Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12745
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Dmytro
Khlobas
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Dmytro Khlobas, Ukraine
Represented by Yuriy Yurchenko
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Urartu FC, Armenia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12745
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 February 2022, the Ukrainian player Dmytro Khlobas (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Armenian club Urartu FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment agreement valid as from the aforementioned date until 31 May 2023
(hereinafter: the Contract) together with 2 Annexes. Both Annexes have the same date as
the Contract.
2.
According to art. 6 of the Contract:
“6.1. The Player shall be entitled to the amount of monthly salary, stipulated in the Annex to this
Contract, which is an integral part of the Contract.
6.2. The salary should be paid each month during the period from 1 to 15 of the next month by
transferring by wire transfer to the bank.”
3.
Pursuant to art. 1 of Annex 1 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to AMD 200,000 net
as monthly salary.
4.
Pursuant to art. 1 of Annex 2 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to USD 6,000 net as
monthly salary, “payable by the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Armenia
on the last calendar day of the month, which is previous to the month of the payment,” as well
as USD 300 net per month for “accommodation (apartment) in Yerevan city within the duration
of the Agreement.”
5.
On 27 February 2023, the parties allegedly entered into a Prolongation Agreement in order
to extend the validity of the Contract until 10 June 2023.
6.
The Player was fielded in 2 official matches with the Club, taking place on 2 and 6 June 2023.
7.
On 12 September 2023, the Player put the Club in default of payment, claiming he was
owed an amount of USD 9,800 and granting a time limit of 10 days to remedy the default.
In the default notice, the Player claimed he was owed salaries for July through December
2022 as well as June 2023, in addition to the accommodation fees for July through
December 2022.
8.
On 13 September 2023, the Club replied to the aforementioned default notice, inter alia
indicating that the Player’s claims did not coincide with the information on their end, that
the Player did not attach documents to substantiate its allegations, and rejected the
communication as a notice in the sense of art. 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
9.
On 19 September 2023, the Player sent another correspondence, reiterating his position
and request for payment, and granting a new 10-day period to remit payment.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12745
10. On 25 September 2023, the Club replied and rejected the Player’s notice, reiterating that
the Player’s allegations did not coincide with their information.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 20 November 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
12. According to the Player, the Club had not complied with the following payments owed to
him (quoted verbatim):
“– a part of the July 2022 salary – USD 1,000;
– a part of the August 2022 salary – USD 1,000;
– a part of the September 2022 salary – USD 1,000;
– a part of the October 2022 salary – USD 1,000;
– a part of the November 2022 salary – USD 1,000;
– a part of the December 2022 salary – USD 1,000;
– a June 2023 salary (from 1 till 10 June) – USD 2,000;
– a July 2022 compensation for accommodation (apartment) – USD 300;
– an August 2022 compensation for accommodation (apartment) – USD 300;
– a September 2022 compensation for accommodation (apartment) – USD 300;
– an October 2022 compensation for accommodation (apartment) – USD 300;
– a November 2022 compensation for accommodation (apartment) – USD 300;
– a December 2022 compensation for accommodation (apartment) – USD 300, […]”
13. The Claimant’s requests for relief were therefore as follows (quoted verbatim):
“I ON BEHALF OF THE PLAYER ASK:
1. To set the claim of the Claimant for hearing.
2. To accepted the claim of the Claimant in full.
2. To oblige the Respondent, Sporting NGO “FC “URARTU”, Armenia, to pay to the Claimant,
professional football player Dmytro Khlobas, Ukraine, overdue payables in the amount of USD
9,800 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
• on the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 August 2022;
• on the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 September 2022;
• on the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 October 2022;
• on the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 November 2022;
• on the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 December 2022;
• on the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 January 2023;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12745
• on the amount of USD 2,000 as from 11 June 2023.”
b. Reply and Counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant
14. In its reply, the Club challenged the sufficiency of the Player’s evidence to demonstrate that
he was owed the amounts claimed. Specifically, the Club challenged that one of the exhibits
filed by the Claimant in relation to payments was incomplete and should therefore be
completely disregarded.
15. Notably, the Club maintained that the Club and the Player signed the Contract and Annex
1 (stipulating the salary at AMD 200,000) as a security measure, with Annex 2 being signed
after the Player’s arrival and reflecting the true and common intention of the parties.
16. In reply, the Club provided the following breakdown of payments made to the Player in
cash (quoted verbatim):
Payment amount in
accordance with the
Annex
Currency
Summary of the
amount per
month
Payment
type
Year
Month
2022
February
3000
USD
3000
Cash
2022
March
6000 + 300
USD
6300
Cash
2022
April
6000 + 300
USD
6300
Cash
2022
May
6000 + 300
USD
6300
Cash
2022
June
6000 + 300
USD
6300
Cash
2022
July
5000
USD
5000
Cash
2022
August
5000
USD
5000
Cash
2022
September
5000
USD
5000
Cash
2022
October
5000
USD
5000
Cash
2022
November
4500
USD
4500
Cash
2022
December
4500
USD
4500
Cash
2023
January
5610 +190
USD
5800
Cash
2023
February
5800
USD
5800
Cash
2023
March
5800
USD
5800
Cash
2023
April
5800
USD
5800
Cash
2023
May
5800
USD
5800
Cash
Total:
86200 USD
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12745
17. Furthermore, the Club averred that the Player received unjustified payments pursuant to
Annex 1, which had been superseded by Annex 2, and alluded to the Club’s change in
management. According to the Club, the payments were made as follows (quoted
verbatim):
Amount in USD NET by
Payment amount
Number of
the exchange rate of
in AMD NET in
Payment the player in Corresponding
central bank of armenia
accordance the
type
the payroll attached proofs
by the last day of the
former annex
list
corresponding month
Year
Month
2022
February
66 328
137
Cash
13
Annex 3
2022
March
188 294
387.5
Cash
13
Annex 4
2022
April
188 294
415.4
Cash
13
Annex 5
2022
May
188 294
420.3
Cash
12
Annex 6
2022
June
200 000
491.1
Cash
6
Annex 7
2022
July
200 000
490.5
Cash
11
Annex 8
2022
August
200 000
494.36
Cash
14
Annex 9
2022
September
200 000
493
Cash
0576
Annex 10
2022
October
200 000
505.8
Cash
0576
Annex 11
2022
November
200 000
506.5
Wire
–
Annex 12
2022
December
200 000
508
Wire
–
Annex 13
2023
January
200 000
505.5
Wire
–
Annex 14
2023
February
200 000
513.7
Wire
–
Annex 15
2023
March
200 000
514.8
Wire
–
Annex 16
2023
April
200 000
517.3
Wire
–
Annex 17
2023
May
200 000
517.3
Wire
–
Annex 18
Total:
7418.06
USD
18. In addition, the Club further submitted that the Player had received 2 additional,
unsolicited payments in cash as follows (quoted verbatim):
Year Month Amount of unsolicited payment Currency Payment type Corresponding attached proofs
2022 April
5250
USD
Cash
Annex 19
2022 May
2000
USD
Cash
Annex 20
Total:
7250 USD
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12745
19. Arguing that Annex 1 had been superseded by Annex 2, the Club averred that the Player
had been unjustly enriched and such amounts shall be reimbursed, or, alternatively,
deducted from the amounts claimed. In particular, the Club submitted that the total
amount by which the Player was unjustly enriched was USD 14,668.06 (USD 7,418.06 under
Annex 1 plus USD 7,250 of additional unsolicited payments).
20. Concerning the two payments amounting to USD 7,250, the Club argued that these were
wrongly identified as bonus payments in the relevant documentation, but they were not in
fact earned and therefore paid in error. By the end of the 2021/2022 season, the Club had
finished in 5th place and was not entitled to participate in UEFA competitions, nor did it win
the Cup that season. Additionally, the payment was not made in accordance with the
general director’s directive (as stipulated in the Contract and Annex), but by the sporting
directive and team manager, who do not hold executive power to act on behalf of the Club.
21. Additionally, the Club stated that it had “cut” the Player’s remuneration due to having
discovered that it had allegedly been overpaying him.
22. Furthermore, the Club submitted that the total value of the Contract was USD 104,783 net,
but the Player received USD 105,868.06 net (i.e., an additional USD 1,085.06 net) due to a
drastic change in the exchange rate between USD and AMD.
23. Thus, the Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“65. For all reasons mentioned above, the Respondent is calling the FIFA DRC to reject the filed
claim in its entirety.
66. Subsidiarily, should the Honourable DRC reject the request of relief set forth in par. 65 of the
present response, the Club herein requests to proceed with this response as counterclaim in
accordance with the article 21 (2) of Procedural Rules, and condemn the claimant, football
player Dmytro Khlobas (nationality: Ukraine, d.o.b. 09.05.1994), to compensate the football club
Sporting NGO FC Urartu, a football club affiliated to Football Federation of Armenia, 1085.06
USD NET upon unjust enrichment under article 62 (1) of Swiss Code of Obligations, plus 5%
interest rate accrued from the date of expiry of the Contract, namely from 10th of June 2023.”
c. Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s Reply to the Counterclaim
24. In his reply to the Club’s counterclaim, the Player submitted that the Annexes were signed
and in force at the same time; one did not cancel the other. The Club paid the Player’s salary
in accordance with both Annexes, as well as the compensation for accommodation, from
February through June 2022.
25. The Player maintained that no part of the Club’s allegations refuted the Player’s statement
about the existence of a debt towards him for the period specified.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12745
26. As to the allegedly improper payment of the bonuses, the Player alleged these were paid
to the first team players for winning the Armenian Cup (USD 2,000) and the Premier League
Championship for the 2022/2023 season (USD 5,250). The Player denied that the bonuses
had any dates on them, claiming they were added later to the Player’s signature. However,
they were paid to the entire team at the same time – 17 May 2023 and 5 June 2023 – and
were in any case provided for in the Contract, as they were made by authorized Club
officials (referencing arts. 3.1.1 and 3.2.2 of the Contract).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12745
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 20 November 2023 and submitted
for decision on 19 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 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.
28. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
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 Ukrainian player and an Armenian club.
29. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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. Burden of proof
30. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
31. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12745
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this case concerns a claim for outstanding remuneration only, whereby the parties strongly
dispute the amounts actually owed.
33. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether any
amounts indeed remained outstanding pursuant to the employment contract that bound
the parties.
34. As a starting point, the Single Judge noted that, while the Player sustained that the Contract
ran until 10 June 2023, the document relied upon by him for this was unsigned. To counter
this, the Player provided evidence that he was fielded twice in the beginning of June.
Additionally, from the Club’s submissions, the Single Judge considered that the Club also
acknowledged the Contract ran until 10 June 2023 in its reply and counterclaim.
35. As far as the DRC’s jurisprudence on this point, it was clear to the Single Judge in that, if
both parties acted in a manner consistent with the continuation of the contract, and the
Club fielded the Player in official matches after the originally stated expiry date, the
employment relationship shall be deemed valid through that period and a party cannot
now act inconsistently and claim otherwise, absent sufficient evidence in this respect
(venire contra factum proprium). Thus, in light of the evidence and allegations on file, the
Single Judge concluded that the Contract ran until 10 June 2023.
36. Secondly, the Single Judge noted that the Player’s claim appeared to be based exclusively
on Annex 2 to the Contract, which stipulated inter alia a salary rate of USD 6,000 net,
payable in AMD, plus USD 300 net in accommodation fees.
37. In this respect, it struck the Single Judge as odd that the payroll proof provided by the Club,
combined with the Player’s requests, suggested that the Player was apparently owed less
than the USD 6,000 net monthly salary plus USD 300 net accommodation fee for November
and December 2022. Specifically, the Club submitted that they paid the Player USD 4,500
in November and December 2022, and the Player submitted he was still owed USD 1,300
in both November and December 2022, yielding a total of USD 5,800. However, the Single
Judge found that this apparent internal inconsistency between both parties’ calculations
actually aligned with the Player’s submissions – that he was still owed USD 1,300 for each
of those months.
38. In any case, the Single Judge was comfortably satisfied in concluding from the evidence on
file that the Player and the Club had signed 3 documents concurrently:
-
The Contract, dated 15 February 2022 and valid until 31 May 2023;
Annex 1, also dated 15 February 2022 and stating that it was signed “to fulfil Items
3.1.1, 6.1 of the Agreement in order to establish the amount of salary and order of its
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12745
-
payment […]”;
Annex 2, also dated 15 February 2022 and stating that it was signed “to fulfil Items
3.1.1, 6.1 of the Agreement in order to establish the amount of salary and order of its
payment […].”
39. The Single Judge further noted that, whilst the parties submitted divergent arguments
concerning the relationship between said agreements, it was also clear from the evidence
provided by the Club that it had in fact been making payments under both Annexes to the
Player during the course of the employment relationship.
40. Moreover, after careful review of the file, the Single Judge did not find sufficient evidence
to support the Club’s version of events (i.e., that Annex 2 to the Contract was signed last in
time and therefore superseded Annex 1, and that the payments made under Annex 1 were
made in error). Hence, in the absence of additional circumstances or evidence to consider,
the Single Judge could only conclude that the Contract and Annexes comprised the entire
contractual framework governing the employment relationship, existing simultaneously
and imposing concurrent obligations on the Club.
41. As such, any amounts paid under Annex 1 of the Contract would not, on their face, appear
to constitute unjust enrichment and any amounts outstanding under Annex 2 must be paid
(pacta sunt servanda).
42. Moreover, since, by its own admission, the Club paid less than the contractually stipulated
USD 6,000 net monthly salary plus USD 300 net accommodation fee, and in the absence of
a contractual basis for any unilateral set-offs or reductions such as the ones the Club
undertook, the Single Judge concluded the Club is liable to pay these outstanding amounts,
as requested by the Player:
-
USD 1,300 for each of the 6 months from July through December 2022, for a total
of USD 7,800
USD 2,000 for the prorated salary of 1-10 June 2023
43. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard and the contents of the Contract and Annexes, the
Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 August 2022 until the
date of effective payment
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 September 2022 until
the date of effective payment
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 October 2022 until the
date of effective payment
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 November 2022 until
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12745
-
the date of effective payment
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 December 2022 until
the date of effective payment
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 January 2023 until the
date of effective payment
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 as from 11 June 2023 until the date
of effective payment.
44. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the Club’s counterclaim for unjust
enrichment. In addition to the above conclusions, which would lead to its rejection, the
Single Judge also reasoned that the argument concerning the bonuses purportedly paid in
error was unsubstantiated (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). Notably, the receipts
provided for those bonuses were labelled as such, signed by club officers, and apparently
paid team-wide, thus creating a strong presumption of validity. Moreover, the Club’s
assertion of missing a “general director’s directive” appeared, in the Single Judge’s view, to
be an internal administrative issue raised in an untimely manner, rather than grounds for
invalidating such payments.
45. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Club’s counterclaim shall be rejected.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
46. The Single Judge then 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.
47. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
48. Accordingly, the Single Judge also 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 were met in the case at hand.
49. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
50. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12745
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
51. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
52. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
53. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
54. 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.
55. The Single Judge 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
56. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
57. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
58. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12745
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Dmytro Khlobas, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Urartu FC, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- USD 9,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 August 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 September 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 October 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 November 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 December 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of USD 1,300 as from 16 January 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of USD 2,000 as from 11 June 2023 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant is rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent/Counterclaimant.
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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12745
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 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. 15
REF. FPSD-12745
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. 16