Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18006
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kevin
Luckassen
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stella Maris JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kevin Luckassen, Netherlands
Represented by Ugur Zevfi
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18006
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 July 2024, the Dutch player, Kevin Luckassen (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent), and the Saudi club, Al Batin (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent/Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from its date of signature until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter alia a USD
20,000 net monthly remuneration, a USD 50,000 net sign-on fee and bonuses as per the
Club’s internal regulations.
3.
Clause 12, par. 13 and 14 of the Contract provided as follows:
“13. In case the First Party wants to terminate the contract unilaterally without any reason,
an amount of USD 40,000 (forty thousand USD) shall be paid to the Second Party as agreed
fair compensation.
14. In case the Second Party wants to terminate the contract unilaterally without any reason,
an amount of USD 40,000 (forty thousand USD) shall be paid to the First Party as agreed fair
compensation.”
4.
On 26 August 2024, the Club made a payment of SAR 93,750 to the Player.
5.
On 7 October 2024, the Club made a payment of SAR 75,000 to the Player.
6.
On 16 December 2024, the Player put the Club in default of payment of USD 86,200 net
and EUR 635 net, corresponding to: (i) USD 25,000 net as partial sign-on fee, (ii) USD 61,200
net as outstanding salaries and (iii) EUR 635 net as bonuses. Although the Player first
mentioned that he granted the Club 10 days to remedy its default, then he argued that if
the club did not fully comply with its obligations within 15 days, he would have just cause
to unilaterally terminate the Contract.
7.
On 6 January 2025, the Player terminated the Contract.
8.
On 24 January 2025, the Club made a payment of SAR 268,266 to the Player.
9.
On 3 February 2025, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Romanian
club Associatia Sportiva Fotbal Club Buzau, valid as from date of signature until 30 June
2025. In accordance with this new contract, the Player was entitled to a EUR 10,500 net
monthly remuneration.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18006
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 29 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
11. In his claim, the Player submitted that he terminated the Contract with just cause due to
outstanding salaries.
12. The Player alleged that, as of the date of default, USD 86,200 net plus EUR 635 net remained
unpaid, broken down as follows:
-
USD 25,000 net corresponding to the remaining part of the sign-on fee due on 16
August 2024;
-
USD 1,200 net corresponding to the remaining salary of August 2024, due on 1
September 2024;
-
EUR 635 net corresponding to the match-bonus against Al-Najma due on 1 September
2024;
-
USD 20,000 net corresponding to the remaining salary of September 2024, due on 1
October 2024;
-
USD 20,000 net corresponding to the remaining salary of October 2024, due on 1
November 2024; and
-
USD 20,000 net corresponding to the remaining salary of November 2024, due on 1
December 2024.
13. The Player further claimed that, as of the date of the termination of the Contract, the
outstanding salary of December 2024 in the amount of USD 20,000 net also remained
unpaid.
14. The Player argued that the Club’s payment of USD 66,500 net, made 18 days after the
termination of the Contract, does not affect the validity of the termination.
15. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. Establish that the Player terminated the Employment Contract with just cause due to
overdue payables;
2. That the Player acted in accordance with Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18006
3. To award the Player with outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 39,700 NET and EUR
635 NET, plus interest from the due dates of each respective payment until the date of effective
payment;
4. To award the Player with compensation in the amount of USD 120,000 NET, plus interest
as of 7 January 2025 (the day following the day of termination);
5. In case of mitigation, to award the Player with additional compensation in the amount of
USD 60,000 NET (3 monthly salaries), plus interest as of 7 January 2025 (the day following the
day of termination); and
6. Impose sporting sanctions upon the Club for breach of contract within the protected
period.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
16. In its reply, the Club requested the claim to be rejected and submitted a counterclaim
against the Player.
17. The Club alleged that the Player intentionally sent the notice of default to email addresses
from the Club that were no longer in use, namely [email protected] and [email protected].
18. Moreover, the Club asserted that the termination notice was sent to the Club’s correct and
active email address: [email protected]. In this respect, the Club argued that the Player was
clearly aware of the Club’s official email address.
19. Based on the above, the Club contended that the Player terminated the Contract without
just cause, as he deliberately failed to place the Club in default.
20. The Club further maintained that the amount outstanding to the Player is USD 36,129, given
that no bonus payment was due, as such a payment had never been contractually agreed
upon.
21. The Club further emphasised that clause 12 par. 14 of the Contract expressly stipulates
that the Player must pay USD 40,000 to the Club should he terminate the Contract without
just cause.
22. Consequently, the Club requested to be compensated in the offset amount of USD 3,871
(i.e., USD 40,000 minus USD 36,129).
23. Alternatively, the Club argued that, should it be determined that the Player terminated the
Contract with just cause, any compensation payable to the Player should be limited to USD
40,000, in accordance with clause 12 par. 13 and 14 of the Contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18006
24. The Club’s requests for relief were the following:
“REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
1. To accept and consider this Counterclaim
2. To rule that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause
3. To rule that Al Batin Club paid the total amount of 113,871$ to the Player
4. To rule that the Player must compensate the Club for his termination of the Contract
without just cause in the amount of 40,000$
5. On an alternative basis, if the player is entitled to any compensation, it must be limited at
40,000$ only.
6. To rule with anything else the FIFA Football Tribunal considers as fair and proper.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Player
25. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player maintained his position and rejected the Club’s
arguments.
26. The Player stated that he sent the default notice to the email address previously used by
the Club in its communication with him and, additionally, sent the same notice via
WhatsApp to Mr. Saud Alenzi, official member of the Club’s board.
27. Alternatively, the Player argued that, should the Football Tribunal find that the default
notice was not properly sent, he nonetheless terminated the Contract with just cause, given
the Club’s persistent failure to comply fully with its financial obligations from the inception
of the Contract.
28. In this regard, the Player alleged that, as of the date of termination, the Club had paid only
USD 38,653.27 out of the total contractual amount of USD 150,000.
29. The Player further contended that the amounts reflected in the Club’s proof of payment
differs from those stated in the counterclaim. According to the Player, the Club paid an
aggregate sum of USD 102,124.04, rather than the alleged USD 113,871.
30. Furthermore, the Player argued that the contractual compensation clause applies
exclusively in circumstances where the Player terminates the Contract without just cause,
and reiterated that any compensation payable by the Club must be calculated in
accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18006
31. In the further alternative, should the Football Tribunal determine that the Player
terminated the Contract without just cause, the Player maintains that he remains entitled
to the outstanding amounts of USD 47,875.96 net and EUR 635 net, together with
applicable interest.
32. The Player also asserted that, in such a scenario, the Club would not be entitled to any
compensation.
33. The Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“Requests for relief regarding the counterclaim
1. To reject the counterclaim of the Club in full.
2. Establish that the Player terminated the Employment Contract with just cause due to
overdue payables;
3. That the Player acted in accordance with Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP and alternatively in
accordance with Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP;
4. To award the Player with outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 47,875.96 NET and
EUR 635 NET, plus interest from the due dates of each respective payment until the date of
effective payment;
5. To award the Player with compensation in the amount of USD 120,000 NET, plus interest
as of 7 January 2025 (the day following the day of termination);
6. In case of mitigation, to award the Player with additional compensation in the amount of
USD 60,000 NET (3 monthly salaries), plus interest as of 7 January 2025 (the day following the
day of termination); and
7. Impose sporting sanctions upon the Club for breach of contract within the protected
period.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18006
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. 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 29 January 2025 and submitted for decision
on 23 October 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.
35. 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
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 Dutch player and a Saudi club.
36. 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. Burden of proof
37. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
38. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18006
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
39. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract, and a counterclaim filed by the
club against the player.
40. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player maintained he terminated the Contract
with just cause, due to outstanding salaries.
41. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club contested the Player’s position, submitting
that the conditions set out in art. 14bis of the Regulations were not fulfilled, and therefore
the termination of the Contract lacked just cause.
42. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented on file, whether the Player terminated the Contract with just cause and
its ensuing consequences.
43. The Chamber first referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
44. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that it remained undisputed that, at the date
of the termination, a total of USD 150,000 net should have been paid in accordance with
the Contract, corresponding to sign-on fee plus salaries from August to December 2024.
45. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Club provided evidence of having paid, up to
the date of the termination, a total amount of SAR 168,750, which the Chamber found to
be equivalent to USD 44,922.90.
46. Taking into account all the evidence presented, the Chamber deemed it established that,
at the date of termination, an amount of USD 105,077.10 net remained outstanding under
the Contract (USD 150,000 minus USD 44,922.90).
47. The Chamber further decided that, given that neither the Club nor the Player specified the
allocation of the payments at the time, any late payment received by the Player shall be
first allocated to pay the oldest outstanding debt, in line with the Football Tribunal’s
longstanding practice.
48. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the payment of USD 44,922.90 should be
allocated to partially cover the outstanding sign-on fee of USD 50,000 net, due on 26 August
2024.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18006
49. Bearing the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the outstanding amount of USD
105,077.10 net exceeded two monthly salaries, i.e., the salaries from August to December
2024 along with the remaining part of the sign-on fee.
50. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player has provided written evidence of having
put the Club in default on 16 December 2024 granting the Club 10 days to remedy its
default but also providing that if the club did not fully comply with its obligations within 15
days, he would have just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract. In this respect, the
Chamber concluded that the Player provided the Club at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 6 January 2025.
51. At this point, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club contested the validity of the default
notice dated 16 December 2024, alleging that it was deliberately sent to email addresses
no longer in use by the Club.
52. However, the Chamber found that such argumentation cannot be upheld, given that: (i) it
has been demonstrated that the Club used these email addresses ([email protected] and
[email protected]) on 23 and 26 October 2024 to correspond with the Player; (ii) the email
address [email protected] appears in the Club’s contact details in TMS; and (iii) although the
Contract specified [email protected] as the Club’s official email address, it did not stipulate
that communications between the parties must be sent exclusively to that address.
53. In light of the above, the Chamber considered that the Player acted in good faith by sending
the default notice to the Club’s email address previously used for correspondence and, as
a result, concluded that the default notice was duly sent to the Club.
54. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
55. The Chamber first highlighted that, since the Player had just cause to terminate the
employment relationship, this necessarily led to the conclusion that the Club’s
counterclaim must be rejected in its entirety.
56. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
57. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination
amounted to USD 105,077.10.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18006
58. The Chamber also observed that on 24 January 2025, the Player received an additional
payment of SAR 268,266 from the Club, which found to be equivalent to USD 71,466.30. In
this respect, the Chamber concluded that USD 71,466.30 had to be deducted from the
outstanding amount and that, therefore, USD 33,610.80 remained outstanding.
59. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Player requested payment of EUR 635 net as
a match bonus.
60. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Contract stipulated that the Club shall pay
bonuses to the Player in accordance with its internal regulations. However, the Chamber
found that no such internal regulations have been submitted in the case file, nor has the
Player provided evidence of having requested these internal regulations from the Club.
61. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that there is no proof that the parties agreed upon
a bonus in the claimed amount. Therefore, the Chamber decided that this part of the
Player’s claim should be rejected.
62. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amount of USD
33,610.80 net (i.e. USD 150,000 minus USD 44,922.90 minus USD 71,466.30).
63. In line with the Player’s request and consistent with the established practice of the Football
Tribunal, the Chamber determined that the amounts due shall accrue interest at a rate of
5% p.a. as from the day following each respective due date.
64. Furthermore, in line with the Football Tribunal’s longstanding practice, the Chamber
decided that any late payment received by the Player shall first be allocated to pay the
oldest outstanding debt. This principle shall govern the calculation of the applicable
deduction.
65. Accordingly, considering the deduction of the total paid amount of USD 116,389.20 covered
the oldest principal amounts, the Chamber concluded the Player is entitled to receive the
following amounts as outstanding remuneration plus interest, as follows:
-
5% p.a. interest over the amount of USD 13,610.80 net as from 1 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. interest over the amount of USD 20,000 net as from 1 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
66. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18006
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
67. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract.
68. In this regard, the Chamber observed that clause 12, par. 13 and 14 of the Contract
established the following (quoted verbatim):
“13. In case the First Party wants to terminate the contract unilaterally without any reason,
an amount of USD 40,000 (forty thousand USD) shall be paid to the Second Party as agreed
fair compensation.
14. In case the Second Party wants to terminate the contract unilaterally without any reason,
an amount of USD 40,000 (forty thousand USD) shall be paid to the First Party as agreed fair
compensation.”
69. The Chamber observed that the wording of the aforementioned clause could leave room
for different interpretations regarding its legal nature. Nevertheless, the Chamber
considered that the parties intended to agree on a typical buy-out clause, which is designed
to grant the parties the right to terminate the contractual relationship in return for
payment of a predetermined amount.
70. Consequently, the Chamber held that such provision cannot be applied to the present
matter, which concerns a termination with just cause due to the other party’s breach of
contract.
71. As a result, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in
the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
72. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
73. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18006
concluded that the amount of USD 100,000 net (i.e., five times USD 20,000 net) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
74. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
75. Indeed, the Player found employment with Romanian club Associatia Sportiva Fotbal Club
Buzau. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to
approximately EUR 10,500 net per month, which the Chamber found to be equivalent to
USD 10,866.30 net per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated
his damages in the total amount of USD 54,331.50 net, that is, five times USD 10,866.30
net.
76. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
77. In this respect, the DRC determined that the Player should, in principle, be entitled to
additional compensation of USD 60,000 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of
the player. Nevertheless, the Chamber recalled that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par.
1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract. Therefore, the Chamber limited the amount of additional
compensation to USD 54,331.50 net.
78. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of USD
100,000 net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
79. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18006
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
83. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
84. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18006
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Kevin Luckassen, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Al Batin, must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
the following amount(s):
- USD 33,610.80 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 13,610.80 net as from 1 December 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 20,000 net as from 1 January 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
- USD 100,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
6 January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant, Al Batin, is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent/Counterclaimant 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. 15
REF. FPSD-18006
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. 16
REF. FPSD-18006
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. 17