Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9524
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 June 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Kervens Fils Belfort
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kervens Fils Belfort, Haiti
Represented by Deep Ray
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Kelantan FA, Malaysia
Represented by Sheffie & Partners
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9524
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 December 2021, the Haitian player Kervens Fils Belfort (hereinafter the player) and
the Malaysian club Kelantan FA (hereinafter the club) concluded an employment agreement
(hereinafter the Employment Agreement) valid as from 15 January 2022 until
30 November 2024 (“or until the last match day of the official match of the Season’s league” –
whichever the earlier).
2.
In this respect, Clause 4 of the Employment Agreement detailed that validity is for three
seasons and that the player’s salary “shall be pro-rated in accordance to [his] actual
appearance (training and played matches)”.
3.
In Clause 2 of the Employment Agreement, the player and the club (jointly referred to as
the parties) agreed upon a monthly salary of USD 5,000 as follows:
4.
In accordance with Clause 3 lit. (d) iv) of the Employment Agreement, the player was also
entitled, inter alia, to a bonus of USD 5,000 “upon winning the Premier League Championship
and/or promotes to the Super League Championship”. It shall be noted that the Employment
Agreement provides for “Management’s discretion based on the Overall performance”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9524
5.
In accordance with Clause 3 lit. d) of the Employment Agreement, the player was also
entitled to the following benefits “subject to the Management’s full discretion”:
6.
In Clause 6 of the Employment Agreement, the parties agreed upon the following
provisions concerning a potential injury:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9524
7.
In Clause 8 of the Employment Agreement, the parties foresaw that a National Dispute
Resolution Chamber shall rule over any future dispute.
8.
It remained undisputed that the player was injured and underwent an injury around
23 July 2023.
9.
On 6 December 2022, the player sent a default notice to the club, requesting to be paid the
(i) reimbursement of the treatment and rehabilitation costs of RM 7,600,
(ii) accommodation costs of RM 5,613, (iii) USD 15,000 (salaries of September to November
2022), (iv) a bonus of USD 5,000 for the club’s promotion to Super League Championship
and a flight ticket to return to his home country as the season has allegedly ended on
5 November 2022. The player granted the club a deadline of 15 days to pay the outstanding
amounts.
10. Based on the submissions on file, on 10 December 2022, a flight ticket was provided to the
player. Furthermore, the club sent the “Acknowledgement & Acceptance”. In said
document, the player was to confirm that after the remittance of October 2022 salary and
the flight ticket, the player has no further claims concerning the season 2022.
11. On 15 December 2022, the player declined to sign the proposed “Acknowledgement &
Acceptance” of the club and reiterated his requested regarding the outstanding salaries.
12. On 30 January 2023, the player sent a further default notice to the club, requesting to be
paid the (i) reimbursement of the treatment and rehabilitation costs of RM 7,600,
(ii) accommodation costs of RM 5,613, (iii) USD 10,000 (salaries of November to
December 2022), (iv) a bonus of USD 5,000 for the club’s promotion to Super League
Championship and a flight ticket to return to his home country as the season has allegedly
ended on 5 November 2022. The player granted the club a deadline of 5 days to pay the
outstanding amounts, however, to no avail.
13. In the same correspondence, the player pointed out that “the pre-season training sessions
of the Club for the upcoming season commenced on 3 January 2023, and the Club has already
participated in some friendly matches”, yet that he “has not been informed of the same, and he
has not been sent a flight ticket to travel to Malaysia and join the squad”. Consequently, the
player requested an update concerning the upcoming season along with a reinstatement
in the squad.
14. On 3 February 2023, the club replied to the player that the rehabilitation costs shall not be
reimbursed as the player did not request any recommendation from the club’s doctor.
What is more, the club equally rejected the payment of accommodation costs as the player
was not at club’s premises.
15. Regarding the salary payment of November 2023, the club explained in its correspondence
that only pro-rata payment up to 12 November 2023 will be made (i.e. last match day, last
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9524
physical appearance of the players). As to the payment of the bonus, the club was of the
opinion that such payment is discretionary, and that the player is not entitled to it.
16. The club further argued that the player’s participation in 2023 season is “subject to
Management’s discretion” as well as the player’s health. In this respect, the club argued
that the player failed to provide any physician’s report concerning the player’s recovery
status.
17. On 10 February 2023, the player contested the above-mentioned arguments regarding the
non-reimbursement or the non-payment of salaries and bonuses and reiterated that he
wishes to be provided with the flight tickets and reinstated to the team by no later than
15 February 2023.
18. On 21 February 2023, the player terminated the contract.
19. On 23 February 2023, the club alleged not to have received the letter of 10 February 2023.
What is more, the club was of the opinion that there are no overdue salaries in the matter.
Concerning the possible reinstatement, the club wrote to the player:
“once he produces a physician’s report that he will be fit to play, our Client will consider to
reinstate your client, with a condition that should your client has not fully recovered and
continuously remain unable to play with the Club, your Client shall agree to receive a 50%
salary deduction until he is fit to play with the team. In this accord, your client had failed to
return to Malaysia nor had he executed the reinstatement letter as of today.”
20. The player informed FIFA General Secretariat that he remained unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 8 March 2023, 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 / claim
22. The requests for relief of the player were the following:
“1. The Respondent has failed to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Player.
2. The Claimant terminated the Employment Contract with just cause on 17th February
2023.
3. The Respondent has the obligation to pay overdue amounts as follows (plus interest at
the rate of 5% from the relevant dates):
i. Salaries owed for the months of November, December, January – USD. 15,000 (Fifteen
thousand US Dollars).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9524
ii. Bonus for getting promoted to the higher division – USD. 5,000 (Five thousand US
Dollars)
iii. Reimbursement for accommodation paid by the Player – RM. 5613 (Five thousand six
hundred and thirteen Malaysian Ringgit)
iv. Reimbursement for medical treatment and rehabilitation – RM. 7600 (Seven thousand
six hundred Malaysian Ringgit)
4. The Respondent is obligated to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of (remuneration owed to the Player for the period of February 2023 to
November 2024) – USD. 110,000 (One hundred and ten thousand US Dollars)
5. Pronounce any other decision that the Chamber may deem fit in light of the facts and
circumstances of the present matter.”
23. The player argued that the Employment Agreement was terminated with just cause based
on the non-payment of salaries (November 2022 to February 2023), i.e. in line with
art. 14bis of the Regulations. Furthermore, the player added that also the medical
expenses shall be reimbursed.
24. As to the termination of the contract, the player was of the opinion that the exclusion from
the training and pre-season activities are in clear breach of contractual obligations.
b. Position of the club / counterclaim
25.
In its reply, the club submitted a counterclaim against the player with the following
request for relief:
“Should FIFA consider the Respondent’s unilateral termination is with just cause, then such
termination by the Respondent shall be deemed an early termination under the
Employment Contract. Hence, FIFA must allow the Claimant the full benefit of claim against
the Respondent amounting to USD 370,000 under all the Employment Contracts as follows:
a. USD250,000-00 stipulated under Clause 6 of the Initial Offer Letter for early termination by
the Respondent
b. USD120,000 For the remaining contract term from January 2023 to December 2024
(USD5,000 per month) for a total of 24 months;
TOTAL: USD370,000
Whereby USD370,000 shall be deducted from all claims by the Respondent against the
Claimant (as contra payment) and the balance remaining after the contra payment must be
paid to the Claimant.
The remaining balance left unpaid to the Claimant shall be inclusive of a 5% penalty interest
and sporting sanctions should be in force against the Respondent until the payment is duly
settled to the Claimant at the Claimant’s designated account herein.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9524
26.
The club was arguing that it was the player who was in constant breach of the
Employment Agreement as he, inter alia:
−
−
−
−
−
−
27.
“refused to accept the pro-rated November 2022 Salary as clearly stipulated in the
Employment Offer Letter which had caused all the delay, and by doing so, the
Respondent had manipulated the Respondent’s claim stating the delay was by the
Claimant to ensure the Respondent could claim on the contract termination,”
“purposely and wilfully refused to provide a Physician’s report on the Respondent’s
well-being and recovery status when instructed by the Claimant;”
he “did not respect the urgency and the critical information of his injury status required
by the Club to determine the Respondent’s performance and duties towards the Club
and the Club’s hiring decision before the start of the new Season 2023,” (no evidence
on file that the club actually requested this)
he “posted negative remarks of the Club/Claimant publicly on the Respondent’s social
media page which is a breach of the Club’s Code of Conduct which had been duly
agreed and signed by the Respondent in the Employment Contract,” (no evidence on
file)
his “actions are regarded as a breach of the Club’s moral, social etiquette and such
behaviour is not tolerated by the Club;”
his “actions was in full knowledge of the breach and considered not interested in
playing with the Team by ignoring the Claimant’s instructions.”
Consequently, the club requested compensation for the unjustified breach based on the
residual value of the contract as well as an Initial Offer Letter dated 23 December 2021.
c. Position of the player / reply to the counterclaim
28. In its reply to the counterclaim, the player reiterated its initial request for relief:
“1. The Counterclaimant has failed to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Player.
2. The Respondent terminated the Employment Contract with just cause on 17th February
2023.
3. The Counterclaimant has the obligation to pay overdue amounts as follows (plus interest
at the rate of 5% from the relevant dates): i. Salaries owed for the months of November,
December, and January – USD. 15,000 (Fifteen thousand US Dollars).
ii. Bonus for getting promoted to the higher division – USD. 5,000 (Five thousand US Dollars)
iii. Reimbursement for accommodation paid by the Player – RM. 5613 (Five thousand six
hundred and thirteen Malaysian Ringgit)
iv. Reimbursement for medical treatment and rehabilitation – RM. 7600 (Seven thousand six
hundred Malaysian Ringgit)
4. The Counterclaimant is obligated to pay the Respondent compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of (remuneration owed to the Player for the period of February 2023
to November 2024) – USD. 110,000 (One hundred and ten thousand US Dollars)
5. Pronounce any other decision that the Chamber may deem fit in light of the facts and
circumstanced of the present matter.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9524
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 8 March 2023 and submitted
for decision on 22 June 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2022 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.
30. 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 (October 2022 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 player from Haiti
and a club from Malaysia.
31. 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 Players (October 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 March 2023, the October 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
32. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
33. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9524
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this is a claim of a player against a club concerning a
termination of a contract and that the club lodged a parallel counterclaim.
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to examine if the player had
just cause to terminate the contractual relationship on 21 February 2023.
36. The Chamber turned its attention to the evidence on file and observed that the player
showed interest to stay with the club, yet that the latter ignored those requests.
37. The DRC also turned to the arguments brought by the club, however, it noted that those
have not been supported by any evidence. In particular, the Chamber noted that the club
submitted no evidence that the player was requested to provide a medical report nor that
the player would have behaved in an inappropriate manner. Finally, the Chamber
dismissed the club’s allegation that they have not received the correspondence of
10 February 20233 as there is evidence on file that the respective e-mail was sent to the
same e-mail address as the other correspondences of the player.
38. Based on all the above, the Chamber concluded that the club lost its interest in the player.
39. What is more, the DRC observed that certain financial obligation remained outstanding
towards the player:
−
Concerning the salaries due, the Chamber determined that the salaries should be
paid in full, despite various provision allowing the club to reduce the player’s salary
as such provisions are not valid. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the
player USD 20,000, corresponding to the salaries of November 2022 –
February 2023.
−
Furthermore, the Chamber continued with the analysis of Clause 3 lit. d) vi) of the
Employment Agreement, which stipulates that the player is entitled to
MYR 1,500/month as a subsidy. Based on this provision, the DRC concluded that for
the period of mid-September to end of November 2022, the player should be
granted MYR 3,750 (i.e. pro rata September 2022 and two full payments for October
– November 2022).
−
The Chamber then turned its attention to Clause 3 lit. d) viii) of the Employment
Agreement, in accordance with which the player is entitled to insurance up to
max. MYR 60,000/year. The Chamber then decided that such insurance covers the
requested costs in the amount of MYR 7,600 as per the evidence on file and granted
MYR 7,600 to the player.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9524
−
Finally, in accordance with Clause 3 lit. (d) iv) of the Employment Agreement, the
Chamber decided to award the bonus of USD 5,000 for the promotion of the club.
40. In view of the totality of the facts, the Chamber concluded that the player terminated the
contract with just cause, in line with art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
41. 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 the club.
42. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player amount to:
−
−
−
−
USD 20,000, corresponding to the salaries of November 2022 – February 2023;
MYR 3,750, corresponding to accommodation;
MYR 7,600, corresponding to medical costs;
USD 5,000, corresponding to the promotion bonus.
43. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination.
44. 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 player interest on the
outstanding amounts as follows:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
MYR 750, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2022 until the date of the effective
payment;
MYR 1,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2022 until the date of the
effective payment;
USD 5,000 a, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13 November 2022 until the date of the
effective payment;
MYR 1,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2022 until the date of the
effective payment;
USD 5,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2022 until the date of the
effective payment;
USD 5,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2023 until the date of the effective
payment;
USD 5,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2023 until the date of the
effective payment;
USD 5,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 February 2023 until the date of the
effective payment.
MYR 7,600, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 February 2023 until the date of the
effective payment.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9524
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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 amount of USD 105,000 (i.e. USD 5,000 times 21, corresponding to the
salaries of March 2023 – November 2024) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
49. 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.
50. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9524
51. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
52. In this respect, the Chamber / Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of USD 105,000, i.e. USD 5,000 times 21, as the residual
value of the contract.
53. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request and in line with the principle ne ultra
petita, the Chamber did not award any interest on said compensation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
55. 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.
56. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
57. 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.
58. 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9524
d. Costs
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9524
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Kervens Fils Belfort, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Kelantan FA, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
− MYR 750 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
1 October 2022 until the date of the effective payment;
− MYR 1,500 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
1 November 2022 until the date of the effective payment;
− USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
13 November 2022 until the date of the effective payment;
− MYR 1,500 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
1 December 2022 until the date of the effective payment;
− USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
1 December 2022 until the date of the effective payment;
− USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
1 January 2023 until the date of the effective payment;
− USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
1 February 2023 until the date of the effective payment;
− USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
21 February 2023 until the date of the effective payment.
− MYR 7,600 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a.
21 February 2023 until the date of the effective payment.
as from
as from
as from
as from
as from
as from
as from
as from
as from
− USD 105,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is 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. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9524
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-9524
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17