Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19779
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Khemais
Maaouali
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Al Kahraba Football Club, Iraq
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Khemais Maaouali, Tunisia
Represented by Loizos Hadjidemetriou
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19779
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 January 2025, the Iraqi club, Al Kahraba Football Club (hereinafter: the Club or the
Claimant/ Counter-Claimant) and the Tunisian player, Khemais Maaouali (hereinafter: the
Player or the Respondent/ Counter-Respondent) entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 14 January 2025 until 10 July 2025.
2.
According to clause 1 and 2 of Annex 1 of the Contract, its total value corresponded to IQD
58,500,000. The Player was entitled to receive this amount in 6 instalments of IQD
9,750,000 each.
3.
According to clause 4 of Annex 1 of the Contract, “the Player’s income refers to net amounts
in the State of Iraq. Any taxes, social costs, contributions or any other amounts the Player may
need to pay in the country of his residence or any other country are to be borne by the Player
and the Club insofar shall not be obliged to pay any additional amounts to the player as those
agreed upon in this Contract.”
4.
According to clause 9.3 of the Contract, “The First party has the right to terminate this contract
without consequences for the terminating party, where there exists just cause at the time of the
contract termination party.
The player doesn't have the right to terminate this contract or having the willing to play with
another club entire this contract duration and if the player leave the team or break this contract
will pay a compensation equivalent to its value double of this contract financial value. and the
club still the only remaining owner of the exclusive rights to the players services for the duration
of the contract
The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under the provisions of
paragraphs 3 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the principles of parity and reciprocity
of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances related to the Contract’s conclusion and
execution.”
5.
On 13 February 2025, the Player received IQD 9,750,000.
6.
On 25 March 2025, the Player received IQD 9,750,000.
7.
On 29 April 2025, the Player received IQD 9,750,000.
8.
On 3 June 2025, the Club allegedly informed the Player via letter that “your payment will be
paid in practice today at 6:00 PM.”
9.
On 9 June 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting the salary of April
and May 2025. In addition, the Player stated in his notice that “on 8 and 9 June 2025, club
officials and coaching staff prevented [the Player] from training with the first team, as a means
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19779
of coercion to pressure him into signing a financial clearance statement.” In this regard, the
Player requested the Club the following:
“1. Proceed with the immediate payment of the amount of 19,500,000 Iraqi Dinars,
corresponding to the May 2025 salary, within 15 days from the date of this letter;
2. Clarify your contractual position regarding [the Player] within 24 hours, and confirm in
writing whether you intend to fully honor the contract through to its expiry;
3. Immediately cease any form of pressure or threats against the player and ensure his full
reintegration into first-team training without further delay;
4. Send by email all documents related to this matter (e.g. receipts, agreement proposals,
attestations) prior to their submission to the player. Please note: no document will be signed
without our prior review and approval.”
10. On 11 June 205, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice stating the following:
“In response to the email sent by you regarding the player Khamis Bin Mawali.
Our club would like to clarify the following:
1-the player has refused to receive his salary and has been notified by an official letter from
the club, but insisted on refusing to receive his salary
2-the club, despite the player's actions (his absence from training without an excuse on 23-52025 and his leaving a match without the permission of the staff on 5-6-2025 and his refusal
to return after contacting him until later, our club is fully committed to the player until the
end of the season
3-our club deplores what you stated in the email sent regarding the threats faced by the
player and legal action will be taken as this statement may cause damage to the reputation
of the club and the country.”
11. On the same day, the Player replied to the Club’s letter as follows:
“We acknowledge receipt of your letter, which unfortunately contains several false and
unfounded allegations. Firstly, we categorically deny that the player, […], ever refused to
receive his salary.
On the contrary, the outstanding amounts remain unpaid despite our formal notice. We
therefore reiterate our demand that the due salaries be transferred without further delay to
the following bank account, and that proof of payment be sent to us as soon as possible.
[…]
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19779
Secondly, the player has demonstrated exemplary conduct throughout. We possess
irrefutable evidence confirming that [the Player] was present on 23 May 2025 and took part
in the match on 5 June 2025. Your claims regarding his alleged absences are thus entirely
baseless. Furthermore, we note that no disciplinary measures were ever brought to the
player—on the contrary, your club approached him with a proposal to mutually terminate
his contract in exchange for payment of his arrears and an additional month's salary.
This offer was declined, as we reiterate that [the Player] fully intends to honor his contract
until its expiration. We further request that you provide us with the full training schedule and
ensure the player’s immediate reintegration into the first team. Any continued exclusion will
be considered a further breach of the contract and the player’s rights.
Please note that despite your breaches —including the withholding of salaries and attempts
to pressure the player into termination— [the Player] has continued to fulfil his professional
obligations. Under no circumstances does this place him in a position to demand anything
further from your side. We reserve all rights and remedies available under national and
international regulations and urge you once again to make immediate steps to regularize this
situation.”
12. On 26 June 2025, the Club informed the Player that all the banks are closed but he “can
receive [his] salaries on Sunday.”
13. On 29 July 2025, the Club sent a letter to the Player alleging the Contract did not stipulate
a fixed calendar day for the payment of the salaries. However, the parties developed a clear
mutual understanding that the salaries would be paid on 28th day of the following month.
The Club also argued that at the time the first default notice was sent (i.e. 9 June 2025), only
one salary was outstanding (i.e. the salary of April) as the salary of May 2025 had allegedly
not yet fallen due. Therefore, the Club contended that the threshold of 2 outstanding
salaries of art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations) has not been met.
14. In addition, the Club in its letter of 29 July 2025, categorically denied any allegation about
misconduct. The Club argued that the Player had not been excluded at any moment from
the first-team training and the Player remained fully integrated in the team. Any “temporary
adjustments to his training assignments were based exclusively on technical, tactical, or
coaching considerations and do not amount to a disciplinary sanction.”
15. Furthermore, the Club alleged that it never made any proposal for a mutual termination
and “even if discussions had taken place or a negotiation were contemplated- which the club
does not admit- such actions fall squarely within the scope of lawful professional negotiation
and do not, in any sense constitute coercion or psychological pressure.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19779
16. Also on 29 June 2025, the Player replied, denying all the above allegations and informed
the Club that “pursuant to the relevant provisions of the FIFA RSTP, the player hereby notifies
the immediate termination of his employment contract with just cause.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 2 July 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Club
18. The Club firstly argued that the Player did not have just cause to terminate his Contract,
considering that the salary of May 2025 had not yet fallen due at the time of the default
notice (i.e. 9 June 2025). The Club alleged that it was the Club’s established practice, tacitly
accepted by the Player, to pay the salaries on the 28th day of the following month.
19. Therefore, the Club considered that as the default notice was sent on 9 June 2025, the
salary of May 2025 had not yet fallen due. However, the Club argued that even if the DRC
might take into consideration the day of the signature of the Contract (i.e. 14 January 2025)
as the day of the accrual of the salary, the default notice would still be premature.
20. In view of the above, the Club considered that the pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations have not been met.
21. In addition, the Club contended that the termination could also not be based on art. 14 of
the Regulations due to the absence of any ground that could justify such premature
termination.
22. In view of the above, the Club argued that it is entitled to receive compensation for breach
of contract due to the Player’s termination without just cause.
23. Furthermore, the Club alleged that the Player left the country on 29 June 2025 without its
prior authorization.
24. In this regard, the Club requested compensation in the amount of IQD 117,000,000 based
on clause 9.3 of the Contract. The Club also argued that the Player’s termination disrupted
the Club’s planning during the final phase of the competitive season which constituted an
aggravating circumstance.
25. Finally, the Club requested the following relief:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19779
1. “Declare that the Respondent has unilaterally terminated the employment contract without
just cause in violation of Articles 14, 14bis, and 12bis of the FIFA RSTP (2024 edition);
2. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract pursuant to
Article 17(1) of the FIFA RSTP, in the fixed amount of IQD 117,000,000 as stipulated in Article
9.3 of the employment agreement;
3. Impose a four-month restriction on the Respondent's eligibility to participate in official
matches, in accordance with Article 17(3) of the FIFA RSTP;
4. Enjoin the Respondent from registering with any new club until full compliance with the
financial and disciplinary consequences of this decision;
5. Order the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant for all procedural costs incurred in these
proceedings;
6. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the Tribunal deems just and appropriate in
the circumstances.”
b. Counterclaim of the Player
26. In its reply, the Player disputed that he did not have just cause to terminate the Contract.
27. The Player first argued that the parties had never agreed that the salary would be paid on
the 28th day of the following month, and that there is no evidence whatsoever to support
such an allegation. The Player claimed that the Club was simply always late in paying the
salaries, which is why the proof of payment for previous salaries shows dates at the end of
the following month.
28. The Player argued that the Contract as well as the Regulations are silent as to when the
salaries were due. However, Swiss law applies subsidiarily and therefore, when a contract
is silent on when each monthly salary is payable, the salaries fall due on the last day of
every month (art. 323 (1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations).
29. In addition, the Player stated that in its reply to the default notice the Club:
-
Did not contest the Player’s reference to two outstanding salaries (April and May
2025);
Did not assert that the salaries only fell due on the 28th day of the following
month;
Did not argue that the monthly salaries were not due on the last day of each
month; and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19779
-
Did not claim that April’s salary was not yet due at the time of the default notice.
30. Furthermore, the Player denied having ever rejected the payment of a salary as alleged by
the Club.
31. Regarding the alleged unauthorised early departure from the country, the Player argued
that the flight ticket provided as evidence by the Club shows that the flight ticket was
booked by the Club itself and the departure date was 30 June 2025, i.e. after the Player’s
obligations with the team had ended for the season.
32. The Player added that on 29 June 2025, only 11 days of the Contract were remaining until
its expiration, and the Player had not taken any leave since the signing of the Contract.
Therefore, he stated that he had the right to take his 10-day leave before the expiration of
the Contract.
33. Concerning the compensation requested by the Club, the Player argued that “the Club is
trying to enforce a clause in the employment contract speaking for penalty, equal to an amount
twice the value of the employment contract, in case of termination without just cause. This clause
nevertheless is potestative, illegitimate and non-reciprocal and does not have any legal validity.”
34. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“For all reasons mentioned above, the Respondent is filling a counter claim, requesting the
FIFA DRC to pay his outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract.
The Respondent was employed by the Claimant until 29/06/2025 but was paid only for
January, February and March 2025. Therefore, there exist today the following outstanding
salaries:
-
IQD 9,750,000, representing the April 2025 salary.
IQD 9,750,000, representing the May 2025 salary.
IQD 9,750,000, representing the June 2025 salary.
The above payments corresponded to the total remaining value of the CoE since it was agreed
that the total remuneration of IQD 58,500,000 would be settled over 6 monthly salaries, i.e.
from January until and including June 2025. Therefore, for the 10 days of July 2025 there
was no additional payment to be made.
For all reasons mentioned above, the Respondent is calling the FIFA DRC to order the Claimant
to pay, in the bank account, […] the amount of:
-
IQD 29,250,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus legal interest from the date when
each payment became due until full payment.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19779
c. Reply to the Counterclaim
35. The Club replied that the penalty clause was mutually agreed by the parties and therefore
it shall be enforced.
36. In addition, the Club insisted that the salaries were not yet overdue on the default notice
date. The Club reiterated that the payment history shows a mutually accepted deferred
pattern, which created an implied contractual term under Swiss Law and the Player never
objected to this structure until the termination.
37. Regarding the flight ticket, the Club confirmed that it was issued by the Club, however “only
for purely logistical purposes, specifically to comply with Iraqi immigration formalities, which
require the presentation of a return flight as a condition of lawful entry. Accordingly the issuance
of such a ticket cannot, under any reasonable interpretation, be construed as conferring a
contractual right of departure on that date, nor as constituting an authorization for early exit
from contractual duties.”
38. The Club also asserted that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause and
therefore he is no longer entitled to unpaid salaries or compensation.
39. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“In light of the foregoing, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent respectfully requests the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Dismiss in its entirety the Statement of Defense and Counterclaim submitted by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for manifest lack of legal merit, evidentiary insufficiency,
and procedural inconsistencies;
2. Declare that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment
contract without just cause on 29 June 2025, in violation of Articles 13 and 14bis of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players;
3. Confirm that the contractual relationship between the parties was valid and enforceable
until 10 July 2025, as per the express terms of the employment agreement;
4. Acknowledge that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent duly complied with its salary
obligations or made payment available in accordance with established practice, and that
any alleged non-payment resulted from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s unjustified
refusal to accept payment;
5. Reject all monetary claims by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant relating to alleged
unpaid remuneration or compensation for breach of contract;
6. Award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent such further relief as the Chamber deems just
and appropriate in the circumstances.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19779
For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim must be dismissed
in its entirety. It lacks a factual foundation, is unsupported by evidence, and is devoid of legal
merit under both the FIFA regulatory framework and applicable CAS doctrine.”
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19779
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 2 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 19 February 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the
January 2026 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
41. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations , 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 Tunisian player and an Iraqi club.
42. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
43. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
44. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19779
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
45. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly disputed whether the Player had just cause to terminate his Contract
for outstanding salaries, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
46. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that according to art. 14 bis of the Regulations, 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 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).
47. In the case at hand, the Single Judge noted that the Player alleged not having received the
salaries corresponding to the months of April and May 2025 (i.e., 2 months salaries) and
has provided written evidence of having put the Club in default on 9 June 2025, i.e. at least
15 days before the unilateral termination of the Contract, on 29 June 2025.
48. The Single Judge also took note of the fact that the Player invoked in his default notice that
2 monthly salaries remained outstanding, i.e. the months of April and May 2025. However,
he requested only the payment of the salary of May 2025 within 15 days.
49. Nevertheless, the Single Judge considered that the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations have been fulfilled, as the Player did state in the default notice that 2 salaries
remained outstanding and gave 15 days to the Club to comply with its default. In addition,
the Club confirmed that the Player had requested the payment of the salaries of April and
May 2025 and therefore the Single Judge deemed that the default notice was clear as to
which salaries were considered to be outstanding.
50. Furthermore, the Single Judge pointed out that the salary for May 2025 had already fallen
due by the time the default notice was issued. In particular, and contrary to the Club’s
submissions, since the Contract is silent regarding the exact due date of the salaries, such
salaries were to be deemed payable at the end of each month. In addition, it would be
unusual for a salary to fall due at the end of the following month, as the Club suggested.
Therefore, the Single Judge considered that at the moment the default notice was sent,
both salaries had fallen due.
51. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Player had just cause to terminate
his Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19779
ii. Consequences
52. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club
53. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, is equivalent to 3 salaries under
the Contract, amounting to IQD 29,250,000, i.e. the salary of April, May and June 2025.
54. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., IQD 29,250,000 (i.e.,
IQD 9,750,000 times 3).
55. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest over the amount of IQD 9,750,000 as from 1 May 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of IQD 9,750,000 as from 1 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest over the amount of IQD 9,750,000 as from 29 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
56. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
57. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 them in
the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
58. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that, as a
general rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19779
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).
59. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Single Judge observed that the Contract was
terminated only eleven (11) days prior to its natural expiration date. In light of such
proximity to the agreed end of the contractual relationship, the Single Judge determined
that the residual value of the Contract was, in practice, already entirely reflected in the
outstanding remuneration.
60. Consequently, by awarding the Player the full amount of the outstanding salaries, the
Single Judge deemed that he had effectively received the entirety of the financial value he
would have been entitled to under the Contract. Consequently, no further amounts are to
be paid to the Player.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
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.
62. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
63. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
64. 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.
65. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19779
d. Costs
66. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
67. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
68. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19779
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, Al Kahraba Football Club, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, Khemais Maaouali, is accepted.
3.
The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant the
following amount:
- IQD 29,250,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest over the amount of IQD 9,750,000 as from 1 May 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of IQD 9,750,000 as from 1 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest over the amount of IQD 9,750,000 as from 29 June 2025 until the date
of effective payment.
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 Claimant/Counter-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 Respondent/CounterClaimant 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-19779
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