Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19018
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 July 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Artjom Dmitrijev
BY:
Angela COLLINS, Australia
CLAIMANT:
Artjom Dmitrijev, Estonia
Represented by Danila Smolski
RESPONDENT:
Turan, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19018
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date of 2024, the Estonian player Artjom Dmitrijev (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Kazakh club, Turan (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 15 February
2024 until 15 November 2024.
2.
In clause 2.1.6 of the Contract, the parties included that the Player had the right to, inter
alia, “rest, including paid annual leave”.
3.
In clause 3, the parties established the Player’s remuneration as follows (translated into
English by the Player):
“3. REMUNERATION
3.1. The Employer sets the Employee's monthly basic salary in the amount of 1,800,000
(one million eight hundred thousand) tenge ( net, excluding taxes and mandatory
payments to the budget);
3.2. Wages are paid by bank transfer no later than the second ten-day period of the
following month.
3.3. The monthly basic salary (wages) specified in paragraph 3.1. is paid in the national
currency of the Republic of Kazakhstan - tenge.
(…)
3.5. All payments due to the Employee and reflected in the text of this employment
contract are indicated after taxes, deductions and other mandatory payments provided
for by the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
(…)”
4.
Clauses 5.2 and 5.3 provided the following (translated into English by the Player):
“5.2. The Employer provides the Employee with a basic paid annual labor leave of 28
(twenty-eight) calendar days.
5.3. By agreement between the Parties, the paid annual leave may be divided into parts.
In this case, one of the parts of the paid leave must be at least two calendar weeks of the
leave duration stipulated in this clause.”
5.
Clause 10 included the following jurisdiction clause (translated into English by the Player):
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19018
“10. CONSIDERATION OF LABOR DISPUTES
10.1. All disputes arising during the execution of this employment contract will be
resolved by the Parties through negotiations.
10.2. If the dispute between the Parties is not resolved in the process of negotiations, it
shall be subject to consideration by the Employer’s Conciliation Commission in the
manner prescribed by the Code.
10.3. If the dispute between the Parties is not settled in the Employer's Conciliation
Commission, it shall be subject to pre-trial settlement in the legal bodies of the KFF in the
manner prescribed by the regulatory documents of the KFF.
10.4. If a dispute between the Parties is not settled in the manner prescribed by the
regulatory documents of the FCC, it shall be considered in accordance with the Code.”
6.
On an unspecified date, which, according to the Player, was 7 April 2025, the Player put the
Club in default and requested payment of KZT 2,525,806, of which KZT 900,000
corresponded to the prorated salary for November 2024 and KZT 1,625,806 to the paid
annual leave. The Player granted the Club 10 days to comply with the payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 24 April 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
8.
The Player stated that on 15 February 2024, the parties concluded the Contract, which was
valid until 15 November 2024. According to the Player, the Club undertook to pay him KZT
1,800,000 net as monthly salary and to provide him with basic paid annual leave of 28
calendar days.
9.
Nonetheless, the Player argued that the Club failed to pay him the prorated salary for
November 2024 (KZT 900,000) and KZT 1,625,806 for the annual leave. Thus, he mentioned
that on 7 April 2025, he put the Club in default, to no avail.
10. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“18. The Claimant thus requests that the FIFA DRC accepts the present claim and issues
an award in favor of the Claimant on the grounds herein, sentencing the Respondent to
pay:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19018
• Tenge 900 000 (Salary for 15 days in November 2024) plus 5% p.a. interest as of the
due date, until the date of effective payment;
• Tenge 1,625,806 (the amount of paid annual leave) plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due
date, until the date of effective payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
11. In its reply, the Club first objected to the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal, as it argued
that the parties had agreed on the exclusive competence of the Kazakhstan Football
Federation (FFK) legal bodies. In this respect, the Club referred to clause 10 of the Contract
and stated that (i) the Player did not submit the dispute to the internal Conciliation
Commission of the Club, (ii) he did not initially file the dispute before the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Kazakhstan Football Federation (hereinafter: the Kazakh NDRC) and (iii) if
the FFK did not resolve the dispute, the Player was obliged to submit it to the judicial
authorities of Kazakhstan, based on art. 159 of the Labour Code of Kazakhstan.
12. According to the Club, the Player bypassed all agreed and legally required domestic
mechanisms and his conduct constitutes a clear instance of forum shopping, as he ignored
the path established in the Contract and lodged a claim before FIFA, which is a decisionmaking body that was not foreseen in the Contract. Thus, the Club requested that the claim
be rejected due to a lack of jurisdiction.
13. Regarding the merits of the case, the Club stated that the Player made a miscalculation of
the amount owed. In this regard, the Club provided a payroll and the following breakdown:
“1. November 2024 salary (for 12 working days) - 923 077 KZT (gross);
2. Compensation for unused leave upon termination for (19 working days) - 1 530 486
KZT (gross).
Thus, after withholding all taxes (in the amount of 245 356 KZT), the actual debt of the
Club to the player is 2 208 207 KZT (net).”
14. Regarding the salary, the Club alleged that, under Kazakh law, salaries are calculated based
on working days and not on calendar days. Therefore, the Club stated that the Player made
a miscalculation, as in November 2024 he only worked 12 days and not 15.
15. Specifically regarding the paid leave, the Club alleged that clause 5.2 only applies to
employees who have completed a full year of service. The Club asserted that, since the
Player worked from 15 February 2024 to 15 November 2024, he is entitled to 22 calendar
days of leave, which includes 19 working days.
16. The Club further provided the calculations of the paid annual leave as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19018
“The Player worked 223 days, with total earnings of 17 963 077 KZT (gross) for this period.
The average daily earnings: 17 963 077 KZT - 223 days = 80 551,91 KZT.
Leave compensation: 80 551,91 KZT x 19 working days = 1 530 486 KZT (gross).”
17. Lastly, the Club indicated that, after deducting all taxes, the Player is entitled to KZT
2,208,207 net for November 2024, and annual leave compensation.
18. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“Conclusion
Based on all the above calculations, the Club recognizes the debt owed to the player only
in the amount of 2,208,207 KZT (net).”
c. Replica of the Claimant
19. In his replica, the Player first pointed out that the Kazakh NDRC is not on the list of NDRCs
recognised by FIFA. Additionally, the Player argued that the relevant clause was vague and
did not explicitly refer to a NDRC or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 par.
1 lit b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
20. Furthermore, the Player alleged that national law is not decisive for this case, as the
Regulations shall prevail. Additionally, the Player asserted that (i) the Contract did not
establish that the salary was to be paid based on working days and not on calendar days
and (ii) the Club failed to provide evidence regarding the number of working days in
November. In any case, the Player contended that the Club did not provide any regulatory
documents to support its arguments regarding the outstanding amounts.
21. Regarding the paid annual leave, the Player mentioned that the Club’s allegations were
incorrect, as the Contract clearly stipulated that he was entitled to 28 days of paid annual
leave and did not provide that this leave would be granted in proportion to the period
actually worked. The Player asserted that the documents provided by the Club cannot be
taken into account as they are internal documents issued solely by the Club, without
containing any signatures or seals.
22. Moreover, the Player indicated that, according to the Contract, all payments were net
amounts. Therefore, the Player reiterated his requests for relief.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19018
d. Duplica of the Respondent
23. In its final comments, the Club reiterated its objection to the jurisdiction of the Football
Tribunal and stated that the Contract referred to a multi-tiered domestic mechanism.
Specifically, the Club mentioned that the Kazakh NDRC does exist and, while it may not be
formally listed as a recognised NDRC, the Player failed to exhaust this domestic remedy.
24. Regarding the amounts owed, the Club stated that the salary and leave compensation were
subject to deductions in accordance with law. The Club further alleged that the payrolls
provided were generated from the Club’s certified accounting system.
25. Lastly, the Club contended that, based on art. 96 par. 2 of the Labour Code, the annual
leave is accrued pro rata based on actual time worked.
26. The Club made the following requests for relief:
“Conclusion and Request
The Club maintains that it has recognized the amount owed to the Player in full and in
accordance with the applicable legislation and contract.
Therefore, the Club respectfully requests that the DRC:
1. Reject the additional claims made by the Player;
2. Uphold the Club’s initial position regarding the jurisdiction and confirm that the total
net debt owed does not exceed KZT 2,208,207.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 April 2025 and submitted
for decision on 15 July 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.
28. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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, in principle, competent
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19018
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an Estonian player and a Kazakh club.
29. Nonetheless, the Single Judge recalled that the Club challenged the jurisdiction of the
Football Tribunal, arguing that the Player bypassed the domestic mechanism of dispute
resolution included in the Contract.
30. The Single Judge noted that the Player, conversely, stated that the Kazakh NDRC is not
recognised by FIFA and that the clause was not clear and exclusive.
31. In this context, the Single Judge 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.
32. Most importantly, the Single Judge 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).
33. Considering that this claim was filed by the Player on 24 April 2025, the Single Judge
concluded that the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal must be assessed based on the
following provision:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear:
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
directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable to the parties;”
34. The Single Judge considered that this case, in principle, falls within FIFA’s jurisdiction, and
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
favour of a NDRC “that has been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National
Dispute Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles”.
35. In order for FIFA to decline its jurisdiction in favour of an NDRC, the interested party
challenging the Football Tribunal’s should demonstrate that the parties had validly agreed
to refer any such dispute to the relevant decision-making body and that such body is
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19018
recognised by FIFA. These conditions are cumulative and should all be met at the time a
party submitted a claim to FIFA.
36. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge recalled that the relevant jurisdiction clause was
as follows:
“10. CONSIDERATION OF LABOR DISPUTES
10.1. All disputes arising during the execution of this employment contract will be
resolved by the Parties through negotiations.
10.2. If the dispute between the Parties is not resolved in the process of negotiations, it
shall be subject to consideration by the Employer’s Conciliation Commission in the
manner prescribed by the Code.
10.3. If the dispute between the Parties is not settled in the Employer's Conciliation
Commission, it shall be subject to pre-trial settlement in the legal bodies of the KFF in the
manner prescribed by the regulatory documents of the KFF.
10.4. If a dispute between the Parties is not settled in the manner prescribed by the
regulatory documents of the FCC, it shall be considered in accordance with the Code.”
37. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that this clause (i) is not clear as to whether the “legal
bodies of the KFF” is indeed the Kazakh NDRC; (ii) is not clear as to the competent body to
adjudicate the dispute based on “the Code”; and, most importantly, (iii) provided the parties
the possibility to refer their disputes to different (and unclear) bodies. The Single Judge
pointed out that the Club itself acknowledged that the Contract referred to a multi-tiered
domestic mechanism, thereby rendering the clause non-exclusive.
38. In any event, the Single Judge remarked that there is no NDRC recognised by FIFA in
Kazakhstan and, therefore, even if this clause were to be considered as clear and exclusive,
the Football Tribunal would have jurisdiction.
39. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge also recalled that the Club argued that the
Player’s conduct constituted forum shopping. In this respect, the Single Judge highlighted
that there is no evidence that the Player has lodged a claim before any other body than the
Football Tribunal or that he attempted to “game the system”.
40. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide
on the matter.
41. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19018
1 and 2 of the Regulations (July 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of the Regulations
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
42. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she 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
43. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
44. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
45. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him KZT
900,000 as salary for November 2024 and KZT 1,625,806 as annual leave.
46. The Single Judge noted that the Club acknowledged that the salary for November 2024 and
the annual leave remained outstanding but disputed the exact amounts requested.
47. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine the amount
owed to the Player.
a) Salary for November 2024
48. The Single Judge observed that, according to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a
monthly salary of KZT 1,800,000 net, to be paid “no later than the second ten-day period of
the following month”. Considering that the Contract was valid until 15 November 2024, the
Single Judge noted that the Player claims KZT 900,000 as prorated salary.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19018
49. The Single Judge pointed out that the Club acknowledged not having paid this salary but
argued that it owes the Player KZT 923,077 gross, as the salary was to be calculated based
on working days and in November 2024 the Player only worked 12 days.
50. In this context, the Single Judge underscored that there was no provision establishing that
the salary was to be paid pro rata based on the days worked as argued by the Club.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the salary for November 2024 shall be
calculated based on calendar days and not worked days. Consequently, the Single Judge
determined that the Player is entitled to KZT 900,000 as prorated salary for November
2024.
51. The Single Judge then emphasised that the Player did not request the amount of KZT
900,000 to be paid as “net” and, therefore, this amount was not granted as “net”, based on
the principle ne ultra petita.
52. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Player requested interest on this salary as
from the due date. Although the Single Judge remarked that the Contract is not entirely
clear, she interpreted that the “second ten-day period” of the month corresponds to the
days between the 11th and 20th. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that the Club was
obliged to pay the salary by the 20th day of the following month and therefore decided to
award 5% interest p.a. as from 21 December 2024.
b) Annual leave
53. Then, the Single Judge observed that clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the Contract stated that “The
Employer provides the Employee with a basic paid annual labor leave of 28 (twenty-eight)
calendar days” and that “By agreement between the Parties, the paid annual leave may be
divided into parts. In this case, one of the parts of the paid leave must be at least two calendar
weeks of the leave duration stipulated in this clause”. In this regard, the Single Judge
underlined that the paid leave was not quantified within the Contract, but the Club itself
acknowledged that the Player was entitled to it. Therefore, the Single Judge found it clear
that the Player is entitled to an amount for annual leave.
54. The Single Judge recalled that the Player alleged that he is entitled to KZT 1,625,806 as
annual leave, whereas the Club stated that he is entitled to KZT 1,530,486, as the amount
must be prorated in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code. Furthermore, the
Club argued that this amount was stipulated as a gross amount and is subject to
deductions.
55. First, regarding the amount owed, the Single Judge emphasised that, although the Player
failed to provide any calculation, he argued that he was entitled to 28 days for this leave
based on the wording of clause 5.2. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that KZT
1,800,000 prorated by 28 days amounts to KZT 1,625,806, which is the amount he is
claiming. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Club alleged that clause 5.2 applies
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19018
only to employees who have completed a full year of service and, therefore, he is not
entitled to 28 days but rather to 22 calendar days or 19 working days. Consequently, the
Club provided its own calculations.
56. In this regard, the Single Judge remarked that the Contract did not establish that the annual
leave would be prorated in the event that the Player did not complete a full year of service,
and the Club failed to provide any relevant provision to support its allegation. Additionally,
the Single Judge recalled that the parties included clause 5.2 with full knowledge that the
Player would not complete a year of service, and still explicitly stated that he was entitled
to 28 days, without stipulating any exception.
57. In this respect and taking into account that the Club acknowledged the Player was entitled
to annual leave, the Single Judge underscored that it was the Club’s burden to prove that
he was not entitled to the 28 days set out in the Contract. Since the Club did not provide
convincing evidence to establish that he was entitled to only 22 days, the Single Judge was
of the opinion that the Player was entitled to 28 days of annual leave.
58. In addition, although the Single Judge acknowledged that there was no specific provision
establishing that this amount was to be paid as “net”, in her view it was not possible to
apply any deductions to it. While the payroll provided by the Club indicates that several
deductions must be made, the Single Judge remarked that she could not determine
whether this was actually the tax obligation, or who imposed this tax scheme. Furthermore,
the Single Judge emphasised that this payroll is a document issued solely by the Club and
does not contain the Player’s signature.
59. Additionally, although the Player mentioned that this amount was net, the Single Judge
pointed out that he did not request that the Club be condemned to pay it as “net”.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that she could not award this amount as a net
amount in any case.
60. Based on the above, the Single Judge decided to award the Player KZT 1,625,806 as annual
leave. Since the Contract did not specify the due date for this payment, the Single Judge
decided to award interest as from the day after the Contract’s end date, i.e., 16 November
2024.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19018
62. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
63. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
64. 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.
65. The Single Judge 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
66. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
67. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
68. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19018
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Artjom Dmitrijev.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Artjom Dmitrijev, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Turan, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- KZT 2,525,806 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of KZT 1,625,806 as from 16 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of KZT 900,000 as from 21 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.
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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19018
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19018
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. 16