Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15177
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 September 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Rodrigo
Jhossel Huescas Hurtado
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Cruz Azul, Mexico
FIRST RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado, Mexico
SECOND RESPONDENT:
FC Kobenhavn, Denmark
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15177
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are the following:
−
−
−
the Mexican club Cruz Azul (hereinafter: Cruz Azul)
the Mexican player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado (hereinafter: Player)
the Danish club FC Kobenhavn (hereinafter: Kobenhavn)
(the Player and Kobenhavn shall also be jointly referred to hereinafter as Respondents)
2.
On 1 June 2022, Cruz Azul and the Player concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from the aforementioned date until 31 May 2025 and/or until Cruz
Azul’s last match of the Torneo Clausura 2025.
3.
In accordance with the Contract, Cruz Azul undertook inter alia to pay the Player a monthly
salary of MXN 50,000.
4.
Clause Sixteen of the Contract stipulated as follows (quoted verbatim):
“DÉCIMA SEXTA. – Rescisión del Contrato
La relación de trabajo que se establece por virtud de este Contrato podrá rescindirse sin
responsabilidad alguna para el Club: (i) por incumplimiento por parte del Jugador a las
obligaciones a su cargo derivadas del presente Contrato, del Reglamento Interno, del Código de
Ética, de la Política Anticorrupción o de la Política de Conflicto de Interés; (ii) […]
Asimismo, las Partes acuerdan que también se considerarán causales de rescisión de la relación
de trabajo sin responsabilidad para el Club:
f) La inasistencia injustificada del Jugador por más de tres (3) días a los entrenamientos,
concentraciones o partidos del Club.
[…]
La aplicación justificada de las causales de rescisión antes mencionadas serán sin
responsabilidades para el Club y, por lo tanto, no generará el pago de indemnización o
compensación de ninguna naturaleza para el Jugador. Sin embargo, las Partes pactan expresa
e irrevocablemente que, en caso de que proceda la resolución contractual justificada, el Jugador
deberá resarcir al Club por concepto de indemnización, con el total de la Contraprestación
pactada en el presente Contrato, es decir, el valor total del Salario Integrado y Bonos a que tiene
derecho el Jugador durante la Vigencia del presente Contrato.”
Freely translated into English:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15177
“SIXTEENTH.- Termination of the Contract
The employment relationship established by virtue of this Contract may be terminated
without any responsibility for the Club: (i) due to the Player’s breach of his obligations under
the present Contract, the Internal Regulations, the Ethics Code, the Anti-Money Laundering
Policy, or the Conflict of Interest Policy; (ii) […]
Similarly, the Parties agree that the following shall also be considered grounds for
termination of the employment relationship without any responsibility for the Club: […]
f) An unjustified absence by the Player for more than three (3) days from the Club´s
training, call-ups or matches.
[…]
The justified application of the aforementioned grounds for termination shall be without liability
for the Club and, therefore, shall not result in the payment of any indemnity or compensation
of any kind to the Player. However, the Parties expressly and irrevocably agree that, in the event
of justified contractual termination, the Player shall compensate the Club by way of indemnity
with the full amount of the consideration agreed upon in this Contract, that is, the total value of
the Integrated Salary and Bonuses to which the Player is entitled during the term of this
Contract.”
5.
Furthermore, Clause Eighteen of the Contract stipulated as follows (quoted verbatim):
“DÉCIMA OCTAVA.- Cláusula de Recisión
En el supuesto de que un Club quisiera adquirir los derechos Federativos del Jugador, se tomará
en consideración las siguientes cláusulas de recisión:
a) Cub de LIGAMX: USD $8,000,000.00 (Ocho millones de dólares de los Estados Unidos de
América 00/100).
b) Club de la MLS: USD $4,000,000.00 (Cuatro millones de dólares de los Estados Unidos de
América 00/100).
c) Club de EUROPA: USD $2,000,000.00 (Dos millones de dólares de los Estados Unidos de
América 00/100).”
Freely translated into English:
“EIGHTEENTH.- Buy-Out Clause
In the event that a Club would like to acquire the Player's federative rights, the following buyout clauses shall be considered.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15177
a) Club from LIGA MX. USD $8,000,000.00 (Eight million dollars of the United States of
America).
b) Club from MLS. USD $4,000,000.00 (Four million dollars of the United States of America).
c) Club from EUROPE. USS $2,000,000.00 (Two million dollars of the United States of America).”
6.
Moreover, Clause Nineteen of the Contract stipulated as follows (quoted verbatim):
“DÉCIMA NOVENA.- Venta Fútura
Ambas partes acuerdan que, en el caso de que el Jugador sea vendido a otro Club durante la
vigencia del presente Contrato:
I.
II.
III.
El Jugador, percibirá el 10% de la cantidad total de la venta.
Adicionalmente, el Jugador percibirá 5% más, del porcentaje establecido en el numéral
I de la presente clausula, siempre y cuando, el monto de la operación de venta sea entre
uno y dos millones de dolares américanos ó el 10% más del porcentaje establecido en el
numéral 1 de la presente clausula, siempre y cuando el monto de la operación de venta
sea mayor a 2 millones de dolares américanos.
En este mismo sentido, AmEro Sports Managment (ARBIDE AND GARCÍA BUSINESS
GROUP, S.C.) percibirá el 10% de la cantidad total de la venta.”
Freely translated into English:
“NINETEENTH.- Future Sale
Both parties agreed that, in case the Player is sold to another Club during the term of the
present Contract:
I.
II.
III.
The Player shall receive 10% of the total amount of the sale.
Additionally, the Player shall receive an additional 5% on top of the percentage
established in number I of the present clause, so long as the amount of the sale
operation is between one and two million US Dollars or an additional 10% on top of
the percentage established in number I of the present clause, so long as the amount
of the sale operation is over 2 million US dollars.
In this same sense, AmEro Sports Management (ARBIDE AND GARCIA BUSINESS
GROUP, S.C.) shall receive 10% of the total amount of the sale.”
7.
Between 2023 and the beginning of 2024, Cruz Azul engaged in exchanges with the Player
to renew his contract, with the intention of such new contract to begin on 1 July 2024.
8.
On 5 April 2024, the Player, via his agent, informed Cruz Azul in writing of his intention not
to renew.
9.
On 31 May 2024, and after holding meetings with Cruz Azul, the Player submitted his
proposed terms for a contract extension.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15177
10. In response, on 1 June 2024, Cruz Azul submitted a new proposal for contract extension.
11. Upon inquiring with the Player’s agent, Cruz Azul was informed on 18 June 2024 that there
was no reply from the Player regarding the latest proposal from Cruz Azul for his contract
extension.
12. On 24 June 2024, the Player returned from international duty.
13. On 4 July 2024, the Player informed Cruz Azul that he suffered from muscle fatigue.
According to Cruz Azul, he was not present for training that day. However, on 5 July 2024
he was examined by the club’s doctor and given the all-clear and, according to Cruz Azul,
resumed his duties the next day.
14. On 5 and 6 July 2024, Kobenhavn sent various correspondences to Cruz Azul regarding its
offer for the Player’s services.
15. The first communication from Kobenhavn contained an offer for the Player for USD
2,000,000, payable in two instalments on 15 July 2024 and 15 February 2025. Said offer was
stated to be conditional on the Player passing a medical exam and would be valid until 8
July 2024.
16. The second correspondence from Kobenhavn referred to the “release clause” in the
Player’s Contract, and Kobenhavn stated that they understood it would be triggered if they
paid USD 2,000,000. Therefore, Kobenhavn updated its offer to state that they would pay
USD 2,000,000 on 8 July 2024 pursuant to the “player’s release clause in his employment
contract,” again subject to the Player passing a medical exam.
17. On 6 July 2024 at 13:53 CET (6 July 2024 at 5:53 Mexican time), Kobenhavn sent another
correspondence to Cruz Azul indicating as follows (quoted verbatim):
“We refer to the matter of reference,in particular to our previous communications which,
to date, have remained unanswered.
First, please note that Mr Huescas will travel to Copenhagen on 7 July 2024 to perform the
relevant medical examinations. Given that we have received no reply from you to any of our
previous communications, we understand that you have no objections to Mr Huescas
being absent from your club for a few days.
Second, we would like to refer again to the release clause contained in Mr Huescas’
employment contract with Cruz Azul (see Clause 18). In this respect, after analysing the
relevant clause and receiving legal advice on it, we are convinced that, by inserting said
clause, Cruz Azul accepted the early termination of the employment contract with Mr Huescas
against the payment of a buy-out fee.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15177
In other words, the release clause contains three different offers, binding on Cruz Azul,aimed
at potential new clubs (depending on their geographical location), the acceptance of
which, by virtue of payment, would lead to the automatic termination of Mr Huescas’contract,
without further consequences of any kind.
The above results not only from the widely accepted meaning in the football world of a
“Claúsula de Rescisión” (see, for instance, CAS 2021/A/8543) but also from the wording of
the clause itself.
On account of the above, please note that we will proceed to exercise Mr Huescas’ release
clause by paying the amount of USD2,000,000 by 9 July 2024, upon which Mr Huescas will
be automatically freed from his employment contract with Cruz Azul, again without any
further consequences of any kind.
Unless you inform us otherwise before 9 July2024 10.00 CST (18.00 CET), the payment will be
made in Cruz Azul’s bank account reflected in the FIFA Transfer Matching System […].”
18. Also on 6 July 2024, the Player sent a written notice to Cruz Azul entitled “Solicitud de
Rescision de Contrato y Transferencia” (freely translated: “Request for Contract Termination
and Transfer”) whereby the Player expressed the following in the body of the email
accompanying the notice (quoted verbatim):
“Estimado Sr. Anzures,
Espero que se encuentre bien.
Adjunto a este correo encontrará una carta formal en la que expreso mi deseo de dar por
terminada mi relación contractual con Cruz Azul, conforme a lo estipulado en la cláusula de
rescisión de mi contrato, y quería de esta forma manifestar mi interés en unirme al FC
Kobenhavn.
Solicito su colaboración para que proceda con las acciones necesarias para formalizar mi
desvinculación del club.
Quedo a su disposición para cualquier consulta que sea necesaria durante el proceso.
Atentamente,
Rodrigo Huescas”
Freely translated into English:
“Dear Mr. Anzures,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15177
I hope you are well.
Attached to this email, you will find a formal letter in which I express my desire to terminate
my contractual relationship with Cruz Azul, in accordance with the stipulations in the
termination clause of my contract, and I would like to hereby express my interest in joining
FC København.
I request your cooperation to proceed with the necessary actions to formalize my
disassociation from the club.
I remain at your disposal for any inquiries that may be necessary during the process.
Sincerely,
Rodrigo Huescas”
19. The notice itself from the Player indicated that it was his intention to trigger the “cláusula
de rescisión” in his Contract and referenced Kobenhavn’s correspondence from 5 July 2024
also expressing its intention to trigger Clause Eighteen of the Contract.
20. On or about 7 July 2024, Cruz Azul sent correspondence to Kobenhavn, stating as follows
and attaching a draft transfer agreement for the Player (quoted verbatim):
“We take due note of the content of your letter. Nonetheless, it can not be accepted by our
club in the terms you propose since it was not part of our plan to terminate our Player
contract.
Having said that and considering the player’s desire to play in Europe, Club Cruz Azul accepts
the transfer of the Player for the amount of USD 2,000,000 (Two million American dollars)
plus the corresponding taxes, payable in one sole installment.
Given the above, I am attaching the transfer agreement and invoice with the instructions.”
21. That same day, Kobenhavn returned the draft transfer agreement to Cruz Azul with some
comments.
22. Also on 7 July 2024, the Player travelled to Denmark and was reported to have made public
declarations concerning his offer from Kobenhavn and his desire to join said club.
23. On 8 July 2024, Cruz Azul sent correspondence to the Player and Kobenhavn. On one hand,
it indicated to Kobenhavn that no agreement had been reached on the Player’s transfer,
and on the other, it informed the Player that he had abandoned Cruz Azul and had
unilaterally terminated the Contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15177
24. In his reply to the above dated 9 July 2024, the Player denied having abandoned his
employment or having terminated his Contract. He reiterated that his correspondence
from 6 July 2024 was solely intended to inform Cruz Azul of his desire to go play for
Kobnhavn once the latter paid his buy-out clause, and that he was at that time still
contractually bound to Cruz Azul.
25. In its reply to Cruz Azul dated 8 July 2024, Kobenhavn highlighted that Cruz Azul had never
raised any objections to the Player traveling for his medical exam up until that point, and
rejected Cruz Azul’s statements that no agreement had been reached. Furthermore,
Kobenhavn argued that the conclusion of a transfer agreement with Cruz Azul was not
necessary as it was exercising the buy-out clause, which Cruz Azul never disputed. Finally,
Kobenhavn granted Cruz Azul until the end of the day to send the final version of the
transfer agreement and stated that, in any event, it would remit payment to Cruz Azul’s
bank account according to the transfer agreement and what was displayed on the FIFA
Transfer Matching System (TMS).
26. On 9 July 2024, Kobenhavn paid USD 2,000,000 to Cruz Azul.
27. On 10 July 2024, the Player and Kobenhavn concluded an employment agreement. The
Player was subsequently registered with Kobenhavn on 15 July 2024, after an International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) dispute ensued and a decision from the FIFA Players’ Status
Chamber was rendered in this regard.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
28. On 9 July 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of Cruz Azul
29. In its claim, Cruz Azul argued that the Player had unilaterally terminated his Contract
without just cause, that Kobenhavn had induced such conduct from the Player, and that
both parties shall be jointly liable for compensating Cruz Azul in the amount of USD
5,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of termination until the date of effective
payment.
30. Specifically, Cruz Azul argued that it was in the middle of contract renewal negotiations
with the Player, and that it had been led to believe that such negotiations would come to
fruition and with terms for a future transfer that were far superior to the amounts that
Kobenhavn sought to pay pursuant to (as Cruz Azul called it) the Player’s unilateral
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15177
termination clause (“cláusula de rescisión”). The Player’s sudden departure deprived Cruz
Azul of a significant economic benefit.
31. According to Cruz Azul, the Player and Kobenhavn’s actions constitute a violation of art. 18
par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In effect, the Player and his
representatives used the good faith offer from Cruz Azul to garner offers from other clubs
in the midst of those negotiations and in bad faith.
32. In this respect, Cruz Azul highlighted that the parties were clear on their intention to
increase the value of the unilateral termination clause, depending on the geographic
location of the club to which the Player would move. Specifically, Cruz Azul offered as
follows:
-
LIGAMX – USD 8,000,000
MLS – USD 5,000,000
Europe – EUR 3,500,000
Europe (70%) – EUR 2,450,000
Whereas the Player’s agents returned with the following comments (freely translated into
English):
“4. Early Termination Clause and Compensation
As we have mentioned before, this is the point we are most interested in. We consider that it
was very good that all parties involved were present at the offices of the Cooperative so that
Engineer Velazquez could hear our position.
We understand that the Club wants to increase the clause to USD 10,000,000, in order to
have margin for negotiation, but honestly it still seems too much to us. From our side we are
in a position to concede an increase of the current amount and propose the following:
1. European clubs: USD $5,000,000.
2. MLS clubs USD $10,000,000.
3. Liga Mx clubs USD $10,000,000.”
33. In relation to art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, Cruz Azul
submitted that the Player violated art. 17 par. 3 because he did not notify them of his intent
to depart within 15 days after the last official match of the 2023/2024 season, which was
held on 26 May 2024. Rather, he did so at a point in time when the season in Mexico had
already started, thus affecting the team.
34. Cruz Azul also sought action against the Player’s representatives under art. 16 par. 3 lit. a)
of the FIFA Agents Regulations for inducing the Player to breach his contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15177
35. Moreover, Cruz Azul submitted that Kobenhavn should also be held liable for its actions,
which impeded the continuation of the Player’s contractual relationship with Cruz Azul.
36. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (freely translated into English):
“Due to the conduct of the Player and the FCK club, the non-compliance with FIFA
regulations, and the Player's abandonment of his job position resulting in the early,
unilateral termination of the contract without just cause, Club Cruz Azul respectfully
requests this Honorable Court to resolve the following:
FIRST – That Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado be declared responsible for
unilaterally terminating the contract without just cause.
SECOND – That a sanction be imposed on Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado,
consisting of a four-month restriction on his eligibility to play in any official match for
teams affiliated with FIFA, due to the unjustified contract termination and the aggravating
factor of creating expectations within the club.
THIRD – That Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado be ordered to pay late interest at a
rate of 5% annually on USD $5,000,000.00, starting from the date of the unjustified
termination of his employment contract with Club Cruz Azul until full payment is made.
FOURTH – That a sanction be imposed on Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado,
consisting of a four-month restriction on his eligibility to play in any official match for
teams affiliated with FIFA, due to his failure to notify Club Cruz Azul of the termination of
his employment contract within fifteen days following the last match of the 2023–2024
season, as well as for the unjustified breach of contract with the aggravating factor of
creating expectations within the club.
FIFTH – That F.C. Copenhagen be declared responsible for inducing Player Rodrigo Jhossel
Huescas Hurtado to breach his contract with Club Cruz Azul, and that disciplinary
sanctions be imposed, consisting of a ban on registering players both nationally and
internationally.
SIXTH – That, in its capacity as jointly liable, F.C. Copenhagen be ordered to pay USD
$5,000,000.00 in accordance with Annex 8, and be sanctioned with a fine for the actions
described herein, as well as be ordered to pay legal costs as a jointly liable party for the
unilateral termination of the contract without just cause.
SEVENTH – That, in its capacity as jointly liable, F.C. Copenhagen be ordered to pay late
interest at a rate of 5% annually on USD $5,000,000.00, from the date of the unjustified
termination of the player's employment contract with Club Cruz Azul until full payment of
said amount.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15177
EIGHTH – That agents Alejandro García Ortiz and Santiago Arvide be sanctioned for
inducing the contractual breach by Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado, in
accordance with the applicable internal regulations and the regulations governing
football agents in the country’s football association.
The petition concludes with a request for a favorable ruling in defense of the club’s rights and
the rights of players, allowing the submission of any additional evidence or arguments that
may arise during the course of the case.”
b. Unsolicited Correspondence of Cruz Azul
37. On 9 August 2024, and during the time limit for the Respondents to reply to the claim, Cruz
Azul filed an unsolicited correspondence consisting of an amended claim and new
evidence.
38. In it, Cruz Azul denied that a transfer ever existed for the Player, as he unilaterally
terminated his employment contract with Cruz Azul without just cause via his email and
letter attached thereto, from 6 July 2024.
39. Cruz Azul also referred to the fact that it objected to the release of the Player’s ITC in light
of such unilateral and unjustified termination.
40. Cruz Azul submitted that Clause Eighteen of the Contract, which the Player purported to
exercise in order to facilitate his exit from Cruz Azul, was not a buy-out clause but a
liquidated damages clause, which did not give the Player the right to terminate his Contract.
41. Furthermore, Kobenhavn sabotaged the Player’s employment relationship with Cruz Azul
and, together with the actions of the Player’s agents, orchestrated the Player’s unilateral
termination without just cause when he abandoned his duties with Cruz Azul on 7 July 2024.
42. As to the consequences of the Player’s actions, Cruz Azul maintained that Clause Eighteen
of the Contract was rendered inapplicable by virtue of the contract renewal negotiations.
It was the Player’s own agents who proposed the liquidated damages clause of USD
5,000,000 in case the Player left for a European club, a change which Cruz Azul accepted.
43. Nevertheless, the Player’s market value and the damages caused to Cruz Azul were in fact
USD 6,000,000.
44. It was further acknowledged that Kobenhavn paid the USD 2,000,000 foreseen in Clause
Eighteen of the Player’s Contract on 9 July 2024.
45. Thus, Cruz Azul’s requests for relief, as amended, were as follows (freely translated into
English):
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15177
“FIRST – Regarding the conduct of Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado, he is declared
responsible for the unilateral breach of his employment contract with Club Cruz Azul
without justified cause.
SECOND – That Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado be ordered to pay USD
$3,000,000.00 (three million US dollars), net of any applicable taxes, to Club Cruz Azul as
compensation for the unjustified termination of his employment contract.
THIRD – That Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado be ordered to pay late interest to
Club Cruz Azul at a rate of 5% annually on the amount of USD $3,000,000.00, from the
date of the unjustified termination of his employment contract until full settlement of
said amount.
FOURTH – That a sanction be imposed on Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado,
consisting of a four-month restriction on his eligibility to play in any official match for
teams affiliated with FIFA, due to the unjustified termination of his employment contract
with Club Cruz Azul during the protected period and for failing to give reasonable prior
notice.
FIFTH – That Club FC Copenhagen be declared jointly liable with Player Rodrigo Jhossel
Huescas Hurtado for the payment of compensation for the unjustified termination of his
employment contract with Club Cruz Azul.
SIXTH – That, in its capacity as jointly liable, Club FC Copenhagen be ordered to pay USD
$3,000,000.00, net of any applicable taxes, to Club Cruz Azul as compensation for the
unjustified termination of the employment contract.
SEVENTH – That, in its capacity as jointly liable, Club FC Copenhagen be ordered to pay
late interest to Club Cruz Azul at a rate of 5% annually on the amount of USD
$3,000,000.00, from the date of the unjustified termination of the Player’s employment
contract until full settlement of said amount.
EIGHTH – That agents Alejandro García Ortiz and Santiago Arvide be sanctioned in
accordance with applicable internal regulations for inducing the contractual breach, in
clear violation of the Football Agents Regulations.
NINTH – That Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado, Club FC Copenhagen, and agents
Alejandro García Ortiz and Santiago Arvide be ordered to pay all costs of this
proceeding, including but not limited to the administrative costs of this Tribunal.
TENTH – That Player Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado, Club FC Copenhagen, and agents
Alejandro García Ortiz and Santiago Arvide be ordered to pay USD $20,000.00 (twenty
thousand US dollars) for legal representation expenses incurred in this proceeding.”
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15177
c. Reply of the Player and Kobenhavn, Counterclaim of the Player
46. On 2 September 2024, the Player and Kobenhavn filed a joint reply to the claim, with the
Player also filing a counterclaim against Cruz Azul. In it, they acknowledged and replied to
Cruz Azul’s unsolicited correspondence from 9 August 2024.
Reply to the Claim
47. In reply to Cruz Azul’s allegation that Kobenhavn and the Player negotiated a contract while
the Player was still under contract with Cruz Azul, the Respondents argued that art. 18 par.
3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players was a disciplinary matter and
irrelevant to contractual claims. In any event, Kobenhavn fulfilled its obligation by
informing Cruz Azul of its intention to sign the Player and the contract between Kobenhavn
and the Player was signed only after the buy-out clause was executed.
48. The Respondents argued that the Contract was terminated by mutual agreement through
the execution of the buy-out clause. More specifically, they argued that art. 13 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s
(hereinafter: CAS) jurisprudence allow for a mutual termination without a formal transfer
agreement if:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Origin club consents to termination.
Destination club consents to acquire the player.
Player consents to the move.
A price/value is paid.
49. Here, the Respondents maintained that all four conditions were met, as Cruz Azul accepted
the transfer and received USD 2,000,000, Kobenhavn and the Player agreed on terms, and
the Player was released and registered with Kobenhavn.
50. Moreover, the existence of the buy-out clause in the Contract allowed termination upon
payment by a third club. The Respondents submitted that this was a standard buy-out
clause, and not a liquidated damages clause as Cruz Azul argued. Indeed, Cruz Azul’s own
language in the Contract – calling it a cláusula de rescision– and its conduct – accepting the
transfer – confirmed the nature of such clause. Additionally, as confirmed by FIFA and CAS
jurisprudence, a buy-out clause implies prior consent and therefore no breach occurred.
51. Subsidiarily, the Respondents maintained that, even if the Chamber were to find that there
was a breach of contract (quod non), Cruz Azul was fully compensated with the payment of
USD 2M. Conversely, Cruz Azul’s claim for an additional USD 3,000,000 was speculative and
unsupported by evidence, as there was no proof of actual offers or proof credibly
establishing of the Player’s market value. The Respondents referenced CAS jurisprudence,
which requires a logical nexus between the breach of contract and the lost profits being
claimed, in addition to highlighting that the Player’s monthly salary under the Contract
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15177
amounted to approximately USD 2,500 and Cruz Azul itself valued its damages in case of
termination of the Contract without just cause at roughly USD 100,000 (in reference to
Clause Sixteen).
52. As a final matter, the Respondents averred that Cruz Azul lacked standing to request
sporting sanctions.
Player’s Counterclaim
53. In addition to requesting the rejection of Cruz Azul’s claim, the Player requested USD
300,000 plus interest pursuant to the sell-on clause contained in Clause Nineteen of the
Contract.
54. On the matter of the Football Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the counterclaim, the Player
submitted that the Dispute Resolution Chamber has jurisdiction as the counterclaim was
intrinsically connected to the main claim and thus factually connected with the ITC request.
Without the exercise of the buy-out clause, on which both the claim and counterclaim are
based, there would not have been a transfer (or a breach of contract, as Cruz Azul wrongly
alleged) and thus no ITC request.
55. As to the substance, and according to the Player, the common intention of the contracting
parties by using the word “sold” (“vendido”) was that the Player was entitled to 10% of any
financial benefit that Cruz Azul would receive from transferring him, which would increase
to 15% if said financial benefit was between USD 1-2,000,000. The phrase “in case the player
is sold to another club” (“en el caso de que el Jugador sea vendido a otro Club”) meant that
this clause was triggered if the Player was transferred to another club against payment,
with the word “sold” interpreted to cover all scenarios where Cruz Azul would receive a
financial benefit from the Player’s transfer to a third club.
56. The Player further submitted that the exercise of the buy-out clause triggered the sell-on
clause, as all the elements of a transfer existed at the time.
57. The Player also referred to the expansive definition of “transfer” set forth in the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, which defined it as the movement of a player’s
registration from one association to another.
58. Furthermore, the Player submitted that, if Cruz Azul would have wanted to exclude the
application of the sell-on clause in case the buy-out clause was executed, Cruz Azul should
have included an explicit provision to that effect, relying on the principle of contra
proferentem and citing FPSD-13062.
Request for Relief
59. The Respondents’ requests for relief were the following:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15177
“8. REQUESTED RELIEF
On account of all the foregoing, Rodrigo Huescas and FC Kobenhavn respectfully requests
the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to issue a decision ruling that:
I.The Claim filed by Cruz Azul against Rodrigo Huescas and FC Kobenhavn is rejected.
Additionally
II.Rodrigo Huescas’ counterclaim against Cruz Azul is admissible.
III.Cruz Azul is ordered to pay to Rodrigo Huescas the amount of USD 300,000 as
outstanding sell-on fee plus 5% interest as of 9 July 2024.In all cases
IV.The costs of the proceedings, if any, shall be entirely born by Cruz Azul.
V.Cruz Azul shall contribute towards the legal expenses of the Respondents in an amount of
no less than CHF 10,000.”
60. At this stage, the parties were informed that the admissibility of Cruz Azul’s unsolicited
correspondence dated 9 August 2024, as well as the Respondents’ comments in reply
thereto and contained in the reply to the claim and counterclaim, would be decided by the
relevant chamber of the Football Tribunal.
d. Reply to the Counterclaim of Cruz Azul
61. In its reply to the counterclaim, Cruz Azul maintained that the Player and his agents, with
Kobenhavn´s involvement, intentionally pursued negotiations with Cruz Azul in order to
increase the Player’s value.
62. Cruz Azul further denied that it sought any unjust enrichment, as it had begun contract
renewal negotiations with the Player as early as July 2023 and specifically negotiated the
Player’s termination clause for his new contract. Cruz Azul argued that it was confirmed
that the Player and Cruz Azul had a binding contract, which the Player had accepted to
extend.
63. Additionally, Kobenhavn not only intervened in the Player’s termination of the Contract,
but actually induced him to breach. The Player’s letter from 6 July 2025 expressing his
desire to terminate the Contract was sent after Kobenhavn’s intervention and influence.
The Player then abandoned Cruz Azul with the sole intention of signing an agreement with
the club which induced him to breach the Contract.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15177
64. Cruz Azul further denied that all the elements of a “consented transfer” concurred in this
case. The Contract was terminated when the Player abandoned Cruz Azul, and not with the
unsolicited payment of the Player’s termination clause by Kobenhavn.
65. As to the Player’s counterclaim, there was no transfer payment or sale of the Player. The
execution of the Player’s termination clause did not give the Player the right to claim any
amounts for his sale. As the Player abandoned Cruz Azul in bad faith, thereby depriving the
club of the benefits to which it was entitled, and he was not transferred by mutual
agreement between the parties, the Player had no right to claim. Rather, the Player was
seeking to unjustly enrich himself.
66. In short, there was no express or implied international transfer of the Player, but a
unilateral termination without just cause and inducement to breach.
67. Thus, Cruz Azul essentially reiterated its request for relief, including inter alia, its claim for
USD 3,000,000 net as compensation for the unilateral termination of the Contract.
e. Additional Comments on the Interim Regulatory Framework
68. In light of the Interim Regulatory Framework’s (hereinafter: IRF) entry into force, Cruz Azul
was invited inter alia to amend its claim, if it so wished, exclusively in relation to the IRF’s
application.
69. Cruz Azul confirmed its previous arguments, as the criteria for resolving disputes
concerning unilateral terminations of contract without just cause and situations of
inducement have not changed. Cruz Azul did, however, withdraw its requests for relief
directed at the Player’s agents.
70. Similarly, the Player and Kobenhavn were invited to comment, if they so wished, on the
IRF’s application.
71. The Respondents filed a joint reply whereby they reiterated their previous arguments, in
addition to submitting that, in the event the DRC considered there had been a unilateral
termination without just cause (quod non), Cruz Azul had been fully compensated for such
breach, as the USD 2M it received far surpassed the amount it would have been entitled to
claim under Clause Sixteen (Respondents calculate such amount at MXN 1,937,500 or
approximately USD 100,000).
72. Moreover, the Respondents submitted that, even if it was found that the Player unilaterally
terminated without just cause, Cruz Azul has not substantiated that its damages surpassed
the USD 2,000,000 already received, which it would otherwise be obligated to prove
pursuant to the IRF. Furthermore, Cruz Azul undermined its own claim for USD 5,000,000
by stating in its correspondence dated 7 July 2024 that it accepted the Player’s transfer for
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15177
USD 2,000,000, in addition to the fact that there was no other agreement but the Contract
in force.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15177
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
73. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 9 July 2024 and submitted for decision on 25
September 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 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.
74. 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. a) 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 a dispute between a Mexican club, a Mexican player and a Danish club in
relation to the maintenance of contractual stability (articles 13-18) where there has been
an ITC request and a claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC request, in
particular regarding the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation for breach of
contract.
75. As to the counterclaim, and in light of the Player’s submissions in this regard, the Chamber
wished to note that, bearing in mind art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules as well as art. 22
par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations, the Chamber’s jurisdiction extended to the counterclaim as
well.
76. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Admissibility of Cruz Azul’s Unsolicited Correspondence
77. The Chamber then took note of the question of the admissibility of Cruz Azul’s unsolicited
correspondence (i.e., its amended claim) filed on 9 August 2024, as well as the Respondents’
comments in reply thereto.
78. As noted in the preceding sections, Cruz Azul provided additional arguments and evidence
in support of its position while the time limit for the Respondents’ reply to the claim was in
place, and the Player and Kobenhavn appeared to have had an opportunity to respond to
such additional arguments within their reply and the Player’s counterclaim.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15177
79. For the sake of good order and in the interest of judicial efficiency and respecting the
parties’ right to be heard, the Chamber decided to exceptionally admit Cruz Azul’s
unsolicited correspondence and the Respondents’ comments in reply thereto.
c. Burden of proof
80. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
81. 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
82. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the case concerned, on one hand, a claim for compensation for breach of contract, and on
the other, a claim for remuneration deriving from a sell-on clause.
83. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the manner in
which the Contract was terminated and whether any consequences derived therefrom, as
well as the merits of the counterclaim for a percentage of the amount paid by Kobenhavn.
Each was addressed in turn by the Chamber.
Termination of the Contract: Manner and Consequences, If Any
84. At this stage, the Chamber considered it was useful to begin by recalling the sequence of
the most salient events up until the filing of the claim, based on the evidence on file and/or
what remained undisputed amongst the parties:
•
The Contract was valid from 1 June 2022 until 31 May 2025.
•
The Contract, in its Clause Eighteen, established a “cláusula de rescisión” stating
that, in the event a club wished to acquire the Player’s federative rights, the
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15177
parties to the Contract would take into account the clauses stipulated therein,
which specified that, for European clubs, the pertinent amount would be USD
2,000,000.
•
The Contract further established a “venta futura” or future sale clause, stating
that, in the event the Player is sold (“sea vendido”) to another club during the term
of the Contract, the Player would receive 10% of the total amount of the sale, and
an additional 5% when the amount of the sale operation is between USD
1,000,000 and USD 2,000,000.
•
Cruz Azul and the Player had not signed any other agreement.
•
On 5 and 6 July 2024, Kobenhavn informed Cruz Azul of its intention to trigger
Clause Eighteen of the Contract.
•
On 6 July 2024, the Player informed Cruz Azul of his intention to end his
contractual relationship with the club pursuant to the “cláusula de rescisión”
contained in Clause Eighteen of his Contract, referencing Kobenhavn’s
correspondence to Cruz Azul on this subject, and asking Cruz Azul to take the
necessary steps.
•
On 7 July 2024, Cruz Azul replied to Kobenhavn that it could not accept
Kobenhavn’s offer as they proposed it, but at the same time accepting the
transfer of the Player for USD 2,000,000 “plus the corresponding taxes, payable in
one sole installment.” Cruz Azul also attached a draft transfer agreement
stipulating that the payment would be made no later than 15 July 2024.
•
The aforementioned draft transfer agreement was never signed.
•
On 7 July 2024, the Player travelled to Kobenhavn.
•
On 9 July 2024, Kobenhavn paid USD 2,000,000 to Cruz Azul.
85. The Chamber then proceeded to analyse the nature of the clause at issue in Cruz Azul’s
claim, i.e., Clause Eighteen, as well as the sequence of events surrounding the Player’s
departure, to determine whether such clause was applicable to the case at hand and if it
was indeed triggered.
86. To that end, after analysing the content of Clause Eighteen, the Chamber concluded that
this provision constituted a buy-out clause as opposed to a liquidated damages clause (as
Cruz Azul submitted), which, in accordance with not only the DRC’s own longstanding
jurisprudence, but also the FIFA Commentary and CAS jurisprudence, amounted to an
entirely different concept. Specifically, the Chamber reasoned that, whereas a buy-out
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15177
clause is a contractually foreseen “exit mechanism”, by means of which the parties agree
in advance that, upon the payment of a predetermined sum of money, the player is
released from any further contractual obligations toward the club , liquidated damages
rather act as punitive instruments where a unilateral termination of a contract without just
cause has taken place.
87. In the Chamber’s view, Clause Eighteen addressed the specific circumstance of when a third
club became interested in acquiring the Player’s services, leaving the matter of
compensation for breach of contract without just cause squarely within the scope of Clause
Sixteen. Hence, the Chamber considered there was no room for interpreting Clause
Eighteen as anything other than a buy-out clause.
88. Further, as stated above, the Chamber noted that Clause Eighteen was conceivably the only
clause that could have operated in the Player’s departure under the circumstances,
considering that the Contract was the only agreement binding Cruz Azul and the Player,
and no agreement bound Cruz Azul and Kobenhavn. Therefore, there was no contractual
basis for considering any other clause that may have been the subject of negotiations
between the parties but never materialized into a valid and binding agreement.
89. In addition, and contrary to Cruz Azul’s submissions, the Chamber did not consider the
Player’s departure from Cruz Azul on 7 July 2024 was tantamount to a unilateral
termination without just cause under the circumstances.
90. While the Chamber understood that the mere existence of a buy-out clause in an
agreement does not authorise a player to freely be absent without leave from his club, the
absence at issue in this case – if it can be termed as such – occurred for a very short period
of time and within the larger context of the execution of the buy-out clause. Furthermore,
the Chamber noted that not only was Cruz Azul duly informed of the Player’s imminent
travel, but also Cruz Azul did not oppose it, despite having been granted the opportunity
to do so.
91. In light of the evidence on file, the Chamber reasoned that, even if indeed the Player was
considered to be absent from Cruz Azul from the time of his departure on 7 July 2024 until
the execution of payment pursuant to the buy-out clause on 9 July 2024, such a short
absence cannot reasonably be considered as sufficient to constitute “abandonment,” as
Cruz Azul alleged, or a significant breach of the Contract. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that even Clause Sixteen of the Contract indicated that only an unjustified absence
of more than 3 days without leave would constitute grounds for termination.
92. More importantly, the Chamber considered that it was made abundantly clear to Cruz Azul
already on 5 and 6 July 2024 that the Respondents intended to trigger Clause Eighteen of
the Contract, and Cruz Azul clearly stated that it was amenable to the Player’s departure
pending payment of USD 2,000,000 in its correspondence dated 7 July 2024.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15177
93. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber held that there was no unilateral termination of the
Contract by the Player and, rather, the Contract termination occurred via the triggering of
the buy-out clause in Clause Eighteen of the Contract. Hence, Cruz Azul’s claim must be
rejected.
Claim for Sell-On Percentage
94. As to the Player’s counterclaim, the Chamber recalled that it consisted of the Player’s claim
for 15% of the USD 2,000,000 fee that Kobenhavn paid in order to acquire his services, i.e.,
USD 300,000, plus interest, on the basis of Clause Nineteen of the Contract.
95. In this respect, the Chamber first recalled the conclusion reached concerning the nature of
Clause Eighteen as a buy-out clause, as this concept is generally understood in inter alia
the Football Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
96. Secondly, the Chamber recalled its jurisprudence (confirmed by CAS) concerning the
interpretation of buy-out clauses as a form of player transfer, and gleaned the following
insights:
•
Buyout clauses, regardless of how they are drafted, constitute de facto an
anticipated acceptance of a future possible transfer of a player against the
relevant predetermined amount. (Lenglet, Decision nr. 18-02350, par. 28)
•
A transfer of a player means in general terms a change of “registration” of a player
or – put differently – for a professional player it means a “change of employer.”
(FPSD-19420, referencing CAS 2010/A/2098)
•
A transfer can be the object of the purpose of the parties’ agreement or can also
take place outside the scheme of a contract between the old and the new club.
(CAS 2019/A/6525)
97. Third, the Chamber recalled the specific wording of Clause Nineteen, which at all times
referred to the Player’s sale (’venta”) specifically to another club (see par. 6 ut supra, freely
translated English version reproduced here for ease of reference):
“NINETEENTH.- Future Sale
Both parties agreed that, in case the Player is sold to another Club during the term of the
present Contract:
I.
II.
The Player shall receive 10% of the total amount of the sale.
Additionally, the Player shall receive an additional 5% on top of the percentage
established in number I of the present clause, so long as the amount of the sale
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-15177
III.
operation is between one and two million US Dollars or an additional 10% on top of
the percentage established in number I of the present clause, so long as the amount
of the sale operation is over 2 million US dollars.
In this same sense, AmEro Sports Management (ARBIDE AND GARCIA BUSINESS
GROUP, S.C.) shall receive 10% of the total amount of the sale.”
98. Here, the Chamber highlighted that nowhere in Clause Nineteen or the Contract was the
term “sale” or “venta” further qualified or defined, as the clause merely referenced the sale
to another club and for this operation to be against payment. The Chamber opined that,
had Cruz Azul, as the apparent drafter of the Contract, wished to limit the Player’s
participation in a future operation under Clause Nineteen to only certain kinds of
transactions (such as, for example, a transfer via tripartite agreement foreseeing payment
of a transfer fee), it was incumbent upon them to explicitly spell it out in the Contract.
99. In the absence of such precision and giving a reasonable interpretation to the wording of
Clause Nineteen, the Chamber found that the use of the word sale in Clause Nineteen was
broad enough to cover every kind of movement of the Player to another club against
payment.
100. This, in the Chamber’s view necessarily included the Player’s movement to another club
upon triggering his buy-out clause under Clause Eighteen. Once again, the Chamber
recalled that a buy-out clause can be and has been interpreted as evincing the original
club’s pre-established consent to the movement of the Player’s rights to a new club against
payment of a certain sum of money.
101. Furthermore, the Chamber, once again recalling Clause Eighteen of the Contract, noted
that said clause expressly refers to the acquisition of the Player’s federative rights by
another club, thus aligning with the Chamber’s interpretation that the triggering of the
Player’s buy-out clause could be understood for all intents and purposes as a sale, precisely
the language employed in Clause Nineteen of the Contract (see par. 5 ut supra, freely
translated English version reproduced here for ease of reference):
“EIGHTEENTH.- Buy-Out Clause
In the event that a Club would like to acquire the Player's federative rights, the following
buy-out clauses shall be considered.
c) Club from LIGA MX. USD $8,000,000 (eight million dollars of the United States of
America).
d) Club from MLS. USD $4,000,000 (four million dollars of the United States of America).
Club from EUROPE. USS $2,000,000 (two million dollars of the United States of America).”
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-15177
102. With all of the foregoing in mind, and pursuant to Clause Nineteen of the Contract, the
Chamber concluded that the Player had a contractual entitlement to USD 300,000, which
consisted of 15% of the amount paid by Kobenhavn in order to trigger his buy-out.
103. Therefore, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that Cruz Azul had to pay the Player USD 300,000.
104. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Player requested interest on this amount as from
9 July 2024. However, the Chamber also noted that no submissions were made as to the
due date of the sell-on percentage, that Clause Nineteen was silent in this regard, that the
obligation for such payment only arose with the payment of the buy-out clause, i.e., on 9
July 2024, and that the Player had not formally requested payment of the sell-on
percentage until he filed his counterclaim on 2 September 2024.
105. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber decided that interest shall accrue on
the outstanding amount at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 2 September 2024.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Claimant/CounterRespondent must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the First
Respondent/Counter-Claimant (i.e. the Player) within 45 days of notification of the decision,
failing which, at the request of the First Respondent/Counter-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 Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
109. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable
interest) to the bank account provided by the First Respondent/Counterclaimant in the
Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-15177
110. 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.
a. Costs
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-15177
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Cruz Azul, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of First Respondent/Counterclaimant, Rodrigo Jhossel Huescas Hurtado,
is partially accepted.
3.
The
Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
Cruz
Azul,
must
pay
to
the
First
Respondent/Counterclaimant USD 300,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 2 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the First Respondent/Counterclaimant 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 Claimant/Counter-Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the First
Respondent/Counterclaimant 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. 27
REF. FPSD-15177
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. 28