Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2050
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 May 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Arthur Cunha da Rocha
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Arthur Cunha da Rocha, Brazil
Represented by Eleven & Law
RESPONDENT:
Sliema Wanderers FC, Malta
Page 2
REF FPSD-2050
I.
Facts
1.
On 10 September 2020, the Player and Sliema entered into an employment agreement.
2.
Art. 1.1 of the contract stipulated the following:
“1. This contract is valid from the date of signing of this agreement till the last competitive
match of season 2021/22 and shall come into effect on the date of signing of this agreement.”
3.
Art. 2.2 of the contract stipulated the following:
“The Club and the Player agree that the Club has the option to sign the Player for season
2021-22 for the monthly sum of EUR 4,350 [four thousand, three hundred and fifty euro] gross
for season 2021-22. All other conditions remain the same as per season 2020-21. In the case
that the Player has an offer from a foreign team the option is not valid and the Player may
join the new team”
4.
The contract stipulated the following conditions:
Year one:
A monthly salary of 4,100 EUR “gross”, payable “latest 7 days after the end of each
month”;
Compensation for car and accommodation of 600 EUR NET;
1 round ticket Brazil -Malta;
Bonus scheme following the employment agreement.
Year two:
- A monthly salary of 4.350 EUR NET;
- Compensation for car and accommodation of 600 EUR NET;
- 1 round ticket Brazil-Malta;
- Bonus scheme following the employment agreement.
5.
However, art. 2.3 of the contract stipulated that “the Club will pay on behalf of the player tax
at 7.5% on the gross salary.”
6.
Art. 3.5 of the contract stipulated the following:
“Should just cause or sporting just cause exist for the premature unilateral termination of this
Contract, then such party claiming just cause or sporting just cause shall file a complaint
with the Complaints Board of the Malta Football Association claiming such just cause or
sporting just cause. This Contract shall be deemed terminated only upon the publication of
a decision of the competent Malta Football Association judicial body decreeing such
termination.”
7.
Art. 5.5 of the contract further stipulated the following:
“The parties agree in the case of any dispute between the parties arises out of this Contract,
the parties shall first try to settle the dispute in an amicable manner. If such amicable solution
is not found, then the aggrieved party shall file a complaint with the competent board of the
Malta Football Association to decide on such dispute, which shall have jurisdiction over the
matter, unless the player is not a Maltese player, in which case the aggrieved party shall have
the right to submit the dispute to the competent bodies of FIFA.”
8.
On 16 December 2020, the player sent a default notice noting that he did not receive any
remuneration.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2050
9.
On 19 December 2020, the club handed out a cheque to the player for the amount of EUR
8,900.
10. On 24 January 2021, the player sent a new notice, noting that he did not receive his salary for
December 2020, and referring to art. 14 bis of the Regulations.
11. On 5 February 2021, the player received a new cheque for EUR 4,450.
12. On 9 February 2021, the player sent a termination notice indicating, inter alia, the following:
“Despite two formal notices (dd. 16December 2020 dd. 24 January 2021 the Player has not
received his overdue salary in accordance with Article 14 bis RSTP
(…)
With this letter, the Player uses his right to terminate his contract with just cause as of today.
(…)
If the Club persist non-compliance with the payment of the overdue salaries and remaining
value of the contract (…) the Player will officially submit a claim against the Club before
the FIFA DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER”
13. The player declared on 21 April 2021 that he remained unemployed following the termination
of the contract.
14. On 16 March 2021, the player lodged a claim before FIFA and requested the following:
Outstanding salaries:
EUR 12,300 EUR (3* EUR 4,100 EUR) for the salaries between November 2020 and January
2021;
EUR 2,300 as transport and housing, from September 2020 to January 2021. The player
indicated that only 700,00 EUR was covered by December payment.
Compensation for the value of the remaining Contract:
•Season 2020-2021
-Remaining salary February 2021- end of season 2021 : EUR 20,500 NET (5*4,100);
- Transport and housing compensation : EUR 3,000 NET (5x 600 EUR);
-one (1 ) round trip Malta -Brasil: EUR 1,000 (ex aequo et bono)
•Season 2021-2022 (final date season in accordance with TMS system: 08.06.2022)
-Remaining salary July 2021-end of contract (art. 1 employment agreement):
20.500,00EUR NET(11 x 4.350,00): 47.850, EUR NET;
-Transport and housing compensation : 6.600,00 EUR NET(11 x 600,00 EUR);
-one (1) round trips Malta -Brasil: 1000,00 EUR (ex aequo et bono)
15. The player explained that he could not cash the chequed of 19 December 2020 since it did not
comply with national regulations, according to which cheques cannot have a value of over
EUR 2,500.
16. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent challenged the competence of FIFA and that the
matter shall be referred to the MFA Complaints board.
17. In relation to said decision-making body, the Respondent argued that its independence and
impartiality is guaranteed in view of the equal representation between employers (Clubs) and
employees (players association), as well as through an independent Chairman, appointed
jointly by the Clubs/players, and referred to art 64 of the MFA Statute.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2050
18. On a subsidiary basis, the Respondent considered that the player terminated the contract
without just cause.
19. The Respondent attached a statement dated 6 April 2021 from the Bank of Valletta indicating
that the cheque of 19 December 2020 had “enough funds”.
20. The Respondent argued that the player preferred to be paid in cheques in order to avoid taxes
in Brazil.
21. The Respondent argued that it paid the following amounts to the player:
Period
Salary due
date
Salary
Paid
Amount
€ due
(GROSS)
Amount
€ due
(NET)
Amount
€ PAID
Amount
€ tax
due
Amount
€ Social
Security
due
10.09.2020
16.10.2020
19.12.2020
4,100
3,598.72
3,598.72
307
194.281
16.11.2020
19.12.2020
4,100
3,598.72
3,598.72
307
194.282
16.12.2020
19.12.2020
4,100
3,598.72
1,702.56
307
194.283
– 09.10.2020
10.10.2020 –
09.11.2020
10.11.2020 –
09.12.2020
10.12.2020 –
5.2.2021
1,896.16
16.01.2021
5.2.2021
4,100
3,598.72
2,553.84
307
194.284
16.02.2021
-
4,100
3,598.72
-
307
194.285
09.01.2021
10.01.2021 –
9.02.2021
22. As to the flights, the Respondent argued that it purchases said tickets, and therefore
requested the rejection of any claim in this regard.
23. The Respondent further stat that the player was given access to a rental vehicle (note: Receipt
from “Sixt-Rent-A-Car” for a rental between 25 September 2020 until 12 February 2021, in the
amount of EUR 3,327).
24. The Respondent considered that “the unilateral unjust termination by the player, signifies
that he defaulted on 89 days”, since the season would end on 9 May 2021.
25. In view of the above, the defendant club requested compensation in the amount of EUR
5,688.20 (net of tax).
26. In its replica, and concerning the competence, the player referred to art. 5.5 of the contract
and therefore insisted in the competence of FIFA.
27. The player insisted that he “terminated his Contract with Sliema because of the constant
breach of fundamental human rights for almost six (6) months by the Club, leading to hunger
and desperation with the whole squad. The hunger of claimants' teammates is well
documented in the newspapers.”
Page 5
REF FPSD-2050
28. As final comments, the club insisted that art. 5.5 of the contract specified that “the aggrieved
party shall file a complaint with the competent board of the Malta Football Association to
decide on such dispute”.
29. The club further insisted that the contract was valid for a year, in accordance with its art. 2.2
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to
as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and emphasised 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, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes
with an international dimension between players and clubs. Therefore, the Chamber
understood that, in principle, it is competent to deal with the present matter, which
concerns a Brazilian player and a Maltese club.
3. However, the Chamber observed that the Respondent challenged the competence of FIFA,
arguing that the matter shall be referred to the MFA Complaints board.
4. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal
with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal,
guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of
players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be
imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the
Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the
members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January
2008.
5. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic
conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is
competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration
tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract.
6. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether
the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction
clause.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2050
7. In this respect, the Chamber noted that Art. 3.5 of the contract stipulated the following:
“Should just cause or sporting just cause exist for the premature unilateral termination of
this Contract, then such party claiming just cause or sporting just cause shall file a
complaint with the Complaints Board of the Malta Football Association claiming such
just cause or sporting just cause. This Contract shall be deemed terminated only upon
the publication of a decision of the competent Malta Football Association judicial body
decreeing such termination.”
8. However, the Chamber also noted that art. 5.5 of the contract stipulated that “the
aggrieved party shall file a complaint with the competent board of the Malta Football
Association to decide on such dispute, which shall have jurisdiction over the matter, unless
the player is not a Maltese player, in which case the aggrieved party shall have
the right to submit the dispute to the competent bodies of FIFA.” (emphasis added).
9.
In view of the unambiguous contents of art. 5.5 of the contract, the Chamber understood
that, for international disputes (i.e. if the player is not a Maltese citizen, as it is the case),
the parties clearly decided beforehand that FIFA shall be competent to hear about any
dispute arising from the contract concluded between the parties.
10. As a result, the Chamber confirmed that it is competent to deal with the present matter,
on the basis of art. 5.5 of the contract as well as in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
11. The competence having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which
edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the
present matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, and considering the date when the claim was lodged, the February 2021 edition
of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand.
12. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC
continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. 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.
13. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, on 10 September 2020, the Player and Sliema
concluded an employment contract valid as “from the date of signing of this agreement
till the last competitive match of season 2021/22”, by means of which the player would be
entitled to the remuneration quoted in point I.4 above.
14. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the player lodged a claim before FIFA against
the club for breach of contract without just cause, noting that he terminated the contract
with alleged just cause on 9 February 2021 due to the existence of outstanding salaries.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2050
15. On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s allegations, according to
which the player terminated the contract without just cause. The Chamber also noted that
the Respondent requested the payment of compensation in the amount of EUR 5,688.20.
16. In view of the dissent between the parties, the Chamber understood that the main legal
issue at stake is to determine whether the player had a just cause to terminate the contract
on 9 February 2021.
17. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only
when there are objective criteria, which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation
of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated
prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an
employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must
be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an
employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
18. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, on 16 December 2020 and 24 January 2021, the
player sent two default notices to the club, prior to terminating the contract on 9 February
2021. In particular, the Chamber noted that, in his default notice of 16 December 2020, the
player argued that he did not receive any of his remuneration.
19. In addition, the Chamber noted that, in his termination letter, the player stated the
following:
“Despite two formal notices (dd. 16 December 2020 dd. 24 January 2021 the Player has not
received his overdue salary in accordance with Article 14 bis RSTP
(…)
With this letter, the Player uses his right to terminate his contract with just cause as of
today.
20. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that it paid the player, as
indicated in point I.21 above.
21. However, in this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber reminded the parties of the
contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “any party claiming
a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”.
22. In view of the above, the Chamber noted, after carefully examining the evidence gathered
during
the
course
of
the
investigation,
that
the
Respondent
clearly failed to meet its burden of proof as to said alleged payments.
23. Therefore, the Chamber could only assume that the player did not receive his salary since
November 2020.
24. As a result, and in view of the information available on file, the Chamber understood that,
at the date of termination of the contract, the Respondent owed to the player
three months of salaries, i.e. EUR 4,100*3 = EUR 12,300, for the period comprised between
November 2020 until January 2021.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2050
25. In addition, the Chamber further noted that the Claimant requested the payment of EUR
2,300 as transport and housing, from September 2020 to January 2021. The player
indicated that only 700,00 EUR was covered by December payment.
26. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the contract stipulated that the Claimant was
entitled to “Compensation for car and accommodation of 600 EUR NET”, and that the
Respondent did not provide any specific evidence that may lead to establish that the
claimed amount was effectively paid. In particular, and although the club provided
evidence of having rented a car, it did not provide evidence of having incurred in costs for
housing, despite being contractually bound to provide a monthly payment of EUR 600 net
to the player.
27. As a result, the Chamber understood that the amount of EUR 2 300 net for “car and
accommodation” for the remaining part of October 2020 (i.e. 500), as well as the full
months of November, December and January 2020 (i.e. 600*3), remained outstanding.
28. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also noted that the player was provided with
two cheques dated 19 December 2020 and 5 February 2021. However, in this regard, the
Chamber understood that said two documents cannot be considered as an evidence of
effective payment.
29. Having established the above and taking into account the fact that the aforementioned
cheques, the non-payment of which appears to be at the basis of the present dispute,
appear to be in possession of the Claimant, the DRC established that they shall be returned
to the Respondent.
30. All in all, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent had seriously neglected its financial
contractual obligations towards the Claimant and that, as a result, the Chamber decided
that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 9 February 2021
and that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with
just cause by the player
31. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, bearing in mind the financial claim of the Claimant the Chamber decided that
the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were outstanding under
the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 12,300 gross (i.e. 4,100*3) as
salaries, as well as the amount of EUR 2,300 net as additional outstanding remuneration,
corresponding to his “car an accommodation” for the remaining part of October 2020 (i.e.
500), as well as the full months of November, December and January 2020 (i.e. 600*3).
32. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber
decided to award him with interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as
from the due dates until the date of effective payment.
33. Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from
the Respondent.
Page 9
REF FPSD-2050
34. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant 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.
35. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the
substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well
as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
36. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
37. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application
of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled
that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other
objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this
regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for
compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case
basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
38. The Chamber then turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the
Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was
considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it
important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the
Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in
the calculation of the amount of compensation.
39. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of
termination with just cause by the Claimant until its natural expiration, bearing in mind
that he would have received in total EUR 64,250 gross and EUR 9,000 net as remuneration
for the period as from February 2021 until 8 June 22, i.e. from February 2021 until 8 June
2021: EUR 16,400 gross (4*4,100) as salary and EUR 2,400 net (4*600 EUR) as transport and
housing, while from July 2021 until 8 June 2022 his salary would be EUR 47,850 gross
Page 10
REF FPSD-2050
(11*4,350), while for transport and housing he would have received EUR 6,600 net
(11*600);
40. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amounts of EUR 64,250 gross and EUR
9,000 net serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the case at hand.
41. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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. In accordance with art.
17 par. 1 ii of the Regulations, in case the player signed a new contract by the time of the
decision, the value of the new contract for the period corresponding to the time remaining
on the prematurely terminated contract shall be deducted from the residual value of the
contract that was terminated early (the “Mitigated Compensation”).
42. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed following the
termination of the contract.
43. In view of the above, and in application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber established that the amount of payable compensation corresponds to EUR 64,250
gross and EUR 9,000 net, which appears to be reasonable in the light of the applicable
contract and Regulations.
44. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding
jurisprudence in this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to award 5%
interest p.a. over said amount as from the date of the claim.
45. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant requested to be awarded with “one (1)
round trips Malta -Brasil: 1000,00 EUR (ex aequo et bono)”.
46. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the contract entitled the player to receive “1 round
ticket Brazil –Malta”.
47. As a result, taking into account the evidence provided by the player and in application of
the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber established that the Claimant is entitled
to EUR 1,000 as reimbursement for flight tickets.
48. Besides, as a logical consequence of all of the above, the Chamber established that the
request for compensation from the club shall be rejected.
49. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that,
with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences
deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of
outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
50. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out 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
Page 11
REF FPSD-2050
amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
51. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, in
the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45
days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
52. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. 3 of the Regulations.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2050
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Arthur Cunha da Rocha, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sliema Wanderers FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 12,300 gross as outstanding salaries, plus interest as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,100 as from 7 December 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,100 as from 7 January 2021 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,100 as from 7 February 2021 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 2,300 net as additional outstanding remuneration, plus interest as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 500 as from 7 November 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 600 as from 7 December 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 600 as from 7 January 2021 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 600 as from 7 February 2021 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 64,250 gross and EUR 9,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without
just cause, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 March 2021.
EUR 1,000 as reimbursement for flight tickets.
3. The Claimant is ordered to return the cheques the cheques of 19 December 2020 and 5
February 2021 to Sliema Wanderers FC.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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 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 the ban
shall be 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13
REF FPSD-2050
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 14