Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19417
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Cedric Martial Zemba Ikoung
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
CLAIMANT:
Cedric Martial Zemba Ikoung, Cameroon
Represented by Loick Cabrol Kankeu
RESPONDENT:
TRA United Sports Club, Tanzania
Represented by Raphael Omalla
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19417
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 January 2025, the Cameroonian player, Cedric Martial Zemba Ikoung (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant), and the Tanzanian club, TRA United Sports Club (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid for 1 year, as from the date of its signature until the end of December 2025.
2.
Art. 7 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
‘’7. REMUNERATION
7.1 In consideration of the agreement between the parties, the club shall pay the player
as follows:
A Monthly Salary of Two Thousand (2,000) USD payable in arrears after the last day of
each month. If your performance is below par or depreciates your salary will be cut by
half.
Sign On Fee: FIFTEEN Thousand (15,000) USD
7.2 Deductions will be made from the player’s pay as will be determined by the club’s
management if he/she does not participate in any of the said activities without a
justifiable reason.’’
3.
Art. 8 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
‘’8. TAXES
All payments made herein to the player by the club shall not include all applicable taxes
and other statutory deductions.’’
4.
Art. 13 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“13. ABSENCE FROM MATCHES OR PRACTICE SESSIONS
13.1 In the event of the player failing to attend one football match or three practice
sessions in any one period of one month without the previous permission of the board,
the board shall be entitled to deduct from the players' remuneration for that month such
an amount thereof as the board may generally from time to time stipulate unless provided
that if such non-attendance is by reason of incapacity due to illness or injury, the player
shall, within forty eight hours of the occurrence of the illness or injury produce to the
board a certificate from a duly qualified medical doctor acceptable to the committee
certifying as to the nature, cause and extent of such injury or illness.
13.2 In the event of the player failing to attend more than one football match or more
than three practice sessions in any one period of one month, the board shall be entitled
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19417
to suspend the player from participating in matches and/or practice sessions for such
period or take such other disciplinary action against the player as the board may
determine including termination of the player’s employment hereunder without any claim
for compensation from the club.
13.3 The player is not entitled to any payment of salary and/or allowance during the
period of any suspension during this contract term.”
5.
On 6 May 2025, the Player, through his representative, sent a notice of default to the Club
stating that the Club failed to pay him his monthly salaries for the months of January,
February, March and April 2025 amounting to USD 8,000 (4 times USD 2,000), in addition
to an amount of USD 10,000 as the outstanding amount on the USD 15,000 sign-on fee.
The Player also claimed that he had been without housing or food and that he was living at
his own expenses.
6.
On 13 May 2025, the Club answered the notice of default, via an email to the Player, which
stated that the he had been absent from the Club since January 2025, requesting his return
to the Club and stating that it rejected his claims for accommodation and meals as well as
for the salaries of the period he was away from the Club.
7.
On 24 July 2025, the Player sent the Club an email stating that he only received a payment
of USD 5,000, which he stated was a partial payment of his sign-on fee. He also stated that
he only received one payment of TZS 2,500,000 on 16 May 2025, which he mentioned was
equivalent to USD 974.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19417
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 28 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
9.
The Player alleged that he did not have an appropriate accommodation in Tanzania.
10. The Player affirmed that from January 2025 until the date of the complaint he did not
receive payment of his salary.
11. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“Nous réclamons l’intégralité des salaires du contrat ce qui fait un total de 2.000$ sur 12
mois
= 24.000 $, et le reste de la prime de signature qui est de 10.000 $.
Tabora United Football Club doit présentement au joueur 5mois de salaire.
Le salaire du mois de janvier 2.000 $
Le salaire du mois de fevrier 2.000 $
Le salaire du mois de Mars 2.000 $
Le salaire du mois d'avril. 2.000 $
Le salaire du mois de Mai 2.000 $
Le reste de la prime de signature 10.000 $ “
(freely translated to English)
"We are demanding the full salaries of the contract, which makes a total of $2,000 over
12 months
= $24,000, and the rest of the signing bonus which is $10,000.
Tabora United Football Club currently owes the player 5 months' salary.
January salary $2,000
Salary for the month of February $2,000
Salary for the month of March $2,000
The salary for the month of April. $2,000
Salary for the month of May $2,000
The rest of the signing bonus $10,000 “
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19417
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Club acknowledged only paying USD 5,000 to the Player as an advance
payment and sending him flight tickets for him to travel from Cameroon to Tanzania, with
a return date set to the end of the season.
13. However, the Club stated that upon arrival, the Player indicated to the Club that he needed
to travel back to Cameroon to attend a funeral, and the Club submitted agreeing to this
travel, modifying his flight ticket for the Player to travel back to Cameroon for two (2) weeks.
14. The Club affirmed that the Player did not return in time, and raised that they reached out
to his representative, and that the Player’s representative requested that the return ticket
be re-issued taking an advance on the Player’s salary.
15. The Club confirmed having agreed to this request and sent the Player a modified return
ticket.
16. The Club argued that on 6 May 2025, instead of returning to the Club, the Player sent,
through his representative, a communication to the Club requesting payment for the
period he was away from the Club and demanded payment for housing and meals.
17. The Club submitted having answered the Player’s communication on 13 May 2025,
requesting his return to the Club, but stating that they rejected his claims for
accommodation and meals as well as for the salaries of the period he was away from the
Club.
18. The Club stated that the Player finally returned to the Club in June 2025, and that they paid
his salaries accordingly.
19. The Club mentioned that they were entitled to withhold the Player’s salaries for the period
he was away from the Club as per art. 13 of the Contract.
20. The Club therefore made, the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“In the view of all the facts and legal considerations mentioned above, the Respondent,
Tabora United Football Club respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
as follows:
1.To reject the present Claim in its entirety;
2. To remit the Claimant’s claim back to the club’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms
to allow the club a chance to complete its investigations and disciplinary proceedings with
regard to the Claimant’s whereabouts.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19417
c. Replica of the Claimant
21. On 31 July 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to submit a replica.
22. On the same day, the Player answered by submitting an email that he sent to the Club on
24th July 2025, claiming he only received USD 5,000 as a sign-on fee, instead of the
USD 15,000 agreed, and that he only received a salary of TZS 2,500,000 on 16 May 2025.
23. The Player submitted a copy of his “Statement of Account” which indicates that he received
a payment of TZS 2,500,000 on 16 June 2025.
24. The Player also alleged in that email that he had no accommodation to live, and that the
Club’s treatment was inhumane.
25. He did not file any comments on the Club’s reply to his claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
26. On 12 August 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit a duplica.
27. On 19 August 2025, the Club submitted that the Player failed to provide an explanation of
his whereabouts between January 2025 and June 2025.
28. The Club disputed the allegations of inhumane treatment by providing a receipt from a
hotel in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, which it alleged demonstrated that it paid for the Player’s
accommodation while he was absent from the Club.
e. Information received from the Tanzanian Football Federation (TFF)
29. On 20 October 2025, the FIFA general secretariat requested information from the
Tanzanian Football Federation.
30. On 10 November 2025, the TFF confirmed that the Player was registered with Tabora
United on 31 January 2025 and remained registered with this Club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19417
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 28 May 2025 and submitted for decision on .
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.
33. 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 Cameroonian player and a Tanzanian club.
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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. 8
REF. FPSD-19417
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute whether that the Player had just cause to terminate his Contract
for outstanding remuneration.
38. The Player claimed that the Club failed to pay him his salaries for the months of
January 2025 to May 2025, as well as USD 10,000 of his USD 15,000 sign-on fee. The Player
also requested the residual value of the Contract as compensation. The Player has also
admitted in his submissions having received TZS 2,500,000 on 16 May 2025. The Player also
raised that he was suffering from inhumane conditions at the Club.
39. The Club disputed these claims stating that the Player was absent from the Club from
January 2025 until June 2025, without authorization and it they did not pay his salary for
this period as he absented from the Club. It also denied subjecting him to inhumane
treatment stating that it paid for his accommodation in January 2025 and May 2025, despite
not being obliged under the Contract.
40. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate his Contract for outstanding remuneration and assess
the consequences thereof.
Absence of the Player:
41. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse the allegation of the Club –
disputed by the Player – that the Player was initially granted authorization to leave the Club
in mid-January 2025, for two weeks to attend funeral in Cameroon, but that prolonged his
absence until June 2025, which entitled it to withhold his monthly salaries until he came
back to the Club.
42. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it and went on to
analyse the documentation provided by the parties in support of their allegations. In this
respect, the Chamber noted that the Club only provided evidence of flight tickets that were
changed without providing evidence of the communication they allegedly exchanged with
the Player’s representative. The only communication provided on file is dated 13 May 2025,
in answer to the Player’s notice of default, and requests the Player’s return, which the Club
alleged that the Player did at an unspecified date in June 2025
43. However, the Chamber found no evidence of the communications between the Club and
the Player regarding the absence, confirming or infirming the Club’s allegations. Moreover,
while the Player claimed that his monthly salaries between January 2025 and May 2025
were not paid, in light of the Club’s affirmation that he returned at an unspecified date in
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19417
June 2025, the Chamber considered that both parties deemed that the Contract was still in
effect
44. In the present case, the Club has confirmed not having paid the salaries, but stated that it
was entitled to do so as per art. 13 of the Contract which states, quoted verbatim:
“13. ABSENCE FROM MATCHES OR PRACTICE SESSIONS
13.1 In the event of the player failing to attend one football match or three practice
sessions in any one period of one month without the previous permission of the board,
the board shall be entitled to deduct from the players' remuneration for that month such
an amount thereof as the board may generally from time to time stipulate unless provided
that if such non-attendance is by reason of incapacity due to illness or injury, the player
shall, within forty eight hours of the occurrence of the illness or injury produce to the
board a certificate from a duly qualified medical doctor acceptable to the committee
certifying as to the nature, cause and extent of such injury or illness.
13.2 In the event of the player failing to attend more than one football match or more
than three practice sessions in any one period of one month, the board shall be entitled
to suspend the player from participating in matches and/or practice sessions for such
period or take such other disciplinary action against the player as the board may
determine including termination of the player’s employment hereunder without any claim
for compensation from the club.
13.3 The player is not entitled to any payment of salary and/or allowance during the
period of any suspension during this contract term.”
45. In this regard, the Chamber recalled the wording of p. 154 of the 2023 Edition of the
Commentary on the Regulations (hereinafter: the Commentary) which states, “This means
that the club can still rebut the general presumption in the Regulations (according to which the
player is deemed to have just cause) by providing convincing evidence that there was a valid
reason for the non-payment.”
46. However, after careful review of the evidence and submissions of both parties, the
Chamber observed that the Club has not provided any evidence of communication sent to
the Player requesting his return prior to 13 May 2025 or informing him that he was
suspended and that his salaries would be withheld. In addition, the Chamber determined
that this clause leaves to the Club’s entire discretion the amount withheld in case of
absence, or to their appreciation if a medical certificate is appropriate, which makes it
potestative. Consequently, and in light of the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal according to which such clauses are not enforceable, the Chamber decided to
disregard art. 13 of the Contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19417
47. In absence of any communication from the Club to the Player prior to 13 May 2025, of any
evidence that the Player departed the Club, of any communications from the Club to the
Player requesting his return prior to 13 May 2025, the Chamber concluded that it could not
be demonstrated its comfortable satisfaction that the the Player wrongfully departed the
Club. The Chamber also noted an apparent contradiction in the Club`s submissions and
evidence, as the Club affirmed paying for the Player’s accommodation for 17 days in Dar Es
Salam on 7 May 2025, while requesting the Player’s return on 13 May 2025.
48. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Player was entitled to its remuneration
between January 2025 and May 2025.
Outstanding remuneration:
49. Following this consideration, the Chamber observed that the Player claimed the salaries
for the months of January to May 2025 (5 months times USD 2,000) and USD 10,000 as the
outstanding amount of the USD 15,000 sign-on fee agreed in the Contract.
50. First, the Chamber observed that irrespective of the Player’s absence, he was due an
amount of USD 15,000 on 28 December 2024, i.e the date of signature of the Contract.
51. The Chamber first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties.
52. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Club did not provide evidence demonstrating
payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Player. Furthermore, no
reasonable justification was presented by the Respondent for not having complied with the
terms of the contract. In particular, in regard to the absences of the Player, as explained
above.
53. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from
the contract concluded between the parties, namely USD 10,000 as the outstanding
amount over the sign-on fee, as well as USD 8,000 for the full salaries for the months of
January, February, March and April 2025 (4 months times USD 2,000).
54. As for the salary of May 2025, the Chamber decided to deduct an amount of TZS 2,500,000,
which was equivalent to USD 963,40 at the time, as the Player confirmed and demonstrated
having received such an amount from the Club on 16 June 2025 applicable for the salary of
May 2025, which meant that USD 1,036.60 remained outstanding.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19417
Termination of the Contract:
55. The Chamber then moved on to the claim for compensation made by the Player.
56. It first noted that the Player himself did not provide evidence of sending a notice of
termination of the Contract, nor has the Club provided evidence of receiving such a notice,
as only a notice of default was sent on 6 May 2025.
57. Nevertheless, the Chamber recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal and determined that in absence of a notice of termination it shall consider the
filing of the present claim as having the effect of terminating the Contract.
58. After careful consideration of the notice of default sent by the Player to the Club, it appears
that he has not met the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations, as his notice of
default only granted 10 days to the Club to remedy its default instead of the required 15
days.
59. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled once again the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and the Regulations, according to which it is possible
that a Player may have just cause under art. 14 of the Regulations to terminate his contract
if he “can no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual
relationship”, in regard to the circumstances. The Chamber recalled that amongst the
circumstances that have been recognized as giving rise to just cause to a player to
terminate his contract, are significant overdue amounts beyond outstanding monthly
salaries.
60. In this respect, the Chamber referred to page. 152 of the Commentary, which states, in fine,
“A frequent question posed to the DRC is whether just cause exists where a player has not
received two monthly salary payments due and only grants the club a deadline of, for example,
ten days to comply fully with its financial obligations. Clearly, in such cases, the formal
requirements of article 14bis would not have been met. However, there is nothing to stop the
player from justifying their unilateral termination of the contract based on the general definition
of just cause according to article 14 paragraph 1.”
61. The Chamber determined that the above reasoning is applicable to the matter at hand as
the Player alleged that the Club has failed to pay him USD 10,000 on his USD 15,000 signon fee, which was due on the date of signature, in absence of any schedule of payment,
and by virtue of its designation as a sign-on fee. Considering that the Player was entitled to
a monthly salary of USD 2,000, the Chamber observed that only in outstanding sign-on fee
the Club had the equivalent of 5 monthly salaries outstanding. Coupled with the
USD 9,036.60 outstanding monthly salaries, the total outstanding amounts are equivalent
to 79% of the value of the monthly salaries due to the Player under the Contract, which are
of USD 24,000 (12 months times USD 2,000).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19417
62. Considering the significant amounts outstanding, i.e. USD 19,036.60, at the time of filing
the present claim, the Chamber concluded, that the Player had just cause under art. 14 of
the Regulations to terminate his Contract by filing the present claim.
ii. Consequences
63. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
64. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounts to USD 19,036.60.
65. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber 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. USD
19,036.60 ((i.e. 4 times USD 2,000) plus USD 1,036.60 plus USD 10,000).
66. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided not to
award the Claimant interest on the outstanding amounts.
67. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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.
68. 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.
69. 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 a player by a club 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).
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19417
70. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber 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 USD 14,000 (i.e., 7 times USD 2,000) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract
71. In continuation, the Chamber 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 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 general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
72. 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).
73. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided not to award
the Claimant interest on said compensation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19417
77. 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.
78. 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
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19417
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Cedric Martial Zemba Ikoung, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, TRA United Sports Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 19,036.60 as outstanding remuneration.
- USD 14,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
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. 16
REF. FPSD-19417
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