Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-22526
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Tomas
Cvancara
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Vanessa PLAVJANIKOVA (Czech Republic), Member
CLAIMANT:
Tomas Cvancara, Czech Republic
Represented by Sami Dinc
RESPONDENT:
Antalyaspor A.S, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-22526
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the present case are the following:
-
the Czech player, Tomas Cvancara (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
-
the Turkish club, Antalyaspor A.S (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent).
2.
On 19 July 2025, the Player and the Club entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid until 30 June 2026.
3.
According to the Contract the Player was entitled to EUR 900,000 net payable as follows:
4.
-
On 31 July 2025: EUR 90,000.00 net;
-
On 30 September 2025: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 31 October 2025: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 30 November 2025: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 31 December 2025: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 31 January 2026: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 28 February 2026: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 31 March 2026: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 30 April 2026: EUR 81,000.00 net;
-
On 31 May 2026: EUR 81,000.00 net; and
-
On 30 June 2026: EUR 81,000.00 net.
Par. 1 of the special provisions of the Contract read as follows:
“Amounts mentioned under this contract are net of Turkish taxes which are subject to
stoppage only. The Club will be responsible to pay any Turkish taxes on behalf of the Player
if due. It is expressly agreed that all the amounts mentioned in the contract are net from any
kind of tax, including but not limited income tax, solidarity contribution, deduction, social
contribution/insurance, stamp or other contribution that has been imposed or might be
imposed in the future by the Turkish state. It is thus expressly agreed that in case the Turkish
Tax Authorities and/or the Turkish State request/demand at any moment that the Player pays
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-22526
any amount whatsoever for income tax or any kind of other additional tax, solidarity
contribution, or any kind of tax burden whatsoever at any time in the future with respect to
the income of the player exclusively from the present contract and in general with respect to
the employment relationship of the Player with the Club and the terms thereof, the said
payable amounts will be covered by the Club which will be obliged to pay the amounts to the
Player at his request (even if the Player has not yet paid the said amounts) or directly to the
Turkish State or other competent authorities on behalf of the player if it is possible and it is
so requested by the Player. In the event that the Club fails to comply with its obligations under
this clause, it shall be solely responsible for, and liable to pay any penalties, interest,
surcharges, taxes, or other charges of whatsoever nature arising from such non-compliance
and fully indemnify and hold the Player harmless.”
5.
According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 24
July 2025, the Player, the Club and the German club, Borussia Mönchengladbach
(hereinafter: Borussia) concluded a loan agreement, in order transfer the Player on a loan
basis from Borussia to the Club.
6.
On 11 December 2025, the Player put the Club in default requesting payment of EUR
216,000 corresponding to unpaid salaries. The Player granted 15 days to the Club to
remedy the default.
7.
On 27 December 2025, the Claimant sent a termination notice to the Respondent.
8.
According to the information retrieved from TMS, on 9 January 2026, the Claimant returned
from the loan to Borussia.
9.
On 22 January 2026, the Player, Borussia and the Scottish club, Celtic FC (hereinafter: Celtic)
concluded a loan agreement, in order to transfer the Player on a loan basis from Borussia
to Celtic until 30 June 2026.
10. On the same day, 22 January 2026, the Claimant and Celtic concluded an employment
contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2026. Pursuant to the mentioned
contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly gross salary of GBP 156,000 and GBP 3,000
as “accommodation expenses”. Pursuant to schedule 2 of the mentioned contract: “all sums
payable under and in terms of this Agreement shall, unless otherwise expressly provided, be
subject to deduction of income tax, national insurance, and any other deductions in accordance
with the law prevailing from time to time.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-22526
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 5 January 2026, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
12. The Player lodged a claim for breach of contract. He argued that he had just cause to
terminate the Contract pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), given that the Club had failed to pay more than two
monthly salaries on their due dates. The Player further explained that he had placed the
Club in default and granted it a 15-day deadline to remedy the breach; however, the Club
did not comply within the deadline provided.
13. As to the outstanding remuneration, the Claimant requested payment of EUR 288,900 net,
which corresponded to the outstanding remuneration until 27 December 2025. In this
respect, as to interest, he requested to be awarded interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 54,000 net as from 30 September 2025;
On the amount of EUR 81,000 net as from 31 October 2025;
On the amount of EUR 81,000 net as from 30 November;
On the amount of EUR 72,900 net as from 27 December 2025.
14. As to the compensation, he requested the residual value amounting to EUR 494,100 net
and additional compensation of EUR 486,000 (6 monthly salaries).
15. In view of the foregoing the Claimant requested the following relief:
“10.1 The Claimant firstly would like to request you to make a decision that the Respondent
has to pay the overdue and unpaid amount of 288.900,00-Euro (Two Hundred Eighty-Eight
Thousand Nine Hundred Euros) net with its 5% p.a. interest starting from the due dates stated
above in 4.2, until the date of effective payment,
10.2. The Claimant secondly would like to request you to make a decision that the unilateral
termination made by the Claimant is with just cause and in line with the jurisprudence of
FIFA and the CAS, in particularly with the Article 14bis of FIFA RSTP.
10.3. The Claimant thirdly would like to request a compensation of 494.100,00-Euro (Four
Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred Euros) net with its 5% p.a. interest starting
from the termination date of 27 December 2025 until the date of effective payment,
corresponding the remaining part of the contractual relation.
10.4. The Claimant asks FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay an additional compensation
of 486.000,00-Euro (Four Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand Euros), in accordance with the article
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-22526
17/1(i0 FIFA RSTP with its 5% p.a, interest starting from the termination date of 27 December
2025 until the date of effective payment.
10.5. The Claimant herein also requests the Esteem Chamber to impose the necessary
sanctions determined in the Article 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players ("RSTP") considering that the Respondent was put in default in writing and had
been granted (15 days) a deadline to comply with its financial obligations within the notice
dated 11.12.2025.
10.6. In consideration of the fact that the Respondent caused the Claimant to file the case
herein, we would like to request your honorable chamber to make a decision that the judicial
costs and the attorneyship fees that the Claimant is faced with shall be paid by the
Respondent.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club rejected the Player’s claim. The Club argued that it paid the Player the
amount of EUR 117,000 and TRY 625,000 equivalent to EUR 13,001.37. Accordingly, the
Player’s arguments were inaccurate and lacked factual foundation.
17. Regarding the Player’s request for compensation, the Club mentioned that the Player
executed a contract with Celtic and that the amounts agreed therein must be deducted. In
this respect, the Club requested to obtain a copy of it.
18. Moreover, the Club mentioned financial difficulties and that the Player terminated the
Contract in a short period, in bad faith. According to the Club, “it was clear that the Player
took advantage of the Club’s vulnerable financial position at the time to depart”.
19. Furthermore, the Respondent contested the Player’s requests for attorneys’ fees and
additional compensation, arguing that such amounts are only applicable in cases where
the termination is effected in good faith, which, in its view, was not the case.
20. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“We formally object to the Claimant's demands;
We submit that the actual outstanding amount, if any, is lower than the amount claimed;
Without prejudice to our position, should the Chamber decide to award compensation for
breach of contract, we respectfully request that the Scottish FA be formally approached to
obtain and review the employment contract executed between the Player and Celtic Club,
effective from 22 January 2026 until 30 June 2026, before rendering any decision”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-22526
c. Additional comments of the Claimant regarding the Club’s payments
21. The Claimant mentioned that the payments in TRY currency corresponded to match bonus
payments as clearly designated in the bank statements and therefore, do not constitute a
fulfilment of the primary financial obligations. The Claimant further mentioned that he
received as salaries EUR 117,000 (EUR 36,000 and EUR 81,000). The Claimant however,
mentioned that these payments were already taken into account in the Player’s claim.
22. As to his employment situation, the Claimant mentioned that until 22 January 2026 (date
of signature with Celtic), the “direct financial loss” (3 days in December and 21 days in
January 2026) corresponded to EUR 64,800. Moreover, he mentioned that the new contract
did not stipulate net amounts, and that his net income amounts to GBP 85,252.25. In any
case, he requested 6 monthly salaries.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-22526
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 5 January 2026 and submitted for decision on
19 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.
24. 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 (July 2025 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Czech player and a Turkish club.
25. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
26. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
27. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-22526
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
28. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that the Claimant
maintained that he had just cause to terminate the Contract pursuant to art. 14bis of the
Regulations. The Respondent, conversely, argued that it was facing financial difficulties,
that the Player’s termination was carried out in bad faith, and that the amount claimed by
the Player was inaccurate.
29. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
30. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, 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 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).
31. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the salaries of EUR 216,000. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the
Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 11
December 2025, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 27
December 2025.
32. The Chamber also 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.
33. In this respect, the Chamber observed that at the moment the Player placed the Club in
default, the Player should have received EUR 333,000 net. The Chamber also observed that
on the basis of the bank statements presented by the Club (which were not contested by
the Player), the Club made the following payments:
Date
Reason
payments TRY
14 August 2025
match bonus
150,000
22 August 2025
match bonus
175,000
19 September 2025
match bonus
150,000
7 November 2025
match bonus
150,000
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-22526
Date
Reason
payments EUR
1 September 2025
seasonal receivable
36,000
3 October 2025
seasonal receivable
81,000
34. With regard to the payments made in TRY, the Chamber concluded that, on the basis of the
bank statements, such payments clearly corresponded to match bonus payments rather
than to the Player’s fixed salary. Consequently, the Chamber determined that these
amounts cannot be deducted from the Player’s outstanding salaries and that therefore the
only amounts to be deducted from the outstanding sum due by the Club were the
payments made in EUR, totaling EUR 117,000.
35. Consequently, at the moment the Player placed the Club in default, the outstanding
remuneration amounted to EUR 216,000 net (EUR 333000 net minus EUR 117,000 net),
corresponding to more than two monthly instalments (i.e., the remaining balance of
September 2025 as well as the salaries of October and November 2025).
36. The Chamber also noted that the Club referred to financial difficulties for the non-payment
of the Player’s salaries. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, according to which financial difficulties do not
constitute a valid justification for the non-payment of the Player’s remuneration, moreover,
no evidence as such financial difficulties were provided. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the Respondent had to comply with contractually agreed payments as stipulated per
the Contract.
37. In view of the foregoing, and considering that (i) more than 2 salaries were outstanding; (ii)
the Player put the Club in default in writing on 11 December 2025, i.e., 15 days prior the
termination, on 27 December 2025 and (iii) the Respondent failed to remedy its default,
the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract in
accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
39. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, corresponded to the remaining
balance of September 2025 salary as well as the salaries of October, November and
December 2025, amounting to EUR 297,000 net.
40. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-22526
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., EUR
297,000 net.
41. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 54,000 net as from 1 October 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 81,000 net as from 1 November 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 81,000 net as from 1 December 2025 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 81,000 as from 27 December 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
42. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
43. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
44. 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).
45. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-22526
concluded that the amount of EUR 486,000 net (i.e., EUR 81,000 net x 6 - corresponding to
the instalments between January 2026 and June 2026) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
46. In continuation, the Chamber 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 DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the general obligation
to mitigate his damages.
47. Indeed, the Player found a new employment considering that upon the termination of the
Contract, the Player returned to Borussia and was subsequently transferred to Celtic on a
loan basis as of 22 January 2026 until 30 June 2026. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly gross salary of GBP 156,000 and
GBP 3,000. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Player stated that on the basis of the
letter provided by Celtic, his estimated net monthly salary amounted to GBP 85,252.25.
48. In this respect, Celtic mentioned that:
“His forecast net basic net pay for the calendar month of February 2026 is anticipated to be
£85,252.25. Please see attached his illustrative pay slip for February 2026 based purely upon
his basic net pay.
However, this number cannot be relied upon and used for the basis of a consistent net pay
figure going forward the following reasons:
o The UK tax authority is yet to assign the Player a UK a tax code which will determine how
much of an employee’s gross pay will be subject to UK income tax. As a result, this is likely
to have an impact on the Player’s basic net pay and we would expect a change to what is
presented after we incorporate this information.
o The Player benefits from both appearance fees and a player bonus pool scheme which in
essence are variable pay components. These will therefore vary month on month
depending on a number of factors as determined by the scheme, for example, whether
the Player appears in the starting 11 and whether the match is won etc. As these are
dependent on future events, it is not possible for us to offer a forward looking view as to
how the Player will benefit from this bonus scheme. The figures attached assume no bonus
participation but in practice we would expect at least bonuses to be paid.
Therefore, we are unable to provide you with a precise number at this stage owing to the
outstanding UK tax coding information we are awaiting along with the potential variable
components of the Player’s future pay.”
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-22526
49. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber determined that the effective net amount could not
be determined at the date of the claim. In this context, the Chamber deemed that in the
absence of conclusive evidence to establish that the amount presented by the Player was
the effective “net” amount, the Chamber considered the gross amount for the Player’s
mitigation, i.e., GBP 846,290.33 / EUR 970,568 corresponding to 10 days of January 2026
and the salaries between February 2026 and June 2026.
50. Therefore, the Player was entitled to receive EUR 970,568 during the overlapping period,
completely mitigating his damages.
51. Subsequently, the Chamber 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. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Respondent and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
52. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
243,000 net, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
53. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 243,000 net which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
54. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 27 December 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
56. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-22526
57. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
58. 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.
59. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
60. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
61. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-22526
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Tomas Cvancara, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Antalyaspor A.S, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
-
EUR 54,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
October 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 81,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
November 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 81,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
December 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 81,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
December 2025 until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 243,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 27 December 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.
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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-22526
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-22526
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