Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3018
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Jean Claude Billong
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France) Deputy Chairman
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Jean Claude Billong - Cameroon
Represented by Felix Majani
RESPONDENT:
Hatayspor - Turkey
Represented by Ismail Coskun
Page 2
REF FPSD-3018
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 5 January 2018, the Cameroonian player, Jean Claude Billong (hereinafter: Claimant),
and the Italian club Benevento Calcio entered an employment contract valid as of said date
until 30 June 2021.
2.
On 18 September 2020 the Claimant, Benevento Calcio and the Turkish club, Hatayspor
(hereinafter: Respondent) agreed on the temporary transfer of the Claimant to the
Respondent until the end of the 2019/2020 season, with an option to acquire the Claimant’
services on a permanent basis as of the following season.
3.
In accordance with article 2 of the transfer agreement, the Parties agreed as follows:
“The transfer will be automatically changed from temporary to permanent, and Hatayspor
is obliged to change immediately the transfer from loan to permanent if the following
condition will happen during of the 2020/2021 season or when the condition actually met,
which ever takes place first:
Achievement of Hatayspor make first point in Turkish League Competitions
2020/2021 after from the date of registration of the player on loan;
In this case the Hatayspor will pay to Benevento the sum of NET 1,000 (one thousand) euros
that it will be paid with the following deadlines:
1,000 (one thousand) euros within thirty days from the first point in Turkish League
Competitions in 2020/2021.
If the above-mentioned two conditions are fulfilled, Benevento accepts and is entitled to
transfer all the rights of the player on permanent basis to Hatayspor in TMS.
The article 2 of this contract is valid and effective only if a permanent employment contract
between the player and Hatayspor is signed”.
4.
Contextually, the Player and the Respondent entered an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) with initial validity as from 22 September 2020 until 29 May 2021.
5.
Coherently with art. 2 of the transfer agreement, and in accordance with clause 3.2 A) and
3 C) of the Contract, the Claimant would have transferred to the Respondent on a
permanent basis and so extend the employment relationship, at the very least, to 30 June
2022, upon Respondent’s achievement of the first point in the 2020-2021 Turkish Super
League, whereas in such case the latter would have had to pay Benevento the sum of EUR
1,000 within the following 30 days.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3018
6.
Furthermore, under clause 4.2 and 4.3 of the Contract dated 22 September 2020, the
Parties had already agreed and appended their signatures on the terms and conditions
related to the potential employment of the Claimant on a permanent basis, inter alia:
A total net salary of EUR 440,000 for the 2021-2022 season; and
A total net salary of EUR 550,000 for the 2022-2023 season.
7.
Pursuant to clause 3A of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
total of EUR 540,000 as remuneration for the 2020-2021 season, broken down as follows:
An advanced payment (sign-on fee) of EUR 150,000 upon signature; and
A monthly salary of EUR 35,000 from 30 September 2020 to 30 June 2021, with
the sole exception of November 2020 salary fixed at EUR 75,000.
8.
Furthermore, under clause 4C of the Contract, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant
a bonus of EUR 50,000 if the team had concluded the 2020/2021 season within the first
12 positions of the ranking.
9.
With regard to the payment of conditional bonuses, clause 4L of the Contract specified
that:
“These contingent payments {except first half bonus payments on January) will be
made within 90 days following the registration of leagues by TFF, provided that
such success is realized and this contract in force on the date of success. In the
event of early termination and / or termination of this contract for any reason, the
Player will not claim any rights and receivables regarding the successes that will
occur after the mutual termination / termination date. This clause Is valid for
contingent payments in case of a later amendment agreement between the
parties.”
10.
On 26 September 2020, the Respondent’s team obtained its first point in the Turkish
League.
11.
By correspondence dated 20 October 2020, the Respondent communicated to Benevento
Calcio the intention of acquiring the Claimant on a definite manner, namely by paying the
agreed amount of EUR 1,000. Contextually, the Respondent requested Benevento’s
banking coordinates in order to pay the above-mentioned amount.
12.
On 6 May 2021, the Respondent authorised the Claimant to join Cameroon national team
for pre-match training camps in the period between 6 May 2021 and 16 May 2021.
13.
On 15 May 2021, the 2020-2021 Turkish Super Lig ended, with the Respondent concluding
in the 6th position of the ranking.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3018
14.
By letter dated 22 June 2021, Benevento Calcio warned the Respondent about the fact that
the conditions described under article 2 of the Agreement had occurred, namely that the
Italian club had accepted the permanent transfer of the Player. Accordingly, Benevento
granted the Respondent a deadline of 10 (ten) days to comply with its financial obligations.
15.
On 24 June 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of EUR 180,202 as
outstanding remuneration and granted the latter a term of 15 days in order to remedy the
non-payment of several salaries together with the aforementioned bonus due under clause
4 C) of the Contract (i.e. EUR 50,000). Contextually, the Claimant requested the
Respondent to be sent a ticket for returning to Turkey within the start of the pre-season on
1 July 2021.
16.
On 1 July 2021, starting date of the season 2021/2022 in Turkey, the Claimant inserted and
completed the permanent transfer instructions on the TMS in accordance with the Transfer
Agreement.
17.
On 4 July 2021, Benevento filed a claim against the Respondent (Ref. Nr. FPSD-2982) before
the FIFA Players’ Status Committee, requesting payment of EUR 1,000 as outstanding
transfer fee due under art. 2 of the Transfer Agreement.
18.
On 5 July 2021, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, admitting its partial liability, but
contesting the calculation of the amounts claimed by the latter.
19.
In particular, the Respondent’s objection was based on the allegedly mandatory and
prevailing application of the Central Bank of Turkey exchange rates to the amounts in
default and on the fact that the aforementioned bonus of EUR 50,000 would have become
not collectible as the relevant due date was collocated after the expiry date of the
employment contract (i.e. 27 August 2021).
20.
On 10 July 2021, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the termination of the Contract
because of overdue payables.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
21.
On 12 July 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
22.
The claim of the Claimant
According to the Claimant, the Respondent breached the Contract, thereby forcing the
Claimant to terminate the same with just cause. As a consequence, the Claimant seeks
damages for the said breach and subsequent termination in addition to his outstanding
wages as at the date of termination.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3018
23.
In particular, the Claimant lamented the Respondent’s non-compliance with its financial
obligations in spite of the fact that the latter had been put in default and granted a proper
deadline to remedy.
24.
Furthermore, the Claimant remarked upon the fact that the Respondent had already
admitted its liability with letter dated 5 July 2021 and yet the latter had failed to correspond
the equivalent of 4 months and 11 days of due remuneration.
25.
In this context, the Claimant is of the opinion that he was certainly entitled to terminate the
employment contract with just cause on 10 July 2021.
26.
Furthermore, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s argument according to which the
bonus due under clause 4 C) of the Contract (i.e. EUR 50,000) would have been due only
as of 27 August 2021, as in the Claimant’s opinion the Respondent has completely failed
to substantiate its allegations.
27.
On the contrary, in the Claimant’s view, the above-mentioned bonus shall be due for the
mere fact that when the Turkish League ended on 15 May 2021, the Claimant was a player
of the Respondent’s team and the latter had reached the 6th position in the final ranking.
28.
In conclusion, the requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
i. EUR 204,078 as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
EUR 14,078 as outstanding salary for February 2021 (i.e. pro rata =11days);
EUR 35,000 as outstanding salary for March 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding salary for April 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding salary for May 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding salary for June 2021;
EUR 50,000 as outstanding bonus for reaching the 6th place in the TFF League
5% per annum interest on the above amounts as of the respective due dates
ii. EUR 545,000 as compensation for breach of contract by the Respondent plus 5%
interest
b.
Position of the Respondent
Page 6
REF FPSD-3018
29.
In its response to the claim, the Respondent argued that the Claimant shall not be entitled
to any compensation as the termination of the Contract by hand of the latter occurred in a
date in which the employment agreement was already expired.
30.
In this respect, the Respondent reproposed the exact same argumentation submitted in the
pending case before FIFA PSC (FPSD-2982), according to which, and conversely to what
alleged by the Claimant, the payment of EUR 1,000 to Benevento Calcio within 30 days
from the achievement of the Respondent’s first point in the league would have constituted
condicio sine qua non for the definition of the Claimant’s transfer on a permanent basis.
31.
Therefore, in the Respondent’s opinion, since the latter did not pay the above amount to
Benevento Calcio, accordingly the Claimant never transferred on a permanent basis to the
Respondent and the loan agreement expired on 30 June 2021, hence the employment
contract was not valid anymore at the date of the termination (i.e. 10 July 2021).
32.
In reference to the dispute over the outstanding salaries demanded by the Claimant, the
Respondent rejected the arguments presented by the latter according to which the bonus
of EUR 50,000 stipulated under clause 4 C) of the Contract would be collectible.
33.
In particular, the Respondent is of the opinion that, according to clause 4 L) of the Contract,
the above-mentioned bonus would have become payable to the Claimant only after 90
days as of the date in which the Turkish Football Federation registered the final results of
each league, namely the final ranking of each participating club.
34.
Therefore, in the Respondent’s view, as said registration occurred on 29 May 2021, the
aforementioned bonus would have been collectible only as of 27 August 2021, date in
which, however, the Claimant was not anymore registered with the Respondent, hence
pursuant to clause 4 L) of the Contract the Claimant has lost its right to demand the
payment of such bonus.
35.
Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent did not contest the other amounts claimed by
the Claimant as outstanding remuneration, which therefore shall remain undisputed.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
36.
Competence and applicable legal framework
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 12 July 2021 and submitted
for decision on 19 August 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
Page 7
REF FPSD-3018
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
37.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed 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 Cameroonian
player and a Turkish club.
38.
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 (edition February 2021) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 July 2021, the aforementioned edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
39.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
40.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
41.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
42.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute:
The quantification of the outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant;
Page 8
REF FPSD-3018
The transfer of the Claimant to the Respondent on a permanent basis and the
conclusion of a valid contract between the Claimant and the Respondent;
The subsequent Claimant’s right to terminate the employment contract on 10 July
2021.
43.
These issues are addressed below.
A. The outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant
44.
Firstly, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not contest the Claimant’s demand for
outstanding remuneration in its entirety, but objected instead to the sole collectability of
the conditional bonus foreseen under clause 4 C) of the employment contract.
45.
Therefore, the DRC acknowledged the Claimant’s entitlement to the amount of EUR
154,078 as undisputed and outstanding salaries for the months of February (pro rata),
March, April, May and June 2021.
46.
Consequently, the DRC turned its attention to the contested bonus of EUR 50,000 and
focused on the wording of the relevant contractual clause in order to ascertain whether at
the moment of terminating the employment agreement, such bonus was already collectible
by the Claimant.
47.
In this respect, the DRC is of the opinion that the aforementioned clause 4L of the Contract,
per se, does not exclude the Claimant’s right to receive the disputed bonus, as the
entitlement to the latter appears subject to a condition to which achievement the Claimant
effectively contributed by playing for the Respondent’s team, namely until the end of the
competition.
48.
In other words, the Chamber concluded that as the Respondent on 15 May 2021 concluded
the season in the 6th position of the final ranking and at that moment the Claimant was still
part of the team, the latter shall be entitled to receive a bonus which appears strictly related
to the players’ sporting performances, and as such “deserved”.
49.
In view of the above, the DRC established that the Claimant shall be entitled to the amount
of EUR 204,078 as outstanding remuneration.
50.
Moreover, in line with the DRC longstanding jurisprudence and as per Claimant’s request,
the Chamber decided that a 5% per annum interest shall apply on the awarded amount,
with respect of the relevant due dates for each outstanding sum.
Page 9
REF FPSD-3018
B. The transfer of the Claimant to the Respondent on a permanent basis and
the conclusion of a valid contract between the Claimant and the
Respondent
51.
In this regard, the Chamber took note that by decision dated 19 August 2021, the Single
Judge of the FIFA Player’ Status Committee established that the Claimant’s transfer from
Benevento to the Respondent became definitive in accordance with art. 2 of the transfer
agreement, namely as of the moment in which the Respondent obtained its first point in
the Turkish Super League 2020/2021 (case ref. FPSD-2982).
52.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that in the referred case, the Single Judge first had
acknowledged that its task was to establish whether the conditions set under the transfer
agreement for the perfection of the Player’s definitive transfer to the Respondent have
occurred or not.
53.
In said context, the Single Judge had analysed the content of art. 2 of the transfer
agreement, according to which the Respondent was “obliged to change immediately the
transfer from loan to permanent if the (following) condition will happen during of the
2020/2021 season or when the condition actually met, which ever takes place first (..)”
54.
In the Single Judge’s view, the wording of said article would clearly reflect the Parties’
intention to conclude the Claimant’s permanent transfer upon the fulfilment of one of the
two conditions descripted above, either be it the Respondent’s achievement of 1 point
during the entire 2020/2021 sporting season or the payment by the latter of the amount
of EUR 1,000, indeed “which ever takes place first”.
55.
Accordingly, in the Single Judge’s opinion, and taken into account also the level of the clubs
involved, both the conditions abovementioned had an evident symbolic value as they were
a priori extremely likely to occur, therefore as of the moment in which the Respondent’s
team obtained its first point in the Turkish League 2020/2021, the Claimant’s definitive
transfer to the Respondent had to be deemed as occurred.
56.
Furthermore, the Single Judge had noted that the same Respondent, by letter dated 20
October 2021, had confirmed its intention to pay the symbolic sum of EUR 1,000 in order
to acquire the Claimant’ services on a permanent basis, whereas the silence of the club
Benevento in this regard had not to be interpreted per se as a refusal of the definitive
transfer, especially as such faculty of denial was not foreseen by the transfer agreement.
57.
Conversely, the Single Judge had observed that Benevento had inserted and completed in
TMS the transfers instructions related to the Claimant’s definitive transfer without,
however, waiting for the receipt of the aforementioned sum.
58.
Based on all the foregoing elements, the Single Judge had concluded that – based on the
interpretation of the wording of the transfer agreement – the argumentation submitted by
the Respondent that no definitive transfer took place, could not be upheld.
Page 10
REF FPSD-3018
59.
Therefore, keeping in mind the above considerations as laid down in case FPSD-2982, the
members of the Chamber concurred that the Claimant had concluded a valid contract with
the Respondent.
C. The Claimant ’s right to terminate the employment contract on 10 July
2021
60.
Having stated the above, the DRC concluded that at the moment of the termination, namely
on 10 July 2021, the Claimant was still a player of the Respondent.
61.
Therefore, the Chamber analysed whether under the specific circumstances it subsisted the
presence of objective criteria which might justify the unilateral termination of the
employment contract by the Claimant in accordance with the Regulations and with the DRC
long-standing jurisprudence.
62.
In this respect, the DRC observed that at the date of termination the equivalent of more
than 5 monthly salaries, i.e. the amount of EUR 204,078, resulted outstanding.
63.
Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant put the Respondent in default on 24
July 2021 and granted the latter a deadline of 15 days in order to comply with its financial
obligations.
64.
With the above in mind and considered that the Respondent did not dispute the
aforementioned outstanding salaries, the DRC ascertained that the requirements set by
art.14bis of the Regulations were met and that the Claimant had just cause to terminate
the employment contract due to overdue payables.
ii. Consequences
65.
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
Respondent.
66.
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.
Page 11
REF FPSD-3018
67.
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.
68.
In this respect, the Chamber underlined the absence of any compensation clause included
in the contract. Consequently, the DRC held that no compensation clause being
applicable to the case at hand, the compensation can be assessed on the basis of the
residual value of the contract in line with the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber.
69.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of
termination until its natural expiration. Bearing this in mind, the Chamber deemed that the
Claimant would have received in total EUR 440,000 as fixed salary for the period between
July 2021 and June 2022.
70.
Consequently, the DRC concluded that the amount of EUR 440,000 serves as the basis for
the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case
at hand.
71.
Equally, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed a new
employment agreement after terminating the Contract on 10 July 2021, by means of which
he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment
contract would be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Claimant’s general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
72.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant remained unemployed as of the
date of termination until the current date, therefore he failed to mitigate the damage
suffered.
73.
In conclusion, and recalling that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract, the DRC decided that the Respondent shall pay the
amount of EUR 440,000 as compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant, amount
that is considered by the Chamber to be fair and reasonable.
74.
Lastly, the DRC decided to accept the Claimant’s request for interests on the awarded
compensation, hence the Chamber established that 5% p.a. interest shall apply on said
amount as from the date of claim, i.e. 12 July 2021.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
Page 12
REF FPSD-3018
75.
Finally, the Chamber referred to par. 1 lit. a) 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.
76.
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.
77.
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.
78.
The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
79.
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
80.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
81.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
82.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-3018
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jean Claude Billong, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Hatayspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 14,078 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021;
EUR 35,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2021;
EUR 50,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 May 2021;
EUR 440,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 12 July
2021.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of 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 paid by the end of
the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14
REF FPSD-3018
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 15