DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14195
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Tomas
Celustka
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Tomas Celustka, Czech Republic
Represented by Markéta Vochoska Haindlová
RESPONDENT:
Karmiotissa Polemidion, Cyprus
Represented by Panayiotis Georgiou
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14195
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2022, the Czech player Tomas Celustka (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Cypriot club Karmiotissa Polemidion (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2023,
with a potential extension until 30 June 2024 (hereinafter: the Employment Contract).
2.
Pursuant to clauses 1.3-1.5 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the
Player, inter alia, the following concepts:
•
EUR 12,000, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 1,000 each “starting on the 20th day of
August 2022 and at the 20th day of every month until the full payment”; and
•
“a private living accommodation (the rental price is not more than EUR 1,200 net per
month)”.
3.
Also on 1 July 2022, the parties signed the “Annexe 1 to the Employment Agreement” under
the heading “Image Rights payments for the [Player]” (hereinafter: the IR Agreement).
4.
Pursuant to clause 1 of the IR Agreement, the Club undertook to pay the Player a total of
EUR 48,000 net as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 4,000 net by 20 August 2022;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 September 2022;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 October 2022;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 November 2022;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 December 2022;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 January 2023;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 February 2023;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 March 2023;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 April 2023;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 May 2023;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 June 2023;
EUR 4,000 net by 20 July 2023.
5.
On 30 June 2023, the Employment Contract naturally expired.
6.
On 16 November 2023, the Player put the Club in default for outstanding remuneration
amounting to EUR 16,000, being (i) EUR 10,000 for image rights and salaries for May and
June 2023; and (ii) EUR 6,000 for 5 months’ housing allowance. The Player granted the Club
with a 10 days’ deadline to remedy the breach.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14195
7.
On 27 December 2023, the Player forwarded the abovementioned correspondence to the
Club inasmuch as its first delivery attempt had been unsuccessful. The Player also provided
evidence that he had attempted to contact the Club by post on or about the same date.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 26 March 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. The following is a brief
summary of the parties’ respective positions.
a. Claim of the Player
9.
The Player claimed outstanding remuneration, including to salaries, image rights and
housing allowance under both the Employment Contract and the IR Agreement.
10. His requests for relief were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1. The claim of the Player is accepted.
2. The Club is ordered to pay to the Player, as overdue payables, the amount of EUR
16,000 with the interest on late payment at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
from the amount of EUR 1,200 for the period from 21st March 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
from the amount of EUR 1,200 for the period from 21st April 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
from the amount of EUR 1,200 for the period from 21st May 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
from the amount of EUR 6,200 for the period from 21st June 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
from the amount of EUR 6,200 for the period from 21st July 2023 until the date
of effective payment”.
b. Reply of the Club
11. On 17 April 2024, the Club filed its response to the Player’s claim and disputed his
entitlement to some of the concepts sought. In brief:
•
Salaries: the Club acknowledged that it owed the Player his salaries for May and
June 2023;
•
Image rights: the Club submitted 11 payment vouchers purporting to show that
11 of the 12 instalments referred to in the IR Agreement had been paid. It
stressed that the only outstanding instalment was the one due on 20 July 2023.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14195
•
Housing allowance: the Club argued that it was only liable to pay the Player’s
housing allowance during his stay in Cyprus. However, it pointed out that the
Player left on 29 May 2023 and that the Employment Contract was not renewed
for the following season. Consequently, he would not be owed any allowance for
the month of June 2023.
•
In addition, the Club submitted 7 payment vouchers totalling EUR 10,600, thus
emphasizing that the debt amounted to EUR 2,600.
12. In conclusion, the Club requested FIFA to limit the amount to be paid to the Player to EUR
8,600.
c. Rejoinder of the Player
13. On 22 April 2024 and at request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Player submitted
additional comments on the proof of payment provided by the Club together with its reply
to the claim.
14. The Player made, inter alia, the following comments on each of the concepts sought:
•
Salaries: the amounts claimed were undisputed and should be awarded.
•
Image rights: (i) the Club failed to provide proof of payment of the image rights
due in July 2022; (ii) the payment voucher purporting to correspond to January
2023 actually referred to the salary due for that month, with the result that the
image rights were outstanding; (iii) the payment vouchers for August 2022, May
2023 and June 2023 contained several inconsistencies and were not signed by
the Player. Similarly, all the concepts disputed by the Player were supported by
receipts with different formatting.
As a result, the Club could not corroborate that it paid EUR 20,000 instead of the
EUR 4,000 mentioned in its response.
•
Housing allowance: the Player was entitled to housing allowance for the
duration of the Employment Contract i.e., until June 2023. He again denied having
signed several payment vouchers submitted by the Club and pointed out to
inconsistencies in the documents – ultimately reiterating his claim for
outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR 8,400.
d. Final comments of the Club
15. On 29 April 2024, the Club filed its final comments on this matter.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14195
16. As a preliminary note, the Club explained the following with respect to the graphical
inconsistencies in the payment vouchers, quoted verbatim:
“7. As it has been mentioned before, the Respondent is a minor Cypriot football club
which does not retain an in-house accounting and/or legal department. Therefore,
gathering the entirety of the evidence material shall be considered as a time-consuming
process which may be completed in various phases.
8. The only reason that the relevant receipts were included in different graphic was that
some of them were scanned by the Respondent while others were photographed due to
the reason that the secretary responsible for scanning the documents was absent that
day.
9. Moreover, the Player argues that the relevant receipts shall be rejected by DRC due to
inconsistency in terms of the serial numbers. Such argument is unequivocally unfounded
and has nothing to do with the reality of the case at hand.
10. In specific, the Club shall satisfy a huge amount of financial liabilities during the
course of the season. There are dozens of employees that shall be paid while, as a
company, the Respondent shall also bear operative expenses etc.
11. As such, it is evident that the Club does use more than a single book of receipts during
one spoiling seasons. And that is the very reason as to the alleged inconsistency
regarding the serial numbers of the relevant receipts.
12. In addition, the Player cites that he did not sign some of the attached receipts while
he urges that such position is supported by the alleged misspelling of his name.
13. Once again, the Player’s allegations bear minor legal value and may not stand further
assessment”.
17. The Club then refuted the Player’s allegations in relation to each of the payment vouchers,
both for the image rights and for the housing allowance. The Club justified each of the
inconsistencies raised by the Player and emphasized that the payments were made
according to the Club’s liquidity – i.e., with slight delays / anticipations, which could not be
held against it.
18. The Club concluded its position as follows, quoted verbatim:
“24. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the remaining overdue payables
on behalf of the Club total to the amount of EUR 8.600. The Respondent was only limited
to unfounded allegations either related to the serial numbers of the Payment Vouchers
or the graphic appearance of them or the misspelling of the Player's name or even to
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14195
generic assertations that he did not sign such documents.
25. Nonetheless, the Respondent has discarded the required burden of proof as to the
payments already made to the Claimant in the light of their employment relationship.
26. When DRC receives also the original specimen of the payment receipts, such position
will have been founded beyond reasonable doubt.
27. In any case, should the Respondent indented to mislead your Hon’ble Chamber by
filing falsified Payment Vouchers (as per the Claimant), it is self evident that it wouldn’t
have made such typographic mistakes, as the Player’s surname or erroneous dates etc.
It would have paid exquisite attention to these details in order to cover its tracks. On the
same note, it would have filed falsified Payment Vouchers corresponding to the total
amount, not only to 50% of the amount requested by the Player. Nonetheless, the Club
filed the original specimen of the cash receipts, even with the afore-mentioned errors
and typographic mistakes”.
19. At the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Club also provided by courier the copies
of the original payment vouchers allegedly signed by the Player for both the image rights
and the housing allowance.
20. In addition, both the Player and the Club submitted unsolicited correspondences on 7 and
8 May 2024. In response, the FIFA general secretariat drew their attention to the contents
of art. 23, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 26 March 2024 and submitted for decision on
30 May 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
22. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) (February 2024 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 Czech player
and a Cypriot club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14195
23. At this point, the Chamber acknowledged that in the present case, the Player requests both
outstanding salaries / housing allowances according to the Employment Contract and
image rights fees according to the IR Agreement. With regard to the latter, the DRC recalled
that, in principle, FIFA is not competent to decide on agreements concerning the licensing
of image rights, as these are not employment-related agreements and possess a
commercial nature instead. However, in accordance with the longstanding jurisprudence
of the Football Tribunal, such a conclusion could be different if specific elements of the
separate agreement suggest that it was in fact intended to be part of the actual
employment relationship. Therefore, image rights agreements must be assessed on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the particularities and specific circumstances of each
individual dispute (cf., Commentary on the RSTP, Edition 2023 – pages 460-2).
24. In light of the above, and ex officio, the Chamber carefully analysed the wording of the IR
Agreement and confirmed that it indeed of an employment related (instead of a civil)
nature as described by the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal. In particular, the
Chamber considered that the title and the wording of the IR Agreement itself confirmed its
umbilical bond with the Employment Contract and confirmed that it was indeed intended
to form part of the actual employment relationship. More importantly, this was not
disputed by the Club.
25. Consequently, the DRC confirmed that the IR Agreement is accessory to the Employment
Contract and should therefore be assessed together for the purposes of the dispute at
hand. It followed, in the Chamber’s view, that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction over the
dispute in its entirety (cf., art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the RSTP).
26. In parallel, the DRC also referred to art. 23 of the Procedural Rules and emphasized that
the unsolicited correspondence filed by the parties on 7 and 8 May were inadmissible.
27. Lastly, 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 RSTP (February 2024 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 26
March 2024, the cited edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
28. 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).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14195
c. Merits of the dispute
29. Having established its competence and the applicable regulations, 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
30. The Chamber moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
concerned overdue payables claimed by the Player consisting of salaries, image rights, and
housing allowances.
31. On one hand, the Player claimed the following amounts:
•
Salaries:
o EUR 1,000 as the salary of May 2023;
o EUR 1,000 as the salary of June 2023;
•
Image rights:
o EUR 4,000 as the image rights of May 2023;
o EUR 4,000 as the image rights of June 2023;
•
Housing allowance:
o EUR 1,200 as housing allowance of February 2023;
o EUR 1,200 as housing allowance of March 2023;
o EUR 1,200 as housing allowance of April 2023;
o EUR 1,200 as housing allowance of May 2023;
o EUR 1,200 as housing allowance of June 2023.
32. On the other hand, the Club acknowledged part of the debt but claimed maintained that
the Player’s claim was excessive in view of the payments already made. In support of its
argumentation, the Club submitted several cash receipts (“payment vouchers”), which were
disputed by the Player.
33. Consequently, the DRC determined that its task was to assess the Player’s entitlement to
each of the concepts sought vis-à-vis the proof of payment on file.
34. The Chamber proceeded then to analyse each issue in turn.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14195
A. Salaries
35. The parties do not dispute that the Player’s salaries for May and June 2023 are outstanding
and overdue. Therefore, the Chamber decided that they shall be awarded as claimed on
the basis of the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
36. In addition, taking into account the Player’s request and the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award him interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on
the outstanding amounts as follows:
•
over EUR 1,000 as the salary of May 2023, from 21 June 2023;
•
over 1,000 as the salary of June 2023, from 21 July 2023 (as claimed in order not
to go ultra petita).
B. Image rights
37. The Chamber then turned to the analysis of the image rights fees. In doing so, the DRC first
noted that it remained undisputed that the image rights for June 2023 (payable on 20 July
2023) were pending and overdue and should therefore be awarded with interest from 21
July 2023.
38. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the dispute between the parties lies on the
payment of image rights fees for May 2023, which fell due on 20 June 2023. In this respect,
the Chamber noted that the Club advanced proof of having made the following payments
to the Player:
Due date
20/08/2022
20/09/2022
20/10/2022
20/11/2022
20/12/2022
20/01/2023
20/02/2023
20/03/2023
20/04/2023
20/05/2023
20/06/2023
20/07/2023
Date of alleged
payment
20/08/2022
Amount (EUR)
4,000
Reference
Image right August 2022
Image right September
30/09/2022
4,000
2022
20/11/2022
4,000
Image right October 2022
Image right November
14/12/2022
4,000
2022
19/01/2023
4,000
Image rights Dec 22
4,000
Salary January
4,000
Image rights Febr. 22
20/01/2023
4,000
Image rights March 23
10/05/2023
4,000
Image rights April 23
01/05/2023
4,000
Image rights May 23
Image rights payment
08/05/2023
4,000
June
Pending and overdue by the Club (debt acknowledged)
Comment
Undisputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Disputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Undisputed
Disputed
Disputed
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14195
39. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber also gave due consideration of the fact that
the Player disputed the validity of, inter alia, the cash receipt submitted by the Club and
dated 8 May 2023, the original copy of which was received by courier.
40. Having carefully considered parties’ submissions in this regard, the Chamber was not
convinced that the voucher received from the Club constituted irrefutable proof of
payment. In particular, the DRC found it essential that the Club could not explain why the
payment due on 20 June 2023 was made on 8 May 2023 i.e., more than one month in
advance and when several concepts were already outstanding, such as housing allowances
for previous months and the image rights instalment for April 2023.
41. In addition, the Chamber noted that even if all the vouchers were considered to be valid,
the Club could also not corroborate that it paid the 11 instalments for the image rights
(apart from the July 2023 instalment, which is undoubtedly outstanding).
42. The Chamber was also not persuaded by Club’s argumentation regarding the other
inconsistencies pointed out by the Player in the proofs of payment (e.g., serial numbers,
different signatures, wrong references, and lack of dates). This was particularly important,
in the DRC’s view, given that the jurisprudence of FIFA establishes that clubs – even small
ones, such as alleged by the Respondent – must be diligent when paying players in cash
and must keep a record of the corresponding cash payment receipt.
43. In the absence of a clear confirmation of the authenticity of the signatures found on the
payment vouchers, it was incumbent upon the Club to further substantiate its position –
for instance by providing additional documentation, such as bank statements, balance
sheets, or internal accounting documents, to show that the payments were made.
However, in the absence of any supporting documentation from the Club, the Chamber
decided that its burden of proof was not met (cf., art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
44. Therefore, the DRC decided that the Player was entitled to the image rights for both May
and July 2023, plus 5% interest p.a. from the respective due dates.
C. Housing allowances
45. For the avoidance of repetition, the Chamber determined that the same rationale applied
to the image rights fees and the assessment of the payment vouchers submitted by the
Club was equally applicable to the cash receipts relating to the housing allowances. In fact,
the DRC outlined that the documentation submitted by the Club in relation to these
payments was even less accurate.
46. The proof of payments on file were summarized as follows:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14195
Date of alleged
payment
Amount (EUR)
20/09/2022
1,200
-
-
Rent allowance
July – August
-
20/11/2022
2,400
Rents November + December
12/01/2023
20/02/2023
1,200
1,200
31/03/2023
20/03/2023
1,200
30/04/2023
31/05/2023
30/06/2023
-
20/08/2023
20
2,400
1,000
House Rent Jan
Rent allowance February
Rent allowance
March
Rent Allowance and Deposit Amount
Rent
Due date
31/07/2022
31/08/2022
30/09/2022
31/10/2022
30/11/2022
31/12/2022
31/01/2023
28/02/2023
Reference
47. As a preliminary remark, the DRC was not convinced by the Club’s argument that the Player
should only be entitled to his allowance until May 2023. Irrespective of the official end of
the season, the Chamber considered that the Employment Contract was clear and
unambiguous in establishing that he was entitled to the allowance its entire duration.
Likewise, the Chamber was also unable to find any evidence on file that the the Player
agreed to the non-payment of the final month’s quota.
48. It followed from the above that the Player should have received, for the duration of the
Employment Contract, housing allowance of EUR 1,200 per month for 12 months i.e., a total
of EUR 14,400. However, the Club advanced evidence that it paid EUR 10,600 only, leaving
a balance of EUR 3,800.
49. On top of the above, the Chamber found that the two last vouchers submitted by the Club
(i.e., nos. 0278 and 1080) were not properly specified or dated. In particular: (i) voucher no.
0278 refers only to “rent” and is undated; and (ii) voucher no. 1080 refers to an unidentified
“deposit” and “rent allowance”. This was also without ignoring that no vouchers were
presented for the payments due in September and October 2022.
50. In light of the above, combined with the Club’s lack of diligence in handling its paperwork,
the Chamber again concluded that the Player should be entitled to the sums sought,
namely the allowances from February to June 2023.
51. Finally, In the absence of a due date in the Contract, the DRC considered that these
concepts were due on the last day of each month, with the result that interest should in
principle be payable as from the first day of each subsequent month. Nevertheless, as the
Player has requested interest from the 20th day of the following month, the DRC decided
to award as claimed so as not to go ultra petita.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14195
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
52. In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima
facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the
Regulations.
53. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due form more than 30 days, and granted the Club
with 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
54. The DRC further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in mind
that the Club is a repeat offender, the DRC decided to impose a fine on it in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
55. Furthermore, the Chamber regarded a fine amounting to USD 2,000 as appropriate and
hence decided to impose said fine on the Club.
56. In this connection, the DRC highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14195
60. 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.
61. 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.
d. Costs
62. 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.
63. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14195
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Tomas Celustka.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Karmiotissa Polemidion, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 1,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 March
2023until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 April 2023
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 May 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 6,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 June 2023
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 6,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 July 2023 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14195
7.
A fine in the amount of USD 2,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid to
FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-14195:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14195
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