Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18328
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Ben Rajeh Mehrez
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Ben Rajeh Mehrez, Tunisia
Represented by Slim Boulasnem
RESPONDENT:
Khaleej Sirte SC, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18328
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Tunisian player, Ben Rajeh Mehrez (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Libyan club, Khaleej Sirte SC, (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 2024-2025 in
Libya, which ended on 30 June 2025.
2.
Art. 2 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“Lorsque la deuxième partie remplit ses obligations stipulées dans le présent contrat, la
première partie s’engage à payer la somme contractuelle de 50000dollars, à payer
comme suit : Avance au contrat : 25000dollarspremier paiement, deuxième paiement
12500 dollars entre les deux tours d(aller et retour)et12500dollarsà la fin de la saison
sportive 24/25. ”
(freely translated to English)
“When [the Player] fulfils his obligations stipulated in this contract, [the Club]
undertakes to pay the contractual sum of 50,000 dollars, to be paid as follows:
Advance to the contract: 25000 Dollars first payment, second payment 12500
Dollars between the two rounds (first and second leg) and 12500 Dollars at the end
of the sporting season 24/25.”
3.
Art. 3 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“La première partie s'engage à fournir un logement, un espace de vie et des billets de
voyage au joueur. ”
(freely translated to English)
“The [Club] undertakes to provide accommodation, living space and travel tickets
for the player.”
4.
Art. 9 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“La seconde partie ne pourra prétendre à aucun autre avantage non prévu dans les
dispositions du présent contrat. ”
(freely translated to English)
“The Second Party shall not be entitled to any other benefit not provided for in the
provisions of this Contract.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18328
5.
On 10 October 2024, the Libyan Football Federation received the International Transfer
Certificate (ITC) of the Player.
6.
On 30 December 2024, the Player completed a cervical ultrasound, during which it was
detected that he was suffering from chronic submaxillitis, an inflammation of the salivary
gland.
7.
On 4 January 2025, the Player underwent an operation to remove the salivary gland.
8.
On 15 January 2025, the parties signed an amicable termination agreement (hereinafter:
the Termination Agreement), however the Player's signature is followed by the words, in
French, ‘’sous menace’’ (freely translated as ''under threat'' in English).
9.
On 26 January 2025, the first phase of the Libyan championship was concluded.
10. On 3 February 2025, the Player, via his representative, sent an email to the Club,
denouncing the signing under duress of the Termination Agreement, and demanding TND
3,104.305 by way of reimbursement of the Player's medical expenses as well as
compensation of USD 25,000 for the termination of the Contract without just cause. The
Player granted a 10-day time limit to the Club to pay the sums requested.
11. On 5 February 2025, the second phase of the Libyan championship began.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18328
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 23 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
13. The Player submitted that he left Libya to seek treatment in Tunisia with the club's
agreement.
14. He claimed to have returned to Libya on 9 January 2025, and that on his return to the Club
his passport was confiscated.
15. The Player affirmed that he had been sidelined by the Club until 15 January 2025, without
receiving any medical assistance or reimbursement of the medical expenses he incurred.
16. The Player stated that he was summoned on 15 January 2025 by 3 Club officials, who
presented him with the Termination Agreement and forced him to sign it.
17. The Player alleged that the Termination Agreement was signed under duress, rendering his
consent vitiated and therefore invalid. The Player raised that he was coerced by Club
officials into signing the Termination Agreement, that the Club had confiscated his
passport, and that the Termination Agreement was disadvantageous to him, given that
under its terms he forfeited the remainder of his salaries due under the Contract, (i.e. USD
25,000).
18. The Player claimed that the phrase ''sous menace'', written in French under his signature
on the original version of the Termination Agreement, indicated the absence of consent
with the content of the Termination Agreement despite his signature.
19. The Player argued that, in Libya, foreigners must obtain an exit visa, which is conditional
upon the approval of the Libyan employer. In this sense, the Player submitted that had he
refused to sign the Termination Agreement, he would not have been able to leave Libya,
adding to the duress under which he signed the Termination Agreement.
20. In support of his position, the Player provided reports from various international
organizations, not specific to the case at hand, detailing the exit visa procedure required
by the Libyan legislation and added that widespread human rights violations were reported
by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Amnesty
International, which included abuses by Libyan employers regarding the issuance of exit
visas.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18328
21. The Player also added that based on the Football Tribunal jurisprudence, that the
Termination Agreement cannot be considered valid because the parties did not make
mutual concessions, and that the Termination Agreement was therefore unbalanced.
Notably, he pointed out that the terms of the Termination Agreement resulted in him
forfeiting compensation or reimbursement of his medical expenses, without any
consideration from the Club, which he said was contrary to the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal.
22. The Player’s requests for relief, were the following, quoted verbatim:
“En conséquence des faits et arguments exposés ci-dessus, le Joueur invite
respectueusement la Chambre de Résolution des Litiges du Tribunal de Football de la FIFA à
établir que le Club a mis fin au Contrat sans juste cause et d’ordonner au Club de payer les
montants suivants:
Arriérés :
- 3104,305 Dinars frais médicaux + 5% d’intérêts p.a. à partir du 15 janvier
2025
Compensation pour rupture de contrat:
- Valeur résiduelle: 25000 USD comme suit 12500USD tranche prévue entre la
phase aller et ma phase retour + 5% d’intérêts p.a. à partir du 15 janvier
2025
Et 12500 USD tranche prévue à la fin de la saison plus 5% d’intérêts p.a. à
partir du 15 janvier 2025
- Imposer au Club une sanction financière pour son comportement.
- Imposer au Club une sanction sportive pour avoir rompu le Contrat durant la
période protégée.
- 5000 USD à titre de frais d’avocat“
(freely translated to English)
“As a result of the facts and arguments set out above, the Player respectfully requests
the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal to find that the Club has
terminated the Contract without just cause and to order the Club to pay the following
amounts:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18328
Outstanding:
- 3104.305 Dinars medical expenses + 5% interest p.a. from 15
January 2025
Compensation for breach of contract:
- Residual value: USD 25,000 as follows USD 1,500 scheduled
instalment between the outward phase and my return phase + 5%
interest p.a. from 15 January 2025
And USD 12500 instalment due at the end of the season plus 5%
interest p.a. from 15 January 2025.
- Impose a financial penalty on the Club for its behaviour.
- Impose a sporting penalty on the Club for breaching the Contract during the
protected period.
- USD 5,000 in legal fees".
b. Position of the Respondent
23. Despite being invited to do so, the Club did not file a response to this claim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18328
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 23 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 3 July 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Tunisian player and a Libyan club.
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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-18328
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
was undisputed that the Contract had been terminated on 15 January 2025, by virtue of
the signature of the Termination Agreement.
30. However, the Chamber noted that the Player contested the validity of the Termination
Agreement as he mentioned it was signed under duress, and the Player also claimed the
reimbursement of medical expenses that he incurred.
31. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was terminated by mutual agreement and assess the consequences thereof, as
well as to decide on the request by the Player for the reimbursement of his medical
expenses.
32. The Chamber first recalled that the Player alleged that the Termination Agreement was
signed under duress, thereby vitiating his consent and rendering the agreement invalid, as
he claimed that the signature occurred in the presence of three Club officials while he was
alone, the withholding of his passport by Club representatives, and the absence of any
concession on the part of the Club while he forfeited the second and third salary payments
under the Contract, which totalled USD 25,000 (2 x USD 12,500).
33. In the absence of an answer of the Club, the Chamber relied on the evidence provided by
the Player and gave specific attention to the mention “sous menace”, written in French,
over the Player’s signature on the original version of the Termination Agreement which was
drafted in Arabic.
34. In that sense, the Chamber recalled the jurisprudence of the FIFA Football Tribunal
regarding mentions or annotations over signatures, which, upon due consideration of the
facts of the case, tends to grant such mentions or annotations significant probative value
as indications of the signatory’s mindset and of the context under which the signature
occurred.
35. Indeed, the Chamber reasoned that a handwritten remark accompanying a signature—
rather than diminishing the legal effect of the document—can serve to reinforce the
signatory’s intention to be bound by its terms. Such annotations, depending on the context,
can be commonly understood as expressions of explicit consent, thereby enhancing the
evidentiary value of the signature and supporting the existence of a valid and binding
agreement. (cf. DRC Decision of 15 September 2022, Olinga Essono).
36. Conversely, the Chamber found that the inclusion of the phrase “sous menace” reflected
the Player’s assertion that he was under duress at the time of signing the Termination
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18328
Agreement and that he did not agree with its terms. In light of this, the Chamber considered
that such a remark shifted the burden of proof on the Club to establish that the signature
was not obtained under coercive circumstances.
37. In the absence of an answer by the Club, the Chamber considered the presence of such a
mark on the Player’s signature on the original version of the Termination Agreement to be
indicative of the circumstances under which the termination occurred and of the Player's
state of mind at the time of signing.
38. Also, in considering the circumstances surrounding the signature of the Termination
Agreement, notably the process of obtaining an exit visa in Libya, as evidenced by the
Player, and the uncontested allegation of withholding of the Player’s passport, the
Chamber determined that the Club was in a position of power, and could condition the
approval of the issuance of the Player’s exit visa and the retrieval of his passport, to the
signature of the Termination Agreement.
39. The Chamber, after careful examination of the content of the Termination Agreement,
noted that it was unbalanced in favour of the Club, in the sense that the Club makes no
concession in exchange for the Player waiving half of the remuneration provided for in the
Contract.
40. Indeed, the Chamber observed that the Contract was terminated merely 10 days before
the end of the first phase of the Libyan league, at which point the Club would have had to
pay the Player the second instalment of his salary (USD 12,500). Considering that the Player
was also set to receive a third instalment of salary (USD 12,500) at the end of the season,
is the Chamber considered that the second instalment was the payment for the Player’s
service rendered to the Club during the first phase of the Libyan league.
41. In that sense, the Player’s forfeiture of all residual amounts from the date of the
Termination Agreement amounted to forfeiting salaries for services that had already been
performed. This was deemed by the Chamber as a further indication of the imbalance in
the concessions of both parties in the Termination Agreement.
42. Consequently, the Chamber considered, based on the evidence in the file, that the
Termination Agreement was signed under duress by the Player and that it was not mutually
agreed. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the Termination Agreement shall produce no
effects.
43. As a result of the foregoing, the Chamber held that the Club terminated the Contract
without just cause on 15 January 2025.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18328
ii. Consequences
44. 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.
45. The Chamber noted that in addition to the claim for compensation for the termination of
his contract without just cause by the Club, the Player had also requested the
reimbursement of medical expenses he incurred in Tunisia between the 30 December 2024
and the 4 January 2025, in connection with the surgery he underwent.
46. After careful review of the Contract, the Chamber remarked that it is silent regarding
medical expenses. On the contrary, the Chamber recalled that art. 9 of the Contract
excluded all other claims outside its scope.
47. Despite this contractual provision, the Chamber considered the Player’s allegations that he
had the Club's authorization to travel to Tunisia. However, the Chamber noted that the
Player did not provide any evidence of communications with the Club to this effect, nor
that the Club was aware of the reasons for his trip, namely, to obtain medical treatment,
or that the Club had consented to reimburse his medical expenses in contradiction of the
terms of the Contract. In that sense, the Chamber determined that the Player had not
discharged his burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and rejected
this part of the Player’s claim.
48. Having stated the above and noting that the Player did not make additional claims for
outstanding remuneration, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the present case.
49. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recalled 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 forming 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 the case, and with due consideration for the law of
the country concerned.
50. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the 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 Contract.
51. 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 the Player by the Club shall be equal to the residual
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18328
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)).
52. 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
concluded that the amount of USD 25,000 (2 instalments x USD 12,500) served as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
53. 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 Player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
54. However, the Chamber noted that the Player confirmed that he did not sign a new
employment contract within the relevant period.
55. 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 25,000
to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
56. 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 15 January 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Consequences of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
57. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
58. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18328
59. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player was born on 2 March 1998 and the
relevant contract with the Club was concluded in 2024. Furthermore, the Chamber noted
that the Club terminated the Contract without just cause on 15 January 2025. The breach
of contract by the Club had therefore occurred within the protected period.
60. At the same time, the DRC recalled that the Club terminated the Contract without just
cause. As such, and by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that
the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
61. In reaching such conclusion, the Chamber recalled the particular circumstances
surrounding the present case; notably, that it was established the Club (i) coerced the
Player into signing an unfavourable termination agreement under duress, (ii) withheld his
passport, and (iii) used the issuance of the Player’s exit visa as leverage to obtain the
Player’s signature of the Termination Agreement. These actions not only disregard the
Player's rights but also undermine the very essence of fair and ethical contractual
agreements, and they also constitute a blatant disregard of the letter and spirit of the
Regulations. The DRC was of the unanimous opinion that such disregard and neglect by a
club towards its players has no place in professional football and shall be penalised
accordingly.
62. On this note, the DRC remarked that the wording of the Regulations allows it a significant
degree of discretion to apply sporting sanctions on every case where the conditions of art.
17 par. 4 of the Regulations are met; that is, even if the Respondent is not deemed as a
repeated offender, which is only one of many factors taken into account by the DRC when
deciding whether to impose sporting sanctions on a club – a discretionary power
the Chamber is prepared to use given the serious circumstances of the matter at hand.
63. Indeed, the DRC wished to underline that, as confirmed by the CAS on various occasions
(e.g. CAS 2014/A/3754 and CAS 2017/A/5056, 5069), the DRC’s policy to not impose sporting
sanctions in every single case where it has the power to do so, does not mean that it cannot
impose them in other situations where the prerequisites of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
are fulfilled and the circumstances so warrant, such as in casu. Said rule is sufficiently clear
to fully respect the principles of legality and predictability, which require that the
connection between the offending behaviour and the sanction must be clearly and
previously defined by law. Put differently, players and clubs must be aware – and are
indeed put in a position to be aware – that to breach a contract within the protected period
may lead to sporting sanctions being imposed by the DRC, especially when the relevant
breach is so blatant and unjustified as in the matter at hand.
64. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with article 24 par.
3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18328
time may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction on the
basis of article 17 in the same case. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the
consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due time envisaged by art. 24 of the
Regulations were excluded in the present matter, and that should the Respondent fail to
timely comply with this decision, it would be for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to adopt
the necessary measures in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
65. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
Club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24 par.
3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
69. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
70. In view of the above, the DRC decided that, if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Player, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18328
71. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which is
available in the present file on the FIFA Legal Portal.
d. Costs
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-18328
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ben Rajeh Mehrez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Khaleej Sirte SC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 25,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15
January 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods
following the notification of the present decision.
6.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within 30 days of notification of this
decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and formal decision.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18328
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