Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3095
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nikola
Djurdjic
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
FLORES CHEMOR, Mario (Mexico), Member
SARTORI, Stefano (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Chengdu Rongcheng FC, China PR
Represented by Yao Xia
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Nikola Djurdjic, Serbia
Represented by Christophe Van Mechelen
INTERVENING PARTY:
Degerfors IF, Sweden
Represented by Monteneri Sports Law
Page 2
REF FPSD-3095
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 23 January 2021, the Chinese club, Chengdu Rongcheng FC (hereinafter: the club or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and the Serbian player, Mr Nikola Djurdjic (hereinafter: the
player or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract valid as from
23 January 2020 until 22 January 2022 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
Clause 1, par. 3 of the employment contract established the following:
“3. The Term has an option year from 23/01/2022 (day/month/year) to 22/01/2023
(day/month/year). The option year will be activated when [the player] reaches one or multiple
of the following targets:
3.
-
The appearance rate (calculated by minutes) how far to be in the Chinese League One
(CJL) of the 2021 season reaches 65% or above. (1755 min. of the total 2700 min).
-
When [the club] wants to keep [the player].
-
[The player] is appointed the official top scorer of the Chinese League One (CJL) in the
2021 season.
-
In case [the club] is promoted to the Chinese Super League (CSL) during the duration of
[the player]’s contract”.
In addition, under clause 2 of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the player,
inter alia, the following remuneration:
a. Season 2020: total amount of EUR 727,272, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 60,600
each due by no later than the 20th day of each month starting on 20 February 2020
until 20 January 2021;
b. Season 2021: total amount of EUR 909,090, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 75,750
each due by no later than the 20th day of each month starting on 20 February 2021
until 20 January 2022; and
c. Season 2022: total amount of EUR 727,272, payable in 12 instalments of EUR 90,909
each due by no later than the 20th day of each month starting on 20 February 2020
until 20 January 2023.
4.
Finally, clause 2, par. 1 of the employment contract read as follows: “If during the term [the
club] is promoted to the Chinese Super League (CSL), the salaries that have been determined
will be increased by 100% for each applicable season that [the club] is active in the Chinese
Super League (CSL)”.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3095
5.
On 29 December 2020, the club sent the player and the other members of its “first line team”
an email informing that they should avail themselves at the “training base” by 4 January 2021
to resume their training.
6.
On 6 January 2021, the club sent the player a default notice by means of which it
acknowledged that the player had failed to meet the deadline previously set for the
recommencement of the training. As such, the club requested the player to avail himself by
no later than 7 January 2021, as well as it informed that it would deduct the corresponding
daily wage from the player’s entitlements.
7.
On 12 January 2021, the club once again wrote to the player and acknowledged that he did
not resume his duties within the deadline previously established. Therefore, the club
requested the player to avail himself by no later than 13 January 2021 and informed that he
could provide a reply or further explanations on this matter via email.
8.
On 13 January 2021, the player replied to the club’s notice and explained that he had never
received any information from the club on the return date before the letter dated 29
December 2021. In this respect, he referred to the mandatory quarantine of 14 days
implemented by the Chinese government and held that the club’s coaches were already
aware of his situation. The player concluded as follows: “sorry but this makes no sense
whatsoever unless you want to bully me out of the club. Is this your strategy? In this case be
aware that I am fully in my rights and I will tell me story in the media. The way the club is
now conducting its business towards me is disrespectful and stupid. So I hope this letter and
threat are based upon a misunderstanding, but if not I am ready to get my right and my name
cleared”.
9.
On 19 January 2021, the player sent the club another correspondence and clarified that he
had already arrived in Shanghai on 8 January 2021 but was quarantining due to COVID’s
restrictions. In this opportunity, the player informed the club his current location and pointed
out that he would stay isolated until 25 January 2021.
10. On 20 January 2021, the club replied to the player via email and once again stated that he
had failed to resume his duties on time. Accordingly, it stressed that the player was supposed
to avail himself at the club’s premises until the same date, bearing in mind that he already
had 15 days overdue (i.e. as from 4 January 2021).
11. On 4 February 2021, the player sent the club another correspondence informing that he was
already available, after having quarantined for 22 days. Accordingly, the player requested the
club to provide him further directions and to confirm his contractual situation.
12. On an unspecified date, a club’s representative wrote to the player and to his colleague the
following message “the club will start the loan or termination procedure, from now on you
guys will training by yourself, only need to comply with the base management regulations”.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3095
13. On 12 April 2021, the club and the Chinese club, Zhejiang Professional Football Club Co. Ltd.
(hereinafter: Zhejiang FC) signed a loan agreement by means of which the player was
temporarily transferred from the former to the latter between 1 April 2021 and 31 July 2021
(hereinafter: the loan agreement).
14. On 8 June 2021, Zhejiang FC sent the player a letter informing that he was “free to go on
vacation as of today”. Zhejiang FC further established that the loan agreement was valid until
31 July 2021, and that he would be again a player of the club as from 1 August 2021.
15. On 26 June 2021, the club allegedly wrote to the player and remarked that his loan with
Zhejiang FC would expire on 31 July 2021. Therefore, the club requested the player to return
to its premises until 1 July 2021 and stressed as follows: “if you fail to return on time, the
club may apply penalty to you based on the employment contract and rules on team
management. Please pay attention to your return and back to our team on time”.
16. On 6 July 2021, the club signed the Brazilian player, Mr Felipe de Sousa Silva.
17. On 13 July 2021, the club lodged a first claim against the player before the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (case ref. FPSD-3031). Subsequently, it failed to complete its claim as requested by
the FIFA general secretariat and the file was closed.
18. On 20 July 2021, the club lodged the claim at hand before the Dispute Resolution Chamber,
with the same content as the previous one.
19. On 26 July 2021 and after these proceedings had started, the player sent the club a letter
informing that he had not received any correspondence from the club dated 26 June 2021
or 10 July 2021. Moreover, the player informed that he would lodge a counterclaim before
the Dispute Resolution Chamber and requested confirmation of whether his services were
still required by the club by no later than 29 July 2021. At the end, the player stressed that if
termination documents were not provided until said date, he would consider that the
procedure at FIFA was an error, and that he was expected to “show up at the club on 1
August 2021 in order to resume training and honour his contract”.
20. On 30 July 2021, the player wrote again to the club and stressed that he had not received
any answer to his previous notice within the relevant deadline. Therefore, he remarked that
he would show up at the club in order to resume his duties.
21. On 2 August 2021, the player went to the club’s premises accompanied by two witnesses. In
accordance with the written statement filed by the player, he spent 40 minutes there and
was informed by the club, inter alia, that the claim lodged before the DRC was sufficient to
establish that the employment contract was terminated and that the player could seek new
employment.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3095
22. On 11 August 2021, the player signed a new employment agreement with the Swedish club,
Degerfors IF (hereinafter: Degerfors IF or the intervening party), valid as from the date of
signature until 31 December 2023. Accordingly, he is entitled to receive the following
remuneration from the intervening party:
a. SEK 60,000 per month during 2021;
b. SEK 70,000 per month during 2022; and
c. SEK 80,000 per month during 2023.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 20 July 2021, the club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the club
24. In its claim, the club maintained that the player breached the employment contract without
just cause by failing to avail himself at the club’s premises for trainings and matches. In this
respect, the club referred to the default notices sent to the player and stressed that he was
absent for one month without any written approval.
25. Moreover, the club informed that it agreed with the player’s loan to Zheijang FC however
that he failed to return on time (i.e. on 26 June 2021). The club also argued that the player
took part on a trial by a Polish club without its consent.
26. In light of the above, the club held that it was forced to terminate the employment contract
on 10 July 2021. As such, it requested compensation for the breach in accordance with art.
17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). In particular, the club
stated that said compensation should amount to the residual value of the employment
contract (i.e. EUR 433,374.41).
27. Finally, the club also requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player.
b. Position of the player
28. The player opposed the club’s argumentation and lodged a counterclaim against it.
29. In his counterclaim, the player stated that he left on holidays on 8 November 2020, after the
end of the Chinese League– and with no opposition from the club. The player then pointed
out that on 29 December 2020, the club requested him to return to its premises until 4
January 2021.
Page 6
REF FPSD-3095
30. At this point, the player referred to the COVID-19 pandemic and stressed that it would be
impossible for him to return to the club within the deadline granted, due to the mandatory
14-days’ quarantine imposed by the government of China. As such, the player recalled that
he expressly informed the club that he could not avail himself on time, as well as that he
requested to receive instructions following his quarantine.
31. In this context, the player also pointed out that he returned to the club on 4 February 2021,
after complying with the quarantine measures. In doing so, the player remarked that the club
had never objected to his holidays, so that he did not breach the employment contract. What
is more, the player stressed that the club failed to answer his notices regarding his return to
the club.
32. Notwithstanding the above, the player maintained that, after resuming his services, he “was
demoted to train individually and was no longer allowed to train with first nor second squad”.
As a consequence, the parties and Zhejing FC entered into the loan agreement valid for the
first stage of the Chinese League, according to which he would have to return to the club
within 7 days as from 31 July 2021.
33. Accordingly, the player informed that “near the end of his loan agreement, [he] was informed
(beginning of July 2021) by Zhejing FC that his services were no longer necessary and [the]
could enjoy time off”. In this respect and conversely to the argumentation advanced by the
club, the player claimed that he had never received any correspondence informing that he
should return before the date previously settled between the parties.
34. Furthermore, the player indicated that he did not leave China during this period and,
specifically, that he did not go to a trial at a Polish team (as suggested by the club). In addition,
the player referred to the automatic extension of the employment contract and stated that
“as [he] still had contract until January 22nd 2022, there was no reason for the player to trial
at a different team, especially when financial conditions would be fair less than his contract
at [the club] and especially when his contract at [the club] would be extended with an
additional year (including improved financial compensations when [the club] would promote
to China Super League at the end of the season”.
35. In light of the above, the player claimed that the club terminated the employment contract
without just cause. Likewise, he pointed out that the club did only lodge this claim before
FIFA in order to confirm the termination of their employment relationship before the
promotion to the higher league.
36. Finally, the player held that he should be entitled to compensation for the breach of contract
broken down as follows:
a. EUR 433,374.41 corresponding to the residual value of the employment contract;
Page 7
REF FPSD-3095
b. EUR 1,200,000 net “which would constitute the amount the player would be entitled
to receive in the event [the club] would promote to the China Super League and the
option clause within the player’s contract would become applicable”;
c. EUR 181,818 “in the event the club would promote at the end of season 2021”;
d. EUR 50,000 as “reputational damages and lawyer representation costs”;
e. interests of 5% p.a. on the amounts payable to the player.
c. Position of Degerfors IF
37. Taking into consideration the potential impacts arising in connection with this case in light of
the content of art. 17, par. 4 of the RSTP, Degerfors IF was invited to file its position.
38. In its submission, Degerfors IF fully endorsed the player’s argumentation. In particular,
Degerfors IF remarked that the club had never put the player in default before terminating
the employment contract, nor reacted to the player’s correspondences. Likewise, it
established that the player did not breach the employment contract, which was allegedly
terminated without just cause – and without a termination notice.
39. In addition, Degerfors IF pointed out that the claim at hand was filed only against the player.
In this respect, it claimed that “it is not possible that Degerfors IF anyhow induced the player
to the termination of the employment contract”, because it was exclusively terminated by the
club.
40. In light of the above, Degerfors IF requested the claim of the club to be entirely rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
41. 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 20 July 2021 and submitted for decision on
25 November 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
42. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
Page 8
REF FPSD-3095
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Serbian player and a
Chinese club, with the involvement of a Swedish club.
43. 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 (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 July 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
44. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording
of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed
by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
45. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However,
the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
46. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the case at hand pertains a claim (and counterclaim) for breach
of contract. The parties strongly dispute whether the club had just cause to terminate the
employment contract and the consequences that follow.
47. In this context, the DRC deemed that it was its task to determine the following:
a. When was the employment contract terminated?
b. Did the club have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
c. What are the consequences that follow?
48. Then, the members of the Chamber proceeded to examine each matter.
Page 9
REF FPSD-3095
a. When was the employment contract terminated?
49. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that the club alleged that it was forced to terminate the
employment contract on 10 July 2021. However, the Chamber also noted that there is not a
termination notice on file.
50. In light of the above and taking into consideration the constant practice of the Football
Tribunal in similar matters, the DRC decided that the employment contract was terminated
on the date of the club’s claim for breach of contract in front of FIFA. To this extent, the
Chamber wished to outline that despite the claim at hand having been lodged on 20 July
2021, the club had already submitted an incomplete petition with the same petitum before
the DRC on 13 July 2021. The Chamber was furthermore comforted in its decision because
when the player availed himself at the club’s premises on 2 August 2021, the club informed
him that the claim before the DRC was sufficient to establish that the employment contract
had been terminated.
51. Therefore, the DRC conclude that the employment contract was prematurely terminated by
the club on 13 July 2021.
b. Did the club have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
52. Having established the above, the Chamber went on analysing the alleged just cause for the
termination.
53. At this point, the DRC wished to recall its long-standing according to which only a breach or
misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior
warning. 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 assure 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 always only be an ultima ratio
measure.
54. With the above in mind, the DRC turned its attention to the parties’ submissions and noted
that the club based the termination of the employment contract on the player’s delay to avail
himself at its premises after the end of the loan agreement with Zhejiang FC.
55. In this respect, the Chamber carefully analysed the correspondences exchanged by the parties
and took due consideration of the following:
a. the loan agreement was valid until 31 July 2021;
Page 10
REF FPSD-3095
b. on 8 June 2021, Zhejiang FC expressly authorized the player to go on vacation until its
return to the club (i.e. on 31 July 2021);
c. the club has never informed the player on his obligation to return before the date
stipulated in the employment contract / loan agreement, nor put him in default for breach
of contract or replied to his letters;
d. the club confirmed that the player was expected to return on 31 July 2021, however in
parallel hired another foreigner player to its squad and considered the employment
contract terminated without providing any information to the player.
56. In light of the above, the Chamber were firm to determine that the club could not
demonstrate that the player was in breach of the employment contract, let alone that the
termination was an ultima ratio measure.
57. For the sake of completeness, the DRC also deemed it important to clarify that the
correspondences exchanged between the parties in the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021
were not relevant to the abovementioned outcome. Accordingly, the Chamber consider that:
(i) the club could not establish to a comfortable satisfaction degree that the player’s delay to
avail himself after a short deadline and during a worldwide pandemic crisis could be deemed
as a substantial breach of the employment contract capable of justifying a premature
termination; and, in any event, (ii) the discussions were superseded by the continuity of the
parties’ employment relationship and the subsequent signature of the loan agreement with
Zhejiang FC.
58. Therefore, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided that no just cause on the club’s
part has taken place and, hence, that its claim shall be rejected. Moreover, the Chamber
concurred that the club should be liable to the consequences that follow insofar as it did not
have just cause to terminate the employment contract with the player.
ii. Consequences
59. 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.
60. The Chamber initially observed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination.
61. Subsequently, 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
Page 11
REF FPSD-3095
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.
62. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
63. As a consequence, the members of 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.
64. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
65. At this point, the members of the DRC were observant of the player’s argumentation
regarding the extension of the employment contract for an extra year in connection with the
club’s promotion to the Chinese Super League (cf. clause 3 of the employment contract).
66. Nevertheless, in view of the variable and uncertain character of the abovementioned
condition coupled with the absence of documentary evidence of performance of the sporting
goal, the DRC could not establish that the employment contract would have been extended.
Consequently, and in line with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the DRC decided
not take into consideration said extension while assessing the residual value of the
employment contract. Likewise, the Chamber concurred that the player’s request for the
promotion bonus should also be rejected.
67. Having established the above, the Chamber stressed that the amount of EUR 530,250 (i.e.
the residual value of the employment contract until January 2022) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
68. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
Page 12
REF FPSD-3095
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
69. Indeed, the player found employment with Degerfors IF. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of EUR 33,724.53 (i.e. salaries from August 2021 until January 2022).
70. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber outlined that the employment contract was
terminated by the club (without just cause), and therefore decided that no additional
compensation should be awarded.
71. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR
496,525.47 to the player (i.e. EUR 530,250 minus EUR 33,724.53), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
72. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the counterclaim (i.e. 10 August 2021) until the date
of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
73. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
74. 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.
75. 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-3095
registration periods shall become immediately effective on the club in accordance with art.
24bis par. 2, 4, and 7of the Regulations.
76. 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.
77. 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.
d. Costs
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-3095
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Chengdu Rongcheng FC, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Nikola Djurdjic, is partially accepted.
3.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the
following amount:
- EUR 496,525.47 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10
August 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counter-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 art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-3095
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16