Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18444
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player David
Chidera Ejiofor
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
David Chidera Ejiofor, Nigeria
RESPONDENT:
MOSTA, Malta
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18444
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 January 2023, the Nigerian player David Chidera Ejiofor (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Maltese club MOSTA (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract), valid as from 3
January 2023 until after the “last competitive match” of the 2023/2024 season.
2.
Pursuant to clause 2 of the Employment Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as
follows:
“2. Remuneration & Bonuses
2.1. In remuneration for his services the Club shall pay the player monthly salary of
2.1.1. EIGHT HUNDRED (€800) EURO Gross at the end of each month for season
2022/23 from 3rd of January 2023 till the last competitive match of season 2022/23
and re-commence on the 1st of July 2023 till the last competitive match of season
2023/24
However, the Club and the player agree that he shall be paid for his services by the
Club throughout the competitive football season, and therefore the first day which
shall be calculated for salary is to be the first day in which the player starts training
with the Club in a particular season, and the last day shall be the day in which the
Club plays the last competitive match of the MFA football season.
2.2. The player will be offered shared accommodation.
2.3. The player will be offered the following bonuses
2.3.1 Ten Thousand (€10,000) Euro for winning the domestic league
2.3.2. Five Thousand (€5,000) Euro for winning the domestic cup
2.3.3. Three Thousand (€3,000) Euro for reaching any European competition. If the
club wins either the league or the cup this bonus will not be valid.
2.3.4. One Hundred (€100) Euro as win match bonus.
2.3.5. Four Hundred (€400) Euro will be given to the player at the end of every season
of the contract as flight ticket stipend.
2.4. The Club shall grant to the player vacation leave according to Maltese law.
However, the parties agree that the player may not avail himself of vacation leave in
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18444
the period of the season during which the Club is taking part in a competition of the
Malta Football Association and/or UEFA.
2.5. The Player may exploit his individual rights if these do not conflict with the Club's
sponsors and/or partners, whilst the Club may exploit the Player's image rights as
part of the whole squad.
2.6. Both parties agree that the contract can be terminated at any transfer window
without any compensation.”
3.
On 23 August 2023, the Parties purportedly signed an agreement for the mutual
termination of the Employment Contract (hereinafter: the Alleged Termination Agreement),
under the following terms:
“On signing of this agreement both parties, on one side David Chidera Ejiofor a part
time football player as the employee and on the other party Mosta Football Club as
the employer agrees that the contract between each other is being terminated today
the 23ro of August 2023. Mosta Football Club and David Chidera Ejiofor have no
financial dues pending between each other. No Salaries have been paid to David
Chidera Ejiofor as the player was not training with the club during season 2023/24.
By virtue of this declaration dated 23ra of August 2023 the parties signing this
agreement are agreeing that the above details are final and irrevocably.”
4.
Along with the Alleged Termination Agreement, the parties purportedly signed a document
titled “Payment Confirmation” (hereinafter: the Alleged Payment Confirmation), which
established the following, quoted verbatim:
“On signing of this agreement, on one side Owen Vella, Treasurer of Mosta Football Club
and on the other side Chidera David Ejiofor a professional player with Mosta Football
Club, declares that both parties are agreeing that there are no more financial obligations
between each other as at the last competitive match for season 2022/23.”
5.
On 28 August 2023, the Parties purportedly executed a document titled “Release of Football
Player”, addressed to the Malta Football Association (MFA). The document stated, inter alia,
that the Club thereby “releases the under mentioned player, and grants him permission to
register and play with any other Club”.
6.
On 28 August 2023, the Player entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Subsequent Employment Contract) with the Maltese club MSIDA ST JOSEPH FOOTBALL CLUB
(hereinafter: the Subsequent Club), valid as from 28 August 2023 until the “last competitive
match” of the 2023/2024 season.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18444
7.
Under clause 2.1. of the Subsequent Employment Contract, the Subsequent Club
undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of EUR 850 gross “at the end of each month for
season 2023/24”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 4 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
9.
The Player argued that, despite fully performing his contractual duties, the Club did not
make any payments under the Employment Contract, which constituted a breach of
contract without just cause.
10. According to the Player, the Club’s failure to fulfil its financial obligations resulted in the
following outstanding amounts, reproduced verbatim:
Description
Amount
Contractual
Period Covered
Basis
Base Salary (Jan 3, 2023
€800/month x 18 months =
–
2023/24
14,400
Domestic League Bonus
€10,000
Clause 2.3.1
Upon achievement
Domestic Cup Bonus
€5,000
Clause 2.3.2
Upon achievement
European Competition
€3,000
Clause 2.3.3
Upon achievement
Match Win Bonuses
€100 per win (To be calculated
Clause 2.3.4
All matches won
Flight Ticket Stipends
€400x 2 seasons = € 800
Clause 2.3.5.
End of each season
FIFA-Allowed Interest on
[To be calculated]
FIFA
From the due date until
End
of
Clause 2.1
Jan 3, 2023 – Last match
of 2023/24 season
Season)
Bonus
Unpaid Wages
Dispute
Resolution
payment
Regulations
Applicable
Penalties
FIFA
[To be calculated]
FIFA
As per regulations
Regulations
11. In view of the foregoing, the Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“I formally request the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Order Mosta Football Club to immediately pay all outstanding wages and bonuses
as per my contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18444
2. Impose late payment penalties and applicable FIFA interest on the overdue
amounts.
3. Grant compensation for damages resulting from non-payment.
4. Award reimbursement for legal fees incurred in enforcing this claim.
5. Impose any additional sanctions or disciplinary measures deemed appropriate
under FIFA regulations.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply dated 25 March 2025, the Club contended that, on 23 August 2023, the parties
reached a mutual agreement to terminate the Employment Contract through the Alleged
Termination Agreement and the Alleged Payment Confirmation, which expressly stipulated
that no remaining outstanding amounts were due to the Player.
13. Furthermore, the Club contended that the parties also signed and filed termination notices
addressed both to the MFA and a governmental agency.
14. The Club further argued that, following the mutual termination, the Player entered into a
Subsequent Employment Contract with another Maltese football club (i.e., the Subsequent
Club). In this context, the Club asserted that if the Player’s claim were to be upheld—
namely, that the Alleged Termination Agreement and the Alleged Payment Confirmation
were not valid—then his registration with the Subsequent Club would constitute a breach
of his supposedly ongoing contractual obligations toward the Club.
15. Lastly, the Club maintained that the Player acknowledged, via an online chat exchange held
on 12 March 2025, that the proceedings before FIFA were only initiated as an act of
retaliation against the Club. Specifically, the Club alleged that the Player filed the claim in
response to the Club’s refusal to issue a waiver for training compensation to which it would
be allegedly entitled under FIFA regulations.
16. In view of the foregoing, the Club requested FIFA to reject the Player’s claim.
c. Replica of the Claimant
17. In its replica dated 28 March 2025, the Player contended that the documents presented by
the Respondent pertaining to an alleged mutual termination were product of forgery,
featuring falsified signatures that replicate those on his original Employment Contract. He
affirmed that he never signed, agreed to, or was presented with any termination
agreement, either verbally or in writing.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18444
18. To support his position, the Player requested: (i) a forensic handwriting analysis to verify
the falsification of his signature; (ii) a comparison between the alleged forged documents
and his verified signature on official identification and the Employment Contract; (iii) a
review of communication records with the Club, which allegedly contain no reference to
any termination agreement; and; (iv) a demand for the Club to produce verifiable proof of
payment of its obligations under the Employment Contract, such as bank transfers or
payroll records.
19. Lastly, the Player reaffirmed his claims and made the following requests:
“4. Reaffirmation of My Claim
As there is no legitimate mutual termination agreement and no record of any payment
made to me, my claim remains valid in full. I request the following relief:
1. Immediate payment of all outstanding wages and bonuses as per my contract.
2. Imposition of late payment penalties and FIFA-mandated interest on overdue
amounts.
3. Compensation for damages caused by Mosta FC’s contract breach and bad faith
conduct.
4. Reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in pursuing this claim.
5. Disciplinary measures against Mosta FC for submitting forged documents and
failing to fulfill their contractual obligations.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
20. In its duplica dated 10 April 2025, the Club held that the documents it submitted are
authentic and duly signed by both parties. It denied any forgery by asserting that: (i) the
Player did not provide any credible evidence to support his claim of forgery; (ii) the burden
of proof lies with the Player, who must substantiate his allegations with appropriate
evidence; and (iii) in the absence of such proof, the Club’s version of events must be
accepted, according to jurisprudence.
21. The Club further asserted that the Player’s denial of the Alleged Termination Agreement
authenticity was contradictory, since this document was crucial to enable him signing the
Subsequent Employment Contract on 28 August 2023, which would not have been possible
without a prior termination of his previous contract.
22. In parallel, the Club objected the Player’s attempt to introduce new requests at a late
procedural stage, especially the appointment of an independent expert witness, arguing
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18444
that “in an adversarial system such as the FIFA Tribunal, it is incumbent on the player to provide
the appropriate evidence, and in any case it cannot be done at this mature stage of the
proceedings”.
23. Lastly, the Club contended that the Player has demonstrated inconsistency in his signature
across various documents, including his passport, the Subsequent Employment Contract,
and the Alleged Termination Agreement. It ultimately argued that the Player attempted to
exploit these inconsistencies to falsely allege forgery.
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 4 March 2025 and submitted for decision on
14 August 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 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
an Nigerian player and a Maltese club.
26. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations (July 2025 edition),
which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. Furthermore, the
Chamber remarked that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in
each individual case.
27. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on
4 March 2025. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations (July 2025 edition),
any amounts fallen due before 4 March 2023 are affected by the statute of limitations.
28. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, in the present case, the Player requested,
inter alia, the payment of the monthly salaries for January 2023 and February 2023, which
became due on 31 January 2023 and 28 February 2023, respectively.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18444
29. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Player’s claim is partially time-barred and ruled
that his claim relating to payments which fell due before 4 March 2023 is inadmissible as it
is affected by the statute of limitations.
30. Lastly, 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
(July 2025 edition), the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
31. 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
32. 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
33. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim from a player against a club for compensation for breach of contract
and overdue payables arising from an employment contract.
34. The Chamber observed that the Player asserted the Employment Contract had been
terminated without just cause by the Club, alleging that it failed to meet its financial
obligations. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Club maintained the termination
was the result of a mutual agreement between the Parties and claimed that no outstanding
amounts remained due. The Player contested the authenticity of the documents submitted
by the Club in support of the alleged mutual termination.
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Employment Contract was prematurely terminated without just cause by the Club and, if
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18444
so, what the resulting legal consequences are. In parallel, the Chamber recognised that it
should also assess whether any outstanding financial obligations remained unpaid.
a. The termination
36. At the outset, and without yet delving into the controversy regarding the potential
existence or legitimacy of a mutual termination, the Chamber considered it essential to
first assess whether the Player has succeeded in demonstrating that the Employment
Contract was early terminated without just cause by the Club, which forms the basis of the
Player’s claim. In this regard, the Chamber again referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, pursuant to which “a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it”.
37. Considering the above, and following a comprehensive analysis of the case file, the
Chamber concluded that the Player has failed to discharge the required burden of proof to
substantiate his claim.
38. Firstly, the DRC noted that the Player failed to provide any evidence that he formally
notified the Club—or communicated in any manner—regarding the alleged breach of
contract. There is no record of a notice of default, warning, or any objection raised by the
Player in response to the Club’s purported breach of contract. Notably, the first instance in
which the Player raised the issue of ‘termination without just cause’ was in his claim dated 4
March 2025—nearly two years after the events relevant to the case. According to the
Chamber, this significant delay, combined with the absence of any prior diligence by the
Player, undermined the credibility of the Player’s allegations and raised doubt on whether
the alleged breach was ever treated as such by the Player.
39. Secondly, the Chamber noted that the Player failed to clearly indicate any specific moment
and circumstances under which the alleged unjust termination of the Employment
Contract would have occurred. In summary, the Player was unable to demonstrate either
when and how the Club would have terminated the Employment Contract without just
cause or, alternatively, when and how the Player himself formally terminated the
Employment Contract with just cause.
40. Thirdly, the DRC observed that the Player failed to submit any evidence indicating that the
Club took affirmative steps to unilaterally terminate the Employment Contract. On the
contrary, it is undisputed that, on 28 August 2023, the Player signed the Subsequent
Employment Contract with another Maltese club as a free agent. The Chamber found that,
as of that date, the Player could no longer be bound by the Employment Contract (cf., art.
5 par. 3 and art. 18, par. 5 of the Regulations).
41. In other words, the Chamber considered that, while the Player was unable to prove that
the Club took any active steps to unilaterally terminate the Employment Contract, he
acknowledged having undertaken a deliberate action that suggests he was interested in (or
at least aware of) disengaging from the existing contractual relationship with the Club.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18444
42. Fourthly, even without assessing the legitimacy of the documents submitted by the Club,
the Chamber concluded that the chronology of events—specifically, the Player signing the
Subsequent Contract on 28 August 2023, just five days after the purported date of the
Alleged Mutual Agreement on 23 August 2023— supported the Club’s version of events.
The Chamber considered that the proximity of these dates rendered the Club’s claim of a
mutual termination more plausible than the Player’s assertion of an unreported breach of
contract, which had never been raised prior to these proceedings.
43. Fifthly, the Chamber observed that the Player did not contest the authenticity of the online
chat exchange dated 12 March 2025—just eight days after the filing of his claim—submitted
by the Club. In this exchange, the Player expressly stated that these proceedings would not
have been initiated had the Club provided him with a “waiver,” the nature and content of
which remain unknown. This statement raised doubt as to the Player’s true motivation for
initiating the present proceedings, suggesting that he may have been prompted by other
reasons rather than any actual act of unjust termination by the Club.
44. In view of the foregoing, and still irrespective of an analysis of the authenticity of the Alleged
Termination Agreement and the other related documents submitted by the Respondent,
the DRC concluded that the Player failed to establish that the Employment Contract had
been previously terminated without just cause by the Club, nor has he demonstrated that
he had formally terminated the Employment Contract with just cause due to the overdue
payables.
45. As a result, the Chamber found that the authenticity of the Alleged Termination Agreement
and the other related documents submitted by the Respondent was immaterial at this
point, since the Player ultimately departed from the Employment Contract by signing with
the Subsequent Club on 28 August 2023 (either by mutual agreement with the Club or
without confirmed just cause), and he could not prove the existence of unlawful behavior
from the Club. The DRC therefore decided that, from any angle, the Player was not entitled
to compensation.
46. As to the date of termination, and in addition to the Subsequent Employment Contract
signed by the Player, the Chamber noted that the Club submitted a document dated 28
August 2023 and titled “Release of Football Player”, addressed to the MFA, in which it stated
that it “hereby releases the under mentioned player, and grants him permission to register and
play with any other Club”. Although the Player also disputed the authenticity of his signature
on this document, the Chamber deemed that it nevertheless served as evidence that, as of
28 August 2023, the Club also considered the Employment Contract to be no longer in
effect.
47. Therefore, the Chamber considered that on 28 August 2023, the parties mutually departed
from the Employment Contract.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18444
b. Other consequences
48. Although the Player was unable to establish that the Club caused the termination of the
Employment Contract, the Chamber found that this did not preclude his entitlement to any
remaining outstanding financial obligations arising under said contract.
49. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Club did not contest the Player’s persistent
claim that it failed to pay the agreed wages during the term of the Employment Contract.
In other words, it remained undisputed that the Club did not pay any salary to the Player
while the Employment Contract remained in force (i.e., from the date of signature until 28
August 2023).
50. In this regard, the Chamber further referred to the established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, which holds that a Player cannot validly waive remuneration for work
already performed, unless a clearly significant benefit is perceived by the Player in
exchange. In the present case, the Chamber considered that the Club failed to substantiate
the existence of any such benefit. Accordingly, even assuming, solely for the sake of
argument (ad argumentandum tantum), that the Employment Contract was terminated by
mutual agreement, the Player would still retain the right to claim remuneration for work
performed prior to the alleged termination.
51. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 4,722.58 to the Claimant (i.e.,
the outstanding salaries from March 2023 until August 2023), as per the following
calculations:
Month
January 2023
February 2023
March 2023
April 2023
May 2023
June 2023
July 2023
August 2023 (i.e., until
28 August 2023)
TOTAL DUE
Prorated Amount
EUR 748.39
EUR 800
EUR 800
EUR 800
EUR 800
EUR 800
EUR 800
EUR 722.58
Payment Due Date
31 January 2023
28 February 2023
31 March 2023
30 April 2023
31 May 2023
30 June 2023
31 July 2023
31 August 2023
Status
Time-barred
Time-barred
Unpaid
Unpaid
Unpaid
Unpaid
Unpaid
Unpaid
EUR 4,722.58
52. Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s request and the consistent jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal in similar matters, the Chamber awarded the Claimant interest on the
outstanding remuneration from the day following each respective due date until the date
of effective payment.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18444
53. With regard to the Player’s claims concerning bonuses and other contingent remuneration,
the Chamber observed that the Player failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that
the conditions set forth in the Employment Contract for the payment of such amounts had
been fulfilled. As a result, the Player did not discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon
him, as per art. 13. par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. Consequently, the DRC concluded that
these claims must be dismissed.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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
59. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18444
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18444
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, David Chidera Ejiofor, is partially accepted insofar as it is
admissible.
2.
The Respondent, MOSTA, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2023 until
the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 722.58 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September
2023 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.
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-18444
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-18444
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