Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19432
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 December 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Melanie Kuenrath
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Melanie Kuenrath, Italy
Represented by Oliver Prudlo
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
FC Dornbirn, Austria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19432
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Italian player Melanie Kuenrath (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent or the Player) and the Austrian club FC Dornbirn (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from 30 July 2024 until 31 July 2025 or at the end of the 2024/2025
season.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player twelve instalments
of EUR 720 as an allowance for expenses.
3.
On an unspecified date, the Player and the Club concluded an additional employment
contract (hereinafter: the Second Contract) valid as from 30 July 2024 until 31 July 2025 or at
the end of the 2024/2025 season.
4.
In accordance with the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player, in twelve
monthly instalments, EUR 8,500 per season as an allowance for expenses and EUR 4,800
per season for accommodation.
5.
On 7 October 2024, the Club remitted EUR 920 to the Player.
6.
On 18 October 2024, the Club remitted EUR 1,108 to the Player.
7.
On 7 November 2024, the Club remitted EUR 800 to the Player.
8.
On 19 November 2024, an official of the Club allegedly threatened and pressured the
teammates of the Player with a gun.
9.
On 28 November 2024, the Player informed the alleged coach of the Club that she did not
feel well and could not attend training.
10. On 3 December 2024, the Club issued the following statement, quoted verbatim:
“The news that a former official of the SPG Ladies of the traditional clubs FC Dornbirn and FC
Lustenau allegedly used psychological violence against some of the players has deeply saddened
us.
FC Dornbirn hereby clearly distances itself from the recently revealed allegations: Neither
psychological nor physical violence has a place in sport, nor in our society.
Since the allegations surrounding the former club official of the SPG Ladies Dornbirn/Lustenau
became known, the officials of both clubs have acted quickly and decisively with absolute clarity.
The accused official no longer holds any office – neither at the SPG Ladies nor at FC Dornbirn.
Furthermore, the official has already been removed from the club register. Although the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19432
allegations are denied by the former official in question, he resigned from his positions at the
request of both parties so that he would not be a burden to FC Dornbirn and the SPG Ladies in
the investigation into the allegations that now need to be carried out.
The focus now is on providing full clarification and transparency in this case. To this end,
representatives of both traditional clubs have offered close cooperation with the authorities. The
entire football family, both FC Dornbirn and SPG Ladies, stands united and will now advocate
even more strongly for humanity, equality, and fairness in sport. […]”
11. On 4 December 2024, the Player’s doctor issued a medical certificate confirming that she
had been unable to engage in any intensive sporting activity since 27 November and until
further notice and referred her for urgent psychotherapeutic support.
12. On 5 December 2024, the Player’s lawyer sent the following correspondence to the Club:
“[…] Ms. Melanie Kuenrath has just appointed me to represent her in court. She, too, is receiving
medical treatment for the incident. Please find the confirmation attached.
Mrs Kuenrath receives an expense allowance from the association and is not responsible for the
club is socially insured. In this respect, Ms. Kuenrath’s initial situation is a little different.
My client has explicitly asked me to state upfront that she is grateful for the opportunity she has
been offered in Dornbirn. It is therefore important to her that we part ways amicably. Therefore,
she does not wish to claim any severance pay. As part of the amicable settlement, she only
requests a free release and the outstanding expense allowance (plus bonus payments) to which
she is entitled, including December. Specifically, this amounts to a total of EUR 5,890 that is still
outstanding.
Please consult with your client on this matter and get back to me by Monday. […]”
13. On the same day, i.e., 5 December 2024, the Club remitted EUR 920 to the Player.
14. On 11 December 2024, the Club confirmed that the Player had already been released.
15. On the same day, i.e., 11 December 2024, the Player’s lawyer sent the following
correspondence to the Club:
“[…] I assume that the outstanding claims and the severance pay will also be properly settled. In
this context, I request that you send me the final accounts and inform me by when the
corresponding amounts will be transferred to the players.
If my assumption is incorrect and no payments are made, please notify me accordingly by
tomorrow so that we can initiate the necessary further steps. […]”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19432
16. On 13 December 2024, a media platform published an article reporting that an official of
the Club allegedly threatened players with a firearm before a match, and that the official
was subsequently dismissed while police investigations remain ongoing.
17. On an unspecified date, the Player concluded a new employment contract with the Austrian
club Altach, valid as from 8 January 2025 until 30 June 2025. Accordingly, the Player is
entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 600.
18. On 13 February 2025, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment before 27
February 2025 of EUR 4,970 as outstanding remuneration.
19. On 28 February 2025, the Club offered to pay the Player EUR 2,080 as outstanding
remuneration.
20. On an unspecified date, the Player rejected the Club’s offer included in its latest
correspondence.
21. On 26 June 2025, the Player concluded a new employment contract with the Swiss club FC
St. Gallen 1879, valid as from 1 July 2025 until 14 June 2026. Accordingly, the Player is
entitled to a monthly salary of CHF 500 and CHF 150 as monthly expenses.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 30 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
23. In her claim, the Player argued that she terminated her employment relationship with the
Club with just cause. In particular, the Player argued that, after the official of the Club
threatened and pressured her teammates with a gun, she could not reasonably be
expected to continue her employment relationship with the Club. In this regard, the Player
stated that the termination of her employment relationship with the Club ended on 11
December 2024.
24. In addition, the Player argued that, on 11 December 2024, she was entitled to the following
outstanding remuneration:
•
EUR 200 as the remaining balance for September 2024 under the Second Contract;
•
EUR 1,500 as the remaining balance for October 2024 under the Contract and the
Second Contract; and
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19432
•
EUR 1,300 as the remaining balance for November 2024 under the Contract and the
Second Contract.
25. Having stated the above, the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to establish that the
Club breached the contract and to order the Club to pay her:
- EUR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration + 5% interest on the amounts calculated as from the
due dates;
- EUR 11,026.64 net as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest calculated as from 11
December 2024.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
26. In its reply, the Club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction in favour of the Regional Court of
Feldkirch, Austria.
27. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the Player’s allegations were fictitious and incorrect.
Accordingly, the Club stated that the Player did not have just cause to terminate their
employment relationship on 11 December 2024.
28. Further, the Club stated that the Player would at best be entitled to outstanding
remuneration of EUR 2,080.
29. In this context, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player for moral damages in the
amount of EUR 20,000. In this respect, the Club stated that the amount of compensation
was based on the fact that the Club suffered a loss of revenue due to a significant drop in
attendance at its matches following the Player’s public incorrect allegations.
c. Player’s reply to the Club’s counterclaim
30. The Player argued that the Club’s counterclaim must be rejected and reiterated her initial
position, namely that she terminated her employment relationship with the Club with just
cause.
31. In fact, the Player stated that the Club itself acknowledged in its reply to her claim that
Austrian authorities conducted an investigation regarding the incident on 19 November
2024. In this respect, the Player also referred to the documentation provided by the Club
which confirms that an official of the Club threatened and pressured her teammates with
a gun.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19432
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 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 30 May 2025 and submitted for decision on
11 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.
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), it is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Italian player
and an Austrian club.
34. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the Regional Court of Feldkirch, Austria.
In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 of the
Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a player and
a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player […] or club
to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
35. In this context, the Chamber noted that it should first analyse whether the employment
contracts at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction
clause in favour of the Regional Court of Feldkirch.
36. After analysing the wording of the Contract and the Second Contract, the Chamber
concluded that neither of these employment contracts establish the competence of a civil
court. In fact, the Chamber noted that there is no reference in the Contract or the Second
Contract to the Regional Court of Feldkirch.
37. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Club’s objection towards the competence of FIFA
and concluded that it is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
to consider the present matter as to the substance.
38. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19432
b. Burden of proof
39. 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
40. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
41. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
Player and the Club strongly dispute the circumstances and the justice of the early
termination of their employment relationship.
42. On one hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, she could not have
reasonably been expected to continue her employment relationship with the Club after its
official threatened and pressured her teammates with a gun.
43. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Club, the Player’s allegations
were fictitious and incorrect, thus she did not have just cause to terminate the Contract.
44. In this context, the Chamber first acknowledged that its task was to assess whether the
Player had just cause to unilaterally terminate her employment relationship with the Club
and to determine the consequences thereof.
45. The Chamber then recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only a
breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment
of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19432
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
46. In addition, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Regulations, in general, just cause
to terminate an employment contract shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can
no longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship
(cf. art. 14 of the Regulations). The foregoing is in line with the well-established
jurisprudence of this Chamber and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
47. In continuation, the Chamber deemed important to recall that contractual stability is the
backbone of the entire football season, and employers and employees in the football world
are prevented from simply withdrawing from a previous employment relationship without
a valid reason. In this regard, the early termination of an employment contract without just
cause has consequences – both financial and sporting. The rules allow for the parties to
modulate the effects of such a premature termination, but the jurisprudence also sets
certain boundaries to limit the contractual freedom in favour of the legal certainty and the
legitimate expectation of the contractual stability.
48. Lastly, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according
to which a party claiming a right based on an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof. On this note, the Chamber considered that it was up to the Player to prove the
termination of her employment relationship with the Club with just cause, on which she
claims outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the Contract.
49. With the above principles in mind, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber pointed
out that, although there is no clear evidence on file to support the Player’s assertion that,
on 19 November 2024, an official of the Club threatened her teammates with a gun, the
following facts can be established:
•
On 3 December 2024, the Club issued the following statement, quoted verbatim:
“The news that a former official of the SPG Ladies of the traditional clubs FC Dornbirn
and FC Lustenau allegedly used psychological violence against some of the players has
deeply saddened us.
FC Dornbirn hereby clearly distances itself from the recently revealed allegations: Neither
psychological nor physical violence has a place in sport, nor in our society.
Since the allegations surrounding the former club official of the SPG Ladies
Dornbirn/Lustenau became known, the officials of both clubs have acted quickly and
decisively with absolute clarity. The accused official no longer holds any office – neither
at the SPG Ladies nor at FC Dornbirn. Furthermore, the official has already been removed
from the club register. Although the allegations are denied by the former official in
question, he resigned from his positions at the request of both parties so that he would
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19432
not be a burden to FC Dornbirn and the SPG Ladies in the investigation into the
allegations that now need to be carried out.
The focus now is on providing full clarification and transparency in this case. To this end,
representatives of both traditional clubs have offered close cooperation with the
authorities. The entire football family, both FC Dornbirn and SPG Ladies, stands united
and will now advocate even more strongly for humanity, equality, and fairness in sport.
[…]”
•
On 11 December 2024, the Club confirmed that the Player had already been
released.
•
On 13 December 2024, a media platform published an article reporting that an
official of the Club allegedly threatened players with a firearm before a match, and
that the official was subsequently dismissed while police investigations remain
ongoing.
50. In view of the above considerations, the Chamber considered that the Player provided
sufficient evidence, in accordance with art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, to support
her assertion that an official of the Club threatened her teammates with a gun. In this
respect, the Chamber also pointed out that the Club merely stated the Player’s allegations
were fictitious and incorrect, without substantiating its position with supporting evidence.
51. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player herself was not directly
threatened by the official of the Club, but emphasised that such conduct created an unsafe
working environment for the Player and constituted a serious breach of the Club’s
fundamental obligations under the Regulations. In particular, the Chamber underlined that
such threatening behaviour by a club’s official undermines contractual stability, violates the
duty of care owed to players, and is incompatible with the standards of integrity and
protection envisaged by the Regulations. Therefore, in the Chamber’s view, the behaviour
of the Club’s official is considered extremely serious to the extent that it was unreasonable
to expect the Player to continue her employment relationship, as her trust with the Club
was broken. In other words, the Chamber considered that the situation reached a level of
seriousness where the essential conditions under which the employment relationship was
entered into were no longer present, and the Player could not, in good faith, be expected
to continue fulfilling her contractual obligations.
52. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that, in the absence of evidence on file concerning the
exact date on which the official of the Club threatened the Player’s teammates with a gun
or a notice of termination of the employment relationship, the Club terminated the said
relationship without just cause through its correspondence dated 11 December 2024, in
which it confirmed that the Player had already been released.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19432
53. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber held that the foregoing finding necessary leads
to the conclusion that the counterclaim of the Club is rejected.
ii. Consequences
54. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
55. As a preliminary matter, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player twelve instalments of EUR 720 as an allowance for expenses.
In addition, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Second Contract, the Club
undertook to pay the Player in twelve monthly instalments EUR 8,500 per season as an
allowance for expenses and EUR 4,800 per season for accommodation.
56. Accordingly, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of
EUR 1,828.33 under the Contract and the Second Contract.
•
EUR 720 + EUR 708.33 (EUR 8,500 / 12) + EUR 400 (EUR 4,800 / 12)
57. The Chamber then took note that, according to the Player’s statement of claim and the
evidence on file, the Club remitted her EUR 3,748 under their employment relationship.
Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Player’s outstanding remuneration for the period
from 30 July 2024 until 11 December 2024 amounted to EUR 3,565.32, i.e., EUR 7,313.32 EUR 3,748.
•
Monthly salaries from August to November 2024 = EUR 7,313.32, i.e., EUR 1,828.33
x 4 months.
58. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player EUR 3,565.32, corresponding
to the outstanding remuneration under the Contract and the Second Contract at the time
of termination of their employment relationship.
59. 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 her outstanding remuneration as follows:
•
On the amount EUR 1,736.99, as from 1 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
•
On the amount EUR 1,828.33, as from 1 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19432
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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).
63. 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
and the Second Contract from 11 December 2024 until 31 July 2025. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 14,626.64 (i.e., the monthly salaries under the
Contract and the Second Contract from December 2024 to July 2025) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
64. 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 general obligation to mitigate
his damages.
65. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Austrian club Altach from 8 January 2025
until 30 June 2025, and with the Swiss club FC St. Gallen 1879 from 1 July 2025 until 14 June
2026. In accordance with the Player’s new employment contracts, the Chamber concluded
that she mitigated her damages in the total amount of EUR 4,165.28.
66. 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 EUR
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19432
10,461.32 to the Player (i.e., EUR 14,626.64 minus EUR 4,165.28), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
67. The Chamber further confirmed that no additional compensation applied as the Club
terminated the Contract and this termination was not linked to overdue payables.
68. Lastly, 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 on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 11 December 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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-19432
d. Costs
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19432
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Melanie Kuenrath.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, FC Dornbirn, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- EUR 3,565.32 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,736.99 as from 1 November 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,828.33 as from 1 December 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 10,461.32 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11
December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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 / Counterclaimant 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.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19432
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19432
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