Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19362
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kouya
Aristide Mabea
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kouya Aristide Mabea, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by José Miguel Sampaio e Nora
RESPONDENT:
AFC UTA Arad, Romania
Represented by Anca Mituică
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19362
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 July 2024, the Ivorian player Kouya Aristide Mabea (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Romanian club AFC UTA Arad (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from its date of
signature until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter alia a RON
32,500 monthly net remuneration, and, if the Contract was extended until 31 May 2025, a
RON 37,500 monthly net remuneration, payable at the latest on the 25th of the next month.
3.
Article 4 of the Contract provided, inter alia, as follows (quoted verbatim):
“i. The player will receive his first salary only after obtaining the work visa from the Romanian
authorities. The Club undertakes to pay the Player for his professional services a monthly net
remuneration in the amount of 32,500 lei net (thirty-two thousand five hundred lei) which is
equivalent to EUR 6.500 (six thousand five hundred euro) net to be paid at the latest on 25 of
the month for the previous month.
ii. If the Contract is extended until 31.05.2025, the monthly net remuneration for the 20252026 season is 37 500 lei net (thirty-seven thousand five hundred lei) wich is equivalent to
EUR 7.500 (seven thousand five hundred euro) net.
[...]
iv. Other amounts agreed by the parties to be paid to the Player:
[...]
o
The Club will provide the Player with 2 (two) round trip fly tickets to Yvory Coast
o
The Club will provide to the Player a car during the contract.”
4.
On 4 October 2024, the Club made a payment of RON 27,300 to the Player.
5.
On 4 January 2025, the Club made a payment of RON 32,500 to the Player.
6.
On 6 March 2025, the Player placed the Club on default, demanding the payment of EUR
26,000 corresponding to the outstanding salaries of November 2024 to February 2025. The
Player requested that the breach be remedied within 15 calendar days.
7.
On 8 March 2025, the Player received the amount of EUR 6,500 from the Club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19362
8.
On 21 March 2025, the Club paid the amount of RON 32,500 to the Player, which the Player
allegedly received the next day.
9.
On 22 March 2025, the Player terminated the Contract invoking outstanding salaries.
10. On the same date, the Club sent an email to the Player contesting the termination of the
Contract.
11. On an unspecified date, the Player booked a flight from Budapest, Hungary, to Porto,
Portugal, scheduled for 22 March 2025, at a cost of EUR 345.66.
12. On an unspecified date, the Player booked a flight from Lisbon, Portugal, to Abidjan, Côte
d’Ivoire, scheduled for 10 April 2025, at a cost of EUR 437.16.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 23 May 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
14. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club failed to fulfil its financial obligations and that
he had just cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
15. As of the date of the default, 6 March 2025, the Player argued that the Club failed to pay
EUR 26,000 corresponding to the salaries of November 2024 to February 2025.
16. The Player further acknowledged having received a salary payment on 8 March 2025,
corresponding to the remuneration of November 2024.
17. The Player submitted that he terminated the Contract on 22 March 2025 at 8:00 hours. He
further stated that, at 11:41 hours on the same day, he received an email from the Club
contesting the termination and enclosing a bank transfer confirmation for the amount of
RON 22,500, which the Player corresponded to his salary of December 2024.
18. The Player further asserted that, on an unspecified date, he received the salary
corresponding to January 2025.
19. The Player further claimed he is entitled to RON 130,000, corresponding to the
remuneration from February to May 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19362
20. In addition, the Player claimed the salaries of August, September and October 2024 had
only been partially paid, resulting in an outstanding balance of RON 12,700, allegedly
equivalent to EUR 2,488.73.
21. Lastly, the Player requested reimbursement of his travel-related expenses, namely flight
tickets in the amount of EUR 782.82 and taxi costs in the amount of RON 3,910.
22. The Player submitted the following request for relief (quoted verbatim):
“66. In this sequence, the Player Mabea Kouya Aristide ask the Fifa Football Tribunal to:
a) Consider his unilateral breach with just cause of the Sports Activity Contract dealed with
the Respondent Club, in 22th March 2025; and
b) In consequence of that order the Respondent Club to pay immediatly the Player the
net amount of 130 000 lei (one hundred thirty thousand lei) which is equivalent to €26.000
(twenty six thousand euros) as a compensation for the termination with just cause in the exact
terms of 14.º bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January’s 2025
edition) “Terminating a Contract with Just Cause For Outstanding Salaries;
c) In consequence of that also order the Respondent Club to pay immediatly the Player the
net amount of 12700 Lei (twelve thousand seventy hundred lei) which is equivalent to
€2488.73 (two thousand four hundred eighty eight euros) as the remaining amounts of the of
the Sports Activity Contract (Schedule n.º 2) amounts already due but not paid in the exact
terms of the item i of the The Article 4 of the Sports Activity Contract;
c) In consequence of that also order the Respondent Club to pay immediatly the Player the
net amount of €782,82 (seven hundred eighty two euros and eighty two cents) as the amount
of the flight tickets to return to his country Cote D Í voire in the exact terms of the item iii of
the The Article 4 of the Sports Activity Contract;
d) In consequence of that also order the Respondent Club to pay immediatly the Player the
net amount of 3.910 Lei (three thousand nine hundred ten lei) which is equivalent to €766.07
(seven hundred sixty six euros and seven cents as the amount that the claimant player paid
in taxis and uber given that the car provided the player was broken in the exact terms of the
item iii of the The Article 4 of the Sports Activity Contract;
e) In consequence also order the Club to pay the Player an interest rate of 5% of any amount
condemned to pay the player per month of delay from the date of due till the date of efective
payment regarding to the period after the purpose of this claim;
f) Impose the sanctions mentioned in number 4 of the Article 12 Bis of the “FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (in January ́s 2025 edition) due to the arising damages
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19362
said before caused by the nonpayment by the Respondent Club to the Claimant Player of the
amounts agreed between the parties in Contract for Football Professional Player;
g) Order that the Club bears with any and all legal costs incurred by the with this claim and
file.”
b. Position of the Club
23. Despite having been invited to do so, the Club failed to reply within the time limit granted
by FIFA.
c. Additional correspondence of the Player
24. On 17 July 2025, before the closing of the submission phase, the Player amended his
request for relief by modifying its lit. g), as follows (quoted verbatim):
“g) Order that the Club bears with any and all legal costs incurred by the with this claim and
file. Amounts that today totals the net amount of EUR 9736 (nine thousand seven hundred
and thirty six euros).”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19362
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 May 2025 and submitted for decision on
15 December 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.
26. 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 (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 Ivorian player and a Romanian club.
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-19362
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
30. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that it
is a claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
31. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Player maintained he terminated the Contract
with just cause, due to outstanding remuneration.
32. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Club failed to provide its position to the claim,
therefore, the decision should be taken solely on the basis of the evidence and arguments
submitted by the Player (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Contract was terminated with just cause and the consequences thereof, if any. The
Chamber then proceeded to analyse each of these issues in turn.
34. The Chamber first referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails 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).
35. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player asserted that, at the time the
default notice was sent on 6 March 2025, he had not received his remuneration for the
period from November 2024 to February 2025, in the amount of EUR 26,000.
36. The Chamber further noted that the Player subsequently claimed that his salaries of
August, September and October 2024 had only been partially paid; however, the Chamber
observed that such amounts were not included in the said default notice.
37. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the Contract. Nevertheless, the Chamber recalled that
the Club failed to provide any evidence in this regard.
38. At this point, the Chamber emphasised that the parties agreed that the Player’s
remuneration was to be paid by the Club on the 25th day of the month following the month
to which the salary related. For this reason, on 6 March 2025, only the following claimed
salaries were overdue:
-
November 2024 salary, due on 25 December 2024,
December 2024 salary, due on 25 January 2025,
January 2025 salary, due on 25 February 2025.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19362
39. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player acknowledged receiving the November
2024 salary on 8 March 2025 and the December 2024 salary on 22 March 2025.
40. In this regard, the Chamber considered relevant highlighting that the payment
corresponding to the December 2024 salary appears to have been executed on 21 March
2025. However, the Player claimed that he did not receive the payment until the following
day, i.e., after the termination of the Contract had already been sent.
41. In any event, even assuming that the December 2024 remuneration is to be considered as
paid prior to the termination, the Chamber noted that the Club had only partially complied
with the default notice of 6 March 2025. In particular, no evidence was submitted to
demonstrate that the January 2025 salary, due on 25 February 2025, had been settled by
the Club.
42. The Chamber then referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
stipulating that the Club must comply with a full payment of the outstanding salaries, i.e. it
is not sufficient to only make a partial payment.
43. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player provided written evidence of unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 22 March 2025, i.e. at least 15 days after putting the Club in
default on 6 March 2025.
44. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Player had just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations, given the Club’s failure to
fully settle the outstanding remuneration within the deadline set in the default notice.
ii. Consequences
45. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the consequences
arising from the unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
A. Outstanding remuneration
I. Salaries
46. As a starting point, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed that his salaries of August,
September and October 2024, had only been partially paid.
47. In particular, the Player alleged that the Club made the following partial payments:
-
RON 27,300 on 4 October 2024 in respect of the August 2024 salary;
RON 27,500 on 4 January 2025 in respect of the September 2024 salary; and
RON 30,000 on 7 January 2025 in respect of the October 2024 salary.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19362
48. However, upon examination of the documentation available on file, the Chamber
considered that only the payment of RON 27,300 on 4 October 2024 could be duly
established. In particular, while Exhibit 15 reflects said payment, Exhibit 16 only evidences
a payment in the amount of RON 32,500 made on 4 January 2025, and does not
substantiate the alleged payments of RON 27,500 or RON 30,000 as claimed by the Player.
49. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player maintained that, at the time he put the
Club in default, he was owed four full monthly salaries, corresponding to the period from
November 2024 to February 2025. The Chamber further noted that the Player asserted
that, following the issuance of the default notice, the Club made two payments
corresponding to full monthly salaries.
50. In this regard, taking into account that the aforementioned payments were made after the
default notice and corresponded to the full contractual monthly remuneration, the
Chamber accepted the Player’s allocation of such payments to the salaries of November
and December 2024, rather than to any previously outstanding partial amounts.
51. The Chamber further acknowledged that the Player stated that, following the termination
of the Contract, the Club proceeded to pay an additional monthly salary, which the Player
allocated to the remuneration corresponding to January 2025.
52. In addition, taking into account that the termination of the Contract took place on 22 March
2025, the Chamber decided to consider the Player’s remuneration corresponding to
February and March 2025 as outstanding at the time of termination.
53. The Chamber further noted that the parties had agreed that the amounts payable under
the Contract were to be paid on a net basis rather than on a gross basis.
54. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
RON 5,200 net as the remaining salary of August 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
RON 2,500 net as the remaining salary of October 2024, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
26 October 2024 until the date of effective payment;
RON 32,500 net as the salary of February 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 March
2025 until the date of effective payment; and
RON 32,500 net as the salary of March 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 March
2025 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19362
II. Flight tickets reimbursement
55. The Chamber further noted that the Player requested reimbursement of expenses
incurred in relation to flight tickets purchased to return to his home country, such expenses
amounting to EUR 782,82.
56. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player referred to the wording of Article (iv)
of the Contract which states that: “The Club will provide the Player with 2 (two) round trip fly
tickets to Yvory Coast“.
57. In this respect, the Chamber observed that that: (i) the itinerary contained in the relevant
reservation indicates Budapest, Hungary, as the point of departure, rather than Arad or
Bucharest, Romania, without any explanation having been provided by the Player in this
respect, and (ii) the documentation submitted by the Player consists solely of flight
reservations and does not constitute proof of payment capable of establishing that the
relevant expenses were effectively incurred.
58. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient documentary evidence, the Chamber decided to
reject the Player’s claim for reimbursement of flight tickets expenses.
III. Reimbursement of transportation expenses
59. The Chamber observed that the Player requested reimbursement of transportation
expenses for a total amount of RON 3,910.
60. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Player again referred to the wording of
Article (iv) of the Contract which states that: “The Club will provide to the Player a car during
the contract“.
61. In this sense, the Chamber took in due consideration the allegations of the Player, in which
he affirmed that the car provided by the Club was broken and, despite several
conversations about repairing it, the issue was never resolved.
62. In this respect, the Chamber observed that: (i) the Player failed to provide any documentary
evidence demonstrating that the Club had not complied with its contractual obligation to
provide a functional vehicle, such as written complaints or requests for repair, (ii) there is
no evidence establishing that the transportation expenses allegedly incurred were directly
linked to the Club’s failure to provide a functioning car, and (iii) the Player did not submit
any proof of payment capable of demonstrating that the claimed expenses were effectively
incurred.
63. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient documentary evidence, the Chamber decided to
reject the Player’s claim for reimbursement of transportation expenses.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19362
B. Compensation for breach of contract
64. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber 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.
65. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber 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 Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
66. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to players shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
67. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of RON 65,000 net (i.e., the April and May 2025 remuneration)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
68. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
69. The Chamber further observed that the Player did not secure new employment following
the termination of the relevant contract. Consequently, no mitigation or additional
compensation applied (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19362
70. The Chamber then recalled that, in case the player did not sign any new contract following
the termination of his previous contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal
to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated.
71. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of RON
65,000 net to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
72. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s relief as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the date of termination (i.e., 22 March 2025)
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
76. 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.
77. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19362
d. Costs
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19362
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kouya Aristide Mabea, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, AFC UTA Arad, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- RON 72,700 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 5,200 net as from 26 September 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 2,500 net as from 26 October 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of RON 65,000 net as from 22 March 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
- RON 65,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
22 March 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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-19362
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-19362
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