Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6055
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 July 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mamadou Diarra
BY:
Ms Sihon GAUCI (Malta), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Mamadou Diarra, Senegal
RESPONDENT:
Club Giresunspor, Turkey
REF FPSD-6055
I Facts
1. On 4 September 2020, the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2021.
2. However, the contract stipulated the following in relation to its duration:
“If the club promotes to the super league at the end of the 2020/2021 football season, the contract will be
extented automatically for j (one) more year as it is sta ted in article 4.1. of this contract.”
3. According to the contract, the player was entitled to the following:
6.1
For 2020/2021 Football Season: Total amount of 200.000,-EURO net (Two Hundred Thousand Euros)
► 30.000.-EUR net on 28.08.2020.
► 10.000.- EUR net on 28.09.2020
► 160.000.-EUR net will be paid equally as J 6.000,-EUR net in 10 months on the following dates;
- 16.000.- EUR on 30.09.2020,
- 16.000,- EUR on 31.10.2020,
- 16.000,- EUR on 30.11.2020.
- 16.000.- EUR on 31.12.2020,
- 16.000,- EUR on 31.01.2021,
- 16.000,- EUR on 28.02.2021,
- 16.000.- EUR on 31.03.2021.
- 16.000.- EUR on 30.04.2021,
- 16.000,- EUR on 31.05.2021,
- 16.000,- EUR on 30.06.2021,
The Player will be entitled to a premium of 1.000,-EUR in case of winning that will be effective in ofiicial
league matches and in case the Player's attendance in the match squad of the relevant official league
match of the Club (In case two said conditions occur together). The winning premium will be paid in total
at the end of the official league matches of the relevant season.
2021/2022 Football Season: Total amount of 350.000,-EURO net (IF THE CLUB COMPETES IN SUPER
LEAGUE)
► 50.000,-EUR net on 15.08.2021.
► 300.000,-EUR will be paid equally as 30.000,-EUR net in 10 months on the following dates:
- 30.000,- EUR on 30.08.2021,
- 30.000.- EUR on 31.09.2021.
- 30.000,- EUR on 30.10.2021 ,
- 30.000,- EUR on 31.11.2021.
- 30.000.- EUR on 31.12.2021,
- 30.000.- EUR on 28.01.2022,
- 30.000,- EUR on 31.02.2022,
- 30.000.- EUR on 30.03.2022,
- 30.000.- EUR on 31.04.2022,
- 30.000.- EUR on 30.05.2022,
4. Art. 6.4 of the contract stipulated the following:
REF FPSD-6055
“All payments under this contract are net payments and will not be reduced by any tax or other
amounts. For the sake of clarity, the club will be always obliged to pay all the taxes and the player shall
always receive net the indicated amounts. For the avoidance of the doubt, the Club shall only be
responsible of the income tax, social contributions and other levies accrued in accordance with the
Turkish Tax legislation and the Club shall not be responsible for any other obligations due to the including but not limited - additional tax duties, social contributions and/or levies related to the other
countries legislations. However, in order for the Club to be held liable for tax of income, tax penalty or
delay interest within the scope of this article, it is necessary for the Player to declare his income in full,
in time and to the relevant tax office. Also, the Player has to inform the Club in a written form by
submitting the originals of the relevant tax documents. In the event that the Player violates this
obligation, the Club will not have any liability within the scope of delay interest, delay increase or any
other penalty and/or sanction under this article."
5. On 28 March 2022, the Claimant, via his lawyer, sent a default notice with, inter alia, the following
contents:
“your Club has failed to complete the
following payments due to our Client arising from the Employment Contract;
- 77.000 EUR remaining net bonus with the due date of 8 June 2021 for promotion to
Super League
- 50.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 15 August 2021
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 30 August 2021
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 30 September 2021
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 30 October 2021
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 30 November 2021
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 31 December 2021
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 28 January 2022
- 30.000 EUR net salary with the due date of 28 February 2022”
6. On 15 April 2022, the Claimant sent a termination letter with the following contents:
“Our client has informed us that the total overdue amount requested in our payment notice was
not completed to our Client until today. Therefore, in accordance with article 14bis of the FIFA
RSTP, we inform you that our client unilaterally terminates the employment contract dated 4
September 2019 effective immediately.”
7. The player explained that he remained unemployed until 31 May 2022.
REF FPSD-6055
II Proceedings before FIFA
1. On 16 May 2022, the player lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding remuneration and breach of
contract without just cause, and requested the payment of the following amounts:
Outstanding remuneration:
- EUR 30,000 net along with its accrued interest of 5% p.a. from 28 February 2022
until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 30,000 net along with its accrued interest of 5% p.a. from 30 March 2022 until
the date of effective payment.
Outstanding bonus:
EUR 10,000 net as “winning bonus” for 10 matches during the season 2021/2022. In this respect,
the player provided a list of matches as follows:
-
Date
Opponent
Score
Winning Bonus
02.10.2021
Göztepespor
0-1
1.000 EUR
16.10.2021
Çaykur Rizespor
2-0
1.000 EUR
20.11.2021
Malatyaspor
1-0
1.000 EUR
27.11.2021
Besiktas
0-4
1.000 EUR
05.12.2021
Fatih Karagumruk
3-1
1.000 EUR
17.12.2021
Altay
3-1
1.000 EUR
27.02.2022
Göztepe
3-1
1.000 EUR
05.03.2022
Rizespor
1-2
1.000 EUR
14.03.2022
Gaziantep
2-1
1.000 EUR
10.04.2022
Malatyaspor
0-1
1.000 EUR
TOTAL
10.000 EUR
Compensation:
EUR 60,000 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 April 2022.
2. The player considered that “the costs of the present arbitration procedure shall be borne by the
Respondent.”
3. In relation to the claimed amounts, the claimant explained that the amounts due prior to February
2022 are already pending in the matter FPSD-4439.
4. In its reply, the Respondent provided a series of receipts (see “replica” for further details” in support
of its allegation that it paid the player and considered that the player was entitled to EUR 290,000 in
total.
5. In view of the above, the Respondent requested the dismissal of the claim.
6. In his replica, the Claimant analysed the receipts provided by the Respondent as follows:
Date
Value
Recipient
Comments from the Claimant
28.08.2020
30.000 EUR
Claimant
2020-2021 season receivable
28.08.2020
30.000 EUR
This payment is not done to the Claimant as the document submitted by the Respondent also does
not show the Claimant as the recipient. Te original document is not legible, the translation does not
state the name of the Claimant’s name. It seems the sender and the recipient are both the
Respondent, which suggests that this is a proof of transfer of the money from two accounts both
REF FPSD-6055
owned by the Respondent.
11.09.2020
75.000 EUR
23.10.2020
05.11.2021
13.500 TRY
40.000 EUR
Turkish Football
Federation
Claimant
Claimant
Deposited Training Compensation for the Claimant to the TFF.
06.11.2020
27.11.2020
04.12.2020
10.000 EUR
16.000 EUR
4.500 TRY
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
Bonus Payment – ADANASPOR MATCH BONUS
2021-2022 season receivable (The translation is 2020/2021 receivable which is
wrong as seen from the original)
2020-2021 season receivable
Agreement payment (salary)
Bonus Payment – ISTANBULSPOR MATCH BONUS
04.12.2020
4.500 TRY
Claimant
Bonus Payment – ALTAY MATCH BONUS
07.12.2020
11.12.2020
11.12.2020
18.12.2020
25.12.2020
10.000 EUR
8.800 TRY
8.900 TRY
13.400 TRY
8.900 TRY
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
2020-2021 season receivable
Bonus Payment – KEÇİÖREN MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – ESKISEHIRSPOR MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – ADANADEMIRSPOR MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – ALTINORDU MATCH BONUS
December 2020 against ALTINORDU FC (2:0).
25.12.2020
10.000 EUR
Claimant
2020-2021 season receivable
31.12.2020
21.01.2021
36.000 TRY
16.000 EUR
Claimant
Claimant
Bonus Payment – AKHISARSPOR MATCH BONUS
2020-2021 season receivable
22.01.2021
29.01.2021
01.02.2021
17.800 TRY
8.900 TRY
1.000 TRY
Claimant
Claimant
Bonus Payment – TUZLASPOR MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – BALIKESİRSPOR MATCH BONUS
Turkish Football
Arbitration Application Fee against the decision of TFF Disciplinary Board. This
Federation
amount is not a payment to the Claimant
19.02.2021
6.750 TRY
Claimant
Bonus Payment – BOLUSPOR MATCH BONUS (the translation wrongly
states “Ankaraspor Match Bonus”)
23.02.2021
26.02.2021
8.900 TRY
16.900 TRY
Claimant
Claimant
Bonus Payment – ANKARASPOR MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – ADANASPOR MATCH BONUS
11.03.2021
15.000 EUR
Claimant
02.04.2021
12.04.2021
16.04.2021
15.06.2021
44.200 TRY
13.100 TRY
44.800 TRY
25.000 EUR
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
30.09.2021
30.000 EUR
Claimant
15.10.2021
45.000 TRY
Claimant
2020-2021 season receivable (The translation is 2020/2021 receivable which is
wrong as seen from the original)
Bonus Payment – SAMSUNSPOR MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – ESKİŞEHİRSPOR MATCH BONUS
Bonus Payment – KEÇİÖRENSPOR MATCH BONUS
2020-2021 season receivable (The translation is 2020/2021 receivable which is
wrong as seen from the original)
2020-2021 season receivable (The translation is 2020/2021 receivable which is
wrong as seen from the original)
2021-2022 season bonus – Although the explanation does not state for which
matches this bonus is paid, this is another team bonus paid to all other team
members since it is also made in TRY currency.
22.10.2021
27.000 TRY
Claimant
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – RIZESPOR MATCH BONUS
01.11.2021
05.11.2021
15.000 TRY
40.000 EUR
Claimant
Claimant
19.11.2021
25.11.2021
03.12.2021
09.12.2021
15.000 TRY
27.000 TRY
90.000 TRY
40.000 EUR
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – GAZİANTEPSOR MATCH BONUS
2021-2022 season receivable (even though the Club still owed Claimant’s
salary from the previous season)
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – SIVASSPOR MATCH BONUS
10.12.2021
15.12.2021
27.000 TRY
20.000 EUR
Claimant
Madou Diene
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – MALATYASPOR MATCH BONUS
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – BESIKTAS MATCH BONUS
2021-2022 season receivable (even though the Club still owed Claimant’s
salary from the previous season)
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – KARAGÜMRÜKSPOR MATCH BONUS
This is the commission payment made by the Respondent to the bank
account of the Claimant’s agent (Mr. Madou Diene) who had signed a separate
REF FPSD-6055
commission agreement with the Respondent.
21.12.2021
27.000 TRY
Claimant
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – ALTAY MATCH BONUS
21.01.2022
04.03.2022
14.03.2022
22.500 TRY
27.000 TRY
45.000 TRY
Claimant
Claimant
Claimant
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – TRABZONSPOR MATCH BONUS
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – GÖZTEPE MATCH BONUS
2021-2022 SEASON PAYMENT – RIZESPOR MATCH BONUS
7. The Claimant insisted in his initial claim and in particular to receive his bonuses in the amount of
EUR 10,00 net.
8. In its duplica, the Respondent stated that there were no “wining bonus determined for the
2021/2022 football season”.
9. Hence, the Respondent considering that “the Claimant is clearly trying to gain an unlawful profit by
twisting the articles of the Contract.”
10. As a result, the Respondent requested to disregard the comments made by the player and to reject
the claim.
REF FPSD-6055
III Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Single
Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 16 May 2022 and submitted for decision on
20 July 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022 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.
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (June 2022 edition), she is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Senegalese player and a Turkish club.
3.
Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, she 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 16 May 2022, the March 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
The Single Judge 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 Single Judge stressed the wording of art. 13 par.
4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider evidence not filed by the parties,
including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
c.
5.
Merits of the dispute
Her competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Single
Judge emphasised that in the following considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments
and documentary evidence, which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
REF FPSD-6055
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
6.
The Single Judge first noted that, on 4 September 2020, the parties concluded an employment
contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2021.
7.
The Single Judge then observed that the player lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding
remuneration and breach of contract without just cause, arguing that, on 15 April 2022, he
terminated the contract with just cause, in accordance with art 14 bis of the Regulations.
8.
Conversely, the Single Judge acknowledged the position of the Respondent, which provided a series
of receipts of payment as detailed in point I 14 ut supra.
9.
As a result, the Single Judge understood that the main legal issue at stake is to determine whether
the player had a just cause to terminate the contract on 15 April 2022.
10. On this note, the Single Judge was also aware that part of the player’s outstanding salaries arising
from the same contract were addressed in a separate claim, FPSD-4439, which was decided on 9
June 2022, where it was already decided that the club had outstanding remuneration towards the
player for the period comprised between May 2021 until January 2022. Hence, the Single Judge
understood that, in the matter at stake, she could only award, if applicable, remuneration due on or
after February 2022. The Single Judge confirmed that, indeed, the player only claimed in the present
matter salaries arising after the previous decision, i.e. 30.000 EUR net with the due date of 28 January
2022 and 30.000 EUR net with the due date of 28 February 2022
11. Yet, this being the case, the Single Judge understood that the previous matter, FPSD-4439, indicated
that the club seriously neglected for a very significant period, its financial obligations towards the
player.
12. The Single Judge further recalled the contents of art. 14 bis of the Regulations, which stipulate the
following:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing 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).”
13. In the matter at stake, the Single Judge verified that the requirements of said provision were fully
met, since the player previously put the club in default.
14. Thereafter, and for the purposes of the present claim, the Single Judge verified whether the club
proved that it paid the claimed amounts of 30,000 EUR net with the due date of 28 January 2022 and
30,000 EUR net with the due date of 28 February 2022.
REF FPSD-6055
15. In this regard, and after duly verifying the receipts provided by the Respondent, the Single Judge
noted that they do not address any of the amounts claimed in the present claim. In fact, the Single
Judge observed that most of them indicated payments in Turkish Lira (TRY) and not in EUR, thereby
contradicting what was stipulated in the contract. As a result, the Judge considered that that the club
did not prove in any way that it paid the claimed amounts.
16. As a result, the Single Judge could only determine that the player had a just cause to terminate the
contract in accordance with art. 14 bis of the Regulation, and he is therefore entitle to compensation.
ii. Consequences
17. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of
the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
18. However, before into entering into the calculation of the payable compensation, the Single Judge
established that, in addition to any compensation, the player is entitled to his outstanding dues up
until the date of termination of the contract, i.e. until 15 April 2022. The Single Judge underline once
again that part of the player’s outstanding remuneration was already considered in the matter FPSD4439, and therefore, as explained above, only considered the claimed amounts of 30.000 EUR net
with the due date of 28 January 2022 and 30.000 EUR net with the due date of 28 February 2022.
19. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, following the player’s request, that he is entitled to
EUR 10,000 net for match bonuses, which he sufficiently proved and were contractually provided.
The Single Judge further considered that the club did not prove that it paid said amounts.
20. Consequently, in strict application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge
established that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, the total outstanding amounts of EUR
60,000 (salaries, i.e. EUR 30,000*2) and EUR 10,000 (bonuses), as explained above.
21. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding jurisprudence
in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award 5% interest p.a. over said amount as from the due
dates.
22. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be
calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute,
with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up
to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
REF FPSD-6055
23. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she first of all had to clarify
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.
24. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
25. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
26. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until its term.
Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 60,000 (i.e. - 30.000.- EUR due
on 31.04.2022 and 30.000.- EUR due on 30.05.2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
27. In continuation, the Single Judge verified 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 Single Judge 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.
28. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
29. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the
player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract, as a general
rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated.
30. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of EUR 60,000 (30,000*2), as the residual value of the contract.
31. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Single
Judge 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 the claim until the date of effective payment.
REF FPSD-6055
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
32. 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.
33. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
34. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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 creditor, 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.
35. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account provided by
the player in the Bank Account Registration Form.
36. The Single Judge 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
37. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
38. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and
decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.
39. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
REF FPSD-6055
IV Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mamadou Diarra, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Giresunspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 70,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 60,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 16 May 2022 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.
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
REF FPSD-6055
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