Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18614
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Óscar Esaú Duarte Gaitán
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Óscar Esaú Duarte Gaitán, Costa Rica
Represented by Alejandro Fernández Marco
RESPONDENT:
Al Wehdah, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Global Sport Consulting
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18614
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 July 2022, the Costa Rican player Óscar Esaú Duarte Gaitán (hereinafter, the Player
or the Claimant) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Wehdah (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 16
July 2022 until 30 June 2024.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 5 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a total fixed remuneration of USD 2,587,500 net
distributed as follows:
3.
o USD 100,000 net for July 2022
o USD 50,000 net for July 2023
o USD 50,000 net for August 2022
o USD 50,000 net for August 2023
o USD 50,000 net for September 2022
o USD 50,000 net for September 2023
o USD 50,000 net for October 2022
o USD 50,000 net for October 2023
o USD 50,000 net for November 2022
o USD 743,750 net for November 2023
o USD 50,000 net for December 2022
o USD 50,000 net for December 2023
o USD 693,750 net for January 2023
o USD 50,000 net for January 2024
o USD 50,000 net for February 2023
o USD 50,000 net for February 2024
o USD 50,000 net for March 2023
o USD 50,000 net for March 2024
o USD 50,000 net for April 2023
o USD 50,000 net for April 2024
o USD 50,000 net for May 2023
o USD 50,000 net for May 2024
o USD 50,000 net for June 2023
o USD 50,000 net for June 2024
In addition, the Player was also entitled to the following fringe benefits under Clause 5.5 of
the Contract:
o “Two round air business tickets for the player per season – From his place of residence to
Jeddah and return”;
o “One round air business class ticket for his family i.e., wife and children per season –
From their place of residence to Jeddah and return”.
o “Accommodation – Suitable three bedrooms apartment”; and
o “Transportation – Adequate vehicle”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18614
4.
In accordance with Clause 6 of the Contract, the Club undertook, inter alia, the following
obligations:
“6.9. Take out insurance to cover the Player against any accident, injury and medical
treatment which he may require during the Term. The Club shall further ensure that such
insurance coverage shall include insured events whose effects extend after the end of the
Term.
6.16. Cover all costs of the Player’s medical treatment and rehabilitation for the duration of
the Term, provided that such costs result from illness or injury and were incurred pursuant
to a referral by the Club doctor.”
5.
On 27 February 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline until 10
March 2025 to proceed with the payment of USD 301,253.91 net per the following amounts
and concepts:
o USD 98,273.19 net as outstanding remuneration;
o USD 128,733.33 net as accommodation expenses;
o USD 18,311.19 net as travel expenses (flight tickets);
o USD 36,280.20 net as transportation expenses (car rental); and
o USD 19,565 net as medical expenses.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 17 March 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Player argued that, while the Club undertook to pay him a total fixed
remuneration of USD 2,587,500 net under the Contract, it has only paid him
USD 2,489,226.81 net. Accordingly, the Player contended that USD 48,273.19 net and
USD 50,000 net, corresponding to the May and June 2024 salaries respectively, remain
outstanding.
8.
Furthermore, the Player alleged that the Club failed to cover his accommodation, travel
and medical expenses, despite its contractual obligation to do so. In this respect, the Player
claimed that he incurred costs totalling USD 128,733 net for accommodation,
USD 36,280.20 net for a car rental, USD 18,311.19 net for flights and visa expenses, and
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18614
USD 19,656 net for a shoulder surgery he had to undergo which, according to him, was not
covered by any insurance.
9.
Based on the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“Por todo ello, el Jugador solicita a la Cámara de Resolución de Disputas FIFA:
- Que acepte en su totalidad la presente reclamación.
- Que se condene al Club a abonar al Jugador la cantidad de 301,253.91 USD netos, con
el siguiente desglose:
o Salarios de mayo y junio 2024: 98,273.19 USD netos.
o Alojamiento: 128,733.33 USD netos.
o Alquiler de coche: 36,280.20 USD netos.
o Gastos billetes de avión: 18,311.19 USD netos.
o Gastos médicos operación hombro: 19,656.00 USD netos.
- Que se condene al Club a abonar al jugador un interés por mora del 5% anual sobre las
cantidades referenciadas en el párrafo previo, desde las distintas fechas de pago en que
debieron ser abonadas, fechas desde las que se encuentran vencidas y son exigibles.
- Que se imponga al Club la sanción consistente una multa económica (Artículo 12 bis 4.c)
y en la prohibición de inscribir nuevos jugadores, tanto en el ámbito nacional como en
el internacional, durante dos periodos de inscripción completos y consecutivos (Artículo
12 bis 4.d).”
Freely translated into English:
“In light of the above, the Player requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber:
- To accept this claim in its entirety;
- The Club is to be ordered to pay the Player 301,253.91 USD net, broken down as follows:
o Salaries for May and June 2024: USD 98,273.19 net.
o Accommodation: USD 128,733.33 net.
o Car rental: USD 36,280.20 net.
o Airfare expenses: USD 18,311.19 net.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18614
o Medical expenses for shoulder surgery: USD 19,656.00 net.
- The Club should be ordered to pay the player interest for late payment at a rate of 5%
per annum on the amounts referred to in the previous paragraph from the various
payment dates on which they were due.
- The Club should be fined and prohibited from registering new players, both nationally
and internationally, for two complete and consecutive registration periods (Article 12 bis
4.d).”
b. Reply of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Club argued that, on 12 June and 16 July 2024, it paid the Player his monthly
remuneration for May and June 2024, respectively. As a consequence, the Club contended
that there is no outstanding remuneration in the case at hand.
11. Regarding the fringe benefits agreed in Clause 5.5 of the Contract, the Club argued that it
provided the Player with a well-equipped villa in a luxurious compound and a suitable car
upon his arrival. However, the Player did not accept the accommodation and car provided
by the Club, and chose to independently rent another apartment and a car at his own
expense. In this regard, the Club claimed that it has no obligation to pay accommodation
or car expenses, as its obligation was to provide the Player with accommodation and a car,
which it did.
12. As to the medical expenses claimed, the Club asserted that the documentation submitted
by the Player is highly questionable and does not provide any proof of payment. In
particular, the Club argued that in the evidence provided by the Player it is stated that the
payment was made in cash, and then that the payment must be made within 5 days.
Furthermore, the Club added that the Player refused to be treated by its medical centre
and insisted on traveling home and undergoing treatment in Costa Rica, without any
commitment from the Club to pay the related medical expenses. According to the Club, it
is not liable to reimburse the alleged medical costs, especially considering that they would
have been free in Saudi Arabia.
13. Regarding the flight tickets, the Club asserted that it has never received a request from the
Player to book airline tickets and has no knowledge of the veracity of the invoices or the
payments actually made by the Player. The Club stated that it ”refers to the DRC’s discretion
to decide whether the Player is entitled to this payments, especially since the Club could have
booked all the tickets for the Player and his family through the partner travel agency to benefit
from advantageous prices”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18614
14. Based on the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“Pour tous ces motifs et ceux que la chambre jugera utiles, nous vous prions de rejeter la
requête du jour”.
Freely translated into English:
“For all these reasons and those that the chamber deems useful, we ask you to reject the
player’s request”.
c. Player’s comments on alleged payments
15. On 24 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat notified the Parties of the closure of the
submission phase of the proceeding. In addition, the FIFA general secretariat invited the
Player to provide his comments on the payments alleged to have been made by the Club.
16. On 30 April 2025, the Player informed that he has only received USD 2,489,226.81, and that
in the proofs of payment submitted by the Club there is no reference to the concept of the
payments.
17. Furthermore, the Player submitted that the Club had acknowledged via email his
entitlement to the reimbursement claimed.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18614
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 17 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
14 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
19. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the July
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Costa Rican
player and a Saudi Arabian club.
20. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29
of the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
21. Having established the above, the Chamber noted that, prior to analysing the merits of the
case at hand, it was necessary to examine the admissibility of two issues that arose in the
present proceedings, namely (i) the admissibility of the new arguments put forward by the
Player in response to the Club’s reply, and (ii) the potential statute of limitations regarding
part of the claim.
o Player’s new arguments
22. The members of the DRC took note that, on 24 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat
acknowledged receipt of the Club’s reply to the claim filed by the Player, and informed the
Parties that the submission phase of the proceedings was closed. Furthermore, and in view
of the Club’s arguments and evidence submitted, the FIFA general secretariat invited the
Player to provide his comments exclusively on the payments alleged to have been made
by the Club, in accordance with art. 23 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18614
23. The Chamber noted that, on 30 April 2025, the Player denied having received the payments
allegedly made by the Club and insisted that he has only received USD 2,489,226.91.
24. Additionally, the Player argued that the Club had acknowledged via email the Player’s
entitlement to the reimbursement requested.
25. In this respect, the Chamber determined that the Player’s allegations concerning the Club’s
acknowledgment of the sums claimed as reimbursement, as well as the evidence
submitted to this effect, were provided after the closure of the submission phase of the
proceedings. Furthermore, they go beyond the FIFA general secretariat’s request to the
Player, who was only invited to confirm whether he had received any of the payments
allegedly made by the Club.
26. In light of the above, the DRC determined that the Player’s aforementioned submissions
are inadmissible, in line with art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
o Statute of limitations
27. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that FIFA’s deciding-making bodies shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have
elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The Chamber highlighted that the
application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
28. In this context, the DRC recalled that the present claim was filed with FIFA on 17 March
2025. Therefore, any amounts fallen due before 17 March 2023 are affected by the statute
of limitations, in accordance with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations.
29. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, in the case at hand, the Player requested,
inter alia, the reimbursement of certain expenses allegedly incurred by him prior to 17
March 2023. In particular, the Player requested the reimbursement for accommodation
expenses that were allegedly incurred on 14 September 2022 and on 8 February 2023.
30. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Player’s claim is partially time-barred and
deemed his claim relating to the reimbursement of amounts incurred before 17 March
2023 inadmissible.
c. Burden of proof
31. The Chamber then 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18614
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
32. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and reimbursement of
expenses.
34. The Chamber noted that, while the Player claimed to be entitled to outstanding
remuneration corresponding to the months of May and June 2024, as well as to the
reimbursement of several expenses allegedly incurred by him, the Club, for its part, denied
the Player’s entitlement to any of the amounts claimed, arguing that there is no
outstanding remuneration in this case and that it is not liable for any reimbursements.
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its first task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed outstanding remuneration had
in fact remained unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification
for not having complied with its financial obligations.
36. In continuation, the Chamber will have to analyse whether there is a contractual basis for
the reimbursement claimed and, if so, whether the Player has sufficiently proved having
incurred in the costs for which he now claims reimbursement.
37. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber proceeded to address the Player’s claims individually.
a) Outstanding remuneration
38. The DRC noted that, according to the Player, the Club has failed to remit USD 48,273.19 net
and USD 50,000 net for May and June 2024, totalling USD 98,273.19 net.
39. The Chamber also noted that, for its part, the Club submitted that it has already paid the
Player’s monthly remuneration for May and June 2024. In particular, the Club provided
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18614
evidence of two payments of USD 50,000 each on 12 June and 16 July 2024. The Club,
therefore, contended that no outstanding remuneration exists in this case.
40. After having analysed the evidence provided by the Club, the DRC concluded that the latter
has demonstrated having already complied with the payment of the amounts claimed to
be outstanding by the Player. In particular, the Chamber noted that both proofs of payment
of USD 50,000 each submitted by the Club confirm that the amounts were transferred to
the Player’s bank account as identified in the Contract, and that the two concepts were
“May 24 Salary” and “June 24 Salary”, respectively.
41. In light of the above, the Chamber rejected the Player’s claim for outstanding
remuneration.
b) Reimbursement of accommodation and travel expenses
42. In continuation, the DRC proceeded to analyse the Player’s claim regarding the
reimbursement of the accommodation and travel expenses allegedly incurred.
43. The Chamber noted that the Player mainly argued the following:
o The Club failed to cover his accommodation and travel expenses despite its
contractual obligation to do so. As a consequence, he incurred costs of
USD 128,733 net and USD 36,280.20 net, respectively, for renting an apartment
and a car.
o The Club also breached its contractual obligation to provide him and his family
with flight tickets, resulting in an additional cost of USD 18,311.19 net.
44. The Chamber also took note that, for its part, the Club submitted the following:
o The Player was provided with a well-equipped villa and a suitable car upon his
arrival. However, the Player chose to rent a different apartment and a car at his
own expense. Accordingly, it complied with its contractual obligation and should
not be liable to reimburse the Player the amounts requested.
o The Player never requested the issuance of flight tickets, and it has no knowledge
of the veracity of the invoices, or the payments allegedly made by the Player in
this regard.
45. With the above in mind, the DRC recalled that in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the Contract,
the Club undertook to provide the Player with the following:
o “Two round air business tickets for the player per season – From his place of residence
to Jeddah and return”;
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18614
o “One round air business class ticket for his family i.e., wife and children per season –
From their place of residence to Jeddah and return”.
o “Accommodation – Suitable three bedrooms apartment”; and
o “Transportation – Adequate vehicle”.
46. After analysing the foregoing contractual provision, the Chamber observed that the Club
had clearly undertaken to provide the Player with accommodation, a vehicle and two round
flight tickets for season for him and one for his family.
47. The Chamber, therefore, determined that the Club bore the burden of proving that it
provided the Player with the aforementioned fringe benefits.
48. However, the Club only argued that it provided the Player with a well-equipped villa and a
suitable car upon his arrival, but that he did not accept them and chose to independently
rent an apartment and a car at his own expense, without submitting any evidence in this
regard.
49. Regarding the flight tickets, the Club argued that the Player never requested them. The
Chamber, therefore, concluded that the Club confirmed that it had never provided the
flight tickets as agreed.
50. In light of the above, and based on the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided that the Player should be reimbursed for the expenses incurred for
accommodation and car rental expenses, and whose payment was effectively proven by
the relevant evidence, in the total amount of SAR 269,250 net as follows:
o Accommodation expenses: SAR 249,250 net.
o Car rental expenses: SAR 20,000 net.
51. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the DRC decided to award the Player interest at the
rate of 5% per annum as from the day after each cost was incurred until the date of effective
payment.
52. The DRC decided to reject the reimbursement of remaining accommodation and travel
expenses allegedly incurred, which were not supported by sufficient proof of payment.
53. The Chamber particularly pointed out that the evidence submitted by the Player regarding
the cost allegedly incurred for the flight tickets is not sufficient to establish that he did incur
in said cost. The invoices submitted, albeit issued by what appears to be a travel agency,
do not include any reference to a flight itinerary or its details. Accordingly, the DRC
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18614
concluded that the Player failed to prove that these costs allegedly incurred correspond to
flight expenses that should have been covered by the Club under Clause 5.5 of the
Contract.
c)
Reimbursement of medical expenses
54. Lastly, the Chamber analysed the Player’s claim regarding the reimbursement of medical
expenses incurred in Costa Rica for his shoulder surgery.
55. While the Player argued that the Club breached the Contract by failing to cover his medical
expenses relating to the aforementioned surgery, which was not covered by any insurance
either, the Club, conversely, claimed that the Player refused to be treated by its medical
centre and insisted on travelling home and undergoing treatment in Costa Rica. In any
event, the Club argued that the documentation provided by the Player regarding the
medical expenses does not prove that he incurred in any costs.
56. In this context, the members of the Chamber first recalled the well-established
jurisprudence of the DRC according to which clubs have a duty of care towards the players
they employ and that, as a principle, a club is responsible for the costs associated with the
medical treatment of an injury or illness sustained during the course of the contract. In this
regard, the DRC also emphasized that under normal circumstances such medical treatment
is to be undergone in the country of the club and thus does not mean that a club would be
obliged to pay the costs of surgery abroad should a player prefer to follow a different
treatment than the treatment proposed by the club.
57. Second, the Chamber considered it appropriate to recall that every person has the right
not to be submitted to medical interventions in their body without consent and thus no
player can be forced to follow a specific treatment. While a player cannot require a club to
bear the expenses of any type of treatment, he has the right to determine the
circumstances of any medical intervention. In other words, a player shall be entitled to
decide on his medical care, provided that he bears the additional costs involved if he
decides on a different course of action than the club.
58. The above implies that players have the right to decide how and where to be treated, and
that clubs shall respect such decisions. However, this does not mean that clubs should
automatically bear the costs of their player’s treatments when they decide to be treated
abroad or by other doctors, as in the present case (in this regard, see, inter alia, DRC
Decision of 12 December 2024, Santos-Junior).
59. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules
and concluded that it was for the Player to prove that the Club had accepted to bear the
costs related to his surgery in Costa Rica.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18614
60. In the absence of any evidence in this respect, the Chamber concluded that the Player
should not be reimbursed for the expenses incurred in Costa Rica related to his shoulder
injury.
61. For the sake of completeness, and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Chamber
observed that the evidence submitted by the Player does not prove that he has incurred in
USD 19,656 as claimed. As indicated in the invoice submitted, “Please note that this invoice
has to be paid within the next 5 business days, via electronic wire transfer”, and no proof of
payment was submitted by the Player.
62. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that the Player’s claim regarding the reimbursement of
medical expenses could not be upheld.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. 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.
64. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
65. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
66. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
67. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18614
e. Costs
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18614
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Óscar Esaú Duarte Gaitán, is partially accepted insofar as it is
admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Al Wehdah, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
SAR 269,250 net as reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of SAR 123,750 net as from 20 July 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of SAR 20,000 net as from 15 September 2023 until the
date of effective payment.
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of SAR 125,500 net as from 16 February 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18614
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-18614
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 18