Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2338
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 December 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alberico
Barbosa da Silva
BY:
COLUCCI Michele (Italy)
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Vandrezzer FC, Nigeria
Represented by Steve Nwabueze
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Alberico Barbosa da Silva, Brazil
Represented by Daniel Cravo & Diego Eidelvein do Canto
Page 2
REF FPSD-2338
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On or around November 2019, the Brazilian player Alberico Barbosa da Silva (hereinafter: the
Player or the Respondent) and the Nigerian club Vandrezzer FC (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the Club) signed an employment contract valid for the season 2019/2020 (hereinafter: the
First Contract).
2.
On 6 November 2020, the Player and the Club signed a new employment contract, valid for
the season 2020/2021 (hereinafter: the Second Contract).
3.
Clause 11 of the Second Contract reads as follows:
“11.1 The Player shall be entitled to terminate this contract by one (1) month notice in writing
to the Club if the Club:
11.1.1 fails to pay any remuneration or other payments or bonuses due to the Player or make
available any benefits due to him for a period of three (3) consecutive months thereafter and
has still failed to make payment or make the benefits available by the expiry of the said one
month’s notice
11.2 If the player terminates the contract without just cause, the player agrees to forfeit to
the club any payment or fee he or his agent or intermediary receives from any football club
he joins within a space of two seasons from the date of termination. The player and his new
club shall also be jointly and severally be liable for the payment.
11.3 In addition, the player shall be sanctioned with a four (4) months sporting sanction and
restricted from playing in official matches for the new club or any other club he may be
transferred or loaned to”.
4.
Schedule 2 of the Second Contract reads inter alia as follows:
“The Player’s remunerations shall be:
Basic wage: NGN 300,000 payable by monthly instalments.”
5.
In March 2020, Nigeria acknowledged the first cases of COVID-19 disease.
6.
On 13 March 2020, the Club sent a letter to its employees, scheduling a meeting with all the
team members and suspended all its activities.
7.
At the end of March 2020, the Player went to his home country (i.e. Brazil).
8.
On 6 November 2020, the Player returned to Nigeria.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2338
9.
At the beginning of 2021, the Club completed the club’s relocation to the city of Lagos.
10. On 9 February 2021, the Player sent a notice to the Club requesting a meeting, complaining
about the accommodation provided by the Club and the lack of food.
11. On 20 February 2021, according to the Player he started to feel sick, with pain in his chest
and difficulty for breathing and immediately went to the hospital, where he made several
medical exams.
12. On 23 February 2021, the Player sent a second notice requesting a reply to the previous
notice. Furthermore, he gave a deadline of 48 hours to the Club to take the necessary
measures to renew the Respondent’s visa. Additionally, it was requested to the Claimant
accommodate the player in a place with better sanitary conditions, since the player was
diagnosed with malaria.
13. On 27 February 2021, the Player sent a letter to the Club informing of the termination of the
employment contract with just cause (hereinafter: the Termination Notice), since:
(a) the club limited the player’s freedom of movement;
(b) the Claimant sponsored severe violation of the player’s contractual and fundamental
rights, since the club did not accommodate the player in a place with better sanitary
conditions;
(c) the club did not provided accommodation with minimum hygiene conditions, and, as
informed before, was responsible for the Respondent’s sickness;
(d) the Club have neglected the renewal of the player’s visa and only suggested to take any
measure after it has expired.
14. On 3 March 2021, the Club presented its response to the notice of termination of the
employment contract with just cause, alleging that it did not breach the agreement.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 20 April 2021, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Club
16. According to the Club, the Player terminated the contract without just cause and therefore,
the Club is entitled to compensation.
17. In the view of the Club, the Player “has not satisfied any of the criteria to qualify as just cause
basis for the unilateral termination of his contract”.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2338
18. The Club states that it does not owe the Player any overdue salary of two months or more. It
further states that the suspension of the earlier contract (i.e. the First Contract) between the
parties due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was mutually accepted by both parties.
19. The Club states that the actions of the Player were “unlawful and geared towards
browbeating the Club to make variations to or extra-contractual moves to the contract,
thereby entitling the club to unilaterally terminate the respondent’s contract for just cause in
the circumstance”.
20. The Club’s requests for relief are the following:
A. A DECLARATION that the respondent has breached his employment contract with the
Petitioner dated November 3, 2020 by his wanton acts of disobedience, petulance,
insubordination and wilful disregard for the laid down code of conduct and rules and
regulation in the Petitioner’s club, contrary to the express provisions of the contract.
B. A DECLARATION that the respondent’s allegations in its letter dated February 27, 2021
against the Petitioner, is baseless, malicious and an action taken in utter bad faith by the
respondent to unjustly exploit the Petitioner.
C. A DECLARATION that the respondent lacks justifiable grounds to terminate his
employment contract with the Petitioner.
D. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A DECLARATION that the respondent’s contract with the Petitioner
was not terminated for just cause, having fallen short of the criteria for just cause unilateral
termination as stipulated in Article 14 of the FIFA Regulation on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
E. A DECLARATION that the unconscionable and extortionate conduct of the Respondent
with a view to claiming financial compensation are in direct contravention of his employment
contract, the club’s code of conduct and amount to a unilateral and/or unlawful termination
of the contract.
F. AN ORDER mandating the respondent in line with the Clause 11.2 of his employment
contract with the Petitioner, to make forfeiture payment of the remuneration or fees he or
his agent received from any football club he joins within a space of two seasons from the
date of termination, as damages for breach of contract.
G. AN ORDER sanctioning the respondent in line with Clause 11.3 of his employment contract
with the Petitioner, with a four (4) month sporting sanction restricting the respondent from
playing in any official matches for a new club or any other club he may be transferred or
loaned to.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2338
H. AN ORDER mandating the respondent to make payment of the sum equivalent to one (1)
month basic salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N300, 000.00 or CHF 726 only to serve as
damages for breach of contract.
I. AN ORDER of the Tribunal directing the Respondent to pay the cost of arbitration “
b. Position & Counterclaim of the Player
21. The Player replied to the claim and filed a counterclaim which may be summarised as follows.
22. According to the Player, during the period of the “suspension” of the employment contract,
the Club performed the payment of half of the Respondent’s salaries for the months of April,
May and June of 2020, i.e., performed the payment of NGN 150,000 in the aforesaid months.
Also, the Club did not perform any payment for the months of July, August, September and
October 2020 Club unilaterally changed the terms of the employment contract, without the
Player co
23. The Player states that the parties never renegotiated the terms of the contract during the
unilateral employment contract suspension declared by the Claimant. The Claimant only
informed the Respondent that would pay half of his salary and without grounds
24. The Player states that his visa was due to expire on 20 February 2021 and the Club failed to
take the necessary steps to extend it.
25. The Player argues that he has imposed restrictions on his right of movement, “which is a
severe breach of the employment relationship”.
26. In this regard the Player states that “we humbly invite the members of this decision making
body to make an effort to try to imagine yourselves in the Respondent`s skin in the same
situation”.
27. The Player acknowledges that on 26 February 2021, the Club sent an email to the Player
requesting his passport to renew his visa. However, “taking into account the severe breaches
of the contract committed by the Claimant, and the misconducts and disrespect shown by
the club, the Player realized that if he would have handled his passport to the Club, he would
not be able to return to Brazil in case of urgency.” In the view of the Player, this “is the
reasonable justification why he did not answer the email”.
28. The Player filed the following request for relief:
Taking into account the above, we gently ask FIFA:
“Regarding the Claim filed by the club:
Page 6
REF FPSD-2338
to receive the present Response and its Exhibits15, once they are being timely filed;
regarding the applicable law, to consider FIFA’s regulations applicable to this case, as well the
Swiss law;
declares that the Respondent terminated the employment contract signed with the Claimant
with just cause;
reject the Claimant’s claim entirely;
to dismiss the Claimant’s request for the contribution towards legal expenses;
to condemn the Claimant to pay contribution towards legal expenses;
Regarding the counterclaim:
subject to the provisions of article 23.1 of FIFA RSTP, to admit the Counterclaim and the
competence of FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to judge it;
to recognize that the Respondent terminated the Contract with just cause;
taking into consideration (i) the content of article 17 of FIFA RSTP; (ii) that the employment
contract was terminated by the Respondent with just cause on 27 February 2021; and (iii) the
player’s monthly salary of NGN 300,000; (iv) that the employment relationship would expiry
only in November 2021, to condemn the Claimant to pay to the Respondent the amount of
NGN 2,400,000, plus interests of 5% per year since the date when this payment should have
been done;
to condemn the Claimant to pay the remaining amounts of salaries regarding months of April,
May, June of 2020, which corresponds to NGN 450,000 plus interests of 5% per year since
the date when this payment should have been done;
to condemn the Claimant to pay NGN 1,500,000 regarding the salaries of the months of July,
August, September and October of 2020 and February 2021, plus interests of 5% per year
since the date when this payment should have been done;
considering that the Respondent have to pay his return fight ticket to come back to Brazil,
the Claimant must reimburse the Respondent in the amount of of BRL 5,369.91, regarding
flight travel from Lagos (Nigeria) until São Paulo (Brazil), and in the amount of BRL 1,346.83,
related to the flight travel from São Paulo (Brazil) to Recife (Brazil), plus 5% a.a. of interests
until the effective payment.
impose to the Claimant the appropriate sanctions as provided for in paragraph 4 of article 17
of FIFA RSTP;
Page 7
REF FPSD-2338
to condemn the Claimant to pay contribution towards legal expenses;
c. Answer to the counterclaim
29. The Club provided the following response to the counterclaim.
30. The Club denied “each and every allegation in the Player’s counterclaim”.
31. The Club states that upon the execution of his employment contract in November 2020, the
Club paid the Player’s salaries for the months of November and December 2020 as well as
January 2021. However, it underlines that the salary for February 2021 “was only withheld
in line with the express provisions of the Respondent’s employment contract following his
purported termination for just cause“.
32. The Club further states that there is no residency clause stipulating the specifications and
standards of accommodation to be provided for the Player. The Club emphasises that there
is no implied duty on the Club to provide any accommodation whatsoever for the Respondent
under his employment contract.
33. Notwithstanding the above, the Club states that it ensured suitable accommodation was
provided for the players and coaches at all material times and in its words it “has always been
magnanimous in choosing the well-known and comfortable hotel spaces in Lagos“.
34. In the view of the Club, the Player “isolated the frontloaded unflattering pictures in a bid to
destroy the Club’s reputation having made unreasonable demands which are not envisaged
under the contractual relationship between the parties”.
35. Regarding the renewal of the visa, the Club concedes the fact that it facilitates the application
by liaising with immigration authorities in Nigeria. However, the Club argues that the Player’s
assertions that a failure to do so is a breach of the contract “is heavily erroneous as there is
no single clause in the contract that entitles the Respondent to such right”.
36. In the view of the Club, the Player deliberately frustrated its efforts by failing to provide his
passport for inspection and stamping by the immigration authorities. Moreover, the Club
contends that “assuming arguendo that there is an implied duty on the Claimant’s part to
provide and/or renew the Respondent’s visa, such duty is conditional upon the Respondent
complying with the necessary prerequisites such as producing his international passport, for
the performance of that duty“.
37. The Clubs requested as follows:
“We therefore urge the Tribunal to dismiss the Counterclaim and the reliefs sought thereon
with substantial costs. (…)
Page 8
REF FPSD-2338
The Tribunal is invited to deliver an award that reflects true intention of the parties.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 20 April 2021 and submitted for
decision on 15 December 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.
39. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (August 2021 edition
in force on the date of decision), he / she is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian
player and a Nigerian club.
40. 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 April 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
41. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
42. His 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
Page 9
REF FPSD-2338
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations it 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
43. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note of the fact that it remained undisputed that the Player terminated the
Contract on 27 February 2021 and the parties strongly dispute the existence of just cause for
the said termination.
44. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to adjudicate if this
termination was made with or without just cause and the consequences arising thereof.
45. In this regard the Single Judge observed that in the Termination Notice, the Player adduces
the following motives:
(a) the club limited the player’s freedom of movement;
(b) the Claimant sponsored severe violation of the player’s contractual and fundamental
rights, since the club did not accommodate the player in a place with better sanitary
conditions;
(c) the club did not provided accommodation with minimum hygiene conditions, and, as
informed before, was responsible for the Respondent’s sickness;
(d) the Club have neglected the renewal of the player’s visa and only suggested to take any
measure after it has expired.
46. Based on the foregoing, the Single Judge proceeded to analyse each of the aforementioned
motives individually.
(a) the club limited the player’s freedom of movement;
47. Based on the submissions by both parties it appears that some restrictions were imposed on
the players. The Player refers to certain instructions from the team captain without any further
evidence.
48. Therefore, considering that the Player has not provided consistent evidence, the Single Judge
was comforted on the fact that the evidence submitted is not decisive nor conclusive and
enough to make a judgement and therefore deemed that this argument of the Player had
not met the required standard of proof and had to be dismissed.
(b) the Claimant sponsored severe violation of the player’s contractual and fundamental
rights, since the club did not accommodate the player in a place with better sanitary
conditions; & (c) the club did not provided accommodation with minimum hygiene
conditions, and, as informed before, was responsible for the Respondent’s sickness;
Page 10
REF FPSD-2338
49. In relation to these two allegations, the Single Judge referred to the Contract and observed
that there is no provision in the Contract according to which the Club had agreed to provide
accommodation to the Player.
50. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge also noted that the Club had provided
accommodation for the players, including the Player, due to their relocation to Lagos. Thus,
creating the legitimate expectation that this shall continue for the duration of the Contract.
51. Based on the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge underlined that whilst he was
not convinced that the breach of the Club may not be sufficient to deem that the Club
breached the Contract, this breach has to be weighted when evaluating the overall behaviour
of the parties.
(d) the Club have neglected the renewal of the player’s visa and only suggested to take any
measure after it has expired.
52. The Single Judge observed that according to the evidence on file, the Player’s visa expired on
20 February 2021. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that, despite having the opportunity to
do so, the Club has not disputed the fact that by its inaction allowed the mentioned visa to
expire
53. For all the above, the Single Judge found that the Player terminated the Contract with just
cause based on art. 14 of the Regulations, on 27 February 2021. Consequently, the party in
breach, the Club, shall be held liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
54. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
55. The Single Judge turned first in this respect to the matter of any reduction of salaries,
outstanding remuneration and travel expenses as argued by the Player.
56. The Single Judge decided that the request for reimbursement of the return flight ticket shall
be rejected due to lack of contractual basis. There is no disposition in the Contract which
entitled the Player to receive flight tickets from the Club, so this request could only be rejected
in the Single Judge’s eye.
57. In addition to the above, the Single Judge turned to the Player’s allegation that his salary was
reduced due to the suspension of his employment during the COVID pandemic and that he
had never agreed to such suspension.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2338
58. In this regard, according to the evidence submitted by the parties, the Single Judge observed
that the Player’s first complain about this point comes with the filing of the counterclaim,
meaning that he never raised the issue before. Moreover, the Single Judge underlined that
the parties renewed his employment relationship after the alleged opposed suspension and
that no reference is made to any outstanding salaries in the Termination Notice.
59. Hence, the Single Judge found that this request shall be rejected on the grounds that the
Player – even if tacitly – acquiesced to the reduction of the salary. By not challenging such
reduction at any time, the Single Judge was comforted to determine that the Player generated
the clear expectation on the Club’s side that the reduction had been accepted – moreover
when considered the contractual extension signed.
60. Lastly, regarding the request for outstanding remuneration regarding the salary of February
2021, the Single Judge noted that the Club has admitted not having paid this due to the
Player’s termination.
61. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amount which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. NGN 300,000.
62. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, he decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 23 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
63. In continuation, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the Player by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, he firstly recapitulated that,
in accordance with art. 17 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 remuneration and other benefits due to the Player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract and the time remaining on the existing
contract.
64. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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.
65. In this regard, the Single Judge took note that no such clause was contractually agreed
between the parties.
66. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 of the Regulations. The Single Judge recalled that said provision provides for a non-
Page 12
REF FPSD-2338
exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
67. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the contract until
its term. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount NGN 2,700,000 serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
68. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge observed that the Player solely requested the
amount of NGN 2,400,000. Hence, the Single Judge confirmed that the latter amount shall
be awarded based on the principle non ultra petita.
69. In continuation, the Single Judge 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. In this regard, the Single Judge observed
that the Player had not found new employment.
70. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of NGN
2,400,000 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
71. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24bis
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his 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.
73. 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.
74. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
Page 13
REF FPSD-2338
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
75. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
76. 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. 24bis par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
77. The Single Judge 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.
78. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded
in these proceedings.
79. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2338
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Vandrezzer FC, is rejected.
2.
The claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Alberico Barbosa da Silva, is partially
accepted.
3.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Vandrezzer FC, has to pay to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the following amount(s):
- Nigerian Naira (“NGN”) 300,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
23 June 2021 until the date of effective payment;
- NGN 2,400,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 23 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the parties 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 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 the ban shall
be of 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. 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 15
REF FPSD-2338
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 16