Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18283
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Jegbay
Morris Konneh
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Jegbay Morris Konneh, Liberia
Represented by Deep Ray
RESPONDENT:
TS Galaxy FC, South Africa
Represented by Eben Koen
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18283
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 July 2024, the Liberian player, Jegbay Morris Konneh (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the South African club, TS Galaxy FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024
until 30 June 2027.
2.
On the same date, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an annexe to the Contract
titled
(hereinafter: the Annexe).
3.
Pursuant to the Annexe, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
monthly remuneration:
-
4.
USD 3,000 net for the period between 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025;
USD 3,300 net for the period between 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026; and
USD 3,600 net for the period between 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027.
In addition, par. 7 of the Annexe included the following renewal option (quoted verbatim):
7. Option:
7.1 The Footballer has granted the Club an option to renew the Agreement. The period for
which the Agreement may be so renewed is 24 (twenty-four) months, commencing on 1 July
7.2 All the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue to apply during the Option
period, save that during the Option period, the Club shall pay the Footballer, monthly in
arrear, on the last day of every month, a salary of the Rand equivalent of:
7.2.1. 4000 nett for the period between 1 July 2027 and 30 June 2028; And
7.2.2 4500 nett for the period between 1 July 2028 to 30 June 2029.
The option shall be exercised by notice, in writing from the Club to the Footballer, given and
received by no later than 31 May 2027, failing which the Option shall lapse if not so exercised
unless the Parties to the Agreement agree otherwise in writing.
Notwithstanding the last dates for the exercise of the option referred to in clause 8, the Club
may at any time accelerate the exercise of the option by exercising it at any time during the
currency of this Agreement.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18283
If the option is duly exercised, this agreement shall be renewed, without the need for any
further act of the parties thereto.
5.
Clause 19 of the Contract provided the following jurisdiction clause:
19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
19.1 All disputes arising out of or relating to this contract, including disputes as to the
meaning or interpretation of any provision of this contract or as to the carrying into effect of
any such provision or as to the termination or consequences of termination shall be referred
to Dispute Resolution in accordance with the NSL rules from time to time.
19.2 The parties warrant that, in accordance with the football rules, any and all disputes of
whatsoever shall be determined in accordance with the NSL rules and in the Dispute
Resolution Tribunals of the NSL rather than before any court or other tribunal insofar as it is
a requirement of FIFA and other footballing rules that the internal dispute resolution
mechanisms available in football should be utilised by participants in the game save where
the football rules do not provide an appropriate tribunal to determine the dispute.
6.
In addition, paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Annexe included the following:
21. The Parties expressly agree to submit all disputes of whatsoever nature, more particularly
employment related disputes that may arise between them in relation to this Agreement, to
the civil courts of the Republic of South Africa, such as the High Court or Labour Court, for
adjudication, which civil courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear such disputes.
22. In the event that the dispute in question falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration, the Parties may submit and refer their dispute to the
CCMA for adjudication at the first instance. The parties agree, warrant, and understand that
the CCMA is an independent body established by legislation which employees can approach
for assistance in resolving disputes within the workplace in terms of rules governed by the
Labour Relations Act of South Africa, 66 of 1995.
7.
On 15 October 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 9,000
corresponding to the salaries of July to September 2024, setting a deadline of 15 days in
order to remedy the default.
8.
On 31 December 2024, the Claimant terminated the Contract and its Annexe, citing just
cause.
9.
On 27 January 2024, the Claimant sent a further notice of default to the Respondent
requesting payment of USD 18,000 as outstanding salaries, as well as USD 100,800 as
compensation for breach of contract and interest to be applied on both concepts.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18283
10. On 19 February 2025, the Claimant informed the FIFA general secretariat that he did not
sign a new contract with any club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 19 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. According to the Claimant, the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide this
dispute, since the jurisdiction provisions contained on both the Contract and its Annexe
are unclear and non-exclusive.
13. The Claimant stated that, as of the date of default, the Respondent failed to pay him USD
9,000 net corresponding to the salaries for the period from July to September 2024.
14. The Claimant pointed out that the Respondent also failed to fulfil its obligation to obtain a
visa or work permit for him.
15. According to the Claimant, at the time he terminated the contractual relationship, USD
18,000 net remained overdue corresponding to July to December 2024 salaries.
16.
Claimant hereby respectfully requests the FIFA DRC:
i. Acknowledge that the Club has failed to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the Player;
ii. Declare that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract;
iii. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant USD 18,000 net, representing the outstanding
remuneration owed for the period from July 2024 to 31 December 2024 along with interest at
the rate of 5% per annum from the due date:
a. USD 3,000 for the month of July 2024 with 5% interest rate applicable from 1 August 2024;
b. USD 3,000 for the month of August 2024 with 5% interest rate applicable from 1 September
2024;
c. USD 3,000 for the month of September 2024 with 5% interest rate applicable from 1
October 2024;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18283
d. USD 3,000 for the month of October 2024 with 5% interest rate applicable from 1
November 2024;
e. USD 3,000 for the month of November 2024 with 5% interest rate applicable from 1
December 2024;
f. USD 3,000 for the month of December 2024 with 5% interest rate applicable from 1 January
2025;
iv. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant USD 100,800 net as compensation for breach
of contract, covering the period from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2027 along with interest at
the rate of 5% per annum applicable from the date of termination, i.e., 31 December 2024,
broken down as follows:
a. 1 January 2025 30 June 2025: USD 18,000
b. 1 July 2025
30 June 2026: USD 39,600
c. 1 July 2026 30 June 2027: USD 43,200
failure to trigger the contract extension, covering the period from 1 July 2027 to 30 June 2029
along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum applicable from the date of termination, i.e.,
31 December 2024, broken down as follows:
a. 1 July 2027
30 June 2028: USD 48,000
b. 1 July 2028
30 June 2029: USD 54,000
vi. Pronounce any other decision that the Chamber may deem fit in light of the facts and
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal.
18. The Respondent alleged that the parties expressly submitted all employment-related
disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the South African civil courts, with the Commission
for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (hereinafter: the CCMA) as a possible first
instance, as per par. 21 and 22 of the Annexe.
19. In this respect, the Respondent maintained that there is no ambiguity in the Contract and
that the dispute arising therefrom must be adjudicated before the South African courts.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18283
20. The Respondent further asserted that, since the parties were aware that clause 19 of the
Contract, referring to the National Soccer League Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the NSL DRC), was inoperative, they signed the Annexe in order to establish
jurisdiction in favour of the South African civil courts.
21. The Respondent argued that, under art. 22, par.1 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the parties retained the right to refer
employment disputes to civil courts, which they validly did through par. 21 and 22 of the
Annexe.
22.
opt-in to national arbitration is misplaced, as the Respondent invoked civil court
jurisdiction, not a national arbitration body.
23. The
, were the following:
Club respectfully requests the FIFA FT to:
Statement of Defence, TS Galaxy Football
a) Dismiss the present claim as the FIFA DRC lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the present
matter;
b) Order the Claimant to bear any and all costs and fees of the present claim;
c) Order Claimant to pay TS Galaxy Football Club a contribution towards legal fees and other
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18283
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 19 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 20 June 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.
25. 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 (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between an Liberian player and a South African
club.
26. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the
deciding bodies, alleging that the Football Tribunal is not competent to deal with any
dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract, as, in accordance with par. 21
and 22 of its Annexe, disputes must be adjudicated before the South African civil courts.
27. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant alleged that the Football Tribunal is competent
to adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the Contract and its Annexe do not contain
a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause.
28. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that, in January 2025, FIFA introduced a new
regulatory framework for NDRCs in order to provide clarity and the necessary legal
certainty with regard to jurisdiction, structure, applicable requirements and possible
formal and permanent recognition by FIFA of existing NDRCs.
29. Most importantly, the Chamber noted that the aforementioned rules have been
incorporated into art. 22, par. 1, lit. b and c) of the Regulations and are applicable to cases
brought before FIFA as of 1 January 2025 (cf., art. 26, par. 1, lit. b) of the Regulations).
30. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 19 February 2025, the Chamber
concluded that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the
following provision:
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18283
b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international
dimension; the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such
disputes to be decided by a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC), or a national
dispute resolution body operating under an equivalent name, that has been officially
recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
Recognition Principles. Any such jurisdiction clause must be exclusive and included either
31. The Chamber considered that this case, in principle, falls
therefore would only be prevented in the hypothesis of (1) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in the Contract in favour of the civil courts; or (2) a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause included in the Contract or in an applicable collective bargaining agreement in
that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National
Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles .
32. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the Contract
and its Annexe at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the South African civil courts, as argued by the Respondent.
33. In this respect, the Chamber referred to clause 19 of the Contract and par. 21 and 22 of its
Annexe, according to which:
Clause 19 of the Contract:
19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
19.1 All disputes arising out of or relating to this contract, including disputes as to the
meaning or interpretation of any provision of this contract or as to the carrying into effect of
any such provision or as to the termination or consequences of termination shall be referred
to Dispute Resolution in accordance with the NSL rules from time to time.
19.2 The parties warrant that, in accordance with the football rules, any and all disputes of
whatsoever shall be determined in accordance with the NSL rules and in the Dispute
Resolution Tribunals of the NSL rather than before any court or other tribunal insofar as it is
a requirement of FIFA and other footballing rules that the internal dispute resolution
mechanisms available in football should be utilised by participants in the game save where
the football rules do not provide an appropriate tribunal to determine the dispute.
Par. 21 and 22 of the Annexe:
21. The Parties expressly agree to submit all disputes of whatsoever nature, more particularly
employment related disputes that may arise between them in relation to this Agreement, to
the civil courts of the Republic of South Africa, such as the High Court or Labour Court, for
adjudication, which civil courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear such disputes.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18283
22. In the event that the dispute in question falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration, the Parties may submit and refer their dispute to the
CCMA for adjudication at the first instance. The parties agree, warrant, and understand that
the CCMA is an independent body established by legislation which employees can approach
for assistance in resolving disputes within the workplace in terms of rules governed by the
Labour Relations Act of South Africa, 66 of 1995.
34. The Chamber, after analysing the wording of the referred jurisdiction clauses, concluded
that they did not clearly and exclusively establish the competence of one body, in
accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations.
35. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite was not met,
and therefore, without the need to enter into the analysis of any further requirement, it
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the
present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber has
jurisdiction, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
36.
that,
because the parties knew that the NSL DRC was not operational, they signed the Annexe
to establish jurisdiction in favour of the South African civil courts
could not be upheld.
The Chamber observed that the Contract and its Annexe were executed on the same date,
and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the provisions of the Annexe were
intended to supersede those of the Contract.
37. 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 January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
38. 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).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18283
c. Merits of the dispute
39. 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
40. 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 outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
41. The Chamber first recalled that, according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with
just cause, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations. Therefore, the Player argued that he is
entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation.
42. The Chamber noted that the Respondent did not contest the substance of the claim.
43. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
44. The Chamber then 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).
45. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the salaries of July, August, September, October, November and
December 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written
evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 15 October 2024, i.e. at least 15 days
before unilaterally terminating the contract on 31 December 2024.
46. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence in this regard and
did not dispute its non-compliance of the terms of the Contract and its Annexe.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18283
47. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract and its Annexe, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
48. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber emphasized that, since just cause was
established under Article 14bis of the Regulations, any analysis under Article 14 of the
Regulations is rendered moot.
ii. Consequences
49. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
50. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, are equivalent to 6 full salaries,
amounting to USD 18,000 net.
51. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract and its Annexe at the moment of the
termination, i.e. USD 18,000 net.
52.
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the day after each due date, i.e.,
the first day of the following month, until the date of effective payment. In particular,
regarding the salary of December 2024, the Chamber decided to award interest as from
the date of termination of the Contract.
53. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
acts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
54. 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. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18283
55. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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 the
player by the club shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated, unless the player signed a new contract following the termination of his
previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
56. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 100,800 net (i.e. 6 times USD 3,000 net, 12 times USD
3,300 net and 12 times USD 3,600 net) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
57.
argumentation, the Chamber decided not to include the
payments referred to in par. 7 of the Annexe in the residual of the contract prematurely
terminated, as such payments are deemed conditional upon the continuation of the
contractual relationship.
58. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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
eneral
obligation to mitigate his damages.
59. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract.
60. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
61. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 100,800 net as the residual value of the contract.
62. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 31 December 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18283
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
64. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
65. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
66. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
67. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
68. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
69. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
70. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18283
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Jegbay Morris
Konneh.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Jegbay Morris Konneh, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, TS Galaxy FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 18,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 net as from 1 August 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 net as from 1 September 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 net as from 1 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 net as from 1 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 net as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 3,000 net as from 31 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- USD 100,800 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
31 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent 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-18283
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18283
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