or extended
contract;
g)
150.000,00 EUR (in words: one hundred fifty thousand Euros) each time [the
Respondent] reaches the FINAL of the DFB Cup under the condition that the
Player is in the Services of [the Respondent] under his initial and/or extended
contract;
For the avoidance of any doubts or misunderstanding:
The maximum bonus [the Claimant] can receive is fixed 1.500.000,00 € (in words: one
million five hundred thousand Euros), from this amount a minimum bonus of
1.000.000,00 € (in words: um million Euros) is guaranteed if [the Respondent] sells the
player or his contract ends for any reason, and at least at 30/06/2022.
When the player is still under contract after 30/06/2022 the bonus can reach the total
sum of 1.500.000,00 €.
That means that in case [the Claimant] didn’t reach the bonus of 1.000.000,00 € before
30/06/2022, [the Respondent] must cover the gap to 1.000.000,00 €.
For example:
Bonus reached in year 1: 400.000 €
Bonus reached in year 2: 200.000 €
Bonus reached in year 3: 0 €
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11692
And contract with the player runs out, then [the Respondent] must pay 400.000 € bonus
to [the Claimant]”.
6.
Clause 4 of the Transfer Agreement reads as follows:
“According to art. 21 RSTP [the Respondent] will deduct the amount of 5% of solidarity
contribution and distribute it respectively”.
7.
On 28 April 2022, the Respondent wrote the Claimant and explained that the EUR 1,000,000
were only due if the player was transferred to another club or if his contract ended for any
reason. As such, the Respondent informed that in case the player remained under contract
with the Claimant following 30 June 2022, no additional fee would be paid.
8.
On 30 June 2022, the player was still under contract with the Respondent.
9.
On 3 May 2023, the Claimant issued an invoice against the Respondent for an amount of
EUR 820,250, corresponding to the balance of the EUR 1,000,000 guaranteed bonus per
clause 3 of the Transfer Agreement minus 5% as solidarity contribution.
10. On 11 May 2023, the Claimant insisted on the payment of the guaranteed bonus and
opposed to interpretation of the Respondent regarding clause 3 of the Transfer
Agreement.
11. On 30 May 2023, the Respondent replied to the Claimant and stated inter alia as follows,
quoted verbatim:
“The Transfer Agreement clearly supports our view. The wording of the Transfer
Agreement is very clear that each condition must be fulfilled until 30.06.2022. By citing
clause 3.3 you miss out that most important part ‘and at least at 30/06/2022’. Obviously,
this was the compromise between the initial request of your club and the request of [the
Respondent] after controversial negotiations between the clubs on this issue.
This compromise was already inserted in the first draft of the Transfer Agreement by your
club. In this regard, I have to correct you as the first draft of the Transfer Agreement came
from your club dated 09.05.2019 (Your club has not accepted first draft of [the
Respondent] as of the same date and has sent out Its own draft). Obviously, your club
has therewith accepted the limitation by the date 30 June 2022.
Our view Is also confirmed by the example ln the Transfer Agreement. The example also
sets 30 June 2022 as limit. As already highlighted by you in your mall It should be decisive
that the ‘contract with the player runs out’ at the end of the season 2021/2022. The
example names ‘year 1’ which can only be season 2019/2020, it names ‘year 2’ which Is
season 2020/2021 and ‘year 3’ which Is season 2021/2022 ending on 30.06.2022. As the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11692
contract with the Player did not end at 30.06.2022, the condition in the example ‘and the
contract with the player runs out’ is clearly not fulfilled”.
12. On 10 August 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for payment of EUR
820,250 under the Transfer Agreement. Accordingly, the Claimant granted the Respondent
a 10 days’ deadline for the breach to be cured in line with article 12bis of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: RSTP).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 6 September 2023, 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. In its claim, the Claimant referred to the wording of clause 3 of the Transfer Agreement and
stated that it was clear enough to establish its right to receive a minimum of EUR 1,000,000
as bonus. According to the Claimant, this interpretation was even clearer when considering
the parties’ exchanges before the conclusion of the Transfer Agreement, thus supporting
its claim.
15. Given the above, the Claimant requested to be awarded EUR 820,250 as outstanding
remuneration, broken down as follows:
•
EUR 850,000 corresponding to the guaranteed bonus of EUR 1,000,000 per clause
3.3 of the Transfer Agreement minus EUR 150,000 as the bonuses already paid by
the Respondent;
•
Minus EUR 42,500 as the solidarity contribution (5%);
•
Plus EUR 12,750 ad the share of solidarity contribution that it is entitled to.
16. The Claimant’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Therefore [the Claimant] respectfully requests that the Players' Status Chamber or the
competent body of FIFA decides that [the Respondent] has to pay the outstanding
amount of 820.250,00 EUR to [the Claimant].
A default interest at a rate of 5 % p. a. on the outstanding amount according to article
73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations due as of 1 July 2022.
According to Article 12bis FIFA RSTP sanctions have to be taken towards [the
Respondent] by the competent bodies of FIFA.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11692
Finally, [the Claimant] respectfully requests that the Players' Status Chamber decides
that [the Respondent] has to pay the entire administration costs and fees of the
procedure”.
b. Position of the Respondent
17. On 12 October 2023, the Respondent filed its reply to the claim of the Claimant and
disputed its entitlement to the amount sought.
18. According to the Respondent: “as not all conditions of the [clause 3 of the Transfer
Agreement] were met, in particular because the player was not transferred before the Deadline
or his contract with the Respondent was not terminated before the Deadline”. The Respondent
also made the following remarks regarding the interpretation of the Transfer Agreement:
•
The wording “guarantee” is misleading insofar as the parties meant to establish
a conditional payment and not a guaranteed one;
•
By choosing the connective “and” between the two conditions mentioned in
clause 3, the parties clearly stipulated that either the transfer or the termination
of the player’s contract with the Claimant were needed for the bonus to be
triggered;
•
The date mentioned in the provision (i.e., 30 June 2022) is not to be interpreted
as a due date;
•
If the parties wanted to establish a time limit for a mandatory payment, they
would not have established conditions; and
•
The Respondent’s interpretation is in line with the examples included at the
bottom of the same clause, where there is a clear reference to the conditions
needing to be fulfilled for the payment to be due.
19. In addition, the Respondent made reference to the Swiss Law and the jurisprudence of the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter: CAS) regarding the interpretation of contracts.
Likewise, it mentioned that the principle of contra proferentem is also applicable for that
the Claimant was the drafter of the Transfer Agreement.
20. The Respondent summarized its position as follows, quoted verbatim:
“There is no doubt that the [clause 3 of the Transfer Agreement] cannot be understood
and interpreted in the way the Claimant tries to understand it in his statement of claim.
There is not claim to a minimum sum of € 1,000,000 as the player’s contract ended a
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11692
year after the Deadline. In any way, any ambiguities are to be interpreted to the
disadvantage of the Claimant”.
21. Finally, the Respondent requested: (i) the claim be rejected; and (ii) the Claimant is ordered
to bear all and any costs of the proceedings.
III. Considerations of the Players’ Status Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 6 September 2023 and submitted
for decision on 6 November 2023. 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.
23. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. g) of
the RSTP (May 2023 edition), the Players’ Status Chamber is competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns contractual dispute between clubs affiliated to different
member associations, namely the Royal Belgian Football Association (in connection with
the Claimant) and German Football Association (in connection with the Respondent).
24. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the RSTP (May 2023 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 6 September 2023, the cited edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
25. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11692
c. Merits of the dispute
26. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments, and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
27. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that it pertains to a claim for overdue payables based on
the Transfer Agreement.
28. As a departure point, the Single Judge acknowledged that the parties have no factual
dispute. In particular, they concurred that up until 30 June 2022: (i) the Claimant had only
received EUR 150,000 as bonus; and (ii) the player was not transferred to another club; and
(iii) his registration remained with the Claimant up until July 2023.
29. Consequently, the Single Judge confirmed that the crux of the matter is of law, namely the
interpretation of clause 3.3 of the Transfer Agreement. Contextually, the Claimant requests
to be awarded the balance between the amount received and the EUR 1,000,000
mentioned in the Transfer Agreement. In contrast, the Respondent argues the conditions
set out in such clause 3.3 were not duly fulfilled, therefore no additional remuneration is
due.
30. Against this background, the Single Judge turned his attention to the wording of clause 3.3
of the Transfer Agreement. In doing so, he initially recalled that a contract – as outlined in
the longstanding jurisprudence of both the Football Tribunal and CAS – shall be read as a
whole, and the interpretation shall be based on the entire text read together, seeking the
true intention of the parties.
31. With the above in mind, the Single Judge deemed that the mens legis of clause 3.3 of the
Transfer Agreement is clear: to provide both parties with legal certainty by establishing a
minimum and a maximum bonus to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, hence
limiting the risks involved. For that, the parties contractually determined that regardless of
the achievement of the sporting goals by the player, the Claimant would be entitled to a
cap of EUR 1,500,000, and to a minimum of EUR 1,000,000.
32. In the Single Judge’s view, whilst it is true that clause 3.3 of the Transfer Agreement provides
for conditions to be achieved by 30 June 2022 (i.e., the player being transferred or his
contract ending), it is also true that the same clause reads that “if the player is still under
contract after 30/06/2022 the bonus can reach the total sum of 1.500.000 €”. As such and as
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11692
opposed to the argumentation of the Respondent, the Single Judge considered that the
reference to 30 June 2022 was merely a cut-off date for payment, but it did not imply that
if the player was not transferred or his contract ended, the Claimant’s entitlement to the
EUR 1,000,000 minimum would be anyhow harmed.
33. Contrario sensu, in the Single Judge’s view, it followed from the content of the clause that, if
the player remained contractually bonded with the Claimant after such cut-off date, he
would still have a chance to achieve further sporting goals, hence the Claimant would still
have the chance to reach the cap of EUR 1,500,000. Nevertheless, the possibility of
increasing the profit was without prejudice of the Claimant’s “guaranteed” right to receive
at least EUR 1,000,000 – such as it is now claimed.
34. For the Single Judge, the abovementioned conclusion was furthermore supported by the
Offer and the communications exchanged between the parties in the context of the
signature of the Transfer Agreement, which denote their good faith engagement and their
true intent upon conclusion of the transaction. In particular, the Single Judge highlighted
that, from the Claimant’s email of 3 July 2019, it became clear that its intention was to
receive at least EUR 1,000,000 for the 3-years’ period. On the other hand, the Single Judge
outlined no explanation was provided by the Respondent in this respect, as it limited itself
to focus on the specific wording of the clause without considering that the contract in
question should be entertained as a whole.
35. As a side remark, the Single Judge also underscored that the scope of application of the
principle in dubio contra stipulatorem is limited to cases where the contents of a contract
cannot be determined, i.e., where the terms of the contract remain ambiguous (see, for
example, CAS 2017/A/5172, with which the Single Judge concurred). In casu, The Single
Judge considered that he arrived at a clear and unequivocal interpretation of the Transfer
Agreement, hence he concluded that the principle in dubio contra stipulatorem should not
be applied and the position of the Respondent in this regard should be dismissed.
36. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant should be entitled to the balance
of the EUR 1,000,000 as contingent payment minus the applicable deductions.
37. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that (i) the Claimant had already received
EUR 150,000; and (ii) the Transfer Agreement also provided for the deduction of solidarity
mechanism. Likewise, the Single Judge highlighted that the Respondent did not object to
the breakdown provided by the Claimant neither during the exchange of notifications
(including the issuance of the Invoice) nor during these proceedings, thus accepting the
Claimant’s allegations tacitly.
38. Consequently, the Single Judge decide to award the overdue payables due to the Claimant
amount to EUR 820,250, as claimed.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11692
39. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge was also of the opinion that awarding interest
on the abovementioned amount as from 22 June 2022 would be incorrect and excessive
insofar as such amount could still vary as long as the player remained employed by the
Claimant.
40. Therefore, and because there the Single Judge could not find on file any proper
specification as to the official end of the player’s employment relationship with the
Claimant, he decided to award the Claimant 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the claim
(i.e., 6 September 2023) until the date of effective payment.
41. The Single Judge thus concluded that the claim of the Claimant should be partially accepted.
ii. Article 12bis of the Regulations
42. Having established the above, the Single Judge 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.
43. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the debtor with 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
44. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
45. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he
has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in
mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two years, the Single
Judge decided to impose a warning in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the
Regulations.
46. In this connection, the Single Judge highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
47. Taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11692
48. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
49. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
50. 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.
51. The Single Judge 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
52. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which in disputes between clubs, costs in the maximum amount of USD 25,000 are levied. As
per art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge will decide the amount that each
party is due to pay, in consideration of the parties’ degree of success and their conduct during
the procedure, as well as any advance of costs paid.
53. Considering that the claim of the Claimant has been almost entirely accepted (with the
exception of the dies a quo for the calculation of the interest sought), the Single Judge concluded
that the Respondent should bear the entirety of the costs of the current proceedings before
FIFA. According to Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be
levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to USD 25,000.
54. In light of the above, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of USD 20,000 and concluded that said amount had to be paid by the Respondent.
Finally, the Single Judge determined that the advance of costs paid by the Claimant at the start
of the proceedings would be fully reimbursed in line with art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
55. In the end, the Single Judge rejected any other request for relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-11692
IV. Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, K.V. R.S. Waasland-SK Beveren, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Fortuna Dusseldorf, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 820,250 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 September
2023 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.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of USD 20,000 are to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA. FIFA will reimburse to the Claimant the advance of costs paid at the
start of the present proceedings (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs
below).
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-11692
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