Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5420
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Souleymane
Coulibaly
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
COLUCCI, Michele (Italy), member
RIESTRA, Iñigo (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Souleymane Coulibaly, Côte d'Ivoire & Italy
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Etoile Sportive Du Sahel, Tunisia
Represented by Hamouda Bouazza
Page 2
REF FPSD-5420
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 24 January 2017, the Ivorian/Italian player, Souleymane Coulibaly (hereinafter: the player)
and the Egyptian club, Al Ahly (hereinafter: Al Ahly), signed an employment contract, valid
until the end of the season 2019/2020.
First claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
2.
On 5 June 2017, Al Ahly filed a claim against the player for breach of contract before the
FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC). Such claim was filed under reference
17-00961/ebo.
3.
On 19 April 2018, the DRC issued a decision in the cited matter inter alia (a) ordering the
player to pay Al Ahly compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 1,432,680,
and (b) ordering Al Ahly to pay to the player outstanding remuneration of USD 26,400.
The contract between the contending parties
4.
On 12 September 2019, the player and the Tunisian club, Etoile Sportive Du Sahel
(hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract).
5.
The recitals of the contract read as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Whereas the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber issued its decision dated 18 April 2018
concerning the dispute between Al AHLY and the professional football player
SOULEYMANE COULIBALY, (case ref 17-00961 / ebo).
Whereas this decision orders the player to pay Al AHLY the sum of 1 432 860 $ as
compensation for breach of contract,
Whereas this same decision orders Al AHLY to pay the player SOULEYMANE COULIBALY
the sum of 26 400 US dollars as outstanding remuneration,
Whereas this decision became final and binding for both the player SOULEYMANE
COULIBALY and Al ABLY.
Whereas the player wishes to continue his sports career.
Whereas the player Souleymane Coulibaly is only responsible for his breach of contract
with AL AHLY Sporting Club.
Whereas Etoile Sportive du Sahel has signed an agreement with AL AHLY Sporting Club
to replace the player and pay in his place the financial compensation for breach of the
contract subject of the FIFA decision cited above”.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5420
6.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the contract read as follows:
"Article 2:
The player Souleymane Coulibaly acknowledges that Etoile Sportive du Sahel paid Al
Ahly Sporting Club, Egypt in [its] stead the amount of the FIFA DRC decision case ref
17-00961/ebo for an amount of USD 1,400,000 to enable him to be registered.
[...]
Article 3:
However, the player Souleymane Coulibaly asks jurisdictional body authorized to take
into account the amount reimbursed by the Etoile Sportive du Sahel to the club Al Ahly,
Egypt in his place to count them in favour of Etoile Sportive du Sahel in all decisions
relating to a contractual dispute between the player and the club".
7.
The contract was valid as from its date of execution until 30 June 2024.
8.
Under the contract, the player was entitled to inter alia the following remuneration:
a. Season 2021/2022: Gross monthly salary of USD 10,000 plus performance
bonus of USD 50,000
b. Season 2022/2023: Gross monthly salary of USD 10,000 plus performance
bonus of USD 50,000
c. Season 2023/2024: Gross monthly salary of USD 10,000 plus performance
bonus of USD 50,000
9.
The contract specifies the following regarding the performance bonus:
“The definitive financial value of the performance bonus (for each season) is calculated
based on the number of official matches played by the player and the number of official
matches played by the player and the number of official matches played by the club. (The
definitive value = Performance bonus x number of official matches played by the player :
number of official matches played by the club)
The first settlement agreement
10. On 15 October 2019, the player, the club, and Al Ahly signed an agreement (hereinafter: the
first settlement agreement), stipulating inter alia the following:
"E) ESS wishes to register the Player and has therefore proposed to Al Ahly that ESS will
pay on behalf of the Player USD 1,400,000 to Al Ahly in settlement of the outstanding
debt of the Player towards Al Ahly as provided for under the Decision;
F) The payment due by Al Ahly to the Player in accordance with point 5 of the Decision
is deducted from the total outstanding amount of USD 1,432,860 and the Parties agree
Page 4
REF FPSD-5420
that the remaining open debt due by the Player to Al Ahly shall correspond to USD
1,400,000 in total;
[…]
NOW AND THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:
1. The Recitals are integrant and essential part of this Agreement.
2. The Player and/or ESS, acting on behalf of the Player, shall pay to Al Ahly the amount
of USD 1,400,000 net, in accordance with the following payment schedule:
(a) USD 200,000 net within 15 days as from the signature of this Agreement,
(b) USD 400,000 net by 31 July 2020,
(c) USD 400,000 net by 31 January 2021,
(d) USD 400,000 net by 31 July 2021.
(hereinafter, 'the Settlement Payment')
3. In the event that the Player and/or ESS fails to pay to Al Ahly any of the amounts due
under the clause 3 above or makes only a partial payment, then the remainder shall
become immediately due and payable and an interest rate of 15% p.a. shall apply
starting from the date of the default.
4. ESS and the Player are jointly and severally liable for the entire payments of the
Settlement Payment in favour of Al Ahly, until the Settlement Payment is covered in
full, together with the interest (if applicable).”
Second claim before the DRC
11. On 23 January 2020, Al Ahly started two parallel proceedings before FIFA against the player
and the club respectively, seeking payment regarding the amounts stipulated under the first
settlement agreement.
12. On 16 July 2020, such claims were jointly decided by the DRC. Accordingly, the player and
the club were ordered to pay Al Ahly USD 1,400,000 with interest (hereinafter: the Second
Decision).
13. The Second Decision was challenged before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by both
the player and the club.
14. On 10 June 2021, CAS rendered an award dismissing both appeals and confirming the
Second Decision (hereinafter: the CAS Award).
The second settlement agreement
15. On 24 January 2022 and following procedures of enforcement of the Second Decision before
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, the club and Al Ahly signed a second settlement agreement
Page 5
REF FPSD-5420
(hereinafter: the second settlement agreement), referring to the Second Decision and the CAS
Award.
16. Clause 1 of the second settlement agreement reads as follows:
“The obligation to pay the [amount established herein] initially belongs to the player, who
shall immediately and without any condition automatically substituted by [the club] to make
such payment within the deadlines established in [clause 2 of the Second Settlement
Agreement]”.
17. As per clause 2 of the second settlement agreement, the club undertook to pay to Al Ahly
USD 1,909,870.26, as follows:
a. USD 500,000 within 15 days as from the signature of the second settlement
agreement;
b. USD 500,000 by 31 August 2022;
c. USD 500,000 by 28 February 2023;
d. USD 409,870.26 by 31 August 2023.
18. The player did not sign the second settlement agreement.
19. Clause 5 of the second settlement agreement reads as follows: “[The club] hereby entirely
confirms, without any limitation of any nature or degree, its legal obligation established in
paragraph 1 above, according to which it substitutes the player in the payment of [USD
1,909,870.26] to Al Ahly”
20. On 23 September 2021, the player put the club in default of USD 98,500, broken down as
follows, requesting the club to cure such breach of contract within 15 days:
a. USD 30,000 as salaries of September 2020, December 2020, February 2021,
June 2021 and September 2021;
b. USD 2,500 as bonus for 5 goals scored in season 2019/2020;
c. USD 25,000 as performance bonus for the season 2019/2020;
d. USD 15,000 as bonus for 13 goals scored in season 2020/2021;
e. USD 1,000 as bonus for 2 assist given in season 2020/2021;
f. USD 25,000 as performance bonus for the season 2020/2021.
21. On 15 February 2021, the player put the club in default of USD 30,000, corresponding to his
salaries between November 2021 and January 2022, requesting the club to cure such breach
of contract within 15 days.
22. On 3 March 2022, the player terminated the contract in writing.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5420
23. On 6 March 2022, the club wrote to the player and made reference to the second settlement
agreement and the contract, as well as the Second Decision. In doing so, the club argued that
the termination of the contract by the player did not exempt him from fulfilling the Second
Decision. The club argued that because it had paid USD 500,000 to Al Ahly per the second
settlement agreement, the player owed him such amount within 10 days.
24. The player remained unemployed following the termination of the contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. On 10 March 2022, 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
26. According to the player, he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
27. The player referred to art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(RSTP) and argued that he had just cause to terminate the contract.
28. He sought the following payments:
a. USD 40,000 as salaries between November 2021 and February 2022;
b. USD 25,000 as personal bonus for the season 2021/2022 due on 31 December
2021;
c. 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from their due dates until the date of
effective payment;
d. EUR 240,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the contract, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from the
date of termination until the date of effective payment.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
29. The club objected to the claim of the player and filed a counterclaim.
30. The club’s statement of defense may be summarized as follows.
31. The club confirmed the facts as outlined in the player’s claim and argued that following the
default notice of 15 February 2022, it verbally agreed with the player to pay the amounts due
between 6 and 13 March 2022, only for the player to then terminate the contract on 3 March
2022.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5420
32. The club argued that the player did not comply with the contract in good faith and thus that
the termination took place without just cause. Alternatively, the club submitted that should
it be deemed that the player had just cause, the amounts owed to the club on account of the
Second Decision should be taken into consideration.
33. In this sense, the club argued that the payer is a repeat offender since he was found to have
breached his contract with AL Ahly without just cause per the First Decision.
34. With regards to the counterclaim, the club was of the position that the player acted in bad
faith and thus should compensate for the breach of contract without just cause in the amount
of USD 260,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, together with USD
1,400,000 plus 15% interest in accordance with the first settlement agreement, or
subsidiarily, USD 500,000 as the amount paid to Al Ahly under the second settlement
agreement.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player
35. The player firstly objected to the admissibility of the counterclaim and argued that the matter
is res judicata in light of the CAS Award.
36. As to the substance, the player reiterated his position as filed in the statement of claim.
Alternatively, should it be found that he did not have just cause to terminate the contract, he
argued that no compensation was due to the club insofar as it did not prove to suffer any
damages in connection with the termination of the contract.
37. He asked the DRC to deem the counterclaim inadmissible or otherwise reject it.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 10 March 2022 and submitted for decision
on 9 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition of
the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
39. Subsequently, the 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, par. 1 lit. b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
Page 8
REF FPSD-5420
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Ivorian/Italian player and a club affiliated to the Tunisian Football Association.
40. The Chamber however noted that the player objected to the admissibility of the club’s
counterclaim on the grounds that the CAS Award was res judicata on the matters raised by
the club.
41. The res judicata principle precludes a subsequent decision about the same object, among the
same parties, relying on the same facts and based on the same cause of action. Accordingly,
if a matter (with res judicata) is brought again before the deciding authority, the latter is not
even allowed to look at it, but must dismiss the matter (insofar) as inadmissible.
42. Equally, the Chamber wished to recall that the plea of res judicata is founded to safeguard
the certainty of rights which have already been adjudicated upon and defined by a
judgement. The principle of res judicata ensures that whenever a dispute has been defined
and decided upon, it becomes irrevocable, confirmed, and deemed to be just - res judicata
pro veritate habetur.
43. The DRC confirmed that such approach is consistent with the spirit of the regulations, which
do not foresee the possibility for any other FIFA deciding body to reassess a final and binding
decision. Equally, the Chamber stressed that the Procedural Rules do also not provide for the
possibility for reconsideration of such decision based on a new application.
44. To this end, the Chamber recalled that the principle of res judicata is applicable if cumulatively
and necessarily the parties to the disputes, the object of the matter in dispute, and the cause
of action are identical (respectively, eadem personae, eadem res, and eadem causa petendi).
45. By examining the cited criteria, the Chamber was comfortable to establish that no res judicata
existed in the matter at hand for the triple identity test was not met at all. Firstly, the object
of the counterclaim is not the same as that examined by the CAS Award (i.e. execution of
payments under the first settlement agreement vs. compensation termination of the contract,
respectively). Secondly, the causa petendi is not the same failure to pay amounts under the
first settlement agreement, as reviewed in the CAS Award, since the counterclaim pertains to
the breach of the contract allegedly committed by the player. Lastly, the DRC confirmed that
the identity of parties is not met for in the matter examined by the CAS Award, Al Ahly was
a party (claimant), whereas it is not a party to these proceedings which oppose solely the
player and the club.
46. On the basis of the foregoing, the Chamber confirmed that the counterclaim is admissible.
47. 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 (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 March 2022, said edition of said
Page 9
REF FPSD-5420
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
48. 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
49. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
50. 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 whether the player had just cause
to terminate the contract and the consequences that follow, based on the alleged nonpayment of certain financial obligations by the club as per the contract, in accordance with
art. 14bis of the Regulations.
51. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid
by the club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had
in fact been fulfilled.
52. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of
at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
53. The Chamber noted that the player claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the months between November 2021 and January 2022, amounting to USD
30,000. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player has provided written evidence of
Page 10
REF FPSD-5420
having put the club in default on 15 February 2022, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the contract on 3 March 2022.
54. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
Nonetheless, the club limited its defense to state that a verbal agreement had been reached
with the player to settle the financial obligations, yet it filed no evidence whatsoever in
support of this allegation. As such, the club failed to justify that it indeed had complied with
the contract in light of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the player.
55. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
56. 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.
57. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, is equivalent to 4 salaries under the
contract, amounting to USD 40,000 (i.e. between November 2021 and February 2022).
58. The Chamber equally noted that the player requested payment of the bonuses under the
contract. These bonuses however were conditional as per the clear contractual wording,
taking into particular consideration the number of matches played by both the player and the
club.
59. However, because no evidence of the number of matches played was filed by the player, he
therefore failed to meet the required burden of proof. As such, the Chamber had no
alternative but to reject this part of the claim.
60. 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, i.e. USD 40,000.
61. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their respective due dates until the date of effective
payment.
62. 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
Page 11
REF FPSD-5420
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.
63. 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.
64. As a consequence, 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
65. 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 280,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract for 28 months, from
March 2022 to June 204) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
66. 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.
67. Indeed, the player did not find new employment, and therefore no mitigation shall apply to
the matter at hand.
68. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, but decided that the player shall
not receive any additional compensation since there was no mitigation to be accounted for.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5420
69. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club should pay in principle the amount
of USD 280,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. However, the Chamber noted
that the player had requested EUR 240,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
70. Considering the principle of non ultra petita according to which the Chamber is bound by
the limits of a party’s request for relief, the Chamber determined that it should award the
amount of EUR 240,000 as claimed by the player.
71. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
76. The 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.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5420
d. Costs
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Lastly, the DRC, having found that the claim is partially accepted and the counterclaim
admissible but rejected, concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5420
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Souleymane Coulibaly, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Etoile Sportive Du Sahel, is
admissible.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the
following amount(s):
a. USD 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2021
until the date of effective payment;
b. USD 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2022
until the date of effective payment;
c. USD 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2022
until the date of effective payment;
d. USD 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
e. EUR 240,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 10 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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.
2.
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.
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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5420
8.
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.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-5420
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 17