Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20085
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 February 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Musa Ephraim Feng
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Musa Ephraim Feng, Nigeria
Represented by PCN Sportiva
RESPONDENT:
ElSekka Elhadid, Egypt
Represented by Nehad Hagag
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20085
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 October 2024, the Nigerian player, Musa Ephraim Feng (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Egyptian club, ElSekka Elhadid (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from the beginning
of the season 2024-2025 until the end of the 2026-2027 season.
2.
Art. 2 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“Second: value of the contract:
The two parties agreed on value of the contract gross amount of: 4,550,000 to be distributed
as follows:
First season value 2024/2024
an amount of (________________850,000_______________) divided as follows:
1st installment an amount of: 212,500 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 2 / 10 / 2024
2nd installment an amount of: 47,222 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 15 / 10 / 2024
3rd installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 11 / 2024
4th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 12 / 2024
5th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 1 / 2025
6th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 2 / 2025
7th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 3 / 2025
8th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 4 / 2025
9th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 5 / 2025
10th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 6 / 2025
11th installment an amount of: 212,500 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 7 / 2025
12th installment an amount of: ____ only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on / / /”
Second season value 2025/2026
an amount of (________________1,600,000_______________) divided as follows:
1st installment an amount of: 400,000 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 9 / 2025
2nd installment an amount of: 88,888 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 10 / 2025
3rd installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 11 / 2025
4th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 12 / 2025
5th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 1 / 2026
6th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 2 / 2026
7th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 3 / 2026
8th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 4 / 2026
9th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 5 / 2026
10th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 6 / 2025
11th installment an amount of: 400,000 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 7 / 2025
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20085
12th installment an amount of: ____ only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on / / /”
Third season value 2025/2026
an amount of (________________2,100,000_______________) divided as follows:
1st installment an amount of: 525,000 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 9 / 2026
2nd installment an amount of: 116,666 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 10 / 2026
3rd installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 11 / 2026
4th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 12 / 2026
5th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 1 / 2027
6th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 2 / 2027
7th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 3 / 2027
8th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 4 / 2027
9th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 5 / 2027
10th installment an amount of: / / / only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 6 / 2027
11th installment an amount of: 525,000 only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on 1 / 7 / 2027
12th installment an amount of: ____ only _______ (EGP/USD) paid on / / /”
3.
Art. 4 par 6. of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“6. The player should bear the taxes of this contract and any fees according to the law, the
club shall deduct taxes from the player dues and transfer them to the taxes under his
responsibility.”
4.
Art. 6 of the Contract provided, quoted verbatim:
“The last installment of the player’s contract during the contracting seasons is the 25%
participation rate during the contracting seasons which is paid in full in the event of
promotion to the Premier League and in the event of non-promotion 50% of the rate is
paid.
The team’s financial and administrative regulation are an integral part of the Player’s
contract and the player agrees to them and all their provisions after reading and reviewing
them.
In the event that the Player is sold during the contract period the Player’s agent is entitled
to 20% of the resale”
5.
On 6 November 2025, the Player sustained an ACL tear in his right knee.
6.
On 8 July 2025, the Player through his legal representative, sent a notice of default to the
Club stating that he had not been paid his salary of April 2025 and May 2025. The Player
therefore demanded the payment of EGP 425.000 and granted the Club a 15-day delay
expiring on 23rd July 2025 to proceed with the payment.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20085
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 24 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
8.
The Player lodged a claim with FIFA for compensation following a termination of contract
for outstanding remuneration.
9.
The Player submitted that he was not paid his salary of April, May and June 2025. The Player
also stated that as per art. 6 of the Contract, since the Club did not achieve promotion to
the Premier League the Club only owed him 50% of the last instalment of the 2024/2025
season, but that it too was not paid.
10. The Player stated that he sent the Club a notice of default on 8 July 2025 stating that he
was not paid his monthly salaries of April and May 2025 and granted the Club a 15-day
deadline until 23 July 2025 to proceed with the payment, but that he did not receive an
answer.
11. The Player thus asserted that he had just cause to terminate his contract, when he did so
on 24 July 2025.
12. The Player therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“The Claimant respectfully urges the DRC to award the Claimant the underlisted reliefs in
the present dispute: The breakdown of the Claimant’s relief is as follows:
·Outstanding salary for the month of April 2025 (47,222 EGP) plus 5% interest Per
Annum as from the due date of payment.
·Outstanding salary for the month of May 2025 (47,222 EGP) plus 5% interest Per
Annum as from the due date of payment.
·Outstanding salary for the month of June 2025 (47,222 EGP) plus 5% interest Per
Annum as from the due date of payment.
·Fifty Percent (50%) of the last installment payment for the 2024/2025 season (106,250
EGP) plus 5% interest Per Annum as from the due date of payment.
·The sum of 3,700,000 EGP (Three Million Seven Hundred Thousand Egyptian Pounds)
which is the residual value of the contract which commenced on the 2nd of October
2024.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20085
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Club submitted that the Player did not properly put the Club in default
stating that that they did not receive the email containing the notice of default that the
Player sent on 8 July 2025.
14. The Club stated that it had complied with its contractual obligations, as it paid the Player
with post-dated cheques and that it provided him with the proper care following his injury
sustained in November 2024.
15. The Club raised that they had to pay the Player via post-dated cheques as they did not have
his banking coordinates until the FIFA Bank Account Registration Form (BARF) was filed by
the Player in support of the present claim.
16. The Club affirmed that they continuously paid the Player with cheques, and that for the
months he claimed were outstanding, he refused to collect the cheques, and that thus he
cannot invoke his refusal to receive payment as outstanding remuneration.
17. The Club also added that salaries under the Contract are subject to a tax deduction of 25%
and that once this deduction is applied the alleged outstanding remuneration did not
amount to the equivalent of 2 monthly salary.
18. The Club therefore made the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“The Respondent respectfully requests that the DRC:
1.To dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety.
2.To declare that the Claimant terminated the Employment Contract without just cause.
3.Alternatively, should the Chamber find any Club liability (which the Club denies): limit
any award strictly to proven net arrears, after lawful deductions and subject to mitigation.
4.Order the Claimant to bear the costs of these proceedings.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
19. On 15 September 2025, the Player filed his replica.
20. The Player asserted that he relied on the email address of the Club listed in the Transfer
Matching System, and that this email address was binding on the Club. In support of his
position, the Player filed a copy of the email received by one of his representatives that was
in copy of the email sent to the Club, which he raised confirmed that he had complied with
the formal requirements to terminate his Contract with just cause for outstanding
remuneration.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20085
21. The Player also affirmed that the cheques provided by the Club were those of the fifth and
seventh instalments, whereas the outstanding salaries claimed by the Player corresponded
to the eighth, ninth and tenth instalments, and that in any case these cheques demonstrate
that the Club had been consistently paying the Player a salary of EGP 47,222 per month,
contrary to its reply to the claim in which the Club affirmed that a deduction was applicable.
22. The Player also added that the Club did not provide evidence of deductions or of their legal
basis.
23. The Player raised that he was invited, via WhatsApp, to a meeting with the Club on 26
June 2025, during which he was asked to sign a termination letter, which he refused to do,
and that on 27 June 2025, he was sent a copy of the same letter.
24. The Player ended his replica by restating his initial request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
25. On 22 September 2025, the Club filed its duplica.
26. The Club maintained that it did not receive a valid email or notice of default and that thus
the Player had not fulfilled the formal requirements to terminate his contract with just
cause for outstanding remuneration.
27. In addition, the Club added that they had never received the banking details of the Player
to proceed with payment.
28. The Club raised that tax deduction should be applied and that any award should be
reflective of the actual performance of the Player, taking into account the fact that he did
not play as he was injured.
29. The Club also acknowledged having invited the Player to a meeting on 26 June 2025 but
denied having coerced him into signing a termination agreement and added that the Player
did not provide evidence of such coercion. In addition, the Club raised that the document
received by the Player via WhatsApp constituted an acknowledgement of receipt of his
dues.
30. The Club added that due consideration must be made to the Egyptian Football Association’s
regulations which allegedly stated that a player is only entitled to 25% of the value of the
contract for the following season in addition to his entitlement for the season that just
ended.
31. The Club therefore added that any compensation should be limited to 25% of the value of
the Contract for the season 2025-2026 as provided under the Contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20085
32. The Club also mentioned that the cheques submitted in its initial reply were served as
evidence of a longstanding and continuous practice that the Player was paid by bank
cheque, but not that they should serve as evidence of payment of the alleged outstanding
claimed by the Player. The Club maintained that the Player refused to attend the Club to
collect his entitlement.
33. Ultimately, the Club stated that its finance department had an oversight in failing to apply
the proper tax withholding on the Player’s salary, and that this should be taken into account
in case an award is granted in favour of the Player, and that any amount awarded should
take into account the proper withholdings.
34. The Club concluded by stating the following request for relief, quoted verbatim:
“Accordingly, the Club respectfully requests that the DRC:
1. Admit and fully take into account these supplemental comments together with the
Club’s submission dated 5 September 2025;
2. To dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety.
3. Alternatively, should the DRC find any Club liability (which the Club denies):
a. Limit any compensation strictly to the Player’s dues for the 2024/2025 season
and, at most, 25% of the value of the contract for the following season (2025/2026),
pursuant to Art. 17(1) RSTP and applicable Egyptian rules;
b. Calculate any award after applying the contractual tax deduction (25%)
deducting any amounts already paid or tendered.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20085
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. First of all, the Single Judged 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 24 July 2025 and submitted for
decision on 28 January 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.
36. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Nigerian player and an Egyptian club.
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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. 9
REF. FPSD-20085
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
40. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether the Player had just cause to terminate his contract for
outstanding remuneration.
41. On one hand, the Player submitted that the Club failed to pay him his salaries of April, May
and June 2025, and that he complied with the formal requirements to terminate his
Contract with just cause for outstanding remuneration.
42. On the other hand, the Club challenged the Player’s compliance with the formal
requirements, stating that it never received a notice of default, that the Player did not have
2 monthly salaries outstanding as tax withholdings applied and that in any case the Player
refused to receive payment of his salaries as he did not collect his checks nor provided his
banking coordinates.
43. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Player met the formal requirements to terminate his contract for outstanding
remuneration, and thus if he terminated his Contract with just cause and assess the
consequences thereof.
44. The Single Judge moved on to whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled, and if the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent.
45. The Single Judge first referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations which
provides, quoted verbatim:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due
dates, the player will be deemed to have a 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). Alternative provisions in contracts
existing at the time of this provision coming into force may be considered.”
Notice of default:
46. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to (April, May and June 2025). Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the
Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 8 July
2025, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 24 July 2025.
47. However, the Single Judge, also noted the Club’s allegation that it did not receive the notice
of default that the Player filed in support of his claim.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20085
48. After careful review of the evidence on file, the Single Judge observed that the Player duly
sent an email to the Club on 8 July 2025.
49. Furthermore, after consultation of the TMS by the FIFA general secretariat, pursuant to art.
13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, it appears that as of the date of the decision, the Club
still used the email to which the Player sent the default notice as its official contact address
and was active on the TMS.
50. In that sense, the arguments raised by the Club to this effect were deemed moot by the
Single Judge as email addresses listed in TMS by clubs are binding on them, as per art. 7
par. b) of Annex 3 of the Regulations. The Single Judge also took note that the Club was
notified of the claim through that same email address and replied.
51. In consideration of the above, it appears that the Club was duly notified that the Player had
outstanding remuneration, namely its salaries of April and May 2025, and that it validly
sent a default notice to the Club granting it 15-days to remedy its default, thus meeting the
formal requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
Outstanding remuneration:
52. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved on to analyse whether the
Player’s salaries for April and May 2025 remained outstanding.
53. The Single Judge first acknowledged the argument raised by the Club, that tax deductions
were applicable to the monthly salaries, and that in consequence the amounts due to the
Player did not amount to the value two monthly salaries.
54. However, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not provide evidence regarding the legal
basis for tax withholdings and their calculations, thus not discharging its burden of proof
under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
55. In addition, the Single Judge observed that despite the Club’s allegations it appears that the
Player was consistently paid EGP 47,222 as per the terms of the Contract, and as evidenced
by the cheques for the 5th and 7th instalments provided by the Club.
56. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the
burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract
concluded between the parties.
57. Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the Respondent (namely copies of the cheques
receipt for the 5th and 7th instalments due under the Contract) did not prove to its
comfortable satisfaction the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Player.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20085
58. The Single Judge took note that the Respondent explained that theses copies of the
cheques did not serve to prove payment of the outstanding amount but prove the payment
method of the Player’s remuneration. However, the Single Judge noted that the Club did
not provide evidence that it had prepared the cheques for the outstanding salaries claimed
by the Player nor that it invited the Player to collect them, undermining its position.
59. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
60. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
61. 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 three monthly
salaries under the contract, amounting to EGP 141,666, as well as 50 % of the second
instalment of art. 6 par. 1 of the Contract amounting to EGP 106,250.
62. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
EGP 247,916 (i.e. 3 times EGP 47,222) plus EGP 106,250.
63. 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 as follows:
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 47,222 from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 47,222 from 1 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 47,222 from 1 June 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 106,250 from 1 July 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
64. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20085
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.
65. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
66. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as a general
rule, the compensation to be paid to a player by a club shall be equal to the residual value
of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless this player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract (cf., art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations).
67. 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 Chamber concluded that the amount of EGP 3,700,000 (i.e., EGP 1,600,000 for the
2025/2026 and EGP 2,100,000 for 2026/2027) serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
68. 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.
69. 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).
70. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
71. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EGP 3,700,000 (i.e., EGP 1,600,000 for the 2025/2026 and EGP
2,100,000 for 2026/2027), as the residual value of the contract.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20085
72. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request the Single Judge did not award interest
on the compensation.
d. Costs
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20085
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Musa Ephraim Feng, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ElSekka Elhadid, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EGP 247,916 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 47,222 from 1 April 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 47,222 from 1 May 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 47,222 from 1 June 2025 until the date of effective
payment; and
- 5% p.a. over the amount of EGP 106,250 from 1 July 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
- EGP 3,700,000 as compensation for breach of contract
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20085
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. 16