Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2087
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Admilson Estaline Dias
de Barros
COMPOSITION:
HENDEL, Clifford J. (USA & France), Deputy Chairman
VERMEER, Roy (The Netherlands), member
PIVOVAROV, Pavel (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Admilson Estaline Dias de Barros, Cape Verde Islands
Represented by Zoran Rasic
RESPONDENT:
Al Fayha Club, Saudi Arabia
Represented by R & A Sports Law
Page 2
REF FPSD-2087
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 6 July 2017, the Cape-Verdean player, Admilson Estaline Dias de Barros (hereinafter:
the player or the Claimant), and the Saudi club, Al Fayha Club (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as from 10 July 2017 until 9 July
2020 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
According to the contract the player was entitled, inter alia, to a monthly salary of EUR
87,500 in the third year of contract, payable every 10th day of the subsequent month.
3.
On 14 April 2020, the club informed all of its players that due to Covid-19, which it referred
to as a force majeure, and according to the decision of the Ministry of Sports, the clubs
were directed to pay the salaries up to an amount of SAR 20,000 (approx. EUR 4,500) and
to decrease 50% of the salaries accordingly.
4.
On 18 April 2020, the player's agent answered on behalf of the player that he could not
accept a deduction of 50%. The player made a counterproposal and suggested to extend
the contract for two more years and a 20% salary reduction for all salaries due in the last
season. If the extension was accepted, he would accept a 40% reduction of his current
salary until all activities restart.
5.
On 22 April 2020, the club requested the player to sign a protocol regarding a Covid-19agreement within the next 48 hours.
6.
On 23 April 2020, the player's agent answered on his behalf with another counterproposal,
stating that he would accept either a 30% deduction of his salary, which should be
refunded in case the league would be completed or a 50% deduction if the contract would
be extended for 1 more season with an option to extend for one more season, which should
be effective upon 50% of the played official matches and that the salary should be EUR
700,000 net.
7.
On 24 April 2020, the club answered to the player’s agent, indicating that it would
correspond with the player directly from that time on and reiterating its request for the
player to sign the Covid-19 protocol within the next 48 hours.
8.
On 25 April 2020, the player informed the club that it should correspond with his agent
and reiterated his latest counterproposal.
9.
On 26 April 2020, the club acknowledged the fact that the player had not accepted its offer
of a salary reduction and informed him that it should apply a reduction of the salaries due
as from 15 March 2020 until the League resumed. In this regard, the club informed the
player that he would receive a net payment of SAR 20,000 (approx. EUR 4,500) plus up to
50% of his monthly salary.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2087
10.
On 15 June 2020, the parties concluded an amendment to the contract, according to which
the contract was extended until 15 September 2020 due to the extension of the League
following its suspension in the season 2019/2020. During the extended period of the
contract, the player was also entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 87,500.
11.
On 18 September 2020, the player sent a default notice to the club and asked the latter to
pay 50% of the salaries for the months from March until June 2020 as well as the full
salaries of July and August 2020 within five days. The player reiterated the same request on
9 October 2020, this time granting the club a deadline of ten days.
12.
On 19 October 2020, the club replied to the player that it had correctly applied a 50%
deduction, plus provided proof of payment of the July 2020, while underlining that August
2020 would be paid shortly. Furthermore, the club stated the following with respect to
salaries paid between March and June 2020:
“For the month of March: 66.085 euros paid on 28/04/2020. (The player received his full
salary for the period between 01 and 15 of march with 50 % for the rest due to the fact
that since 15/03/2020 all sports activities were stopped.
For the month of April, the player received, 46.183 EUR
For the month of May, the player received 46.183 EUR.
For the salary of June, the player received 59.870 EUR due to the fact that since 21/06/2020
the club starts training, and from that date the player receives his full salary as you see for
the salary of July 2020”.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
13.
On 18 March 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
14.
The player explained that he received all his remuneration until February 2020. However,
he argued that on 14 April 2020, the club informed all players of the team that salaries
would have to be reduced to 50% due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
15.
The player referred to his exchange of letters with the club and to the fact that he had made
twice a counterproposal to the club with respect to their attempt to reduce his salary by
50%. Eventually, the club decided to apply the said 50% deduction unilaterally.
16.
In this regard, the player referred to the FIFA Covid-19 guidelines and underlined that the
parties had not come to a mutual agreement regarding salary reduction, while emphasising
that almost 40% deduction is unreasonable and without any existing ground.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2087
17.
The player further held that the club’s unilateral decision to pay the minimum amount of
SAR 20,000 (approx. EUR 4,500) plus up to 50% of his salary was made in breach with the
FIFA Covid-19 guidelines. Equally, the player stated that the FIFA Covid-19 guidelines did
not declare the pandemic a situation of force majeure. According to the player, in any case,
clubs in Saudi Arabia “survive with the financial power and donation of their rich members
of the board and the financial support of the Sports Ministry of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, which pays the debts of the clubs upon noncompliance with the contracts and upon
a FIFA- or CAS-award”.
18.
The player emphasised that, regarding the months during which the club applied a 50%
deduction, he is still owed a total of EUR 165,774. Specifically, the player underlined that,
from March to June 2020, he received the following amounts, and that the following
amounts remain due:
Period
March 2020
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
Amounts paid & date
Amount outstanding
EUR 46,031 on 24-04-2020
EUR 41,469
EUR 46,031 on 20-05-2020
EUR 41,469
EUR 46,133 on 30-06-2020
EUR 41,367
EUR 46,031 on 21-07-2020
EUR 41,469
Total due
EUR 165,774
19.
The player filed copies of his bank statements in support of the above.
20.
Furthermore, the player claimed that the club did not a pay him a portion of September
2020 salary, due for the period 10-15 September 2020. Consequently, the player argued
that the club owes him a further amount of EUR 17,500 (6 days at EUR 2,916.66 per day).
The player also requested interest of 5% p.a. as from the due dates.
b.
Position of the Respondent
21.
In reply to the claim, the club held that it has fulfilled all of its obligations towards the player.
22.
By way of explanation, the club referred to Covid-19 and the decision of the Saudi Ministry
of Sports to stop all sporting activities in the country. Furthermore, the club submitted that
the professional football league informed clubs that after an analysis of the financial
situation following the cessation of sporting activities, it found that the pandemic had
considerably affected financial resources, which would necessarily imply a significant
reduction in the contribution allocated to the clubs and which would last throughout the
2020/2021 sports season.
23.
In this context, the club referred to the proposal sent to the player to accept a 50% salary
decrease.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2087
24.
The club also referred to the exchange of correspondences with the player’s agent and
emphasised that the latter’s first counterproposal was “strange”, since it included a
proposal to extend the contract by two years, which had not been the object of
negotiations. The club equally found that the player’s second counterproposal was
unjustified and it concludes that the player was trying to take advantage of the situation.
25.
The club finally applied a unilateral deduction to the player’s salary, since the latter did not
respond to its final email dated 25 April 2020.
26.
The club specified that the salary deductions were applied to the months of March to June
2020 only. In this regard, the club clarified that, after the League resumed on 21 April 2020,
the player received his salaries of July and August 2020 in full. Furthermore, the club stated
that, regarding the month of March 2020, the salary reduction was only applied as of 15
March 2020, while for June 2020, it was applied only up to 20 June 2020.
27.
Thus, the club pointed out that the player received EUR 68,085 in respect of his salary of
March 2020, and he received EUR 59,870 regarding the salary of June 2020. In support of
this, the club provided some payment receipts showing the following payments to the
player: EUR 68,085 on 28 April 2020 with the reference “March 2020” and EUR 59,870
on an unknown date but with the reference “Salary of June 2020“. Both receipts mention
the status as “Executed”.
28.
With respect to the salary deduction, the club emphasised that it had tried several times to
discuss the issue with the player before applying a unilateral deduction. Furthermore, the
club alleged that, looking at the global value of the player’s contract, the deduction
represented only 5% of the total value and 12.2% of his salaries for the season 2020/2021.
The club also underlined that the amount which the player received was net of any taxes.
29.
The club also stated that the player did not present an objective counterproposal to its offer
to reduce the salaries. On the contrary, the club deems that its proposal to reduce the
player’s salary was reasonable, limited in time, proportional and intended for all club
employees. Hence, according to the club, the salary reduction was not discriminatory in
nature.
30.
In addition, the club highlighted that the club's financial statements, the decisions to
terminate sponsorship contracts, the lack of ticket sales, the decision of the professional
football league to reduce subsidies to clubs irrevocably prove a huge loss of revenue for the
club.
31.
Finally, the club referred to Saudi national law, in particular an amendment to the Labor
legislation dated 6 April 2020, which provides that during the following 6 months of the
COVID-19 pandemic, which represents a situation of force majeure, salaries and financial
benefits would be reduced by 40%. In summary, according to the club, the Saudi national
law, if applicable, authorized it to reduce the salaries of the player for 6 months or the
equivalent while the reduction which it made was for only 2 months and 11 days, up to
Page 6
REF FPSD-2087
50%. In other words, the measure taken by the club has been more beneficial to the player
than the national labor law.
32.
In conclusion, the club asks the DRC to dismiss the player’s claim.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
33.
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 18 March 2021 and submitted
for decision on 19 August 2021. 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.
34.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed 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 (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Cape-Verdean
player and a Saudi club.
35.
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 Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 March 2021, the February 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
36.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
37.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2087
c.
38.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC 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
39.
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 club had validly
reduced the player’s salary in line with the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines.
40.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that on one side, the player deems that the
club unlawfully reduced his salary as they had not come to an agreement and the club did
not experience a financial crisis that would justify a salary reduction. Furthermore, the player
deems that the extent of the salary reduction, i.e. almost 40%, was unreasonable. On the
other side, the DRC was mindful that the club, for its part, emphasises that it tried on
multiple occasions to find an agreement with the player.
41.
In this context, the Chamber firstly wished to highlight that FIFA issued a set of guidelines,
the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and
recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the
consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is
harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an
additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on
the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
42.
The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording
of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only
applicable to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except
where a termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result
of COVID-19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the
guidelines), said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing
employment agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes
that are presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of
a contract, the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber
shall apply.
43.
In this respect, the Chamber underlined that, according to the COVID-19 Guidelines, clubs
and employees (players and coaches) are strongly encouraged to work together to find
appropriate collective agreements on a club or league basis regarding employment
Page 8
REF FPSD-2087
conditions for any period where the competition is suspended due to the COVID-19
outbreak.
44.
Equally, the Chamber recalled that, as per the said document, where clubs and employees
cannot reach an agreement, a unilateral variation of the terms of a contract may only be
possible if the applicable national law permits it or in case it is envisaged by an existing
collective (bargaining) agreement signed between clubs and players representatives. If the
applicable national law does not address the situation or collective agreements with a
players’ union are not an option or not applicable, unilateral decisions to vary terms and
conditions of contracts will only be recognized by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
or Players’ Status Committee (PSC) where they were made in good faith, are reasonable
and proportionate.
45.
With this line of principles in mind, and while noting that, undisputedly, no common
agreement had been found between the parties, the Chamber determined that, at first, it
had to establish which law was applicable to the contract at the basis of the dispute at
stake.
46.
In this respect, the Chamber observed that, following item 3 of the contract, “The two
Parties shall comply with and implement the laws, circulars and regulations issued by FIFA”.
In view of the above, the Chamber noted that it is beyond any doubt that the contract does
not refer to Saudi Law as applicable law, but rather explicitly to the FIFA Regulations, namely
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as to the SAFF regulations.
Therefore, the DRC concluded that since the parties explicitly chose the FIFA regulations as
governing law, this set of rules are the primary source of law that is applicable to the
contract at stake. Consequently, Saudi law could not be used to justify the unilateral
alteration of the terms of the contract.
47.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC deemed it important to highlight that the club has
provided an extract or “explanatory note” regarding art. 41 of the Saudi Labour Law
Implementing Regulations as proof that it was entitled to apply a salary reduction in
accordance with Saudi Labour Law. Upon analysis of the relevant documentation, the DRC
was mindful of the fact that it does not refer specifically to the Covid-19 pandemic but
rather to a situation of force majeure, in general terms. It is, therefore, doubtful in the DRC’s
view that even if Saudi Law was to apply to the case at hand, whether such legislation was
effectively applicable in the context of Covid-19 specifically and whether Covid-19 was
declared a situation of force majeure by the Saudi state.
48.
After establishing the applicable law to the relevant contract, the Chamber referred once
again to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, in particular, when
referring to variations of employment agreements. The Chamber reiterated that said
documents established a three level analysis in order to determine if the relevant variation
could be recognised or not, i.e. a) the parties are able to reach an agreement; if not
applicable, b) national law or a possible collective (bargaining) agreement is applicable and
Page 9
REF FPSD-2087
does address the situation; if not applicable or situation not addressed, c) the unilateral
variation was made in good faith, was reasonable and proportionate.
49.
Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Chamber highlighted that in the matter at stake,
the parties were not able to reach an agreement and national law is not applicable to their
employment relationship. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the third level established
by the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and FIFA COVID-19 FAQ should be taken into account to
assess the unilateral variation of the player’s salaries. In other words, the DRC should
determine whether the unilateral reduction of the salary performed by the Respondent was
made in good faith, as well as if it was reasonable and proportionate.
50.
First, the DRC focused its attention on the principle of good faith when it comes to unilateral
decisions to vary contractual terms. Indeed, the members of the Chamber concurred that
this principle is of paramount importance when it comes to recognize a decision of this
nature.
51.
With this in mind, the members of the Chamber further referred to 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.
52.
Within this context, and after duly analyzing the evidence gathered during the course of
the investigation, the members of the Chamber considered in particular the fact that on
April and May 2020 (months during which the parties agreed on the amounts paid), the
club paid a salary of EUR 46,031, which, compared to the full salary of EUR 87,500,
represents a salary decrease of approximately 47%.
53.
At the same time, the members of the Chamber pointed out that from the evidence at
disposal it was clear that the Respondent tried several times to discuss the proposal with
the Claimant before proceeding to unilaterally reduce his salaries, to no avail. However, the
DRC was mindful that the parties were in constant communication regarding if, and to
which amount, a reduction would take place.
54.
Based on the foregoing, the majority of the Chamber found that the club acted in good
faith; however, the Chamber was unanimous to consider a reduction of the cited
percentage highly disproportionate. The DRC was furthermore comforted in its decision by
observing that the salary, as proposed by the club, exceeded the period of the local league’s
suspension. It followed that the DRC decided that a reduction on the player’s earning, if
any, should be applicable as of mid March until 20 June 2020 only, as the League resumed
on 21 June 2020.
55.
In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that Saudi law is not applicable to the matter at
stake. Therefore, the latter cannot be used to justify the proportionality of the reduction by
40% applied by the club, which appears to have been established in accordance with said
law.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2087
56.
As a consequence, the DRC concluded that it would have to assess what salary reduction it
considered to be reasonable, taking into account the specificities of the matter at stake.
57.
At this stage, the DRC pointed out that during the negotiations with the club, the player
indicated that a salary reduction of up to 40% would appear to be proportionate if coupled
with a contract extension, which was subsequently declined by the club.
58.
The Chamber, by majority decision, deemed that such position coming from the Claimant
deserves particular attention and should therefore be duly considered. Starting from this
basis, and while considering the club’s stance as described above, as well as the fact that
the pandemic certainly had an impact on the clubs’ financial situation worldwide, the DRC
concluded that, in view of the specific circumstances at hand, in the present case a
reduction of 25% of the player’s salary during the suspension of the championship could
be deemed as reasonable and proportionate. The DRC was also mindful of past decisions
by the Chamber were in similar circumstances such percentage was accepted.
59.
Having established the above, the Chamber then turned to the matter of what amounts
were owed to the player, moreover in light of the fact that the club had presented strong
argumentation that a part of the player’s remuneration had been paid. Indeed, the player
claims having received only EUR 46,031 for each month between March and June 2020.
However, the club has provided some bank receipts showing a payment of EUR 68,085 on
28 April 2020 for March 2020 and EUR 59,870 on an unknown date for June 2020.
60.
In this regard, having analysed the documentation provided by the club, the Chamber
deemed such documentation to be legitimate as it is issued by a bank, refers to the player
and indicates the status “Executed”. The player, for his part, provided a bank statement
which shows a payment of EUR 46,031 only on 28 April 2020 and another payment of EUR
46,031 only on 21 July 2020.
61.
In view of the above and considering the cited rule on the burden of proof, the DRC decided
that the player has proven which amounts he has effectively received on his bank account.
It followed that for the months of March and June 2020, he received only EUR 46,031.
Consequently, the DRC established that the following amounts should have been paid to
the player in line with the principle pacta sunt servanda:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
March 1-14 2020 (100% of original salary): EUR 43,750;
March 15-31 2020 (75% of original salary): EUR 32,812.50;
April 2020 (75% of original salary): EUR 65,625;
May 2020 (75% of original salary): EUR 65,625;
June 1-20 2020 (75% of original salary): EUR 43,750;
June 21-30 2020 (100% of original salary): EUR 29,166;
TOTAL due: EUR 280,728.50.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2087
Period
(2020)
March
April
May
June
TOTAL
62.
New salary with COVID
reduction for the period
EUR 76,562.50
EUR 65,625.00
EUR 65,625.00
EUR 72,916.00
EUR 280,728.50
Amounts
paid
EUR 46,031.00
EUR 46,031.00
EUR 46,031.00
EUR 46,031.00
EUR 184,124.00
Balance due to
player
EUR 30,531.50
EUR 19,594.00
EUR 19,594.00
EUR 26,885.00
EUR 96,604.50
The DRC thus awarded the cited amount to the player. Moreover, according to the petition
of the player and the constant practice of the DRC, the Chamber decided to award 5% p.a.
on the said monthly amounts as from their due dates until the effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63.
Finally, taking into account the applicable regulations, the Chamber referred to par. 1 lit. a)
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.
64.
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.
65.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
66.
The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
67.
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. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2087
d.
Costs
68.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
69.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
70.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2087
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Admilson Estaline Dias de Barros, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Fayha Club, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 30,531.50 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a.as from 11 April 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 19,594 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a.as from 11 May 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 19,594 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a.as from 11 June2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 26,885 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a.as from 11 July2020 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 set out in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14
REF FPSD-2087
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 15