Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19967
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Hamed Ismael Sawadogo
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Hamed Ismael Sawadogo, Burkina Faso
Represented by Anthony Mottais
RESPONDENT:
ElSekka Elhadid, Egypt
Represented by Nehad Hagag
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19967
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 December 2024, the Burkinabe player Hamed Ismael Sawadogo (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) signed an employment contract with the Egyptian club, Modern
Sport FC, valid for a year and a half, until the end of the 2025-2026 season in Egypt.
2.
On 4 February 2025, the Player signed a contract (hereinafter: the Contract), with the
Egyptian club ElSekka Elhadid (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), an affiliated club of
Modern Sport FC valid for a year and a half, until the end of the 2025-2026 season in Egypt.
3.
As per the preamble of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a total salary of
EGP 1,880,000 payable as follows:
-
EGP 30,000 payable on 1 February 2025;
EGP 100,000 payable on 1 March 2025;
EGP 100,000 payable on 1 April 2025;
EGP 100,000 payable on 1 May 2025;
EGP 100,000 payable on 1 June 2025;
EGP 100,000 payable on 1 July 2025;
EGP 100,000 payable on 30 July 2025;
EGP 312,500 payable on 1 September 2025;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 October 2025;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 November 2025;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 December 2025;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 January 2026;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 February 2026;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 March 2026;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 April 2026;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 May 2026;
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 June 2026; and
EGP 93,750 payable on 1 July 2026.
4.
As per art. 6 of the Contract, the Player was also entitled to receive a monthly amount of
EGP 15,000 for accommodation each season, as well as a one round-trip flight ticket per
season.
5.
On 2 February 2025, Modern Sport FC issued the Player a letter addressed to an airline,
guaranteeing the issuance of his visa upon arrival in Cairo, on 3 February 2025.
6.
On 4 February 2025, the Player signed the Contract with the Club.
7.
On 6 February 2025, the Player received the first instalment of his salary from the Club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19967
8.
On an undisclosed date, the Player claimed, in separate WhatsApp conversations, that he
did not receive his salary and stated in one of them that he “ [had] no more money to eat”.
9.
Again, at an undisclosed date, the Player was asked, via WhatsApp, to train with a small
group of other players aside from the main team.
10. On 25 April 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of default to
the Club stating that the Player was not paid his salaries of 1 March and 1 April 2025,
amounting to EGP 100,000 each. The Player granted the Club 15 days to proceed with
payment.
11. On 7 May 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of default to the
Club stating that the Player was not paid his salaries of 1 March, 1 April 2025, and 1 May
2025 amounting to EGP 100,000 each. The Player alleged that the Club did not answer his
first notice of default and granted the Club 10 days to proceed with payment.
12. On 24 May 2025, the Player, through his legal representative, sent a notice of termination
to the Club.
13. On an unspecified date, the Club contacted the Player to request his bank coordinates to
proceed with payment.
14. On 12 September 2025, the Player confirmed that he remained unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 16 July 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
16. The Player explained that after being approached by Modern Sport Club in December 2024,
he signed a contract outlining significant financial terms, including monthly salaries and
bonuses. He later learned that he would be sent to the Club, which is run by the same
management. There, he concluded a new contract for one and a half seasons worth
1,880,000 EGP. He emphasized that aside from the 30,000 EGP paid at signing, none of the
agreed monthly installments were ever honored.
17. He reported that he was properly registered with the Club on TMS, attended all training
sessions, and even played a match, demonstrating full compliance with his contractual
obligations. Despite this, his salary for February, March and April, as well as the pro-rated
salary of May 2025 remained unpaid. He also described how, by late March, he had begun
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19967
repeatedly reminding the Club of the overdue salaries via messages, without receiving any
response or corrective action.
18. He indicated that, at an unspecified date, matters worsened when he was abruptly
removed from the first team training group along with a few other players, without
explanation. This exclusion left him unable to train properly or compete, in direct violation
of his rights as a professional athlete. At the same time, he found himself financially
stranded in a foreign country, unable to meet even basic needs. He raised that in absence
of cooperation of the Club, his lawyer issued two formal notices the first on 24 April and
the second on 7 May 2025, demanding payment of the overdue wages, but the Club still
ignored him.
19. The Player emphasized that after more than three months of unpaid salary, multiple
unaddressed warnings, and clear signs the Club no longer intended to honor the
employment relationship, he had no choice but to terminate the contract on 24 May 2025.
He also mentioned that afterward, Club representatives informally promised to settle the
outstanding amounts but ultimately made no payment.
20. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“En conséquence des faits et arguments exposés ci-dessus, le joueur invite la CRL de la
FIFA à établir que la rupture du contrat est intervenue aux torts du Club et d’ordonner
au Club de payer les montants suivants:
380.000 pounds égyptien d’arriérés de salaire détallés comme suit:
- 100.000 pounds égyptien pour le salaire du mois de février 2025, + 5% d’intérêts p.a. à
partir du 1er mars 2025.
- 100.000 pounds égyptien pour le salaire du mois de mars 2025, + 5% d’intérêts p.a. à
partir du 1er avril 2025.
- 100.000 pounds égyptien pour le salaire du mois d’avril 2025, + 5% d’intérêts p.a. à
partir du 1ermai 2025.
- 80.000 pounds égyptien pour le salaire du mois de mai 2025 (au prorata du 1erau 24
mai), + 5% d’intérêts p.a. à partir du 24 mai 2025.
- 1.470.000 pounds egyptien à titre d’indemnité pour la rupture du contrat de travail aux
torts Club, plus 5% d’intérêts p.a. à compter du 24 mai 2025.
5 000 EUR de frais de justice “
Freely Translated to English
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19967
“As a result of the facts and arguments set out above, the player invites the FIFA LRC to
establish that the breach of contract was at the fault of the Club and to order the Club to
pay the following amounts:
380,000 Egyptian pounds in salary arrears broken down as follows:
- 100,000 Egyptian pounds for the month of February 2025, + 5% interest p.a. from March
1, 2025.
- 100,000 Egyptian pounds for the month of March 2025, + 5% interest p.a. from April 1,
2025.
- 100,000 Egyptian pounds for the salary of April 2025, + 5% interest p.a. from May 1,
2025.
- 80,000 Egyptian pounds for the salary of May 2025 (prorated from May 1 to 24), + 5%
interest p.a. from May 24, 2025.
- 1,470,000 Egyptian pounds as compensation for the termination of the employment
contract at the fault of the Club, plus 5% interest p.a. as of May 24, 2025.
EUR 5,000 in legal fees. “
b. Position of the Club
21. In its reply, the Club affirmed that the Player’s claim lacks foundation because he did not
demonstrate continuous service during the period for which he seeks salaries, and the
evidence he presented, including screenshots and informal messages failed to meet the
procedural standard required to prove entitlement. The Club stressed that internal
attendance records instead show repeated unjustified absences and unauthorized travel,
which not only undermine his claim but constitute serious contractual breaches on his part.
22. The Club affirmed that the Player was never excluded from training, rather, he was offered
both an individualized extra workout and the regular collective team session on the same
day. The Club highlighted a WhatsApp message scheduling the team’s main training at
14:30/15:00, demonstrating that the Player had full access to all training activities and was
not prevented from fulfilling his obligations.
23. The Club affirmed that the Player’s allegation of “hunger” is based on a single isolated
WhatsApp message and does not reflect his actual conditions, particularly as he received a
contractual housing allowance of EGP 15,000 per month. It further referred to its nutritional
regulations, which guarantee meals for first-team players on training days, noting there
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19967
was no contemporaneous complaint by the Player that such allowances or meals were ever
withheld.
24. The Club affirmed that disciplinary deductions, such as those for absence from training,
unauthorized travel, and improper conduct, were validly applied under its 2024/2025
Financial & Disciplinary Regulations. These regulations allow progressive deductions
ranging from 1% to 25%, and even higher in certain cases, following proper internal
procedures. Accordingly, the Club maintained that any amount potentially owed must be
reduced by these lawfully imposed deductions, including an already-decided deduction of
EGP 150,000.
25. The Club affirmed that any compensation must be limited to the 2024/2025 season based
on Egyptian Football Association rules, which restrict recovery to the remaining dues of the
same season. In addition, the Club emphasized that any sum must be calculated on a net
basis after applying the contractual 45% tax deduction and reduced further due to the
Player’s complete failure to mitigate his alleged losses by seeking other employment.
26. The Club therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim;
“II. Relief sought (Final requests)
In light of the foregoing, the Club respectfully requests the Chamber to order the
following relief:
1. Admit this Answer and take it fully into account.
2. Declare the Player’s Claim inadmissible and dismiss it in full.
3. Alternatively, should the Chamber find any Club liability (which the Club denies):
a. Limit any recoverable amounts to the Player’s actual net loss for the current season
only, pursuant to Art. 17(1) RSTP and applicable Egyptian rules;
b. Calculate any award after applying: (i) the contractual tax deduction (45%); and (ii)
the Club’s lawful disciplinary deductions under its 2024/2025Regulations for
unjustified absence and unauthorised travel (up to the prescribed percentages);
c. Reduce any award to reflect the Player’s failure to mitigate damages.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19967
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. 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 16 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 27 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.
28. 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 Burkinabé player and an Egyptian club.
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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 would refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19967
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
32. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter which concerned whether a
compensation following a termination of the contract for outstanding remuneration was
due.
33. The Player alleged that the Club failed to pay him his salaries for the month of February,
March and April 2025, and that upon granting it a 15-day notice of default to remedy its
default on 25 April 2025, he had just cause to terminate his Contract when he did so on 24
May 2025.
34. To the Contrary, the Club disputed whether the Player had even performed services to the
Club and stated that the Player was in serious breach of its contractual obligation having
been late to multiple team activities which prompted the Club to sanction him on 14 April
2024.
35. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Club challenged the performance of the
Contract by the Player, however, the Chamber found this position as contradictory to its
own submissions as it issued disciplinary sanctions for lateness to the Player, thus
admitting that the Player attended its duties, albeit late.
36. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Contract and ultimately assess the consequences
thereof.
37. Concerning the termination of the Contract, the Player claimed that the Club failed to pay
him his salaries for the months of February, March and April 2025 amounting EGP 300,000
(3 times EGP 100,000).
38. The Chamber noted that, as per the preamble to the Contract, the Player was entitled to a
monthly salary of EGP 100,000 from 1 March 2025 until 30 July 2025.
39. The Chamber then recalled that, as per the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, once the Player alleged that the Club had failed to pay him his salaries, the burden
of proof shifts onto the Club to demonstrate that it had indeed paid the salaries as per its
contractual obligations. In the present case, the Chamber considered that the Club failed
to meet its burden of proof under art. 13(5) of the Procedural Rules as it did not provide
any evidence of having complied with its contractual obligations.
40. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the salaries claimed by the Player were indeed
outstanding, namely EGP 300,000.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19967
41. In addition, as to the salary of May 2025, i.e. EGP 100,000 due on 1 June 2025, the Chamber
decided to follow the longstanding practice of the Football Tribunal and award this salary
as outstanding as the termination of the Contract occurred after the 15th day of May 2025.
42. In conclusion, following the constant practice of the Football Tribunal, coupled with the
specific request for relief of the Player, the Chamber decided to award interest at a rate of
5% p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 2 March
2025;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 2 April
2025;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 2 May
2025; and
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 24 May
2025.
43. Concerning the disciplinary sanctions that the Club imposed to the Player, the Chamber
noted that the Club claimed having sanctioned the Player for an amount of EGP 150,000
for its lateness to team activities as per its internal regulations.
44. However, the Club did not provide any evidence that the Player was actually late, or of
informing him of impending sanctions or of the disciplinary process that led to the
sanctions.
45. In any event, the Chamber also highlighted that the sanction of EGP 150,000, equivalent to
1.5 monthly salaries under the Contract, was excessive as it was a first-time offense by the
Player.
46. Therefore, the Chamber decided to disregard the sanction imposed to the Player by the
Club.
47. Finally, and concerning the termination of the Contract, the Chamber noted that the Player
sent a notice of default to the Club on 25 April 2025 granting it 15 days to remedy its default.
At the time that the default notice was sent, more than 2 monthly salaries were outstanding
(5). The Single Judge considered that the Player met the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations and that he had just cause to terminate his Contract when he did so on 24 May
2025.
ii. Consequences
48. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19967
49. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, was equivalent to four salaries
under the contract, amounting to EGP 400,000.
50. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., EGP
400,000.
51. 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
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts that should accrue as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 2 March
2025;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 2 April
2025;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 2 May
2025; and
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 payable as from 24 May
2025.
52. 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
noted that the Club alleged that as per the regulations of the Egyptian FA, when contracts
are terminated within the first year any compensation must be limited to the current
season, namely, the 2024/2025 season, which would restrict recovery to the remaining
dues of the same season
53. However, the Chamber recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
according to which, the FIFA Regulations should prevail over national regulations in order
to insure uniformity in similar situations, especially in absence of evidence of such
regulations.
54. The Single Judge then 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.
55. 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19967
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.
56. 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).
57. 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 EGP 1,450,000 (i.e. two months times
EGP 100,000, plus EGP 312,500, plus 10 months times EGP 93,750) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
58. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also noted that the Player was entitled to an
amount of EGP 15,000 accommodation as per art. 6 of the Contract, however, as the Player
failed to request this amount, the Chamber decided not to award it.
59. 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
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.
60. 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).
61. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables, and that Player mitigated his damages. In the case at hand, the
Single Judge confirmed that the contract termination took place due to said reason i.e.,
overdue payables by the Respondent, but that the Claimant confirmed that he did not
secure subsequent employment, thus not mitigating his damages. Therefore, the Single
Judge decided that the Claimant should not receive additional compensation.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19967
62. 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 at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 24 May 2025, until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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
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.
66. 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.
67. 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
68. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19967
69. 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.
70. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19967
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Hamed Ismael Sawadogo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ElSekka Elhadid, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EGP 400,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 as from 2 March 2025 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 as from 2 April 2025 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 as from 2 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EGP 100,000 as from 24 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
- EGP 1,450,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24
May 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19967
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-19967
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