Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19095
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bartkus
Dziugas
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Bartkus Dziugas, Lithuania
Represented by Martynas Kalvelis
RESPONDENT:
Al Orobah, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Lamjed Belkahia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19095
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties involved in this dispute are the following:
•
the Lithuanian player Bartkus Dziugas (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
•
the Saudi Arabian club Al Orobah (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated
to the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF).
On 8 May 2023, the Club sent the Player a document titled “Contractual Offer” (hereinafter:
the Offer), containing the following terms and conditions, quoted verbatim:
Duration of contract in months
11 Months
Total salary
100,000
Contract provider
40,000 Dollars
-30 000 Dollars in august
-10,000 in january
Total contract (number)
140,000 Dollar
Total contract (writing)
One hundred forty thousand dollars
Benefit
30000 dollars when the team go up to super league Saudi pro
league"
Car - house - tickets - Bonus (2000) $ if you have clean sheat 4
games
3.
On 1 July 2023, the parties signed a contract titled an “Employment Contract for the
Professional Football Player” (hereinafter: the Contract), which was valid for the 2023/2024
season i.e., from the date of signature until 30 May 2024.
4.
Pursuant to clause 5.1 of the Contract, the Club undertook to remunerate the Player with
a monthly salary of USD 9,090 net, payable by the last day of each month.
5.
Pursuant to clause 5.3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay two types of performance
bonuses:
6.
•
Clean Sheet Bonus: USD 2,000 net each time the goalkeeper reached 4 clean sheets.
•
Promotion Bonus: USD 30,000 net if the team “gets up to the Super League,”
interpreted as promotion to the Saudi Pro League, the top tier.
Clause 5.3 of the Contract further provided that bonuses must be paid within 30 days of
satisfying the respective condition and are payable net of taxes and fees.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19095
7.
The parties seemingly concurred that on or around the same date, they also signed a
different version of the Contract, which reduced the Player’s Promotion Bonus from USD
30,000 to USD 17,000. The parties dispute the effects of this document.
8.
At the time of signing of the Contract, the Club played in the Saudi First Division League,
the second tier of Saudi football.
9.
On 9 August 2023, the Club initiated a transfer instruction in FIFA Transfer Matching System
(TMS) to engage the Player as out of contract (Transfer ID: 716702). It is noted that the
Contract uploaded by the Club into this transfer instruction provided for a Promotion
Bonus of USD 30,000.
10. On 28 May 2024, the Club played the last match of the 2023/2024 season. It remained
undisputed that the Club finished 2nd in the Saudi First Division League. As a result, it
earned direct promotion to the Saudi Pro League, fulfilling the condition for the Promotion
Bonus.
11. Furthermore, the Player recorded at least 15 clean sheets in the 2023/2024 season, as
follows:
•
•
•
First set of 4 clean sheets: completed 1 November 2023
Second set of 4 clean sheets: completed 5 February 2024
Third set of 4 clean sheets: completed 23 April 2024
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 1 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
13. The Player argued that all contractual conditions for the entitlement of bonuses were fully
and unquestionably satisfied. The Club’s promotion to the Saudi Pro League automatically
triggered the obligation to pay the USD 30,000 Promotion Bonus, and his accumulation of
15 clean sheets triggered the obligation to pay USD 6,000 in Clean Sheet Bonuses. He
submitted that the Club has not provided any justification for withholding these amounts
and therefore is in clear breach of its contractual payment obligations.
14. The Player maintained that the principle of pacta sunt servanda obliges the Club to honour
the Contract as agreed. Because the Club failed to pay the bonuses within the deadlines
prescribed by clause 5.3 of the Contract, the Player claimed entitlement to statutory
interest at 5% p.a. on each overdue paymentIn conclusion, he sought an order from the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) awarding all outstanding
bonuses andaccrued interest, which the Player further detailed in his submission.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19095
15. The Player requested the following relief:
“In accordance to the circumstances and arguments presented in this Claim and
pursuant to the FIFA RSTP and the Procedural Rules, the Claimant hereby requests the
DRC:
1) To award to the Claimant from the Respondent outstanding promotion bonus in the
amount of USD 30,000 (thirty thousand US dollars) net;
2) To award to the Claimant from the Respondent interest for the late payment of the
promotion bonus in the amount of USD 1,261.64 (one thousand two hundred sixty-one
US dollars and 64 cents) net;
3) To award to the Claimant from the Respondent outstanding clean sheet bonuses in
the amount of USD 6,000 (six thousand US dollars) net;
4) To award to the Claimant from the Respondent interest for the late payment of the
clean sheet bonuses in the amount of USD 351.50 (three hundred fifty-one US dollars and
50 cents) net;
5) To award to the Claimant from the Respondent interest at the rate of 5 (five) percent
per annum from the awarded amount as from the date of the Claim until the day of
effective payment.”
b. Reply of the Club
16. On 1 June 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the claim.
17. The Club stated that the Player’s claim for a USD 30,000 Promotion Bonus was unfounded
because a contractual amendment had been executed before the events giving rise to the
dispute. According to the Club, this amendment had been validly signed by the Player and
subsequently approved by the SAFF, thereby legally modifying clause 5.3 of the Contract.
The amended clause reduced the promotion bonus from USD 30,000 to USD 17,000 and
stated: “BENEFITS USD 17000 If the player gets up to super league.”
18. The Club argued that the amendment was binding because it had been executed with the
Player’s full and informed consent, had been verified by the SAFF’s Professionalism and
Players’ Status Committee, and complied with art. 11.4 of the SAFF Regulations. The Club
also asserted that SAFF regulations – specifically art. 7.2, which capped performance
bonuses at 10% of the Player’s annual gross salary – rendered the original USD 30,000
clause unlawful. The Club pointed out that the Player’s annual salary was USD 99,990, and
therefore the initial bonus (representing 30% of annual salary) violated mandatory rules,
justifying the reduction to USD 17,000, which the SAFF approved as a permitted exception.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19095
19. The Club further argued that the Player could not rely on the original Contract for three
cumulative reasons. First, the signing of the amendment implicitly extinguished all
contradictory clauses from the initial Contract. Second, the Player had unequivocally
accepted the amendment because he had signed it without any reservations. Third, the
amendment’s validation by SAFF had general binding effect, making it legally enforceable
under FIFA Statutes.
20. The Club also accused the Player of having knowingly submitted an outdated and
superseded version of the Contract to FIFA, despite being in possession of and having
signed the amended version. The Club claimed that this constituted a violation of the duty
of transparency, an abuse of procedural rights, and an attempt at unjust enrichment,
especially as the amendment had been concluded before the Club’s promotion on 28 May
2024. Based on these allegations, the Club argued that the Player’s claim should be
dismissed in limine for procedural fraud.
21. In conclusion, the Club requested the DRC to reject the Player’s claim entirely on grounds
of fraud and abuse of rights. Alternatively, if the Chamber did not accept that argument,
the Club requested that the Promotion Bonus be recognized only in its amended amount
of USD 17,000, and that no additional sums be awarded.
c. Replica of the Player
22. On 17 June 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
23. The Player maintained his original claim in full and stated that the Club had provided no
valid grounds to alter or reduce the amounts owed. He emphasized that the Club did not
dispute the core facts underlying the claim: namely, that the Player had earned USD 6,000
in clean sheet bonuses and that the promotion bonus under clause 5.3 of the Contract had
been triggered when the Club was promoted to the top tier. The Player noted that the
Club’s reply only challenged the quantum of the Promotion Bonus – not the obligation itself
– and did not deny any of the clean-sheet calculations.
24. The Player argued that the Club’s reliance on an allegedly “amended” version of the
Contract was unsubstantiated. He stressed that both versions carried the same date (1 July
2023), and that the Club failed to prove that its version was executed later or replaced the
original. He criticized the Club for invoking French case law and submitting no proof that
its version superseded the Contract submitted with the claim. The Player insisted that his
version reflected the true agreement, including the USD 30,000 promotion bonus, which
aligned with the Offer the Club had made to him before signing. He argued that the Offer
confirmed his legitimate expectations and the parties’ genuine intent at the time of
contracting.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19095
25. The Player also rejected the Club’s assertion that the bonus could not legally amount to
USD 30,000 under SAFF rules. He noted that the Club had provided no evidence of such
regulations and argued that any attempt by the Club to modify the bonus for internal
regulatory reasons could not prejudice the Player. He suggested that if such an “amended”
contract existed, it likely served only to satisfy domestic federation requirements and
therefore could not override the genuine agreement between the parties. He claimed that
the Club was indeed trying to benefit twice, to the Player’s detriment: complying with SAFF
rules while avoiding payment of the agreed bonus.
26. Regarding allegations of “procedural fraud,” the Player stated that the Club had presented
no basis for such an accusation. He argued that all procedural steps taken by him were
proper, that the Club’s allegations were unfounded, and that it was instead the Club whose
conduct suggested abuse – having failed to pay any bonuses despite acknowledging key
obligations. He asserted that the Club’s accusations were exaggerated and lacked
evidentiary support.
27. In conclusion, the Player reiterated that the Club had promised and owed the full USD
30,000 Promotion Bonus and USD 6,000 in Clean Sheet Bonuses, along with the requested
interest. He therefore reaffirmed his original requests for relief and asked the DRC to grant
them entirely.
d. Duplica of the Club
28. On 18 June 2025, the Club submitted its duplica.
29. The Club stated that the Player’s submission, although formally structured, rested on
inaccurate claims, legal misinterpretations, and the deliberate omission of a key
contractual amendment – the addendum allegedly executed on 15 September 2023 but
dated 1 July 2023 – which had been signed by both parties and homologated by the SAFF.
According to the Club, this amendment lawfully reduced the promotion bonus to USD
17,000, thereby rendering the earlier contractual version inoperative.
30. The Club reiterated that it did not dispute the Player’s entitlement to a Promotion Bonus in
principle but maintained that the legally valid amount was USD 17,000, consistent with
three elements:
•
the amendment to the Contract, whose modified clause 5.3 expressly set the bonus
at USD 17,000;
•
SAFF Regulation (art. 7.2), which capped bonuses at 10% of annual gross salary and
made the initial USD 30,000 bonus legally excessive; and
•
SAFF decision PSC‑028, which exceptionally authorized the Club to grant a
promotion bonus of 17,000 USD.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19095
31. The Club further argued that the Offer was merely a pre‑contractual offer with no binding
force and could not override a subsequently signed and approved contract.
32. Regarding the applicable contract, the Club reaffirmed the validity of the document
allegedly signed on 15 September 2023. It stated that this amendment had been executed
before the promotion occurred and had been approved by SAFF in accordance with art.
11.4 of the SAFF Regulations. The Club asserted that under art. 59 of the FIFA Statutes, this
homologation had erga omnes effect. The Club also argued that the Player produced no
proof that his version of the contract was signed later or that the Club’s amendment was
falsified or unenforceable. Thus, the Club claimed the Player relied on an obsolete and
non‑homologated version.
33. The Club rejected the Player’s argument regarding the “true intention” of the parties,
stating that it was speculative and unsupported by any written evidence. It emphasized
that the Player had signed the addendum without any reservations, thereby demonstrating
explicit acceptance. The Club also clarified that its reference to French jurisprudence in its
earlier reply merely illustrated the universal principle of pacta sunt servanda, not an attempt
to impose foreign law.
34. In relation to the Player’s accusations of abusive conduct, the Club asserted that these were
unfounded and reversed the moral logic of the dispute. It maintained that it had fulfilled
all contractual obligations, including salaries and signing fees, and had only denounced
what it considered procedural fraud: the Player’s deliberate concealment of the
homologated addendum and his submission of an outdated contract to claim an unlawful
USD 30,000 bonus. The Club described this conduct as unjust enrichment.
35. The Club also contested the Player’s claim for USD 6,000 in Clean Sheet Bonuses, arguing
that no admissible evidence had been presented. It stated that Transfermarkt statistics
were not an official or authoritative document and requested verification from SAFF before
recognizing any obligation.
36. In its conclusions, the Club asked the DRC to reject entirely the Player’s claim for a USD
30,000 Promotion Bonus and to confirm the amount of USD 17,000 based on the valid
amendment and SAFF’s authorization. It further requested the rejection of the USD 6,000
clean‑sheet claim due to insufficient proof, the rejection of all interest claims, and the
imposition of procedural costs on the Player on grounds of abusive proceedings. The Club
indicated it remained willing to pay the USD 17,000 that it considered contractually due.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19095
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
37. First of all, the 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 1 May 2025 and
submitted for decision on 12 March 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and
35 of the January 2026 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.
38. 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 Lithuanian player and a Saudi club.
39. 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
40. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
41. 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. 9
REF. FPSD-19095
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
42. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for outstanding remuneration brought by a player against a club.
43. On the one hand, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed entitlement to (i) USD 6,000
net in Clean Sheet Bonuses; and (ii) USD 30,000 net as Promotion Bonus.
44. Conversely, the Chamber also observed that the Club disputed the source used by the
Player to justify the Clean Sheet Bonuses, as well as it argued that the Promotion Bonus
indeed amounted to USD 17,000 instead of the USD 30,000 claimed by the Player.
45. In this context, the Chamber proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
A. CLEAN SHEET BONUSES
46. The Chamber first noted that clause 5.3 of the Contract provided for a Clean Sheet Bonus
of USD 2,000 net for every four clean sheets achieved by the Player.
47. The Chamber further noted that it remained uncontested that the Player accumulated
fifteen clean sheets during the 2023/2024 season. In his reply and subsequent duplica, the
Club did not dispute that the Player reached the relevant milestone(s) under clause 5.3.
48. The Club only argued that the Player had not provided “official” proof of clean sheets,
asserting that Transfermarkt statistics did not constitute valid evidence and requesting
verification from the SAFF.
49. Notwithstanding the above, and contrary to the Club’s position, the Chamber considered
that third‑party statistical platforms – while not official federation records – may be
accepted as sufficiently reliable when the opposing party does not produce contradictory
evidence of its own. In the present case, the Chamber found decisive that the Club
produced no alternative statistics, nor did it dispute that matches were played or that the
Player participated.
50. Moreover, the Club acknowledged in its reply that the Player accumulated at least 15 clean
sheets; it merely questioned the evidentiary format. As a result, and in the Chamber’s view,
an objection based solely on format, without producing official records or contesting the
actual sporting facts, was insufficient to rebut the Player’s claim.
51. Consequently, as the Player reached three full sets of four clean sheets (i.e., twelve plus an
additional three clean sheets; not completing another cycle), the Chamber found him
entitled to three payments of USD 2,000, totalling USD 6,000 net, under clause 5.3 of the
Contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19095
52. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that each bonus became payable 30 days after the
match in which the fourth clean sheet of each cycle was reached, as contractually
stipulated.
53. Consequently, the Chamber decided that interest at 5% p.a. should be awarded on each
instalment from the respective due dates until effective payment, as follows:
•
•
•
On USD 2,000 net as from 1 December 2023,
On USD 2,000 net as from 4 March 2024,
On USD 2,000 net as from 23 May 2024.
B. PROMOTION BONUS
54. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the parties’ second dispute centered on
whether the Player was entitled to USD 30,000 as per the Contract submitted with the
claim, or USD 17,000 as per an alleged amendment (addendum) dated 15 September 2023,
relied upon by the Club.
55. The Chamber further noted that both parties agreed that the Club was promoted to the
Saudi Pro League on 28 May 2024, and thus the triggering condition occurred. The
disagreement concerned the applicable contractual amount.
56. According to the Chamber, it was the Club’s burden, pursuant to art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, to prove that an amendment reducing the bonus was (i) signed by the
Player, (ii) validly executed, and (iii) enforceable.
57. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Club submitted a document it referred to as
an “addendum,” which allegedly replaced the original clause 5.3. However:
•
the Player contested ever signing a later‑dated or superseding version;
•
both the original Contract and the alleged amended version bore the same date
of signature (1 July 2023);
•
the Club did not submit evidence of transmission, negotiation, countersignature,
or contemporaneous correspondence demonstrating that a binding amendment
process occurred on 15 September 2023; and
•
the copy submitted lacked metadata or identification linking it to TMS uploads or
actual employment registration documents.
58. Most strikingly, the Chamber highlighted that the Contract uploaded by the Club into the
TMS at the time of the Player’s registration referred to the USD 30,000 Promotion Bonus,
not USD 17,000.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19095
59. In parallel, the Chamber noted that the Club contended that SAFF rules capped bonuses at
10% of annual salary and therefore the original USD 30,000 bonus was unlawful. However,
the DRC considered that the Club did not provide the full text of the cited regulations, nor
evidence that SAFF rejected, altered, or conditioned approval of the Player’s registration.
On the contrary, the Player’s registration seemingly proceeded normally and no SAFF
notification was provided showing that the federation required modification of the bonus
clause.
60. On the same vein, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that the Player engaged in
procedural fraud by not submitting the amended contract. However, the DRC held that the
Club did not establish the existence, validity, or binding nature of the alleged amendment.
Consequently, the accusation lacked foundation and was rejected.
61. Conversely, the Chamber gave particular weight to the fact that the Player produced an
Offer (dated 8 May 2023) containing a promotion bonus of USD 30,000, consistent with the
version he submitted. Although such an offer was not binding per se, the Chamber deemed
that it corroborated the consistency of the Player’s evidence and supported the conclusion
that USD 30,000 was part of the negotiated compensation structure.
62. In conclusion, given the (i) TMS‑registered contract showing USD 30,000, (ii) absence of
proof of a valid amendment, and (iii) the Player’s credible evidence, the Chamber held that
the applicable and enforceable clause was the USD 30,000 Promotion Bonus.
63. Accordingly, the Chamber ruled that the Player is awarded USD 30,000 net, with interest at
5% p.a. as from 28 June 2024 (i.e., 30 days after the last match) until effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19095
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.
67. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
68. 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
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19095
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bartkus Dziugas, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Orobah, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 2,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 2,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
- USD 2,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 May 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- USD 30,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 June 2024 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.
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. 14
REF. FPSD-19095
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. 15