Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01448
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 June 2021,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Diego Bardanca Florez
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Diego Bardanca Florez, Spain
Represented by Ms Clara Real Furio
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Buriram United FC, Thailand
Represented by Mr Menno Teunissen
INTERVENING PARTY:
FC Indjija, Serbia
Page 2 of 13
REF 20-01448
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 16 May 2019, the Spanish player, Diego Bardanca Florez (hereinafter: player or Claimant/CounterRespondent) and the Thai club, Buriram United FC (hereinafter: club or Respondent/Counter-Claimant)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract 1) valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31
December 2021.
2.
According to contract 1, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly salary of USD 22,555 at the
end of each month as well as the amount of USD 23,333 “upon passing medical examination and
signing”.
3.
Contract 1 states that the player holds the Philippine nationality.
4.
On 1 July 2019, the player signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract 2) with the Serbian
club, FK Indjija, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2019.
5.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was
registered in Serbia on 30 July 2019 after a permanent transfer (“out of contract”) from Poland
(former club: MKS Bytovia Bytow). In TMS, there is no reference to any contract concluded with the
the club and as “proof of the last contract end date”, there is a confirmation of MKS Bytovia Bytow
that his contract expired.
6.
According to contract 2, FK Indjija undertook to pay the player a monthly salary in the amount of
Serbian Dinar (RSD) 30,000 (approx. USD 300).
7.
On 30 December 2019, the player and the club concluded a new employment contract (hereinafter:
contract 3) valid as from 16 June 2020 until 31 December 2021.
8.
According to contract 3, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly salary in the amount of USD
5,000 as well as the following “additional salary amounts”:
- USD 75,000 on 30 January 2020;
- USD 95,000 on 30 July 2020;
- USD 95,000 on 30 November 2020;
- USD 95,000 on 30 July 2021;
- USD 95,000 on 30 November 2021.
9.
In this regard, contract 3 defines that: “With the exception of the first payment of USD 75,000 which
should be considered a signing fee, all other above-mentioned instalments will only be payable to the
Athlete upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions on the date that each payment is due:
- The player is actually registered with and employed by Buriram United FC under the contract dd.
30 December 2019;
- The player is actually registered as an “ASEAN professional footballer” in accordance with the
Thai League rules and regulations.”
10. The preamble of contract 3 states that:
“The club and the athlete both agree that the current contract will only be undersigned and thus valid
until a positive medical check is carried out by the club’s physician in Thailand on the athlete”.
“The club and the athlete furthermore agree that the validity of this contract is subject to the
registration of the Athlete under the ASEAN-registration mechanism as an “ASEAN professional
footballer” following the Thai League Rules and Regulations before 12 July 2020”.
Page 3 of 13
REF 20-01448
11. Art. 6 of contract 3 reads as follows: “In the event that the Athlete is not eligible to register as an
“ASEAN professional footballer” under Thai League rules and regulations before 12 July 2020, either
party may terminate the employment contract without any further compensation upon written
notice”.
12. On 31 January 2020, the player signed a contract with the Slovenian club, ND Gorica (hereinafter:
contract 4), valid as from 1 February 2020 until 30 May 2020.
13. On 8 June 2020, the club sent a letter to the player and proposed to “postpone” the start of contract
3 since the player’s current club wishes to extend its contract with the player for the remainder of the
season. In this regard, the club enclosed a proposal for a new contract valid as from 1 July 2021 until
31 May 2023.
14. On 9 June 2020, the player refused said offer of the club.
15. On 14 June 2020, the club sent an email to the player maintaining that it has not yet received the
player’s Philippine passport in order to register him as an “ASEAN” player in Thailand and that it
therefore has the possibility to terminate contract 3. In this context, it reiterated its request to the
player to consider its previous offer (cf. above).
16. On 15 June 2020, the player replied to the club and held that he would be willing to accept to
“postpone” the contract as offered, if the club would remit the instalment of USD 95,000 due in July
2020 resulting from contract 3.
17. On 19 June 2020, the club replied and held that the validity of contract 3 was subject to the player’s
registration as an “ASEAN” player and could be terminated in accordance with art. 6, if the player
was not registered until 12 July 2020.
18. On 22 June 2020, the player sent a letter to the club insisting that contract 3 was valid and binding
but that it was not possible to “get his passport” before 12 July 2020 since the season in Slovenia
would only finish at the end of July. He requested the club to “find a solution in good faith”.
19. On 9 July 2020, the club reiterated its position and gave the player a time-limit until 15 July 2021 to
sign the new contract starting in July 2021.
20. On 10 July 2020, the player replied and pointed out that he has to fly to the Philippines in order to
get the passport and that the offices there were closed at the moment due to COVID-19. He also
reiterated that he had to finish the season in Slovenia in July 2020.
21. On 29 July 2020, the club terminated contract 3 with the player referring to art. 6 of said contract
and the fact that it was not possible to register the player in time.
22. On 5 August 2020, the player and the Slovenian club ND Gorica concluded a new employment
contract valid as from 1 August 2020 until 30 June 2021. According to this contract, the player was
entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 2,100 (approx. USD 2,500).
Page 4 of 13
REF 20-01448
23. On 4 January 2021, the contract with ND Gorica was terminated per agreement. According to this
agreement his salary for November and December 2020 was reduced (due to COVID-19) to EUR 1,000
and the club paid EUR 2,000 for the termination. In total, the player received EUR 10,300 (approx.
USD 12,500) under the contract with ND Gorica (3x EUR 2,100 plus 2x EUR 1,000 and EUR 2,000).
24. On 1 February 2021, the player and the Uzbek club, FC Lokomotiv concluded an employment contract
valid as from 1 February 2021 until 30 November 2021, including a monthly salary of Uzbekistan Som
(UZS) 20,700,000 (approx. USD 2,000).
25. On 7 October 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club for breach of contract 3 in front of
FIFA and requested payment of the following monies “net”:
- USD 105,000 corresponding to the salaries of June and July 2020 as well as the additional salary
due on 30 July 2020 (USD 95,000);
- USD 342,850 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual value of the
contract (Residual value of USD 370,000 minus mitigation of USD 27,150).
- USD 27,150 as additional compensation based on art. 17 RSTP.
- USD 150,000 (6 monthly salaries taking into account the average) as additional indemnification
due to the specificity of sports.
The player further requested interest of 5% p.a. as of 29 July 2020 and the imposition of sporting
sanctions on the club.
26. In his claim, the player argued that the club terminated contract 3 without just cause.
27. In this regard, he maintained that the conditions set in the preamble as well as in art. 6 of contract 3
shall be disregarded since a contract cannot be subject to mere formalities.
28. Furthermore, the player brought forward that such clauses are abusive and contain “unbalanced
rights” in favour of the club.
29. Moreover, the player held that the club acted in bad faith when terminating contract 3 after it had
allegedly “threatened” the player to sign contract 3, since it otherwise would have lodged a claim
against him for breach of contract 1.
30. In this regard, the player held that he was instructed by the club to go on loan with the Serbian club.
31. Additionally, the player held that the termination of contract 3 was not the ultima ratio. More lenient
measures would have been possible before such termination was executed.
32. On account of the above, the player held that the club had no just cause to terminate contract 3 on
29 July 2020 and that he is entitled to his outstanding remuneration as well as to compensation for
breach of contract.
33. In this regard, the player acknowledged having received the instalment of USD 75,000 due on 30
January 2020, but no further payments resulting from contract 3.
34. In this regard, the player claims compensation corresponding to the residual value (17 months x USD
5,000, i.e. USD 85,000, plus additional salary instalments, i.e. USD 285,000).
Page 5 of 13
REF 20-01448
35. In its reply to the claim, the club rejected the player’s claim, lodged a counterclaim against the player
and requested payment of USD 564,653 net as compensation for breach of contract 1, plus 5%
interest p.a. as of “the day the contract was terminated”. Furthermore, the club requests the Chamber
to impose sporting sanctions on the player.
36. The club argued that, after concluding contract 1, it remitted the signing-on fee in the amount of
USD 23,333 to the player and even though the player’s nationality was defined as Philippine in
contract 1, “it became clear that the player did not hold a Philippines passport, but was only s Spanish
nationality passport holder”.
37. In this context, the club explained the concept of maximum 5 foreign players in Thailand and that one
of them can be an “ASEAN” player, which means a player from Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam,
Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Cambodia, Laos, Brunei, Myanmar or the Philippines.
38. Furthermore, the club denied having instructed the player to go on loan with the Serbian club. In this
regard, it contested that the WhatsApp messages provided by the player, were sent by a club
representative or an agent acting on behalf of the club.
39. On account of the above, and since the player did not provide his services as established in contract,
the club held that the player breached contract 1 when he signed contract 2 with the Serbian club
even though he was contractually bound to the club.
40. The club deemed that the player terminated contract 1, when signing contract 2. In this context, the
club stated: “The club was perfectly aware of this termination. However, acting in good faith, the club
was still confident it could find an amicable solution in globo before addressing FIFA”.
41. According to the club, it then offered the player to conclude contract 3 and by doing so it denied
having pressured the player in any way.
42. Moreover, it pointed out that both parties agreed upon the preamble and art. 6 of contract 3 since
both parties wanted the possibility to terminate the contract in case the player did not hold the
Philippine passport or could not be registered as an ASEAN player.
43. In that sense, the club held that the termination clause in art. 6 is perfectly valid as the clause is
“reciprocal, non-ambiguous, non-potestative and has a clear wording”.
44. Further, the club argued that art. 6 defined a “contractual penalty” or a “liquidated damage”, when
stating that “without any further compensation” shall be due having in mind that the club already
remitted amounts to the player.
45. The club pointed out that it remitted the signing-fee of USD 75,000 in January 2020, while the player
was under contract with ND Gorica as the player “promised to join Buriram on time for preparations”.
46. When the player requested to extend his stay with ND Gorica in July 2020, the club again offered an
amicable solution, which was not accepted.
Page 6 of 13
REF 20-01448
47. When the player failed to submit his Philippine passport in time and therefore it became impossible
to register him as an ASEAN player, the club had no other option than to terminate contract 3 in
accordance with its art. 6.
48. In case the Chamber would not agree, the club held that the compensation to be paid shall not be
higher than USD 15,000, as the residual value of the contract is USD 90,000 (18x USD 5,000) and the
already remitted USD 75,000 have to be deducted. In this context, the club maintained that the
additional amounts were not due as the conditions were not met.
49. As all amicable solutions failed, the club decided to lodge a claim against the player for his breach of
contract 1.
50. The amount of compensation claimed by the club (USD 564,653) consists of:
- USD 23,333 signing-fee remitted to the player;
- USD 405,990 as salaries due under the contract (18 months x USD 22,555)
- USD 135,330 as “specificity of sport as a factor for damages” (6x USD 22,555).
51. In reply to the counter-claim, the player refuted the club’s allegations and requested to dismiss the
counterclaim.
52. The player submitted various extracts from WhatsApp conversations showing that “Batt Thailand”
was indeed acting on behalf of the club.
53. Furthermore, the player insisted that the club instructed him to play in Serbia and that it paid the
player’s salary of July 2019, a clear indication that the club was in agreement with the player’s
engagement in Serbia.
54. Moreover, the player reiterated his arguments about art. 6 of contract 3.
55. FK Indjija endorsed the player’s position regarding the club’s counterclaim.
56. The Serbian club maintained that there was no termination of contract with Buriram United FC and
that the player remained under contract with the Thai club. According to FK Indjija, the fact that
Buriram kept paying the player’s salary was the only option to employ the player, otherwise it would
have been to expensive.
57. Since the player was not yet registered with the Thai club, FK Indjija was requested to “make the TMS
formalities directly with the Polish club Bytovia”.
58. Moreover, FK Indjija held that the fact that Buriram and the player signed contract 3 after his
engagement in Serbia is a clear indication that the new contract replaced the older one and therefore
not claims could be made against the player or FK Indjija.
Page 7 of 13
REF 20-01448
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
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 submitted to FIFA on 7 October 2020, and submitted for decision on 17 June 2021. Taking
into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the June 2020 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player and a club.
3.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021 edition), and considering that the
claim was lodged on 7 October 2020, the October 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
submitted by the parties. 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art.
6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to
the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the
Transfer Matching System (TMS).
5.
Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the
present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par.
3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
6.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 16 May 2019, the player and the
club had concluded contract 1 valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31 December 2021. Subsequently, the
Chamber noted that, on 1 July 2019, the player signed contract 2 with FK Indjija valid as from the
date of signature until 31 December 2019. Moreover, the DRC acknowledged that on 30 December
2019, the player and the club concluded contract 3 valid as from 16 June 2020 until 31 December
2021.
7.
In this framework, the members of the DRC took note of the player’s claim for breach of contract 3
as he maintained that the club did not have just cause to terminate said contract 3, since art, 6 of
said contract has to be disregarded due to the fact that a contract cannot be subject to mere
formalities. On account of the above, the player requested compensation for breach of contract.
Page 8 of 13
REF 20-01448
8.
The Chamber duly noted that the club, on the other hand, rejected the player’s claim and lodged a
counterclaim for breach of contract 1 alleging that the player breached contract 1 when signing
contract 2 in Serbia. On account of the above, the club requested compensation for breach of
contract.
9.
In turn, the DRC acknowledged that the player rejected the club’s counterclaim arguing that the club
was in accordance with the player’s engagement in Serbia.
10. Having considered the diverging position of the parties, the members of the DRC acknowledged that
the central issue in the matter at stake was to determine as to whether any of the contracts was
terminated by either party with or without just cause and to decide on the consequences thereof.
11. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the alleged breach of contract 1. As establised,
the parties concluded contract 1 and from the documentation on file it remained unclear what led to
the conclusion of contract 2 by the player with the Serbian club. The Chamber noted that the player
held that such conclusion was in fact a loan, but there is no corroborating evidence for such a loan
on file or in TMS. However, the player submitted WhatsApp conversations that indicate such loan
idea, however it remained unclear with whom exactly such conversation happened and if said person
would have been entitled to act on behalf of the club.
12. However, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that there are elements on file that indicate
that the club at least knew that the player was with the Serbian club, for example the payment of his
salary of July 2019. What is more important for the Chamber, that there is no documentation on file
where the club requested the player to render his services in Thailand. Taking into account that the
parties signed a new contract (contract 3) after contract 2 had expired, leads the Chamber to the
conclusion, that the club had no claim against the player at this point and therefore that the claim for
breach of contract 1 was not warranted.
13. On account of the above, especially taking into account the club’s contradictory behaviour, the DRC
rejected the club’s counterclaim for breach of contract 1.
14. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the player’s claim, which
concerns an alleged breach of contract 3. Said contract was terminated by the club on 29 July 2020
based on its art. 6.
15. In accordance with the Chamber’s jurisprudence, that contracts cannot be subject to administrative
formalities, such as registration, the DRC pointed out that it was the club’s responsibility to check if
the player could be registered as an ASEAN player before concluding the contract. Therefore, the
Chamber decided not to take into account art. 6 of contract 3.
16. Furthermore, the DRC wished to emphasize that the player’s absence was not the reason for the
termination since it is well documented that the player was trying to finish the season with his previous
club due to the extension of the season in connection with COVID-19.
17. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the club had no just cause to terminate contract 3 on 29 July
2019.
18. Subsequently, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the employment
contract with just cause by the Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Page 9 of 13
REF 20-01448
Chamber held that it, in general, had to address the issue of unpaid remuneration at the moment
when the contract was terminated by the Claimant.
19. On account of the above, the player would in principle be entitled to outstanding remuneration.
Due to the specific circumstances of the case and since the player was not yet in Thailand and
did not yet render his services, no outstanding remuneration is awarded.
20. Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided
that the player is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from the club.
21. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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.
22. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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.
23. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken
into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has
to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific
circumstances of the respective matter.
24. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits
due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was
considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important
to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take
into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the
amount of compensation.
25. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of
termination without just cause by the club until its natural expiration. Furthermore, the Chamber
took into account the amount claimed by the player and consequently, the Chamber concluded
Page 10 of 13
REF 20-01448
that the amount of USD 465,000 net serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
26. 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, 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.
27. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had found new employment and mitigated
his damages in the amount of USD 32,500, which leads to a mitigated compensation of USD
432,500 net.
28. Consequently, on account of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that
the Respondent must pay the amount of 432,500 net compensation for breach of contract to
the Claimant, which is considered by the Chamber to be a fair and reasonable amount.
29. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the player
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as requested, as of the date of the claim.
30. As a conclusion the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s claim and to reject the club’s
counterclaim.
31. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
32. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has
competence to impose a sanction on the club. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that,
against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods.
33. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does not
pay the amount due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player,
following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the
club, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the club
in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
34. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis
par. 3 of the Regulations.
Page 11 of 13
REF 20-01448
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Diego Bardanca Florez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Buriram United FC, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount:
- USD 432,500 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of 7 October
2020 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The claim of Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform Respondent /
Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
must pay the due amount.
6.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in
accordance with this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the
official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by Respondent /
Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant / CounterRespondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the following
consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount
is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
REF 20-01448
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 13 of 13