Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11571
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bright
Enobakhare
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (the Netherlands) , Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
Bruinewoud Alexandra GOMEZ (Uruguay/ the Netherlands), member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
Roy VERMEER (the Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Bright Enobakhare, Nigeria
Represented by Sanel Masic
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FC Rukh Lviv, Ukraine
INTERVENING PARTY:
Al Bidda SC, Qatar
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11571
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 12 October 2022, the Nigerian player, Bright Enobakhare (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Ukrainian club, FC Rukh Lviv (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 12 October 2022 until 30 June
2025.
2.
On the same day, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an agreement on incentive
payments (hereinafter: additional agreement), which foresees additional payments due by
the club to the player in combination with the contract.
3.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of UAH 6,700.
4.
Article 6.6 of the Contract:
“The sanctions are applied against the Footballer, who has terminated the Contract unilaterally
without just reason in the way different to indicated in the cl.6.5. of this Contract, in the form of
the fine in amount of UAH equivalent of 1 000 000,00 (one million) US dollars, the claims are
made to reimburse to the Club of the amounts paid by it to the Footballer and also to reimburse
losses (Art.22 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), including those that were carried by the Club for
acquisition and payment for services of other footballer, connected with non-fulfilment by the
Footballer of his obligations according to this Contract in result of his termination.”
5.
On 9 November 2022, the player travelled to Warsaw, Poland with two members of the club
in order to obtain a Ukrainian visa, and on this occasion the player “handed his passport to
the club’s member in order for the visa to be obtained, whereafter the club was blackmailed the
player, forcing the latter to sign the receipt in exchange of his passport.”
6.
On 12 December 2022, the club allegedly forced the player to sign a document, “stating that
in the event the Player would not go back to Ukraine by 08 January 2023 with a Schengen visa,
the Club would have no more obligations towards the Player.”
7.
On 13 December 2022, the player travelled to Nigeria and never returned to the club by
“fear of both the ongoing war in Ukraine, and of the Club itself following the incidents recorded
in the videos.”
8.
On 5 August 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
the amount of UAH (Ukraine Hryvnia) 2,924,600.00, corresponding to salaries from
December 2022 until July 2023, granting it a deadline of 15 days to comply.
9.
On 21 August 2023, the Claimant sent a termination letter to the Respondent.
10. On 1 September 2023, the player signed a contract with the club from Qatar, Al Bidda SC
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11571
valid as from 1 September 2023 until 30 June 2026, with the following remuneration:
-
USD 10,000 as a sign-off payable on signature
USD 7,600 as a monthly salary from 1 September 2023 until 30 June 2024
USD 7,167 as a monthly salary from 1 July 2024 until 30 June 2025
USD 7,167 as a monthly salary from 1 July 2025 until 30 June 2026
USD 1,667 as allowance for housing/flights
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 31 August 2023, 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
12. According to the Claimant, the player argued that the club “forced the Player to sign a
document jeopardizing his rights, blackmailing him with the illegal retention of his Passport and
this behaviour from the Club clearly destroyed the link of trust necessary for any ongoing
contractual relationship and constitutes a just cause of termination of the Contract by the
Player.”
13. Accordingly, the player deem that he terminated the contract with just cause i.e., the Club
terminated the contract without just cause, moreover article 6.6 of the contract should
apply reciprocally and he is therefore entitled to the penalty clause foreseen in the
contract, i.e., the club is liable to pay the player the amount of USD 1,000,000.
14. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“(1) the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant, UAH 3,196,213.00 net (three million one hundred
ninety-six thousand two hundred thirteen net hryvnias) as overdue payables, with an interest of
5% p.a. as from the date of each due payment, until the date of effective payment;
(2) the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant USD 1,000,000.00 net (one million US Dollars net)
as compensation for breach of the Contract, with an interest of 5% p.a. as from 21 August 2023,
until the date of effective payment;
Subsidiarily, in case the penalty clause is disregarded
the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the mitigated compensation equals to USD 46,877.53
(forty-six thousand eight hundred seventy-seven US dollars and fifty-three cents); with an
additional compensation of UAH 1,283,100.00 net (one million two hundred eighty-three
thousand one hundred net hryvnas) as compensation for breach of the Contract, with an interest
of 5% p.a. as from 21 August 2023, until the date of effective payment;
(3) sporting sanctions shall be applied upon the Respondent;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11571
(4) the Respondent shall bear the entire costs of these proceedings, if any.”
b.
Position of the Respondent
15. In its reply, to the claim the club held that on 12 December 2022, the player signed a written
receipt, which stipulated the following:
“I, Enobakhare Bright (born 18/05/1998, passport B00609325), issued by LONDON UK on
19.01.2022, hereby state that on December 12, 2022, I arrived in Krakow (Republic of Poland)
and received a type D work visa. After that, I have to return to Ukraine and get a residence and
official employment permit in Ukraine, as well as a Schengen visa, in order to go with the team
to the football training camp that will be held in Croatia.
The club has warned me of all the consequences and sanction that may arise if I do not return
to Ukraine in order to obtain a residence permit and a Schengen visa.
The club has made every possible effort to get me a work visa type D and is taking all the steps
to get a residence permit in Ukraine and a Schengen visa.
In addition, I inform you that the club has fulfilled all obligations under the contract to me.
I undertake to obtain a permanent residence permit and a Schengen visa before the start
namely by January 8, 2023.
By my signature below the text of this document, I confirm my understanding of the meaning,
conditions and legal consequences of signing this receipt, as well as the conformity of the content
of the receipt with my valid expression of will.”
16. The Respondent indicated that the Claimant failed to return to the club on 8 January 2023,
“the Respondent filed a first written demand (claim) to the Claimant on 13 January 2023 where
the Respondent requested the Claimant to arrive at the workplace no later than on 16 January
2023.”
17. On13 January 2023, the club requested the player to report to the club’s team location by
no later than 16 January 2023, additionally, and at the same time informed the player that
it desired to reach a settlement agreement.
18. On 25 January 2023 the club send a further correspondence to the player, requesting his
arrival at the club’s team camp location no later than 30 January 2023.
19. On 22 May 2023, requested the player to pay in favour of the club the contractual penalty
of USD 1,000,000.00 for the breach of the Contract reflected on the basis of the unilateral
termination without of the contract by the player.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11571
20. The Respondent further mentioned that the contract provided by the Claimant is not the
contract concluded between the Parties “but is some of the preliminary drafts prepared
during pre-execution stage, therefore, shall not be considered as a valid Contract. Consequently,
we ask the DRC to consider the executed Contract hereto attached in Annex No. 1 as the basis
under which the legal relations between the Parties occurred since such is signed by and between
the Parties.”
21. The Respondent indicated that it “never applied any violence, force or other manipulations to
the Claimant in order the Written Receipt to be signed by the Claimant in exchange of his
passport.”
22. The Respondent argued that it “did not have any outstanding financial obligations before the
Claimant at the date nor the Respondent has any outstanding obligations before the Claimant
as of now. Since the salary payments in the Respondent’s football teams are done by cash and
in person, the Claimant failed to receive his December 2022 salary by abandoning his workplace
and Ukraine.”
23. The Respondent therefore consider, the termination letter sent by the Claimant to the
Respondent on 21 August 2023 as “null and void, therefore do not possess any legal
significance, since it was delivered after the time the Contract was already terminated by the
Claimant without just cause and unilaterally on the 9 January 2023.”
24. In conclusion, the Respondent argued that the claim has no evidentiary basis and legal
grounds, therefore, it shall be entirely rejected by the Chamber.
25. On 24 May 2023 the cub requested the player to pay the contractual fine (penalty) in the
amount of USD 1,000,000.00 (in words: one million U.S. dollars) for the breach of the
Contract reflected in its unilateral termination without just cause.
26. The club indicated that in response hereto, the player “wrote few personal messages to the
General Director of FC Rukh Lviv (the Claimant) Mr. Igor Dedyshyn via WhatsApp aplogising.”
27. The club requested the following relief:
-
Claim dated 30 August 2023 shall be rejected entirely;
to accept the Counterclaim
the player pays the club, the amount of USD 1,000,000.00 of contractual fine (penalty) provided
for in the Article 6.5. of the Contract
recovering all legal costs from the player
c.
Reply to the counterclaim
28. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player stated the following:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11571
-
-
-
-
“Firstly, the Player strongly disagrees with the Club as per the responsibility of the breach of the
Contract. If the Club considers, on the one hand, that the alleged unjustified (quod non) absence
of the Player constitutes a breach of contract, the Player considers on the other hand (see the
Claim) that it is the Club that is responsible of the breach of the Contract due to the pressure
put on the Player by blackmailing the latter with his passport.
Secondly, as per the compensation requested by the Club, the Player completely disagrees with
the Club’s reasoning in its Counterclaim.
The examples of jurisprudence quoted do not apply to the present case as the Player’s market
value is null as the Player joined the Club as a free agent.
Hence, the Club did not suffer any financial loss following the termination of the Contract, which
means that the Club cannot invoke the principle of positive interest in order to claim damages
in the amount of USD 1,000,000.00.
Indeed, although this amount is foreseen in the Contract, it is clearly disproportionate for the
Club to seek such amount as it does not represent at all the alleged loss suffered by the Club.
Based on Article 163 par. 3 of the Swiss Code of Obligation, the Courts have the possibility to
reduce the penalty amounts that are disproportionate. Moreover, pursuant to the wellestablished FIFA jurisprudence, this kind of disproportionate penalty clause in favour of the Club
are simply considered null and void, as it should be the case in the present matter.
Considering the foregoing and referring to the grounds of the Claim lodged by the Player in the
present proceedings, the Player deems that it is the Club that is the sole responsible of the
termination of the Contract and thus, that only the Player is entitled for damages and
compensation.”
29. In conclusion, the player reiterated his request of relief as per his claim.
d.
Position of the Intervening Party
30. The Intervening party, inter alia, mentioned the following:
-
“Al Bidda SC affirms in this statement that it is not involved in the termination of the player's
contract with Rukh Lviv SC. Furthermore, Al Bidda SC asserts that it holds no fault in the matter,
Invoking the provision outlined In Article 17, paragraph 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
-
Al-Bidda Sports Club received official approval from the Qatar Football Association and was
officially registered only during the general assembly held on 01/06/2023. Recognized as a
professional football club eligible to sign professional foreign football players from that date
onwards, this underscores that there is no link between the club and the termination of the
player's contract with Rukh Lviv. Documentation shows that the player's association with his
previous club was severed from January 9, 2023, approximately five months before Al Bidda
Sports Club's official registration.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11571
-
Al Bidda SC was not informed by the Rukh LVIV club of any correspondence suggesting that the
player was still under contract or actively playing for them, or if there had been a unilateral
termination of the contract by either the club or the player, with or without just cause.
Consequently, Al Bidda SC was unaware of the actual circumstances surrounding the player's
status until the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) brought the club into the current case. This
involvement provided Al Bidda SC its first insight into the facts, which had previously been
entirely obscured.
-
Neither Rukh Lviv nor the relevant Ukrainian sports federation raised objections to the issuance
of the international transfer certificate requested by the Qatar Football Association through the
FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS) at the end of August 2023, within the mandatory7dayresponse period. Had any objections or rejections been raised, Al Bidda SC would have been
informed of the concealed details regarding the player's status, in line with relevant
jurisprudence set by FIFA DRC and CAS in cases such as case No. Ref. 2019/A/6444- 6445, where
Dnipro notified Palmeiras that the player was still under contract with the Ukrainian club.
-
At the time of signing with Al Bidda SC, the player was a free agent, having no contractual ties
with any club. Consequently, Al Bidda SC did not benefit from any termination of the player's
previous contract as there was no ongoing contractual relationship with another club at the
time of his signing. Thus, the argument that Al Bidda SC benefited from the player's contract
termination is not applicable in this scenario, rendering the application of Article 17, para. 2
inappropriate for this particular case.”
31. The Intervening party, sought the following relief:
a)
“Al Bidda SC requests to be excluded from this case, as the club entered into an agreement with
the player under the belief that his previous contractual obligations had been lawfully
concluded, and without knowledge of any ongoing disputes or claims from his former club, Rukh
Lviv. Furthermore, Al Bidda SC was not officially registered when the dispute between Rukh Lviv
Club and the player Bright Enobakhare began.
b)
Any claims made against Al Bidda SC in connection with this case should be rejected. The club
acted in good faith under the assumption that the player was a free agent following the lawful
termination of his previous contract, and there was no indication from the previous club or
regulatory bodies that this was contested.
c)
Should the tribunal find that the player had terminated his contract unilaterally without just
cause, Al Bidda SC requests that it not be held jointly and severally liable for any compensation
payment. The club was not involved in the circumstances leading to the termination of the
player's contract with Rukh Lviv and only engaged with the player based on the information
available at the time r which indicated he was free to sign.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11571
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 31 August 2023 and submitted for
decision on 15 May 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
33. 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 February 2024 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 Nigerian player
and a Ukrainian club.
34. 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 (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 August 2023, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
35. 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
36. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11571
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and noted that the case at hand pertains to a claim for outstanding remuneration
and compensation for breach of contract of the player against the club and a claim of the
club for compensation for breach of contract against the player following the departure of
the player from the club.
38. The Chamber took note that the player argued that he had just cause to terminate the
contract on 21 August 2023 due to the various and fundamental breaches of the club, (i)
the club forced the player to sign a document jeopardizing his rights, blackmailing him with
the illegal retention of his passport (ii) because of the aforesaid as well out of fear of the
ongoing war in Ukraine, he never returned to the club and (iii) the club failed to remit his
salaries from December 2022 until July 2023.
39. The Chamber further noted that the club on its account argued that (i) it never applied,
force to the player in order to sign a document; (ii) it does not have any outstanding
obligations towards the player ,since the salary payments are done by cash and in person,
accordingly the player failed to receive his December 2022 salary by abandoning his
workplace in Ukraine by failing to return to the club in January, and (iii) the termination
letter of the player dated 22 August 2023 should be considered null and void, since it was
delivered after the time the contract was already terminated by the player without just
cause and unilaterally on 8 January 2023.
40. Based on the foregoing considerations as well as the documentation on file, the Chamber
deemed it appropriate to recall the following circumstances:
-
-
-
-
On 12 December 2022, the player signed a document undertaking to obtain a permit and
return to the club by 8 January 2023
On 13 December 2022, the player travelled to Nigeria
On 8 January 2023, the club sent its first request to the player to return.
On13 January 2023, the club requested the player to report to the club’s team location by
no later than 16 January 2023, additionally, informing the player that it desired to reach a
settlement agreement.
On 25 January 2023 the club send a further correspondence to the player, requesting his
arrival at the club’s team camp location no later than 30 January 2023, again proposing a
settlement to the player
On 24 May 2023, the club requested the player to pay in favour of the club the contractual
penalty of USD 1,000,000.00 for the breach of contract, alleging that he terminated the
contract without just cause
On 5 August 2023, the player put the club in default and requested payment of the amount
of UAH (Ukraine Hryvnia) 2,924,600.00, corresponding to salaries from December 2022
until July 2023, granting it a deadline of 15 days to comply.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11571
-
On 21 August 2023, the player sent a termination letter to the club
41. On analysis of the above circumstances, the Chamber firstly referred to the document on
file, dated 12 December 2022, specifically addressing the allegations of the player i.e., that
he was forced to sign it, in this regard the Chamber remarked that it has to be highlighted
that there is no clear and substantial evidence on file, which can corroborate the said
allegations.
42. Nonetheless, the Chamber referred to the content of the said document and remarked that
it seems that the club placed the burden on the player to obtain the visa/permit to provide
his employment services to the club, in this regard the Chamber referred to the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal which states that as soon as a contract is signed
between a player and a club, as a general rule, it is the club´s duty and responsibility to act
accordingly in order to obtain, if necessary, a work permit or a visa for its players prior to
the signing of an employment contract or during its period of validity, in order for players
to be able to legally enter a particular country and be in a position to render their services
to the club.
43. The Chamber observed that following the departure of the player from Ukraine on 13
December 2022 and his failure to return on 8 January 2023, the club made numerous
attempts requesting the player’s return and even suggested a proposed settlement.
44. In this regard, the Chamber mentioned that it can be noted that the player did not reply to
the club’s call back request in January or settlement proposals, which was perhaps
motivated by his wish not to return to Ukraine due to the war. Indeed, the Chamber
observed he made it clear that he never returned to the club by fear of both the ongoing
war in Ukraine and following the alleged incidents at the club.
45. In continuation, majority of the Chamber remarked that the club though on its account
failed to proof that it carried out the necessary arrangements in order for the player to in
the first place enter/remain in the country to provide his playing services. It should be kept
in mind that prior to the player’s failure to return to Ukraine on 8 January 2023, the club
failed to comply with its administrative duties in relation to the visa/permit.
46. In view of the above, majority of the Chamber concluded that from the player’s behaviour,
it can be determined that he was not interested in resuming his duties with the club;
likewise, for the club it seems that it was not genuinely interested in the player’s services
i.e., failure to comply with administrative duties, settlement proposals etc.
47. As such, the opinion of majority of the Chamber was that the parties therefore mutually
departed from the contract, ultimately as from 8 January 2023, the date the player failed
to return to resume his duties with the club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11571
48. Following the above line of reasoning, majority of the Chamber held that since none of the
parties were sincerely interested in continuing the employment relationship, no
compensation for breach of contract to any of the parties is awarded except for any
outstanding remuneration due to the player prior to January 2023, moreover since the
player departed on 8 January 2023, he is not entitled to the salary of the said month.
49. As such, majority of the Chamber held that both the request of the player as well as the
request of club to be awarded compensation for breach of contract, is rejected.
ii. Consequences
50. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
51. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to one month
salary under the contract, amounting to UAH 6,700.
52. 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
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. UAH
6,700.
53. 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 amount as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. 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.
55. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11571
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-11571
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Bright Enobakhare, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, FC Rukh Lviv, is rejected.
3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, FC Rukh Lviv, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
-
UAH 6,700 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2022 until the date of effective payment
4. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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. 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/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter
Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-11571
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15