Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19276
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mike Botuli
Cestor
BY:
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ, Costa Rica
CLAIMANT:
Mike Botuli Cestor, France
Represented by Anca Mituică
RESPONDENT:
Radomiak S.A., Poland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19276
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 January 2023, the French player Mike Botuli Cestor (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Polish club Radomiak S.A. (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 8 January
2023 until 30 June 2024.
2.
Clause V of the Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“V. Remuneration
I. Individual remuneration
a. In the period from 11.01.2023 to 30.06.2023, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 12.000,00 EUR net
b. In the period from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024, on account of the provided service, the Player
is entitled to monthly basic remuneration in the amount of 15.000,00 EUR net
c. The Player is entitled to the following bonuses if
• 30.000,00 Euros net for 1st place in Ekstraklasa League
• 15.000,00 Euros net for 2nd place in Ekstraklasa League
• 10.000,00 Euros net for 3rd place in Ekstraklasa League
• 5.000,00 Euros if Club win Polish Cup
• 100.000,00 Euros net for Champions League groups stage • 30.000,00 Euros net for Europa
League/Conference League groups stage
• 250 Euros net for a goal or assist in oficial game in Ekstraklasa
• The Parties agree that the Player is entitled to individual bonuses in the amount of 500 Euros
net for a match won by the Club's team in an official match, if the Player is in the match squad
• The Parties agree that the Player is entitled to an individual bonus for the signature in the
amount of EUR 10,000.00 (in words: ten thousand zlotys 00/100)
• The club will guarantee the player full accommodation or provide the player with EUR 300.00
(in words three hundred euros) for housing
d. Parties removed that all bonuses will only apply and that if the Player plays 75% of his time
in the official competition of the Club
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19276
e. The Club will pay 2 flight tickets per season to Poland and back for the Player. The Player
will use this flight when season starts and is over.
f. The individual remuneration is paid to the Player on a monthly basis in arrears, by the 20th
day of the month, on the basis of a properly filled VAT invoice and shall be paid directly to the
bank account indicated by the Player in the invoice.”
3.
On 13 August 2023, the Respondent won a game of the Ekstraklasa 2023/2024 0-2 against
the club Pogon Szczecin where the Player played 8 minutes.
4.
On 7 October 2023, the Respondent won a game of the Ekstraklasa 2023/2024 0-3 against
the club Pogon Szczecin where the Player played 90 minutes.
5.
On 29 October 2023, the Respondent won a game of the Ekstraklasa 2023/2024 2-3 against
the club Zaglebie Lubin where the Player played 90 minutes.
6.
According to the Claimant, on 17 April 2024, he put the Respondent in default for the
outstanding remuneration of January and February 2024 amounting to EUR 30,000.
7.
On 29 April 2024, the Respondent sent a communication to the Claimant which content
reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
“In response to the letter of April 17, 2024, we would like to inform you that the arrears of
remuneration towards Mr. Mike Cestor Botuli were not the entire two months. The salary is
paid from two sources: one of them is a scholarship from the city hall, which the footballer
receives regularly and amounts to PLN 13560 net. The remaining amount to be paid for one
month is 11 847 euros net. To sum up, as at the date of submitting the letter, we owed the
player the amount of 23694 euro net. It will be paid soon.”
8.
On 13 May 2024, by means of a letter dated 10 May 2024, the Claimant terminated the
Contract with the Respondent citing just cause due to the existence of more than two
overdue monthly salaries amounting to EUR 42,000 at the time of termination.
9.
On 6 March 2025, by means of a letter dated 4 March 2025, the Claimant put the
Respondent in default for the payment of EUR 83,882 net and granted a 7-day limit to the
Respondent to remedy the default.
10. On 10 March 2025, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s default notice stating (quoted
verbatim):
“The documents arrived today because I was on vacation. In seven days he will write back to
your letter.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19276
11. On 23 August 2024, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Romanian club
F.C. Buzău valid as from the date of signature until 15 June 2025.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 18 May 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
13. According to the Player, on 17 April 2024, he put the Club in default for the salaries of
January and February 2024 amounting to EUR 30,000. Additionally, the Player stated that
he terminated the Contract with just cause due to the existence of more than two overdue
monthly salaries.
14. Based on the Respondent’s letter dated 29 April 2024, the Player acknowledged having
received a partial payment from a third party and calculated the Club’s debt in EUR 72,282
corresponding to the remuneration of January through June 2024 (EUR 12,147 times six).
Furthermore, the Player asserted that he is entitled to compensation for breach of contract
equal to three monthly salaries.
15. Additionally, the Player claims he is entitled to receive EUR 1,500 net for 3 won matches
where he participated.
16. The Player also requested EUR 10,000 as a bonus for the signature that according to him
had been due since the signature of the Contract, i.e. 12 January 2023.
17. Consequently, the Player requested (quoted verbatim):
“Prayers for relief
1. We request FIFA DRC to pass a decision through which:
➢ Order the Respondent to pay the total net amount of 84.382 euros net, representing
financial rights due for the period January - June 2024, signing bonus and match bonuses for
the season 2023 - 2024, due according to professional football player's contract dated 12
January 2023;
➢ Order the Respondent to pay a compensation equal with three monthly salaries, according
to article 17 from FIFA RSTP, due for ending of the contract without just cause by the Club on
13 May 2024.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19276
➢ Order the Respondent to pay interests of 5% /year for the above-mentioned amounts due
to the player starting from the due date of each obligation of payment.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
18. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide its reply to the claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19276
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 18 May 2025 and submitted for
decision on 21 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.
20. 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 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 French player and a Polish club.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, confirmed that, in accordance
with art. 26 par. 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. Admissibility
22. Then, the Single Judge noted that, in his claim, the Player requested the payment of the
signing bonus amounting to EUR 10,000, which, according to him, had been due since the
date of the signature of the Contract, i.e., 12 January 2023.
23. At this point, the Single Judge referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, 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. The application of this time limit
shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
24. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA
on 18 May 2025. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts fallen
due before 18 May 2023 are affected by the statute of limitations.
25. Based on the above, the Single Judge moved to analyse the admissibility of this claim made
by the Player.
26. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that clause V of the Contract was silent regarding a
specific due date for the payment of this bonus. However, given the nature of a signing fee,
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19276
which, in essence, is triggered solely upon the signature of the Contract, the Single Judge
considered the Player’s argument – that the bonus was to be paid on the date of signature
– to be persuasive. The Single Judge stressed that this interpretation was also consistent
with the standard practice of the Football Tribunal and with the principle in dubio contra
stipulatorem, as he is considering that the Player was entitled to this signing fee earlier in
time.
27. Hence, the Single Judge concluded that this amount was to be paid on the date of the
signature, i.e. 12 January 2023, as argued by the Player.
28. At this point, the Single Judge recalled that this claim was lodged on 18 May 2025.
Therefore, the Single Judge determined that the Player’s request for the signing bonus is
time barred, and therefore, inadmissible.
29. Based on the abovementioned, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s request for
relief is partially time-barred.
c. Burden of proof
30. 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 he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
31. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Player argued that he terminated the Contract on 13 May 2024 due to overdue
payables.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19276
33. Furthermore, since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Single
Judge considered that his decision should be taken based on the documentation already
in the file (i.e., the statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf., art. 21, par.
1 of the Procedural Rules).
34. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and, if so, to establish the consequences
of said termination.
35. The Single Judge first noted that, based on clause V of the Contract, the Player was entitled
to receive a monthly remuneration of EUR 15,000 net payable no later than the 20th day of
each month. The Single Judge also observed that the Player was entitled to receive the
amount of EUR 300 as housing. Notwithstanding, the Single Judge underlined that the
Player, in his claim, argued that he should have received a total monthly remuneration of
EUR 12,147 (EUR 11,847 net as remuneration + EUR 300 as housing) from the Club,
considering that the remaining amount was to be paid by the City Hall.
36. Having established the above, the Single Judge further noted that, according to the Player,
on 17 April 2024, he demanded the payment of EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salaries
for January and February 2024. Also, according to the Player, in April he requested the
payment of the bonus for the signature amounting to EUR 10,000. However, the Single
Judge remarked that this default notice was not provided on file.
37. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, on 29 April 2024, the Club acknowledged
receipt of the default notice sent by the Player, arguing that it just only owed EUR 23,694
which was not equal to two entirely months, because partial payments were made by the
City Hall through a scholarship. While the Single Judge noted that the Club stated that it
would pay the said amount soon- he also noted that, based on the evidence on file, no
payment was made.
38. Moreover, the Single Judge pointed out that, on 13 May 2024, (i.e. 26 days after the alleged
default notice was sent), the Player terminated the Contract arguing that at the time of
termination, the Club owed him EUR 42,000.
39. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that, at the date of termination, i.e., 13 May 2024,
the Player should have received at least four monthly salaries and housing amounting to
EUR 48,588 (EUR 12,147 times four). Consequently, and in the absence of any proof of
payment, the Single Judge determined that the Club failed to pay the Player more than two
monthly salaries (i.e., the salaries of January, February, March and April amounting to EUR
48,588)
40. At this point, the Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19276
“1. In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on
their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of
at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).(…)”
41. Although the Single Judge acknowledged that the Club failed to pay the Player more than
two monthly salaries, he noted that the Player failed to provide a copy of the notice of
default he allegedly sent on 17 April 2024. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that it was
not possible to determine whether the Player had granted the Club a 15-day deadline to
remedy its breach.
42. In light of all the above, the Single Judge considered that he could not establish that the
prerequisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations were not met and, therefore, he determined
that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract under this article.
43. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge noted that (i) at the time of termination, the
Club owed the Player four salaries totalling EUR 48,588; (ii) without prejudice that this
specific request was deemed to be time-barred, there was no evidence on file that the
Club paid the signing fee equivalent to the 84.39% of one monthly salary at the date of
termination; (iii) the Club failed to pay the Player the match bonuses totalling EUR 1,500
net; (iv) the Club acknowledged that it was put in default by the Player on 17 April 2024
and (v) the Player terminated the Contract 26 days later, which actually shows that the
Player granted the Club 26 days to fulfil its financial obligations.
44. Consequently, in the Single Judge’s view, the Player met his burden of proof to demonstrate
that the Club’s breach of the Contract was of a significant degree, and that the
circumstances at hand established, on one hand, that the termination was an ultima ratio
measure, and, on the other, that there was cause for the termination, vis-à-vis the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal. Hence, the Single Judge concluded that the Contract
was terminated by the Player with just cause on 13 May 2024 based on art. 14 of the
Regulations.
ii. Consequences
45. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
Outstanding Salaries
46. The Single Judge noted that the Player claimed the salaries from January to June 2024.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19276
47. The Single Judge concluded that the Club bore its burden of proving that it indeed complied
with the financial terms of the Contract. However, by failing to provide its reply to the claim,
the Club did not provide any evidence of having complied with its obligations.
48. Notwithstanding, the Single Judge observed that the outstanding salaries at the time of
termination are equivalent to four salaries under the contract, amounting to EUR 47,388
net (January to April 2024).
49. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
47,388 net (i.e. four times EUR 11,847).
50. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the day following each
due date, i.e., 21st day of each month.
House allowances
51. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that based on the evidence on file, the Claimant
requested that the house allowance be paid together with his salary.
52. In this sense, the Single Judge noted that it remained undisputed that the Club owed the
Player EUR 1,200 as house allowances for four months (January to April 2024) at the date
of termination.
53. The Single Judge observed that the Player requested this amount as net to be paid together
with his salary.
54. In addition, the Single Judge noted that there was no specific date of payment provided in
the Contract stipulating that the house allowance was to be paid together with the salary
nor that it was to be considered as net.
55. Therefore, based on the constant practice of the Football Tribunal, the Single Judge
considered that the house allowances should have been paid at the end of each month.
56. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
1,200 (i.e. four times EUR 300).
57. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19276
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the day following each
due date, i.e., the first day of the following month.
Match bonuses
58. With regard to the match bonuses, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant requested EUR
1,500 net corresponding to match bonuses.
59. To this point, the Single Judge recalled that clause V of the Contract provided inter alia:
“(…) The Parties agree that the Player is entitled to individual bonuses in the amount of 500
Euros net for a match won by the Club's team in an official match, if the Player is in the match
squad (…)
(…) d. Parties removed that all bonuses will only apply and that if the Player plays 75% of his
time in the official competition of the Club (…)”
60. Taking into account the above, the Single Judge noted that based on the evidence on file,
the Claimant prove that the two abovementioned requirements were met for his
entitlement to the bonuses.
61. In addition, the Single Judge noted that there was no specific payment date for these
bonuses.
62. Consequently, based on the constant practice of the Football Tribunal, the Single Judge
decided to award the Claimant EUR 1,500 net plus 5 % interest p.a. as from the date of
termination, i.e. 13 May 2024.
Compensation
63. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
64. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19276
65. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall be equal to the
residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the player signed a
new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
66. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 24,294 (i.e., the salaries for May and June
amounting to EUR 11,847 each and totalling EUR 23,694, plus house allowances of May and
June, EUR 300 each amounting to EUR 600) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
67. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
68. Indeed, the Player found employment with the club F.C. Buzău. However, based on the
evidence on file, the date of the signature of this contract, i.e., 23 August 2024, was after
the overlapping period, as the Contract would have been valid until 30 June 2024 had the
Player not terminated it. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant did not
mitigate his damages.
69. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 24,294 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
70. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 13 May 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
71. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19276
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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
e. Costs
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19276
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mike Botuli Cestor, is partially accepted insofar it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Radomiak S.A., must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
-
EUR 48,888 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 11,847 net as from 21 January 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 11,847 net as from 21 February 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 11,847 net as from 21 March 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 11,847 net as from 21 April 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,500 net as from 13 May 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
-
3.
EUR 1,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 February 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 March 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 April 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 300 as from 1 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
EUR 24,294 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13
May 2024 until the date of effective payment.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19276
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. 16
REF. FPSD-19276
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