DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5849
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 July 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Souleymane Doukara
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT:
Souleymane Doukara, France
Represented by Mr Alexis Rutman
RESPONDENT:
Al Ettifaq, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Messrs Ali Abbes & Mohamed Rokbani
Page 2
REF FPSD-5849
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 August 2019, the French player Souleymane Doukara (hereinafter the Claimant or
the Player) and the Saudi club Al Ettifaq (hereinafter the Respondent or the Club) concluded
an employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement), valid as from
15 August 2019 until 30 June 2021.
2.
In Clause 3 of the Employment Agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent (jointly
referred to as the Parties) stipulated that they should “comply with and implement laws,
circulars and regulations issued by FIFA” and that in the Clause 14 of the Employment
Agreement the Parties declared “that they have taken note of SAFF and FIFA regulations and
circulars before signing this contract and that they are obliged to implement them. (…) 3. The
provisions of Professional Players´ status and transfer regulations shall apply to all matters
not provided for in this contract (…)”.
3.
In Clause 4 par. 5 of the Employment Agreement, the Parties agreed upon, inter alia, a
monthly salary payment of USD 136,365 “for ten months from end of September 2019 until
end of June 2020”.
4.
On 14 April 2020, 17 April 2020 and 20 April 2020, the Respondent contacted the Claimant
proposing to decrease the latter’s monthly salary (in the amount of 50%) in view of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
5.
In reply thereto, the Claimant rejected the above-mentioned proposal as it considered
the reduction neither reasonable nor proportionate.
6.
In the Claimant’s correspondence of 23 April 2020, the Claimant sent the Respondent the
following proposal:
“Therefore, taking these circumstances into consideration, my client would agree to amend his
Contract as follows:
• Reduction of 10% (ten percent) of the monthly salaries of April 2020 (136,365 USD)
and May 2020 (136,365 USD), which means a global reduction of 27,273 USD, with
the maintenance of other benefits,
• The starting day of the period of the reduction shall be the 1st of April 2020 since
other Football Clubs in the Saudi Professional League have maintained the full
payment of salaries of March 2020,
• The last day of the period of reduction shall be the 31st of May 2020 since, in any
case, the last day of the current season of the Saudi Professional League 2019/2020
was scheduled on 30 May 2020.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-5849
7.
On 27 April 2020, the Respondent informed the Claimant regarding the reduction of
salaries, which was applied retroactively as of 15 March 2020 until the resumption of
sports activities in Saudi Arabia, i.e. until the end of June 2020:
“1. Decrease monthly salary by 50% of the amount over 20,000 SAR (the player will receive
20,000 SAR + 50% of the rest of the salary which exceeds 20,000 riyals. This amount will be
paid since the suspended date of activities in Saudi Arabia 15/03/2020 until the activities will
restart.
2. The player will receive this amount NET without any deduction or detention.
3. The others advantages stipulated on the contract namely insurance, car, accommodation
and food will be guaranteed by the club to the player in Saudi Arabia.
4. The contract will be extended until the new date of the end of season and for this new period
the player will receive a full monthly salary as indicated in his contract.
5. When the activities and competitions restart, player will be entitled to receive his full salary
and scheduled prime until the new date fixed for the end of the 2019-2020 season.”
8. On 8 of July 2020, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the
amount of USD 238,641 (“remainder of the salaries of March 2020 until June 2020”),
however, to no avail. The Claimant granted the Respondent 15 days to comply with its
contractual obligations.
9. Based on the information in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant remained
with the Respondent until the expiry of the Employment Agreement until 30 June 2021.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 26 April 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the Parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. In his claim, the Claimant requested the sum of USD 238,641, plus 5% interest p.a.,
corresponding to the remaining salaries between 15 March 2020 and 30 June 2020:
−
−
−
−
USD 34 092, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March 2020 until the day of the
effective payment;
USD 68 183, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2020 until the day of the effective
payment;
USD 68 183, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2020 until the day of the effective
payment;
USD 68 183, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2020 until the day of the effective
payment.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5849
12. The Claimant based his argumentation on pacta sunt servanda and asserted that the
Respondent never initiated a good faith discussion concerning the COVID-19 reductions
and that it simply imposed the reduction of 50% salary, which is contradictory to the
COVID-19 Guidelines.
13. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent has not proven the existence of
a case of force majeure, as requested by FIFA in previous case law regarding the topic.
14. The Claimant argued that the said unilateral reduction is “legally and contractually
groundless.”
b. Position of the Respondent
15. The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant as it argued that:
−
−
The Claimant has tacitly accepted the salary decrease as he files this claim only
after 720 days;
Alternatively, that the salary decrease was “legal and regulatory”.
16. In support of its argument concerning the allegedly legal and regulatory reduction, the
Respondent argued that the COVID-19 pandemic effected Saudi Arabia.
17. The Respondent was also of the opinion that it respected the FIFA Guidelines as (i) the
Respondent “tried to discuss the issue of the wage cuts with the Claimant”, namely by the
correspondence between 14 and 19 April 2020; (ii) that the decrease was “reasonable and
proportionate” as it only represents 13.5% of the annual salary value; (iii) the reduction
was “limited in time” and it (iv) “applied to all employees (players and staff and accepted by
almost the majority of employees”.
18. Finally, the Respondent argued that in the month of March 2020, a lawful disciplinary
sanction of 10% was applied in addition.
19. The Respondent concluded that it “completely respected their financial obligations towards
the player which makes this claim unfounded and devoid if any factual and legal basis.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 26 April 2022 and submitted
for decision on 7 July 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022
Page 5
REF FPSD-5849
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.
21. 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 (June 2022 edition), 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 French player
and a Saudi club.
22. At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations (June 2022 edition),
which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application
of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
23. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA
on 26 April 2022. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts
fallen due before 26 April 2020 are affected by the statute of limitations.
24. The Chamber noted that, in the present case, the Claimant inter alia requested the
payment of March 2020 salary, which has fallen due on 1 April 2020. The Chamber thus
concluded that the Claimant’s request is partially time-barred. Consequently, the specific
part of the Claimant’s claim as to the March 2020 salary related to the payment of
USD 34,092 is considered inadmissible.
25. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 April 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
26. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the
basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may
consider evidence not filed by the Parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5849
c. Merits of the dispute
27. 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
28. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and recalled that, on 15 August 2019, the Parties entered into an Employment
Agreement, valid as from 15 August 2019 until 30 June 2021, according to which the
Claimant was entitled to the monthly remuneration of USD 136,365.
29. Thereafter, the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged the present claim before FIFA
for outstanding remuneration related to the monthly salaries of March, April, May, June
and July 2020, maintaining that a total amount of USD 238,641 remained outstanding.
30. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, firstly, argued that the Claimant
had tacitly accepted the salary decrease as he filed his claim only after 720 days.
The Chamber does not see any merit in this argument. Regardless of the fact that the
claim, except for the March 2020 salary, as set out above, is filed within the prescription
term of two years in light of art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, the Claimant clearly
expressed his disapproval against the salary decrease by means of his default letter of
8 July 2020.
31. Further to this, the Chamber observed that the Respondent, alternatively, argued that it
performed “legal and regulatory” salary reductions payments in view of the economic
effects related to the COVID-19 pandemic which were in line with national law as well as
the FIFA guidelines. Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant contested the
application of those unilateral salary reduction made by the Respondent.
32. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess the validity of the
unilateral salary reductions applied by the Respondent for the months of April until
June 2022, taking into account that the claim for the salary of the month of March 2020 is
time-barred (cf. III./22 et seqq.).
33. In continuation, and after duly analysing the evidence gathered during the course of the
investigation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent actively proposed the
monthly salary reductions of 50% (applicable to the months of April, May and June 2020),
amongst others by means of its letters of 14 April, 17 April, 20 April 2020.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5849
34. Equally, the DRC recalled that on 23 April 2020, the Claimant made a counterproposal to
the Respondent, that he would – in principle – agree to a monthly salary reduction of 10%.
35. The Chamber thereafter noted that the Respondent’s final decision to reduce Claimant’s
monthly salary by 50% was notified to the latter on 27 April 2020 and that such
correspondence remained unattended until 8 July 2020, when the Claimant sent a default
notice to the Respondent.
36. In this respect, and prior to further address the issue of the unilateral alteration of the
Claimant’s salary for the period between April and June 2020, the Chamber held that, in
any case, a salary variation could not be applied retroactively.
37. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that the principle of non-retroactivity
should be applied as of 27 April 2020 and that the salary of April 2020 (i.e. until
26 April 2020) cannot be subject to a possible reduction and hence the Respondent
should pay them in full to the Claimant.
38. The foregoing being established, the Chamber went on to examine the Respondent’s
arguments in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the club’s income and
the Player´s remuneration.
39. In this regard, the DRC wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide COVID-19
outbreak, 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 issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ,
which provides clarification about the most relevant questions in connection with the
regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new
regulatory matters.
40. 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
conditions for any period where the competition is suspended due to the COVID-19
outbreak.
41. 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
Page 8
REF FPSD-5849
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 DRC or Players’ Status Chamber
(PSC) where they were made in good faith, are reasonable and proportionate.
42. 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.
43. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, following Clause 3 of the Employment
Agreement, “The two Parties shall comply with and implement the laws, circulars and
regulations issued by FIFA”. Moreover, the DRC observed that Clause 14 of the Employment
Agreement stated “… 1. The two parties declare that they have taken note of SAFF and FIFA
regulations and circulars before signing this contract and that they are obliged to implement
them. (…) 3. The provisions of Professional Players´ status and transfer regulations shall apply
to all matters not provided for in this contract (…)”.
44. In view of the above, the Chamber noted that it is beyond any doubt that the Employment
Agreement 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 (Saudi Arabian Football Federation) 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 Employment Agreement.
45. After establishing the applicable law to the relevant contract, the Chamber then recalled
that the COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ 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 does address the situation; if not
applicable or situation not addressed, c) the unilateral variation was made in good faith,
was reasonable and proportionate.
46. After duly taking note of all of 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 Claimant’s salaries.
47. In other words, the DRC should determine whether the unilateral reduction of the salary
performed by the Respondent was made in good faith, was reasonable and
proportionate.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5849
48. 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.
49. With this in mind, the members of the Chamber further referred to art. 13 par. 5 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.
50. Within this context, the members of the Chamber took a note of the fact that the
Respondent essentially respected its financial obligations toward the Claimant up until
the first COVID-19 pandemic constraints affected all football activities in Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber considered the Respondent’s efforts to find
an agreement with the Claimant by the correspondence of 14 April, 17 April,
20 April 2020. Equally, the DRC highlighted that on 23 April 2020, the Claimant, in
principle, agreed to a monthly salary reduction of 10%.
51. 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, and that the Claimant was also willing to
compromise.
52. What is more, the DRC underlined that as from 27 April 2020 when the Club applied the
unilateral reduction of 50%, the Claimant did not object to it for a significant period of
time. In particular, the DRC highlighted and wished to recall that it was only several weeks
later, i.e. on 8 June 2020, that the Claimant requested the full salary from the Respondent.
53. Further to this, the Chamber finds of relevance in its decision that the Respondent acted
in good faith, that the Respondent provided evidence as to the impact the COVID-19
pandemic had on its economic situation by means of submitting financial figures. In fact,
the Respondent submitted a report from an independent accounting firm from which the
substantial decrease in revenues followed. Therefore, also the criterion of the economic
situation of the Club, which is one of the elements under the COVID-19 Guidelines, speaks
in favour of the Respondent.
54. The Chamber was of the opinion that the circumstances set out above indicate that the
Respondent acted in good faith in seeking to agree on a salary reduction in light of the
extraordinary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
55. In continuation, the DRC analysed if the unilateral variation of the Claimant’s salary
performed by the Respondent was reasonable and proportionate, taking into account the
specificities of the matter at stake.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5849
56. At this stage, the DRC first noted that it appeared that the decision of the Respondent to
apply the reduction, having in mind that it was limited in time, applied to the entire squad
and that the vast majority of players in the squad considered reasonable, and therefore
accepted, the reductions as proposed by the Respondent.
57. The DRC then pointed out that, during the investigation, the Claimant himself (through
his representative) indicated that a salary reduction of 10% would appear to be
proportionate. The Club however did not further engage in negotiation with the Claimant
and unilaterally applied 50% reduction, which the DRC finds to be unreasonable and
disproportionate in the circumstances of this specific case.
58. The Chamber deem that such position coming from the Claimant deserves particular
attention and should therefore be duly considered. Starting from this basis, and while
considering the Respondent’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 only 10% of Claimant’s salary during the suspension of the championship
had to be seen as reasonable and proportionate.
59. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that during the period from
27 April 2020 until 30 June 2020, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent
a salary equivalent to 90% of the originally agreed salary.
60. As a result of its deliberations, the DRC summarized that from April 2020 to June 2020,
the Claimant is additionally entitled to the following amounts:
−
−
−
UDS 66,336.8 for the month of April 2020;
USD 54,546.5 for the month of May 2020;
USD 54,546.5 for the month of June 2020.
ii. Consequences
61. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
amounts claimed as outstanding under the contract, in total USD 175,429.8, as detailed
above.
62. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
−
USD 66,364.8 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
Page 11
REF FPSD-5849
−
−
USD 54,546.5 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment;
USD 54,546.5 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 July 2020 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
63. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
64. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and
granted the Respondent a 15-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
65. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations was met in the case at hand.
66. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it
has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. On account of the above and
bearing in mind that this is the second offense by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Chamber decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) of the Regulations.
67. In this connection, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
68. 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.
69. 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.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5849
70. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
71. 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.
72. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5849
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Souleymane Doukara, is partially accepted insofar it is
admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ettifaq, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- USD 66,364.8 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 54,546.5 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 54,546.5 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A reprimand is imposed on the Respondent.
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. 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.
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
Page 14
REF FPSD-5849
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 15