Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19868
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Cristian Alex Da Silva Santos
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Cristian Alex Da Silva Santos, Brazil
Represented by Mariju Maciel e Marina Maciel Advogados & Associados
RESPONDENT:
KPFC, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19868
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 June 2024, the Brazilian player, Cristian Alex Da Silva Santos (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant) and the Thai club, KPFC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from 24 June 2024 to “the end
of the Thai League 2 football tournament”.
2.
Art. 1 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“1. This present contract governs working relations between the player and the employer. The
player agrees to work for the employer from the period of 24 June 2024 to The end of the Thai
League 2 football tournament. The extension of this contract shall be mutually agreed upon
between the employer and the player.”
3.
Art. 2 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“2. The salary payment for the player shall be as follow:
2.1.1 Salary 130000 THB per month Includer accommodation and transportation costs
2.1.2 Pay visa fees to players in the amount of 50,000 baht work permit for the player
2.1.3 bonus team share
2.1.4 bonus promote T1 200,000 THB
2.1.5 bonus score + assist 15 score = 30,000 THB
2.1.6 ticket Brazil -Thailand 40,000 THB
Which will be paid to the player under the condition in which the player strictly followed the
practice schedule and regulations. The date of payment is on the 20h of each month. The
first payday shall commence in the following month after the effective date of this contract.
2.2. Prize money from any match will be shared between the players at a rate that the club
will decide.
2.3 Other benefits will be provided under the club’s regulations that will be established in
the future or under the consideration from the board of directors.
2.4 Income taxes and any other taxes in accordance with Thai law are the sole responsibility
of the player.”
4.
From 11 August 2024 until 22 December 2024, the Player participated in the following
matches of the Club:
- On 11 August 2024 against Lampang FC;
- On 17 August 2024 against Chonburi FC;
- On 23 August 2024 against Chainat Hornbill;
- On 1 September 2024 against Trat FC;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19868
- On 15 September 2024 against Kasertsart FC;
- On 21 September 2024 against Nakhonsi United;
- On 28 September 2024 against Sisaket United;
- On 6 October 2024 against Chanthaburi FC;
- On 19 October 2024 against Suphanburi FC;
- On 2 November 2024 against Samut Prakan City;
- On 24 November 2024 against Chiangmai United;
- On 1 December 2024 against Ayutthaya United;
- On 8 December 2024 against Bangkok FC;
- On 14 December 2024 against Phrae United; and
- On 22 December 2024 against Mahasarakham SBT FC.
5.
On 7 October 2024, a board meeting was held which included the President, the Head
Coach, the Team Manager, the Club Secretary and the Club’s Lawyer. Following the meeting
it was convened “That the performance of [the player] did not meet the club’s evaluation
criteria. The legal department was instructed to issue contract termination notices to [the player]
in accordance with club rules and regulations.”
6.
From 5 January 2025 until 24 May 2025, the Player did not participate any matches of the
Thai League 2 for the Club.
7.
On 21 April 2025, board meeting was held which included the President, the Head Coach,
the Team Manager, the Assistant Team Manager the Club Secretary and the Club’s Lawyer.
Following the meeting it was convened “the meeting unanimously resolved that [the Player],
shirt no. 93, failed to meet the evaluation criteria. The legal department is instructed to issue a
contract termination letter, effective as of the conclusion of the 2024–2025 Thai League 2
season, with entitlement only to salary for April 2025, in accordance with club rules and
regulations.”
8.
On 24 April 2025, the Player received a letter from the Club stated that the Club would not
renew his Contract, that it would expire on 26 April 2025, and that they would pay his final
salary on 30 April 2025.
9.
On 26 April 2025, the Club played its final game of the season against Pattaya United, in
which the Player was not involved.
10. Also on 26 April 2025, the Player was issued by the Club a document entitled “Proof of End
of Contract”.
11. At the end of the season 2024/2025, the Club now renamed Phalangkan FC finished fourth
4th in the Thai League 2.
12. On 24 May 2025, the Club was promoted to the Revo Thai League, the first division of
Thailand.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19868
13. On 29 May 2025, the Club announced that several players, including the Claimant, were
released from the Club.
14. On 30 May 2025, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club requesting a payment of
THB 200,000 for the promotion, his salary for the month of May 2025 amounting to THB
130,000, payment of a 10% withholding made on the March 2025 salary, and THB 15,000
for the reimbursement of his work visa expenses, totaling THB 358,000. The Player granted
the Club 7 days to remedy its default.
15. On 31 May 2025, the Club answered stating that the Player’s contract ended on 26 April
2025, and that thus he was not entitled to a salary for May 2025, nor to the bonuses as he
“did not participate in any matches or contribute to team since January 2025”. The Club also
mentioned that it was not responsible for the visa renewal fees incurred by the Player as
his Contract had expired. In addition, the Club raised that it made a 5% tax withholding of
THB 6,500 on the March salary, and that it also initially withheld another 5% but that the
amount was ultimately refunded to the Player. The Club concluded by stating “most
importantly, even though the football players refused to play for the club that is affiliated with
the club in the second half of the season, the club still paid the full salary to maintain the contract
until the end of the season. The club's treatment is a treatment of professional football players
and is fair throughout the contract. Accordingly, please be informed that the club has fully
complied with contractual and regulatory obligations.”
16. On 23 June 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of default to
the Club stating that he was owed THB 130,000 for his monthly wage, THB 15,000 for his
visa expenses, THB 200,000 for the promotion bonus, and THB 16,000 for his share of the
bonus shared between the first team players, for a total of THB 361,000 outstanding. The
Player granted 10-days to the Club to remedy its default.
17. Also on 23 June 2025, the Club answered the Player’s notice of default stating that it did not
owe the Player any remuneration as his Contract ended after the final match of the regular
season, on 26 April 2025. The Club added that the promotion bonus is linked to his active
participation in the relevant competition stage, and that as the Player was not registered
for the playoffs, he was not entitled to it, and that the Club has completely paid its dues to
the Player.
18. On 5 August 2025, the Player signed a contract with the Indonesian club, PSPS RIAU, valid
until 31 May 2026, for a monthly salary of USD 3,500.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19868
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 10 July 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
20. The Player argued that the Club’s assertion—that the Contract ended on 26 April 2025, the
date of the last match of the regular Thai League 2 season—was incorrect and unfounded.
He emphasized that the contract expressly stated it was valid until “the end of the Thai
League 2 football tournament”, which necessarily included the play‑offs, as they form an
integral part of the competition. The Player relied on the contract itself, the League table
and playoff schedule, and evidence that the Club reached and completed the playoffs. He
further pointed to the Club’s own public posts confirming promotion, which occurred after
the playoffs, demonstrating that the season had not ended on 26 April 2025.
21. The Player argued that although he stopped appearing in matches after January 2025, this
was solely because the Club deregistered him, as confirmed in the Match. He highlighted
that he continued to train regularly and remained available for selection. He stressed that
this deregistration cannot be used as grounds to avoid financial obligations.
22. He argued that similarly situated teammates, who also had contracts “until the end of Thai
League 2,” participated fully in the playoff matches and did not sign separate playoff
contracts. To support this, he submitted formal statements from teammates Jeferson
Sousa and Amarildo de Andrade, together with match reports showing their participation.
He also presented the Club’s own “Farewell and Thank You” post listing these same players
and himself as departing after the playoffs.
23. The Player argued that because the contract was still in force during May 2025, the Club
failed to pay several mandatory amounts, including:
- May 2025 salary – THB 130,000
- Promotion bonus – THB 200,000
- Visa renewal reimbursement – THB 15,000
- Team-shared bonus – THB 20,000
24. He supported his claim through screenshots from the team’s discussion in the messaging
application Line showing the bonus distribution list and his classification entitling him to
THB 20,000. He also included notifications sent to the Club requesting payment and the
Club’s reply rejecting the claims.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19868
25. The Player affirmed that he granted the Club reasonable deadlines to cure the outstanding
payments, sending formal notices on 30 May 2025 and 23 June 2025. The Club either
rejected the claim with unjustified arguments or failed to respond.
26. He affirmed that if FIFA understands the Club’s “Notification of Expiration” as a premature
unilateral termination, then he is entitled to compensation, which should be at least the
salary of May 2025, i.e. THB 130,000.
27. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“In light of the foregoing, we hereby request the FIFA DRC to accept this claim and:
a) Comply with the payment of the salary of May 2025, in the amount of THB 130.000,00
b) Comply with bonus payment for the promotion to T1 League in the amount of THB
200.000,00
c) Comply with the payment of the amount of THB 15.000,00 spent by the Player with the
costs for the due visa.
d) Comply with the payment of the Player’s part of bonus payment shared between the
team, in the amount of THB 20,000,00
e) In case it is considered that the Club terminated the contract without just cause, the
salary of May 2025 shall be considered as the due compensation.
The total amount in debt shall be cumulated with the relevant interest until the date of
the effective payment”.
b. Position of the Respondent
28. In its reply, The Club argued that the Contract expired naturally on 26 April 2025, which
was the final matchday of the Thai League 2 regular season. It emphasized that, under art.
1 of the Contract, any extension required mutual agreement, which never occurred.
29. The Club affirmed that it formally notified the Player of this expiration on 24 April 2025 and
reiterated this in a letter dated 31 May 2025.
30. The Club argued that the Player stopped participating in matches from January 2025, yet
the Club continued to pay his salary and provide accommodation until 30 April 2025, acting
in good faith.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19868
31. The Club affirmed that internal evaluations concluded the Player’s performance did not
meet the Club’s criteria, and a later meeting confirmed that he would not be offered a
contract extension or included in the play-off squad
32. The Club argued that the Player was not registered for any play-off matches and made no
contribution during the promotion stage; therefore, he is not entitled to the claimed THB
200,000 promotion bonus.
33. The Club affirmed that conditional bonuses require actual sporting participation and
fulfillment of performance obligations and that the Player provided no proof to support
entitlement. This position was previously communicated in the Club’s official responses.
34. The Club further argued that the claimed THB 20,000 team bonus originated from internal
team communications and was never part of the Contract, nor a binding obligation of the
Club.
35. The Club argued that since the contract ended on 26 April 2025, the Player is not entitled
to salary for May 2025. All due salaries up to April 2025 were duly paid, and that this was
confirmed in writing in the Club’s 31 May 2025 response.
36. The Club argued that visa renewal expenses claimed by the Player, i.e. THB 15,000, fall
outside the Contract, as the contract had already expired by the time the costs were
incurred.
37. The Club affirmed that there were no early termination and no breach of contract. The
contract expired naturally, and all obligations were fulfilled. Thus, there is no outstanding
remuneration. This was supported by the Club’s prior notifications and correspondence.
38. The Club argued that it consistently acted in good faith, providing all required documents
to the Player, including issuing “Proof of End of Contract” to facilitate his transfer to a new
club.
39. The Club therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“18. The club respectfully requests the DRC to:
a) Dismiss the player’s claim in its entirety.
b) Declare that no overdue payables exist under art. 12bis FIFA RSTP.
c) Confirm that the employment contract expired on 26 April 2025, per the Thai League
2 official calendar.
d) Order the player to bear the procedural costs.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19868
e) Order and condemn the claimant to pay the amount of THB 50,000 to the club as legal
costs incurred in relation to the present dispute.”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19868
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 10 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 9 March 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 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 Brazilian player and a Thai 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. 10
REF. FPSD-19868
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 dispute whether the Club terminated the Player’s contract with just
cause.
46. The Player affirmed that his contract covered the full duration of the Thai League 2
tournament, and that consequently he was entitled to a salary for the month of May 2025,
the promotion bonus and his share of a collective performance bonus. The Player also
claimed the reimbursement of his visa expenses.
47. On the contrary, the Club contented that it complied with its contractual obligations, and
that the Player’s contract ended naturally following the last game of the regular season on
26 April 2025, and that all further games occurring in May 2025 were for the promotion
playoffs which is a distinct competition. Consequently, the Club contended that the Player
was not entitled to a salary for May 2025, nor to the promotion bonus and the collective
bonus. As to the reimbursement for the visa fees, the Club stated that these expenses
occurred following the end of the Player’s Contract, and thus that it had no obligation to
reimburse the Player.
48. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Contract ended naturally or was it terminated prematurely by the Club and then assess the
consequences thereof.
Duration of the Contract:
49. First and foremost, the Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 1 of the Contract which
states “1. This present contract governs working relations between the player and the employer.
The player agrees to work for the employer from the period of 24 June 2024 to The end of the
Thai League 2 football tournament. The extension of this contract shall be mutually agreed upon
between the employer and the player.”
50. The Single Judge noted that there is no specific end date in the Contract, rather the Contract
was set to conclude at the “The end of the Thai League 2 football tournament”, however, the
Contract did not provide a definition for what is the scope of competition included in the
expression “the Thai League 2 football tournament”.
51. While the Club raised that the end date of the Contract coincided with the last game of the
regular season, i.e. after the match of 26 April 2025, the Single Judge observed that it is
undisputed that the Club was playing in games in May 2025, leading to its promotion to the
Thai League 1 on 24 May 2025.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19868
52. In that sense, as per the legal principle of contra proferentem which provides that in the
presence of ambiguity contracts are interpreted against their drafters. Following this
principle the Single Judge that the Thai League 2 Football Tournament extended until the
end of the playoffs which occurred on 24 May 2025.
53. The Single Judge also took into account that as per the information listed in the TMS,
consulted as per art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, the 2024-2025 season in Thailand
ended on 31 May 2025.
Termination of the Contract:
54. Following this determination, the Single Judge turned its attention to the termination of the
Contract.
55. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that it is confirmed by both parties that the Club
issued the Player a “Proof of End of Contract” on 26 April 2025, effectively terminating the
Contract as from this date.
56. In light of his previous determination that the Thai League 2 tournament extended until
the end of the playoffs, the Single Judge determined that the Club terminated the Player’s
Contract without just cause on 26 April 2025.
ii. Consequences
57. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
58. The Single Judge noted the Player’s allegation that the Club failed to reimburse him THB
15,000 for visa-related fees. He further recalled that, under article 2.1.2 of the Contract, the
Player was entitled to an amount of THB 50,000 for his visa expenses.
59. The Single Judge concluded that, since the Player had established his contractual right to
receive THB 50,000 for his visa expenses, the unpaid amount of THB 15,000 formed part of
this overall entitlement.
60. As per the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, once a player alleges that a
club had failed to pay him an amount which is due to him under his contract, the burden
of proof shifts onto the club to demonstrate that it had indeed paid the outstanding
amount as per its contractual obligations. In absence of evidence provided by the Club of
paying such an amount in the present claim, it appears that the Club has not met its burden
of proof under art. 13 par.5 of the Procedural Rules.
61. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19868
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 28 April 2025 until the
date of effective payment.
62. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
63. 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 the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
64. 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
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).
65. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of THB 300,645.16 (i.e., the pro-rated salary of
24 days of May 2025 amounting to THB 100,645.16 and the promotion bonus of THB
200,000) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
66. The Single Judge also noted that Player claimed an amount of THB 20,000 as his share of a
team bonus, but the Single Judge noted the absence of a bonus agreement or of a
contractual provision akin to the promotion bonus demonstrating the entitlement of the
Player to this amount. Thus, the Single Judge considered that the Player did not
demonstrate to his comfortable satisfaction his entitlement to this amount and that he did
not discharge his burden of proof under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and
consequently decided not to award this amount to the Player.
67. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19868
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal 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.
68. The Single Judge 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).
69. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
THB 300,645.16 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
70. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 100,645.16 as from 26 April 2025 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 200,000 as from 9 March 2026 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
71. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
72. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
73. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19868
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
74. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
75. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
76. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
77. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
78. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19868
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Cristian Alex Da Silva Santos, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, KPFC, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- THB 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 April 2025
until the date of effective payment; and
- THB 300,645.16 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 100,645.16 as from 26 April 2025 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of THB 200,000 as from 9 March 2026 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
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-19868
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