Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2571
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Takuma
Asano
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
VERMEER, Roy (The Netherlands), member
ANDRADE, Jose Luis (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Takuma Asano, Japan
Represented by Nan Sato
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FK Partizan, Serbia
Represented by Zoran Damjanovic
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
VfL Bochum 1848, Germany
Represented by Joachim Rain
Page 2
REF FPSD-2571
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 2 August 2019, the Japanese player Takuma Asano (hereinafter: the Player) and the
Serbian club FK Partizan (hereinafter: Partizan) entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid from 1 August 2019 until 30 June 2022.
2.
Art. 3 of the Contract states as follows:
1) “ln consideration for the Player's obligations towards the Club, the parties hereto have
agreed upon a net monthly salary in the amount of Serbian Dinar (“RSD”) 37,436.14 (…)
payable into the Player's account in Republic of Serbia (..). Payment of the salary for the
previous month shall be effected no later than 30th day of the current month.
2) The parties hereby also set forth the following special compensation for the signature of
the Contract on the total amount of EUR 1,750,000 net to be paid in euro to the German
bank designated by the player as follows:
- in equal monthly rates of 50.000,00 eur, for the period starting from AUGUST 2019 JUNE 2022”
3.
Art. 3.3 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
“ln addition to the aforementioned premiums, the club and the player also negotiate fixed
premiums as follows, which payment are applicable each season. All premiums to be paid in
euro to the German bank designated by the player.:
- For the placement of the club in the group phase of the UEFA Champions League, the net
amount of EUR 50,000.
- ln case that player scores 15 goals in Serbian Superliga, amount of EUR 30,000 net”.
4.
Art. 7 of the Contract states as follows:
“The Club shall also provide the following to the Player: using of vehicle provided by official
club's sponsor Audi; 4 return business class air tickets from/to Japan/Serbia to be used by the
player and his family per season; luxury top modern furnished apartment with full security 2
or 3 bed room close to the Crown plaza hotel in New Belgrade during the term of the
contract.”
5.
On 1 July 2020, the parties signed an annex to the Contract (hereinafter: the Annex).
6.
Art. 1 of the Annex reads inter alia as follows:
Page 3
REF FPSD-2571
-
“Parties are agreed that according to the clause 7 [the Contract] FK Partizan was obliged,
among other, to provide to the player luxury top modem furnished apartment during the
term of the contract.
-
By this annex FK Partizan agrees to reimburse to the player the rent which was paid by
the player until this day, on the amount of EUR 14,800 corresponding to the rent from
August 2019 until June 2020. (offset of EUR 5,000 for donation of the club players for
Covid 19 to the hospitals in Serbia).
-
FK Partizan agrees that starting from date of this annex will pay monthly amount of EUR
1,800 to the player, at the end of every month, on the name of the apartment rent until
the end of the professional contract.”
7.
On 29 August 2019, Partizan entered the group phase of the UEFA Europa League for the
2019/20 season.
8.
On 10 March 2020, the Government of the Republic of Serbia, on the basis of the Law on
Protection of the Population from infectious diseases, declared the state of emergency in the
country.
9.
On 16 March 2020, the Football Association of Serbia (“FAS”) announced that all football
and futsal competitions, all friendly matches and tournaments as well as the training
processes in football/futsal clubs were suspended until further notice.
10. On 6 May 2020, the Serbian National Assembly adopted the "decision on the abolition of the
state of emergency”.
11. On 6 May 2020, FAS decided that within the season 2019/2020 of the Serbian Super League
and the First League of Serbia for men, were to be resumed on 30 May 2020.
12. On 2 June 2020, the Player’s representative sent a default notice to Partizan (the “First Default
Letter”), requesting the latter to settle the outstanding amounts due to the Player. These
amounts comprised of EUR 25,000 as outstanding salary for the month of March 2020 and
EUR 15,800 as outstanding rent allowance corresponding to the months of October 2019 to
June 2020.
13. On 26 February 2021, the Player’s representative sent new default notice (the “Second
Default Letter”) putting Partizan in default for failure to meet its payment obligations, in line
with the First Default Letter and several other amounts which had fell due in the interim for
a total amount of EUR 230,600
14. On 15 March 2021, the Player scored his 15th goal in the Serbian Superliga 2020/2021.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2571
15. On 29 April 2021, the Player terminated the Contract by means of a letter from his lawyer to
the Club (the “Termination Notice”) on the basis of the missed payments by the Club.
16. On 22 June 2021, the Player signed a contract with the German club Vfl Bochum (hereinafter:
Bochum), effective from 1 July 2021 until 30 June 2024 (hereinafter: the Bochum contract).
According to Bochum contract, “the player’s basic salary with VfL Bochum is (including
holiday leave money) € 60.000,-gross, which is–after deduction of taxes and social
contributions–equivalent to about € 30.000,-net and an annual special payment of EUR
85,000 for the season 2021/2022.”
17. Clause C1.1 of the Bochum contract states as follows:
“The player will receive in the 2021/2022 season if the club belongs to the 1st Bundesliga
monthly basic salary of EUR 54,000 plus an advance payment on vacation pay per month EUR
6,000.00; a total of 60,000 euros (sixty thousand) per month”.
18. Clause C1.3 of the Bochum Contract states as follows:
“The player receives a one-time special payment of EURO in the 2021/2022 season 85,000
(eighty-five thousand) gross.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 19 May 2021, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
20. According to the Player, Partizan’s representatives first orally promised that Partizan would
cover the cost of the apartment in the form of reimbursements of the rent, and later
confirmed the same in writing in his message exchanges with the Player’s agent on 13 August
2019.
21. The Player submits that Partizan began breaching its contractual obligations in September
2019, when it paid EUR 50,000 in salary to the Player’s German bank account but failed to
include the reimbursement of the rent and by failing to pay the RSD 37,436.14 August salary
to the Player’s Serbian bank account.
22. The Player submits that Partizan repeatedly failed to pay him on time. In this regard, the Player
states “[Partizan] would pay the Player’s salary sometimes but fail to do so other times. It
sometimes made small payments in random amounts without specifying to what these funds
were to be applied. However, it has never fully caught up on the overdue payables”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2571
23. The Player submits that as of the date of claim, Partizan owed him the amount of EUR
278,281.83, itemised as follows:
Salary
-
February 2020 salary EUR 50,000;
April 2020 salary of EUR 25,000
May 2020 salary of EUR 25,000
June 2020 salary of EUR 25,000
September 2020 salary of EUR 50,000;
March 2021 salary of EUR 50,000; and
29 days of April 2021 salary of EUR 48,333 (50,000 EUR / 30 x 29 days).
Salary payable to Player’s Serbian Bank Account
-
RSD 37,436.14 (318 EUR) x 20 months (August 2019 through March 2021) = EUR
6,360; and
29 days of April 2021 salary of EUR 307.4 (318 / 30 x 29 days).
Agreed Housing Reimbursements
-
EUR 1,800 x 21 months (August 2019 through April 2021) – EUR 5,000 (COVID-related
donation to the hospitals in Serbia through the Club) = EUR 32,800.
Bonuses
-
EUR 30,000 for the Club’s placement in the group phase of the UEFA Europa League for
the 2019/20 season; and
EUR 30,000 for scoring 15 goals in the Serbian Superliga 2020/21 achieved on March
15, 2021.
24. The Player submits that the termination of the Contract was with just cause based “on Article
14 of the RSTP, as Partizan’s repeated failure to pay the Player’s salary, premiums, and rent
reimbursements on time in accordance with the Contract constitutes a substantial and
repeated breach of its contractual obligations”.
25. According to the Player, at the time of the Second Default Letter, the total overdue payables
amounted to EUR 230,600.
26. The Player further submits that as the Contract was terminated with just cause due to the
overdue payables, 14 months before the end of its original term on 30 June 2022, Partizan
also owes him the residual value of the Contract, calculated as follows:
Page 6
REF FPSD-2571
a. Salary payable to the Player’s German bank account: 50,000 EUR x 14 months and one
day = EUR 701,667; and
b. Salary payable to the Player’s Serbian bank account: RSD 37,436.14 (318 EUR) x 14
months and one day = EUR 4,462.60.
27. The Player deems that the total compensation for the residual value of the Contract shall
amount to EUR 706,129.60.
28. The Player further submits that he is entitled to six additional monthly salaries as additional
compensation, equalling EUR 300,000.
29. The Player’s requests for relief are:
“respectfully submits and requests the DRC to direct the Club to pay the overdue salary,
premiums, rent reimbursements, compensation, and additional payment amounting to
984,411.43 EUR, plus all applicable interests.
Further, the Player respectfully submits and requests that the DRC award the Player 98,441
EUR (10% of the total monetary damages) as moral damages and another 98,441 EUR as
attorneys’ fees”
b. Position & Counterclaim of Partizan
30. According to Partizan, the Contract was terminated by the Player without just cause.
31. Partizan alleges that the default notices were sent as the Claimant states “through his agent”
which, according to Partizan, was not authorized to represent the Claimant because the
Agent and Partizan had concluded an intermediary contract and therefore, it could only
represent the interests of Partizan.
32. Partisan submits that it has paid almost all contracted salaries in foreign currency in the
amount of EUR 50,000 “by the end of the current month for the previous month as
contractually agreed”.
33. Partizan affirms to had made the following payments until the state of emergency due to
COVID was declared in Serbia:
-
10 September 2019 - EUR 50,000.00; (corresponding to the salary for August 2019);
14 October 2019 - EUR 50,000.00; (corresponding to the salary for September 2019);
18 November 2019 - EUR 50,000.00; (corresponding to the salary for October 2019);
16 December 2019 - EUR 50,000.00. (corresponding to the salary for November 2019);
20 January 2020 - EUR 50,000.00; (corresponding to the salary for December 2019);
28 February 2020 - EUR 50,000.00. (corresponding to the salary for January 2020).
Page 7
REF FPSD-2571
34. Partizan submits that the football competitions in Serbia were suspended for the period of
15 March 2020 until 30 May 2020.
35. Regarding the salary reductions, Partizan submits that the possibility to reduce the salary
compensation is allowed during work interruptions pursuant to the Articles 116 and 117 of
the Employment Act of the Republic of Serbia.
36. Partizan submits that on 8 April 2020, its Executive Board passed a decision allowing itself to
reduce the contracted monthly salaries in the percentage of 50% for all professional football
players, members of the coaching staff and members of the Partizan’s management in a
three-month period.
37. As to the reduction of the salary for March 2020, Partizan states that the reduction was made
“in a timely manner because the salary for March 2020 became due for payment only on 30
April 2020 and additionally, the work interruption with the Respondent took place on 15
March 2020”.
38. Moreover, Partizan states that it reduced the monthly salaries by 50% for March, April and
May 2020, respecting the criteria contained in the FIFA Circular 1714. Therefore, its decision
of 8 April 2020 is “reasonable, proportionate and made in good faith”. Moreover, Partizan
states that “in making this decision, the Executive Board of fully followed the instructions and
recommendations from the FIFA Circular 1714 of 07 April 2020”.
39. Partizan submits that it tried to reach an agreement with all players, members of the coaching
staff and management of the club. In that direction, an individual conversation was
conducted with the Player, who rejected the Respondent's proposal for salary reduction.
40. Partizan deems that a salary reduction by 50% is fair and proportional considering that all
football competitions in Serbia were interrupted and group trainings were not held.
41. Moreover, Partizan states that the decision of the Executive Board to reduce the salaries was
applied to the entire team without any restrictions.
42. Partizan submits that from April 2020 to 26 February 2021, it paid, in addition to the reduced
monthly salaries for March, April and May 2020, the following sums:
-
3 April 2020 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for February 2020)
17 August 2020 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for June 2020)
28 September 2020 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for July 2020)
04 November 2020 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for August 2020)
07 December 2020 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for September 2020)
12 January 2021 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for October 2020)
17 February 2021 - EUR 50,000 (corresponding to monthly salary for November 2020)
Page 8
REF FPSD-2571
43. Partizan states that at the time of the Second Default Letter, it only owed the salary of EUR
50,000 for December 2020, which became due on 30 January; the amount of EUR 30,000
as Europa League bonus, rent reimbursements in the amount of EUR 25,600 and monthly
salaries in RSD from August 2019 until December 2020 “which were never requested at all”.
44. As for the default notices, Partizan submits that the content of the email of 26 February 2021,
“there is no doubt that it is not a written warning of the Player in the sense of Art.14bis RSTP.
The accompanying text to the Request clearly indicates that this is more kind of a friendly
reminder and not a warning in the sense of an ultima ratio before the termination of the
employment contract”.
45. According to Partizan, in the Termination Notice the player’s counsel stated the wrong
amount as outstanding and “wrongly mentioned that the only payments made by the
Respondent since 26 February 2021 were in the amount of 89.607,93 EUR and 4.910,64 EUR
made on 31 March 2021, ignoring the payment of 50.000,00 EUR made on 23 March 2021”.
46. Partizan states that on 1 May 2021, the Respondent refuted the given reasons for contract
termination and it challenged the entitlement of the Player’s counsel to represent him in front
of Partizan.
47. According to Partizan, it had requested the Player to “re-join urgently and immediately to the
team's activities in a given time limit until 5 May 2021”, to no avail.
48. Regarding the notices, Partizan states that are inadmissible and cannot be deemed as
warnings because were sent by the agency, JEB Entertainment Co. from Tokio, Japan,
represented by Mr Tanabe Nobuaki, who was the intermediary of FC Partizan in relation with
the engagement of the Player.
49. Regarding the payment of the bonus for UEFA Europa League 2019/2020, Partizan submits
that it became due at the end of the season 2019/2020 i.e. on 30 June 2020, because until
then it “was not requested”.
50. Partizan points out that the rent reimbursements (EUR 25,600) and the UEFA Europa League
bonus (EUR 30,000) “do not have the character of salary (income) in the sense of Art.13 of
the Law on Sports of the Republic of Serbia”.
51. Partizan further states that the Termination Notice wrongly displays as debt the premium for
scoring 15 goals in Serbian Superleague, as the Player achieved 15th goal of the season on 15
March 2021 and the “payment becomes due at the end of the relevant season”.
52. Lastly, Partizan submits that the Player had waived his right to terminate the contract with
just cause.
Page 9
REF FPSD-2571
53. According to Partizan, the Player should have terminated the contract on 16 March 2021 (i.e.
day after the deadline given in the notice). In this regard, Partizan states that “as the
Termination Notice was delivered on 29 April 2021, it must be deemed that the Claimant's
right to lawfully terminate the contract (if it existed) has elapsed already due to timing
reasons”.
54. Partizan deems that the Player had demonstrated the Respondent’s alleged breaches were
not unbearable for him to stop him of further execution of the contract. In Partizan’s words,
“the only relevant criteria have not been met as the Respondent's breach of obligation was
not such that it caused the loss of confidence, which the one party had in future performance
and with his sudden termination of contract on 29 April 2021 the Claimant acted against the
principle of good faith and legitimate expectations created in the Respondent”.
55. Regarding the request for moral damages, Partizan deems it is unfounded, hypocritical,
“especially having in mind that he was among best players of the Respondent and that he
was enjoying attention by being the leader and top scorer of the team”.
56. As for the counterclaim, Partizan submits it shall be entitled to compensation for breach of
contract based on the following criteria:
-
EUR 400,000 as non-amortised value of transfer fee paid to FC Arsenal
EUR 38,400 as non-amortised value of intermediary's fees
EUR 781,770 as residual value of the contract for period 1 June 2021 until 30 June 2022
(i.e. 729,652) plus May 2021 salary
EUR 301,908 as additional compensation equal to six months’ salary equal to under the
specificity of sport
57. Thus, Partizan requests compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,522,078
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2021 until the date of effective payment.
58. Partizan requests for relief are:
"Claimant's claim dated 19 May 2021 shall be dismissed entirely."
Prayers for Relief:
"1. Cross-Respondent 1 and Cross-Respondent 2 shall be ordered to pay jointly and severally
to Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR
1.522.078,00 plus S % interest as from 30 April 2021 until the date of effective payment;
2. FIFA DRC shall impose sporting sanctions on Cross-Respondent 1 and - in case of
inducement of breach of contract - Cross-Respondent 2.”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
Page 10
REF FPSD-2571
59. The Player was given the opportunity to respond to the counterclaim filed by Partizan. The
Player’s answer may be summarised as follows.
60. According to the Player, the total amount owed as of the date of the Second Default Letter
was EUR 236,006, “nearly four times the player’s monthly salary”.
61. The Player states that Partizan made the following partial payments between the Second
Default Letter and the Termination Notice:
-
EUR 50,000 on 23 March 2021;
EUR 89,607.93 on 31 March 2021; and
EUR 4,910.64 on 31 March 2021.
62. Notwithstanding the above, the Player states that Partizan never completely cured the
overdue payables and between the Second Default letter and the date of termination,
additional salaries, bonuses and rent allowances became due and remained unpaid.
63. The Player reiterates that as of the date of filing, Partizan owed the Player the amount of EUR
278,281.83 EUR. This repeated failure to pay on time in accordance with the Contract
constitutes “substantial and repeated breach” of the club’s contractual obligations and “is in
violation of Article 14 of the RSTP”.
64. The Player submits that Partizan “discussed the Swiss law and Serbian law governing
employers’ obligation to pay wages. However, these laws are irrelevant to the present case
because FIFA has issued COVID-19 Guidelines 14 and FIFA COVID-19 FAQs 15 on the parties’
obligations during COVID-19, and the DRC has established clear jurisprudence on this issue.
The FIFA rules and jurisprudence should apply to these issues in the present case.”
65. Regarding the validity of the notices, the Player states that Partizan “itself has been going
through JEB Entertainment to communicate with the Player in all significant issues. Under the
legal doctrine of estoppel, which is widely recognized under DRC and CAS jurisprudence, the
Club cannot choose to recognize the agent’s authority to represent the Player by way of its
actions and later claim that the agent does not have such authority when it is convenient for
it”.
66. As for Partizan submissions on the applicability of Serbian law, the Claimant submits that “the
application of local law is inappropriate as in a case of international dimension like the present
one, the termination of employment relationship is governed by the RSTP and wellestablished FIFA jurisprudence.”
67. In reference to the salary reduction, the Player submits that the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ’s state
that “a party should provide independent legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner in
Page 11
REF FPSD-2571
the relevant jurisdiction which confirms that the unilateral variation was a valid exercise of
the national law referred to in the agreement.”
68. In this regard, the Player states that Partizan’s legal representatives discussed at length the
club’s right to reduce the players’ salary under Swiss and Serbian laws. However, it failed to
provide any independent legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner to demonstrate that
its unilateral pay cut decision was indeed justified under Serbian law. Swiss law is irrelevant
on this point. Thus, in the Player’s view, Partizan has not satisfied its burden of proof under
the FIFA Guidelines and FAQs.
69. The Player further submits that even assuming Partizan was justified to reduce the Player’s
pay, the total overdue payable at the time the Player sent out the Second Default Letter still
exceeded two months’ salaries. Therefore, it does not affect the Player’s right to terminate
the Contract under Articles 14 and 14bis and to claim damages under Articles 12 and 17 of
the RSTP.
70. Regarding the alleged waiver of the right to terminate, the Player states that “although his
right to terminate the Contract arose on 16 March 2021, if not earlier, he did not have an
obligation to terminate the Contract on that date. The fact that the Player did not terminate
the Contract immediately when he was entitled to only shows his good faith.”
71. Regarding the Player’s new employment, the Player states that it did not sign a contract with
Bochum “until 22 June 2021, nearly two months after the termination of the Contract and
his new net salary is approximately 40% less than the one at Partizan”. Hence, in his view,
the allegations that the Player terminated the Contract for financial gain shall be dismissed.
72. The Player requests that the DRC:
“dismiss the Club’s Answer and counterclaim in their entirety;
grant all of the Player’s claims in his original complaint, including overdues payable, residual
value of the contract, additional compensation under Article 17.1.ii of the RSTP, moral
damages, and attorneys’ fees;”
d. Bochum’s reply to the counterclaim
73. Bochum was invited to file its position regarding the counterclaim filed by Partizan. Bochum’s
position may be summarised as follows.
74. Bochum states that “there is no maturity clause in terms of payments regulated in Art. 3.2,
with the consequence that, pursuant to the quoted laws and jurisprudence, they are due on
the last day of the respective month, and not, as the Respondent suggests, the subsequent
month”. In this regard, Bochum further states that Partizan failed to implement a respective
Page 12
REF FPSD-2571
regulation, which must be held against it in application of the principle “in dubio contra
stipulatorem”.
75. Moreover, according to Bochum, the payments for which a specific maturity date has not
been designated become due immediately, based on Art. 75 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
76. Regarding the reduction of salaries, Bochum states that the argumentation of Partizan turns
out to be inconsistent, because the rule invoked in order to justify the reductions unilaterally
imposed by the Respondent “do not even support this measure, but – to the contrary –
demonstrate that is was excessive and thus illegal”.
77. Bochum further submits that Partizan itself admits that it is not admissible under Serbian law
to order reductions with retroactive effect. Therefore, in any case, the reduction for March
2020 was not legitimate.
78. Furthermore, Bochum states that “in light of that legal framework (Art. 116 of the
Employment Act of the Republic of Serbia) a reduction of 50% is clearly not proportioned
anymore, even less if it is applied beyond the maximum period that this law allows (45 work
days).”
79. Bochum contests that the reduction was applied to all players of the Respondent based on
lack of evidence by Partizan. Moreover, and in answer to the argument that no player had
started legal proceedings against Partizan, Bochum states that “it is remarkable that Partizan
only mentioned procedures before FIFA bodies, whereas the majority of such disputes would
be national disputes only anyway, for which FIFA has no jurisdiction. Remarkably enough, the
Respondent does not mention whether or not any such disputes where commenced on a
national level”.
80. Bochum submits that Partizan “was permanently in default” and “regarding salaries from
February to April 2021 (until the date of termination on April 29, 2021), Partizan does not
even assert to have made further payments, to the contrary, the last payment the Respondent
asserts in par. 68 supposed to be executed on March 31, 2021 and was related to the salary
for January 2021”.
81. Bochum further submits that in relation to the payment dated 31 March 2021 (bonus for the
UEFA-Europe-League 2019/2020 and rent reimbursements) “were obviously overdue for long
as well, when the player sent the warning notice dated 26 February 2021”
82. Regarding the validity of the notices, Bochum asserts that “there is no legal requirement to
use a harsh wording for a warning notice; to the contrary, it is sufficient that the amounts in
default are listed and a deadline for their settlement is given, which duly happened in the
letter dated February 26, 2021”.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2571
83. In relation to the payments, Bochum states Partizan never paid in time and never clarified
which payments are related to which months or concepts.
84. Bochum submits that Partizan has not submitted any document or evidence, neither for the
alleged requests towards the player to re-join urgently and immediately the team´s activities
nor for the rejection of the termination.
85. As for the employment of the Player at Bochum, the latter states that on 2 May 2021, the
German Football Magazine “kicker” published a report, in which it was reported that the
Player had terminated his employment with the Respondent.
86. Bochum states that only after having learned about this already declared termination,
Bochum contacted the Player and sent a first offer for an employment contract on 4 May
2021. Furthermore, Bochum’s counsel contacted the player´s Japanese and German Counsels,
who forwarded the Player´s claim dated 19 May 2021.
87. In relation to the outstanding salaries, Bochum submits that Partizan neither denies to owe
nor for the amounts to be overdue which “obviously do not depend on the player requesting
them to be settled, which is the Respondent’s sole responsibility to do on his own”.
88. In the view of Bochum, “the extensive observations of Partizan in terms of the role of the
agent who sent the two warning notices are absolutely irrelevant”.
89. Bochum further submits that “each time a warning notice and the termination notice have
been declared, the Respondent was in default with amounts equivalent to at least two
monthly salaries (whereas it is sufficient anyway that at the date of termination, the
Respondent – undisputedly the overdue payments were not fully settled, which even
according to the Respondent (par.199) was not the case. It has been established by the DRC
on various occasions that it is not sufficient, if a club reduces his debts to a player below 2
monthly salaries after a warning notice, but necessary that the debt is fully complied with”.
90. In the view of Bochum, Partizan’s argument that the player “waived his termination right
cannot be upheld in any case, since Partizan was permanently in breach of contract and never
stopped to be (i. e. – even according to his own submissions – never reached a stadium when
all payments due to the player have been actually fully settled on or before their maturity
date)”.
91. Bochum further states that “since the player lost any confidence in the reliability of the
Respondent, he even accepted significant losses in terms of salary as well as the loss of the
opportunity to play UEFA Club Competitions, which of course clearly rebuts the assumption
that the player declared a termination of the contract with the Respondent just in order to
(allegedly) improve his financial and sportive situation”.
e. Partizan’s additional submissions
Page 14
REF FPSD-2571
92. On 12 October 2021, after the closure of investigation, Partizan filed an additional submission
amending its calculations of the compensation requested.
93. According to Partizan, the initially claimed compensation of EUR 1,522,078 should be
increased in the amount of EUR 766,000 calculated as replacement costs.
94. Based on the foregoing, Partizan requested as follows:
“we herewith amend para. 1. of the Prayers for Relief of the Counterclaim as follows:
1. Cross-Respondent 1 and Cross-Respondent 2 shall be ordered to pay jointly and severally
to Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 2,288,078
plus 5% interest as from 30 April 2021 until the date of effective payment."
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
95. 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 19 May 2021 and submitted for decision
on 14 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
96. 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 (August 2021 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 Japanese player, a
Serbian club, and a German club.
97. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 19 May 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
Page 15
REF FPSD-2571
98. 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
99. 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
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 the assessment of
the matter at hand.
100.On a preliminary note, the Chamber found that the submission filed by Partizan on 12
October 2021 cannot be taken into account by the Chamber. In support of this view, the
Chamber relied on the clear wording of art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which the parties may not supplement or amend their submissions or request for relief after
the closure of the investigation by FIFA general secretariat. The Chamber recalled to this end
that on 29 July 2021, the FIFA general secretariat had closed the investigation-phase of the
matter in accordance with art. 23 of the Procedural Rules.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
101.The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that it remained undisputed that Partizan unilaterally reduced the
salary of the Player and that the Player terminated the Contract on 29 April 2021.
102.In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to rule on the validity of the
salary reduction carried out by Partizan and likewise on as to whether the contractual
termination by the Player was made with or without just cause.
103.Turning to the issue of the salary reduction, the Chamber firstly wished to recall that FIFA
issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate
guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both
mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response
is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA issued an additional
document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most
relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak
and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
Page 16
REF FPSD-2571
104.The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording of
FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable
to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a
termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines),
said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment
agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are
presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract,
the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply.
105.In other words, in any given dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to establish the
existence of said event under the applicable law/rules as well as the consequences that derive
in connection thereto. The analysis of whether a situation of force majeure existed has to be
considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. What
is more, in application of said FIFA COVID 19 Guidelines, unilateral decisions to vary
agreements will only be recognised where they are made in accordance with national law or
are permissible within collective bargained agreements (CBA) structures or another collective
agreement mechanism.
106.Based on the abovementioned considerations, the DRC turned its attention to the evidence
on the file in respect of the club’s allegation that it acted supported by the national law. In
this respect, the Chamber noted that Partizan referred to the Serbian Employment Act.
Despite the foregoing, the Chamber observed that art. 116 of the Serbian Employment Act,
as relied on by the Respondent states as follows: “An employee is entitled to compensation
of salary - amounting to at least 60% of the average salary in the 12 preceding months, on
condition that it may not be lower than the minimum salary determined in conformity with
the present Act - during an interruption of work, i.e. reduction of the volume of work which
Occurred without employee’s fault, at most for 45 workdays in a calendar year.”
107.Hence, the Chamber was comforted in finding that the reduction applied by Partizan, which
consisted of 50% salary for three months, went above and beyond what was allowed under
national law.
108.In continuation and for the sake of completeness, the DRC went on analysing whether the
unilateral variation made by the club was to be considered reasonable and proportionate in
accordance with the FIFA COVID 19 Guidelines. By doing so, it noted that in addition to the
previous considerations, Partizan has failed to present any conclusive evidence in which it
could be determined that it acted in good faith. In particular, no evidence of negotiation
between the parties could be observed. Hence, the DRC found that Partizan did not act in
good faith vis-à-vis the Player.
109.As a consequence, and in light with the DRC’s jurisprudence, the DRC decided that Partizan
failed to demonstrate that the unilateral variation of the contract was licit, entailing that on
Page 17
REF FPSD-2571
the basis of the principle pacta sunt servanda it should have paid the player’s agreed
remuneration for the relevant period.
110.Once the above had been established, the DRC turned to the matter of the termination of
the Contract.
111.On 26 February 2020, at the time the Player sent the second default notice to Partizan,
according to the Claimant, he was owed by Partizan the amount of EUR 236,006 and at the
time of the Termination Notice (29 April 2021) the amount of EUR 278,281.83 was due.
112.Partizan alleges inter alia that:
a. Certain amounts, such as bonuses and rent reimbursement, do not constitute part of
the salary;
b. Certain amounts “were never requested by the Player”;
c. When no due date was stated, the amounts fell due at the end of the season;
d. The Player had waived his right to terminate the contract with just cause.
113.Regarding the aforementioned arguments Partizan, the Chamber found that the it had no
option but to reject those arguments as presented by Partizan due to the lack of contractual
basis and the principle of pact sunt servanda. More in particular, the Chamber outlined that
(a) the amounts sought by the Player are contractually-based remuneration; (b) where the
contract does not refer to a specific due date, this shall be deemed as the last day of each
month as per the firm jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal in this regard, and (c) there is no
documentation on file which denotes the Player’s alleged waiver as argued by the Club.
114.Moreover, as for the timeliness of the termination, the Chamber found that after issuing the
default notice, the Player had the right, and not an obligation, to terminate the Contract with
just cause. Thus, the Chamber could not follow Partizan’s argumentation and therefore it was
not convinced of the claim that the Player had completely waived his entitlement, even more
so when Partizan had not fully complied with its own obligations.
115.In addition to the above, from the assessment of the evidence available, the DRC concluded
that Partizan was always in default of certain amounts due to the Player, even before the
COVID pandemic began.
116.Taking into consideration the overall developments and circumstances of the case as
presented by the parties, the Chamber was satisfied with the conclusion that the Partizan’s
continuous and persistent non-compliance of its financial obligations justified the unilateral
termination of the employment contract in the case at stake for outstanding salaries, as well
as it can hold Partizan liable for the consequences that follow.
Page 18
REF FPSD-2571
117.For all the above, the Chamber found that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause
based on art. 14 of the Regulations, on 29 April 2021. Consequently, the party in breach,
Partizan, shall be held liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
118.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 Partizan.
119.The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounting to EUR 278,281.43 and
Serbian Dinar (“RSD”) 786,158.94, distributed as follows:
Salary February 2020
Salary April 2020 (reduced Covid)
Salary May 2020 (reduced Covid)
Salary June 2020 (reduced Covid)
Salary September 2020
Salary March 2021
Salary April 2021
Bonus UEFA 2019/2020
Bonus 15 goals
Total:
EUR 50,000
EUR 25,000
EUR 25,000
EUR 25,000
EUR 50,000
EUR 50,000
EUR 50,000
EUR 30,000
EUR 30,000
EUR 335,000
120.The DRC could also observe that Partizan owed to the Player the amount of EUR 37,800 as
rent allowance and all the monthly salaries payable in Serbian Dinars in the total amount of
RSD 786,158.94.
121.Moreover, the Chamber noted that Partizan had paid the amount of EUR 94,518.57 between
the Second Default Letter and the termination date, amount which had to be discounted
from the overall debt.
122.Based on the aforementioned calculations, the Chamber deemed that the outstanding
remuneration amounting to EUR 278,281.43 and RSD 786,158.94 was due to the Player.
123.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 previous
amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination.
124.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.
Page 19
REF FPSD-2571
125.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.
126.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.
127.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 non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
128.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 amounts of EUR 650,000 and RSD 486,669.82 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
129.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.
130.Indeed, the Player found employment with Bochum. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to the total gross remuneration of EUR
805,000. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player was able to fully mitigate his
damages.
Page 20
REF FPSD-2571
131.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.
132.In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
EUR 150,000 and RSD 112,308.42, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
133.Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Partizan must pay the amounts of EUR
150,000 and RSD 112,308.42 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
134.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 19 May 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
135.Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
136.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.
137.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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
138.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.
Page 21
REF FPSD-2571
139.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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
140.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.
141.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.
142.Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 22
REF FPSD-2571
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Takuma Asano, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, FK Partizan, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 the
following amounts:
1. EUR 10,481.43 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2020
until the date of effective payment.
2. EUR 25,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
3. EUR 25,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
4. EUR 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 October 2020
until the date of effective payment.
5. EUR 30,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 March 2021
until the date of effective payment.
6. EUR 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2021
until the date of effective payment.
7. EUR 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2021
until the date of effective payment.
8. EUR 30,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 March 2021
until the date of effective payment.
9. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 September
2019 until the date of effective payment.
10. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 October
2019 until the date of effective payment.
11. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 November
2019 until the date of effective payment.
12. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 December
2019 until the date of effective payment.
13. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 January
2020 until the date of effective payment.
14. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 February
2020 until the date of effective payment.
15. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March 2020
until the date of effective payment.
16. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2020
until the date of effective payment.
17. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2020
until the date of effective payment.
18. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2020
until the date of effective payment.
19. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2020
until the date of effective payment.
Page 23
REF FPSD-2571
20. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 August
2020 until the date of effective payment.
21. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 September
2020 until the date of effective payment.
22. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 October
2020 until the date of effective payment.
23. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 November
2020 until the date of effective payment.
24. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 December
2020 until the date of effective payment.
25. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 January
2021 until the date of effective payment.
26. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 February
2021 until the date of effective payment.
27. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 March 2021
until the date of effective payment.
28. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2021
until the date of effective payment.
29. RSD 37,436.14 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2021
until the date of effective payment.
30. EUR 400 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 November 2019
until the date of effective payment.
31. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 December 2019
until the date of effective payment.
32. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 January 2020
until the date of effective payment.
33. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 February 2020
until the date of effective payment.
34. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March 2020
until the date of effective payment.
35. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
36. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
37. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
38. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
39. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 August 2020
until the date of effective payment.
40. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 September 2020
until the date of effective payment.
41. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 October 2020
until the date of effective payment.
42. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 November 2020
until the date of effective payment.
Page 24
REF FPSD-2571
43. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 December 2020
until the date of effective payment.
44. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 January 2021
until the date of effective payment.
45. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 February 2021
until the date of effective payment.
46. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 March 2021
until the date of effective payment.
47. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
48. EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
49. EUR 150,000 and RSD 112,308.42 as compensation for breach of contract without just
cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 May 2021 until date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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/Counter-Claimant 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/CounterRespondent 1 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter 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
Page 25
REF FPSD-2571
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).
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
Page 26