Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14408
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Giovanna de
Oliveira
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela COLLINS (Australia), Member
Laurel VAURASI (Fiji), Member
CLAIMANT:
Giovanna de Oliveira, Brazil
Represented by Brocchi e Souza Sociedade de Advogados
RESPONDENT:
Changchun Dazhong Zhuoyue Women's Football Club Co., Ltd., China PR
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14408
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 January 2023, the Brazilian player Giovanna de Oliveira (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Chinese club Changchun Dazhong Zhuoyue Women's Football Club Co.,
Ltd. (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract valid
from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
Clause III, par. 5 of the Contract reads as follows:
“During the contract period, [the Club] shall provide [the Player] with full-time doctors
and physiotherapists for injury and rehabilitation treatment”.
3.
Pursuant to clause IV of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player inter alia the
following amounts:
•
•
•
•
4.
USD 5,000 as a monthly salary at the end of each month in 2023;
USD 7,000 as a monthly salary at the end of each month in 2024;
RMB 3,000 per win in the National Super Ligue “90 minutes for an individual”; and
RMB 1,000 per goal scored.
Clause IV reads, inter alia, as follows:
“6. If [the Player] is injured in [the Club]'s training and competition and is unable to
participate in the training and competition due to injury (subject to the identification result
of doctors and hospitals), [the Club] shall pay [the Player]’s salary in full during the recovery
period.
7. If [the Player] participates in any training or competition on behalf of her national team,
[the Club] shall actively cooperate with [the Player] according to the regulations of FIFA
However, if [the Player] is injured due to training or competition during the national team's
deployment, all treatment and rehabilitation expenses shall be borne by the CBF and Brazil
National Team.
5.
Furthermore, clause IV par. 10 stated that any bonus would be paid “within 30 days after
the end of the competition cycle”.
6.
Clause VIII, par. 6 of the Contract provided that the Player shall “accept all medical
examinations, physical examinations, preventive measures and injury treatment arranged by
[the Club]. and promptly report to [the Club] her injury and recover”.
7.
Clause X of the Contract reads as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14408
“1. During the contract period, neither party shall unilaterally rescind the work contract
without reason. In such case, the breaching party shall pay the liquidated damages of
USD 200.000 to the other party in a lump sum.
2. Neither party shall be liable for breach of contract and pay liquidated damages in
case of failure to perform the work contract due to war and major natural disasters
(earthquake, flood, epidemic, etc).
8.
In November 2023, the Player suffered a knee injury during a training session with the Club.
9.
In December 2023, the Player travelled on holiday to Brazil and incurred medical expenses
allegedly in connection with said injury.
10. On 8 March 2024, the Player sent the Club a default notice for overdue payables of USD
19,000 corresponding to three months’ worth of salary and bonuses. The Player gave the
Club 15 days to remedy the default.
11. On 24 March 2024, the Player notified the Club of the termination of the Contract due to
overdue payables in line with art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players – RSTP).
12. On 1 April 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s notice of termination and disputed the
Player’s account of the just cause for termination. In particular, the Club argued that the
Player had been absent and in breach and that the Club therefore had just cause to
terminate the Contract.
13. The Player stated that she remained unemployed after the termination of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 17 April 2024, 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
15. In her claim, the Player stated that the Club had breached the Contract by failing to pay her
remuneration and to cover the costs of her medical treatment. She claimed to have
terminated the Contract with just cause on the basis of art. 14bis of the RSTP.
16. The Player requested to be awarded the following amounts:
•
BRL 10,283.58 net as reimbursement of medical and physiotherapy expenses
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14408
incurred in Brazil, plus 5% interest from the date of each payment, broken down
as follows:
Date of the treatment
Treatment
15 December 2023
Physiotherapy Expenses
22 December 2023
Medical Expenses
16 January 2024
Physiotherapy Expenses
30 January 2024
MRI Exam
19 February 2024
Physiotherapy Expenses
Total Amount
Cost of treatment
BRL 1,500
BRL 5,000
BRL 1,500
BRL 363.58
BRL 1,920
BRL 10,283.58
•
USD 19,000 net as the outstanding salaries from December 2023 to February
2024, plus 5% interest from the due dates;
•
RMB 37,000 net as match bonuses, plus 5% interest from 12 February 2024;
•
USD 70,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Contract, plus 5% interest from 24 March 2024;
•
USD 21,000 net as additional compensation, equivalent to three months’ salary,
plus 5% interest from 24 March 2024; and
•
USD 200,000 net as liquidated damages in accordance with clause X of the
Contract, plus 5% interest from 24 March 2024.
b. Position of the Respondent
17. On 17 May 2024, the Club submitted its reply to the Player’s claim.
18. The Club first confirmed the occurrence of the Player’s injury but argued that it was fully
supporting her recovery, inter alia, because it “purchased sports insurance for [her]”. It also
referred to clauses IV and VIII, par. 3 of the Contract and stressed that the Player was not
entitled to seek treatment on her own or abroad.
19. The Club denied having breached the Contract in any way and added that it was the Player’s
agent who had communicated her intention not to continue the employment relationship
as from December 2023. Therefore, the Club argued that the salary for December 2023
was paid on 29 December 2023, and the salaries for January and February 2024 were not
due because of her absence.
20. With regard to the bonuses, the Club argued that the Player “refused to receive the bonus
when it was paid by the Club”. Accordingly, it highlighted that “the amount of prize money
claimed by [the Player] also differs from the actual amount of prize money generated”. The
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14408
Club admitted that it owed the Player RMB 19,000 instead of the claimed RMB 37,000 and
contended that this money was not paid due to the Player’s own refusal.
21. Finally, the Club reiterated that it had not breached the Contract and stressed that it was
the Player who unlawfully terminated her employment. Consequently, the Club stated that
no compensation, additional compensation, or liquidated damages were payable.
22. It should be noted both that (a) the Club did not file a counterclaim against the Playerand
(b) it submitted a myriad of evidence with its claim in either Chinese or Portuguese, without
any translation into one of the official FIFA languages.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. 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 17 April 2024 and submitted for decision on
13 June 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.
24. 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 RSTP
(June 2024 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and a Chinese club.
25. 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 RSTP (June 2024 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 17 April 2024, the February 2024 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
26. 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. 6
REF. FPSD-14408
c. Merits of the dispute
27. Having established the 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
28. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for outstanding remuneration, reimbursement of medical expenses, and compensation for
breach of contract brought by the Player against the Club.
29. In particular, the Player claimed that the Contract had been terminated with just cause on
24 March 2024 on account of overdue payables. The Club, on the other hand, denied that
she was entitled to any of the relief sought, arguing that the Player had stopped providing
services in December 2023 and had never returned.
30. In light of the foregoing, the DRC determined that its task was to establish (i) when and by
whom the Contract was terminated; and (ii) the consequences thereof.
A. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT
31. The parties have different accounts of the background to the termination of the Contract.
In brief:
•
The Player claims that she travelled to Brazil on holiday in December 2023, but
that she did not receive her remuneration in the meantime. Furthermore, in
March 2023, she put the Club in default for the outstanding remuneration, but
to no avail.
•
Conversely, the Club states that the Player’s decided to withdraw from the
Contract in December 2023. It argues that the Player was offered appropriate
medical treatment in China, received all of her salaries and is not entitled to any
compensation.
32. In light of the foregoing, and having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the DRC
considered that the only evidence available on file supports to Player’s argument.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14408
33. In particular, the Chamber found it decisive that the Club failed to advance any evidence
that the Player expressed her intention to terminate the Contract in December 2023 – e.g.,
text messages, emails, termination notice, settlement agreement. In fact, the DRC outlined
that the only documents submitted by the Club in this respect are either in Chinese or in
Portuguese and are therefore not of probative value within the meaning of art. 13 par. 1
and 3 of the Procedural Rules.
34. The Chamber added that the Club has also failed to prove that it ever (i) objected to the
Player’s departure to her home country / to her medical treatment there; (ii) contacted the
Player from January 2024; (iii) placed her in default for breach of contract; or (iv) responded
to her request for outstanding remuneration.
35. On the contrary, at the time of the Player’s default notice (i.e., 8 March 2024), the three
salaries for December 2023, January and February 2024 were overdue. Moreover, (i) she
granted the Club with a reasonable deadline (i.e., 15 days) to remedy its default, to no avail;
and (ii) the Club only submitted untranslated evidence regarding the payment of the salary
for December 2023, which was also disregarded by the Chamber (cf., art. 13, par. 1 and 3
of the Procedural Rules).
36. Consequently, the Chamber decided that such a persistent and substantial breach of the
Club’s contractual obligations could justify the unilateral termination of the Contract and
that the Club could be held liable for breach of contract in accordance with the consistent
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
37. The DRC concluded accordingly that the Player had terminated the Contract with just cause
on 24 March 2024 based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
B. CONSEQUENCES
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
39. The DRC then proceeded to analyse each of Player’s requests in turn.
(i)
Salaries
40. The DRC initially decided that the Player should receive the outstanding salaries at the time
of the termination (i.e., from December 2023 to March 2024).
41. In addition, taking into account the Player’s request and the Chamber’s consistent practice
in this regard, the DRC decided to award the Player interest on the outstanding amounts
at the rate of 5% p.a., as follows:
•
USD 5,000 as salary for December 2023, plus 5% interest from 1 January 2024;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14408
•
•
•
USD 7,000 as salary for January 2024, plus 5% interest from 1 February 2024;
USD 7,000 as salary for February 2024, plus 5% interest from 1 March 2024;
USD 7,000 as salary for March 2024, plus 5% interest from 24 March 2024.
42. The Chamber also found that, as the termination took place in the last half of March, that
the salary for that month should be considered in full as outstanding remuneration.
(ii)
Match Bonuses
43. The Chamber then noted that the Player claimed to be entitled to RMB 37,000 in bonuses.
However, the DRC found it decisive that the Player had limited herself to referring to the
matches / sport results without providing any supporting evidence and therefore failed to
meet her burden of proof in this regard.
44. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player would in principle not be
entitled to any bonus (cf., art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
45. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC observed that the Club had acknowledged that it owed
her RMB 19,000. The Chamber therefore decided to award this amount as it was
undisputed.
46. Lastly, the Chamber recalled that according to clause IV par. 10 of the Contract, any bonus
would be paid “within 30 days after the end of the competition cycle”. As the Contract was
terminated at the beginning of 2024 and there was no breakdown of the RMB 19,000
acknowledged by the Club as due, the Chamber decided to award interest over this amount
from the date of the termination of the Contract (i.e., 24 March 2024) until the date of
payment.
(iii)
Reimbursement of medical expenses
47. The DRC first emphasized that, in the event of an injury, the Contract provides that:
1) The Club shall provide the Player with “full-time doctors and physiotherapists for injury
and rehabilitation treatment”;
2) In the event of injury while representing the Club, the Club should pay the Player’s
full salary; and
3) In the event of injury while representing the Brazilian National Team, the Brazilian
Football Confederation (CBF) should cover the costs.
48. In view of the above, the Chamber considered it important that:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14408
•
according to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, clubs are normally
obliged to provide medical care for players;
•
the Contract does not provide for a specific protocol to be followed by the parties
in the event of injury. It contains a general reference to the Club’s duty of care,
but does not make any restriction on the Player seeking treatment abroad; and
•
at the same time, it seemed undeniable that the Club’s medical team was aware
of the Player’s injury. In fact, such an injury appears to have occurred during one
of the Club’s training sessions.
49. In the Chamber’s view, the Club claims that it never consented to the Player’s treatment
abroad but fails to prove that it ever objected to her decision. Had this been the case, the
Club would have been able to produce reports / instructions from its own doctor(s) or to
support its position that the Player has refused to follow their directions and to return to
its premises at any moment in time. However, from the (lack of) documentation on file, the
Chamber could only infer that the Player decided to seek treatment in her home country
and that the Club, either expressly or tacitly, accepted her decision.
50. It followed, in the DRC’s view, that the Club should in principle be liable to reimburse the
medical costs incurred by the Player. Notwithstanding, the Chamber noted that part of the
documentation submitted with the claim was in Portuguese and that no translation had
been provided. Consequently, and applying the same rationale as for the documents
submitted by the Club, the Chamber decided that the latter should only reimburse the
properly substantiated expenses, as follows:
Date of the treatment
15 December 2023
22 December 2023
16 January 2024
30 January 2024
19 February 2024
Treatment
Physiotherapy Expenses
Medical Expenses
Physiotherapy Expenses
MRI Exam
Physiotherapy Expenses
Cost of treatment
BRL 1,500
BRL 5,000
BRL 1,500
BRL 363.58
BRL 1,920
Outcome
Rejected
Awarded
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
51. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the Player should be reimbursed the total amount
of BRL 5,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from the date of payment (i.e., 22 December 2023).
(iv)
Compensation for breach of contract
52. Lastly, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to
the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall
be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis
of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity
of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14408
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.
53. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify whether
the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties
had agreed beforehand upon an amount of compensation payable in the event of breach
of contract.
54. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Contract in fact contained a liquidated
damages clause i.e., clause X. For ease of reference, the DRC outlined that such clause
reads, inter alia, as follows (emphasis added by the DRC):
“1. During the contract period, neither party shall unilaterally rescind the work
contract without reason. In such case, the breaching party shall pay the liquidated
damages of USD 200.000 to the other party in a lump sum.
2. Neither party shall be liable for breach of contract and pay liquidated damages in
case of failure to perform the work contract due to war and major natural disasters
(earthquake, flood, epidemic, etc)”.
55. In interpreting this clause, the Chamber first stated that the liquidated damages clause was
an alternative to awarding the residual value of the Contract and not cumulative, as
requested by the Player.
56. Secondly, the DRC underlined that “the principles of reciprocity and proportionality play an
important role in relation to liquidated damages clauses. Both the DRC and CAS have repeatedly
confirmed that any amount of compensation stipulated in a compensation clause must be
proportionate. If the amount stipulated in the contract appears to be disproportionate
particularly when compared to the contractual remuneration of the player, the DRC will render
the clause non-applicable (i.e. invalid) and proceed to calculate the compensation due pursuant
to the factors set out in article 17, Regulations” (Commentary on the Regulations, p. 174).
57. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that it was not convinced that clause X of the
Contract was proportionate, notwithstanding the fact that it provided for the same amount
of compensation for each of the parties. The DRC considered it essential that:
•
the total fixed remuneration owed by the Club to the Player for the duration of
the Contract was USD 144,000 (i.e., 12 times USD 5,000 plus 12 times USD 7,000).
•
the residual value of the Contract at the time of the termination was USD 63,000
(i.e., the salaries from April to December 2023 à USD 7,000 each).
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14408
•
the liquidated damages clause provides for a compensation that is significantly
higher than both of the above (i.e., USD 200,000).
58. On this note, the DRC decided that, even if the Club – as the drafter of the Contract – had
consented to its content, the liquidated damages clause did not meet the requirement of
proportionality and therefore had to be set aside. The Chamber was further reassured by
this conclusion considering that the same reasoning would apply mutatis mutandis if the
Player had terminated the Contract without just cause.
59. 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
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
60. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the Player’s claim, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable 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 63,000 (i.e., the salaries from April to December 2023 à USD 7,000 each)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
61. 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 she would
have been enabled to reduce her 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.
62. In this case, the Chamber found that the Player remained unemployed after the
termination of the Contract. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that no mitigation
occurred.
63. 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 and should there be mitigation. Since the latter was not the case,
the DRC decided that the Player is not entitled to receive additional compensation.
64. Consequently, based on all the above considerations and the specificities of the present
case, the Chamber decided that the Club should pay the Player the amount of USD 63,000,
which was considered as a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present case.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14408
65. 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 him interest on said compensation at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of 24 March 2024 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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
71. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14408
72. 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.
73. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14408
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Giovanna de Oliveira, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Changchun Dazhong Zhuoyue Women's Football Club Co., Ltd., must pay
to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- BRL 5,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 December 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 7,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 7,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 7,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 March 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- RMB 19,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 March 2024 until
the date of effective payment; and
- USD 63,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 24 March 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14408
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14408
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