Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01688
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Lucas Goncalves da
Silva Santos
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member
Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
CLAIMANT:
Lucas Goncalves da Silva Santos, Brazil
Represented by Pereira Netto & Chiminazzo
RESPONDENT:
Al Khaleej, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Sports Makers
Page 2 of 15
REF 20-01688
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 29 July 2020, the Saudi club, Al Khaleej (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
supposedly sent the Brazilian player, Mr. Lucas Goncalves da Silva Santos (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant), a preliminary agreement describing the conditions of an
employment relationship to be initiated between them (hereinafter: the preliminary
agreement).
2.
In accordance with the player, the preliminary agreement was sent by a club’s
representative called Mr. Ali (hereinafter: Mr. Ali) to his representative, via the electronic
message application, WhatsApp. The document contained the name of the club’s president,
Mr. Fawzi M. Al-Basha, the signature of Mr. Jaffar Alsolais (hereinafter: Mr. Jaffar)..
3.
Pursuant to the preliminary agreement, the player would be entitled to receive an initial
payment of USD 10,000 in two instalments, plus USD 5,000 as monthly salary. Additionally,
the club would also be liable to provide the player with travel tickets, medical insurance,
housing and transportation.
4.
Furthermore, the preliminary agreement established the following “this offer is a
preliminary agreement. The contract will be duly finalized upon he arriving to Saudi Arabia,
as per the rules and regulations of Saudi Labor Law. The offer is preliminary until the player
undergoes a clinical and field examination”.
5.
Finally, the preliminary agreement mentioned that the offer was only valid for 24 hours.
6.
After having received the preliminary agreement as such, the player counter-signed it.
7.
On 25 August 2020, the player terminated his previous employment relationship with the
Brazilian club, Santa Cruz Futebol Clube.
8.
On an unspecified date in September 2020, the player’s representative and Mr. Ali
exchanged messages via WhatsApp. In particular, said parties had the following
conversation:
“[Mr. Ali] Look I will explain this to you one time only and I hope you understand it. When
we offered Lucas a preliminary offer, that was non binding and [we] were hoping to secure
our position on the league very easily and then we get him here for trails. That was not
possible because we just secured our position three days ago.
[Player’s representative] Mr Ali, please, I have 14 years in football. I am not crazy.
[Mr. Ali] We also changed the coach and he wanted someone else in his position.
Page 3 of 15
REF 20-01688
[Player’s representative] If preliminary I don’t terminate contract here.
[Mr. Ali] Your termination of contract was your decision not ours. I did not tell you to do
so. Anyway, that is the situation. I am sorry for Lucas. Maybe we can do business together
in the future”.
9.
On 2 October 2020, the player sent the club a default notice stating that he was informed
that the preliminary agreement would not be fulfilled by the club. As such, the player
requested payment of USD 70,000 within 10 days, to no avail.
10.
On an unspecified date, the player signed a new employment agreement with the Brazilian
club Moto Club de São Luis (hereinafter: Moto Club SL), valid as from 29 October 2020
until 7 May 2021. Accordingly, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration of BRL
1,100.
11.
On an unspecified date, the player also signed an employment agreement with the Brazilian
club Retro Futebol Clube Brasil (hereinafter: Retro FCB), valid as from 12 January 2021 until
31 December 2021. Accordingly, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration of BRL
3,000.
12.
In accordance with the information available in the Transfer Match System (TMS), the
season 2020/2021 in Saudi Arabia ended on 30 May 2021.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
13.
On 13 November 2020, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the player
14.
In his claim, the player pointed out that “before the necessary procedures for the Claimant’s
travel were out, the Respondent’s representatives started to act as if there was no contract
signed between the parties, claiming that the Claimant would need to be approved by the
Respondent’s new coach”. In this respect, the player held that the club departed from the
execution of the preliminary agreement without just cause. Furthermore, the player claimed
that any issue involving the execution of the preliminary agreements should have been
verified before the document was sent.
15.
In continuation, the player stressed that “the hiring was confirmed, and that both visa and
the tickets would be sent [by the club to the player], and that the Claimant could terminate
his contract with his former club”. To this extent, the player referred to the Swiss law and
to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), concluding that it was clear
that the club had no just cause to depart from its obligations and, hence, “that the
Respondent must respond for all financial losses by the Claimant”.
Page 4 of 15
REF 20-01688
16.
Having stated the above, the player claimed that the principles of venire contra factum
proprium and pacta sunt servanda should also be considered in the case at stake, as well
as the contents of art. 12bis and 24bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (RSTP).
17.
Based on the above, the player requested USD 70,000 as compensation for breach of
contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the claim until the date of effective
payment.
b.
The reply of the club
18.
In its reply, the club firstly stressed that he was not aware nor responsible for the delivery
of the preliminary agreement, or for any communication with the player’s representative.
In this respect, the club stressed that Mr. Ali was not an employee of the club nor an
authorised person to undertake negotiations, as well as that no official communication was
ever exchanged between the player and the club via “official means”.
19.
Subsequently, the club remarked that the preliminary agreement was not signed by any
club’s legal representatives and, in any event, that the sports director (i.e. Mr. Jaffar) was
not authorized to sign any employment-related documents on behalf of the club. Moreover,
the club also pointed out that the signature inserted in the preliminary agreement is
“completely different” from the signature of Mr. Jaffar.
20.
The club then pointed out that the preliminary agreement did not include all the elements
and criteria to be considered as an employment contract because it missed the stamp of
the club and the correct signature of the parties.
21.
In addition, the club made the following remarks in response to the player’s allegations:
a. The club did not issued any offer through any mean of communication and there was
no valid agreement between the parties. Thus, “not only did the player’s agent
conducted negotiation via unofficial means of communication, he was unfortunately
contacted by a person which is not an employee of the club”;
b. The player’s representative should have had the minimum diligence to contact the club
via official means and/to confirm the registration with the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation (SAFF);
c. The contract is full of “abnormalities”, taking into consideration that (a) it does not
contain the letter head and stamp of the club; (b) the signature of the club’s
representative does not match his other signatures in official documents; and (c) Mr.
Jaffar was not competent to sign employment-related documents;
d. The screenshots of the WhatsApp conversations could not be considered as objective
evidence. Accordingly, the messages could not establish, beyond doubt, that the
Page 5 of 15
REF 20-01688
preliminary agreement was concluded between the club’s and the player’s
representatives; and
e. The preliminary agreement was not a valid and binding document to the parties, but
just an employment offer, “which does not include all the essentialia negotti”.
22.
In light of the above, the club requested the player’s claim to be entirely rejected.
c. The rejoinder of the player
23.
In his rejoinder, the player reiterated his allegations regarding the validity of the preliminary
agreement concluded between the parties.
24.
As to the legitimacy of Mr. Ali, the player stated the following: ”the fact that the
negotiations were not carry out in the supposedly usual manner also does not serve as a
defence for the club, as the player and his manager do not have subsidies to know in
advance which are the usual means of communication of the club or even which are the
emails used”. Moreover, the player maintained that “the Club did not demonstrate that it
had carried out any procedure to investigate and punish [Mr. Ali], it simply claimed the
irregularity in its performance but did not present any nonconformity or performance in the
sense of inhibiting Mr. Ali”.
25.
In continuation, the player informed that he could not know that the preliminary agreement
did not have the characteristics usually used by the club. Consequently, the player is of the
opinion that the preliminary agreement is to be considered valid.
26.
As to the signature contained in the preliminary agreement, the player pointed out that it
belonged to Mr. Jaffar Alsolais instead of Mr. Jafar Slais, as claimed by the club. Thus, the
player considered that the differences between the two signatures was normal.
27.
The foregoing having been established, the player reiterated his requests for relief.
d. The final comments of the club
28.
Lastly, the club provided its final comments in relation to the player’s rejoinder.
29.
In this context, the club once again strongly disputed the validity of the preliminary
agreement. Accordingly, the club recalled that it did not have any relationship with Mr. Ali
and, hence, that the player’s representative lacked diligence.
30.
Subsequently, the club also repeated his arguments regarding the formal inconsistencies of
the preliminary agreement. Furthermore, the club clarified that there is only one Mr. Jaffar,
with two different written surnames (i.e. Alsolais and Slais) because of the translation from
Arabic to English.
Page 6 of 15
REF 20-01688
31.
Finally, the club held that the player’s new contractual situation should be considered in the
event of FIFA understanding that a compensation should be awarded to the player. In this
regard, the club indicated that the player was omitting information and that he has
apparently signed two employment contracts with the Brazilian clubs, Moto Club SL and
Retro FCB.
32.
At the end, the club echoed its requests for relief and reiterated that the claim should be
entirely rejected.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
33.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 13 November 2020 and
submitted for decision on 12 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of
the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
34.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), 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 Saudi club.
35.
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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 13 November 2020, the October 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
36.
Burden of proof
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
Page 7 of 15
REF 20-01688
37.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
38.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations
it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered
pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
39.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether there was an
employment relationship between them and, if so, the consequences thereof.
40.
In this context, the DRC considered that it was its task to determine the following:
a. Is the preliminary agreement a valid and binding document on the parties?
b. Did the club have just cause to terminate the employment relationship (if any)?
c. What are the consequences of the termination?
41.
The DRC then proceeded then to analyse each matter in turn.
i. Is the preliminary agreement a valid and binding document on
the parties?
42.
First and foremost, the members of the Chamber wished to recall FIFA’s well-established
jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as
valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it
should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the
contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee.
43.
In casu, the DRC noted that the club disputed the validity of the preliminary agreement by
stressing that it did not fulfil the abovementioned requirements. In particular, the Chamber
observed that the club pointed out that the preliminary agreement did not contain the
club’s stamp or silk. Moreover, the club also claimed that the signature of its representative
added to the preliminary agreement was invalid because: (i) it was different from the name
subscribed (i.e. it should have been signed by the president, but in fact was signed by Mr.
Jaffar); (ii) Mr. Jaffar’s signature actual is different from the one found in the preliminary
Page 8 of 15
REF 20-01688
agreement; and (iii) Mr. Jaffar did not have powers to conclude employment-related
documents such as the only sub judice.
44.
After a careful analysis of the preliminary agreement and in spite of the club’s
argumentation on the contrary, the DRC was satisfied with the conclusion that all essential
elements were included in the preliminary agreement filed by the player. In other words,
the Chamber considered that the document provides for the duration of the employment
relationship and the payable remuneration to the player, as well as it relates to the player
as being employed as a footballer with the club, and contains the signature of both parties,
as well as their proper identification.
45.
In connection with the above, the DRC firstly wished to outline that, in line with the
Chamber’s long-standing jurisprudence, the internal proxy rule of one of the parties to a
contract cannot have legal effect on the validity of the contract itself, unless the contracting
party has been duly informed of its contents. With this in mind, the DRC considered that
the club’s allegation regarding the “abnormalities” of the preliminary agreement vis-à-vis
the club’s standard format (i.e. the club’s silk and stamp) could not be upheld due to the
lack of information demandable from the player in this regard.
46.
As to the signature of the parties, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, FIFA’s
deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the one
of alleged falsified signatures of documents, and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the
competent national criminal authority. In addition, the DRC also referred to the content of
art. 12 par. 3 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.
47.
In doing so, the DRC considered that it was up to the club to prove that the player had
been informed of its internal proxy rules regarding the signature of employment-related
documents by its legal representatives and/or that the signature added to the preliminary
agreement was not authentic.
48.
With this in mind, the Chamber turned its attention to the documentation on file and noted
that the club confirmed that Mr. Jaffar was its representative (i.e. the sports director).
Moreover, the club filed a copy of Mr. Jaffar’s employment contract with the club in
accordance to which he was in charge of, inter alia: “[preparing] contracts for professional
players and all the required papers”.
49.
Consequently, the DRC deemed that the fact that the preliminary agreement was signed
by the club’s sports director in spite of the chairperson and/or the CEO could not be
considered as a sufficient reason to render the contract invalid. Put differently, taking into
consideration Mr. Jaffar’s role in the club’s management, the Chamber was of the opinion
that the player could assume in good faith that Mr. Jaffar was duly authorized to act on the
club’s behalf as well as Mr. Ali, who was only responsible for forwarding the documentation
from one part to another.
Page 9 of 15
REF 20-01688
50.
Subsequently, the DRC went on addressing the club’s allegation regarding the fact that Mr.
Jaffar’s signature contained in the preliminary agreement was not authentic.
51.
By doing so, the DRC carefully analysed the documentation brought forward by the parties
and acknowledged that the club failed to provide any convincing evidence capable of
demonstrating that the signature added to the preliminary agreement could not be
attributable to Mr. Jaffar, such as a copy of his passport, ID or any other certified/public
document.
52.
In particular, the Chamber carefully observed that, in support of its allegations, the club
only filed a copy of Mr. Jaffar’s employment contract (i.e. a private agreement) – which
could not be considered conclusive for investigatory purposes. As such, the DRC was firm
to determine that the club could not establish to a comfortable satisfaction degree that the
signature included in the preliminary agreement did not belong to a club official.
53.
Finally, the DRC wished to highlight that, despite the club’s allegations on this matter, the
fact that the preliminary agreement was sent to the player via WhatsApp (instead of any
other “official means of communication”) was not relevant to the outcome of the case
because the club could not demonstrate that said document was invalid.
54.
The Chamber did not fail to notice either that the player sent the club a default notice, and
the latter failed to provide any reply and/or opposition to the validity of the preliminary
agreement.
55.
Based on the foregoing and taking into consideration the overall developments of the case,
the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to set aside the argumentation of the
club and to confirm that the preliminary agreement is a valid and binding contract
concluded by the parties.
ii. Did the club have just cause to terminate the employment
relationship (if any)?
56.
In continuation, the Chamber moved to the issue of the termination.
57.
Accordingly, the DRC noted that it remained undisputed between the parties that: (i) the
club departed from the execution of the preliminary agreement before entering into force;
and (ii) the player put the club in default, to no avail. The Chamber also found it noteworthy
to reiterate that the club has never answered the player’s default notice. In this respect, the
DRC stressed that the club, when called upon by the player to fulfil the terms of the
preliminary agreement, made no remarks or reservations.
58.
In addition, the DRC noted that Mr. Ali informed the player’s representative that the club
gave up on carrying out the performance of the preliminary agreement due to the change
of coaches and based on sporting reasons only. In this regard, the DRC observed that the
Page 10 of 15
REF 20-01688
club contested the credibility of the WhatsApp messages as evidence but did not adduce
any documentation and/or argument in opposition.
59.
In light of the above, the members of the Chamber, once again by unanimous decision,
concluded that the club did not have just cause to end its employment relationship with the
player.
60.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC wished to outline that, in accordance with the
Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence, a player’s performance cannot be a valid reason
for an employer to cease paying due salaries or terminate an employment contract, as this
is a purely unilateral and subjective evaluation by the club. Thus, the DRC concurred with
the player’s argumentation that, if the club did not have the intention to hire his services, it
should have concluded so before the execution of the preliminary agreement.
61.
Therefore, the DRC deemed that the club should bear the consequences that follow.
iii. What are the consequences of the termination?
62.
Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
63.
In doing so, the Chamber referred to the content of art. 17 of the Regulations and decided
that the player should be entitled to compensation for breach of contract. Accordingly, the
DRC 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, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of
five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected
period.
64.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent 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 observed that no such clause
exists in the contract at stake (i.e. the preliminary agreement).
65.
As a consequence, the members of 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. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
Page 11 of 15
REF 20-01688
66.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the preliminary
agreement until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
USD 60,000 – instead of the USD 70,000 requested by the player – shall serve as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. At this point,
the DRC clarified that it took into consideration the player’s initial payment plus the salaries
from August 2020 to May 2021, namely the end of the sporting season in Saudi Arabia in
accordance with the TMS.
67.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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 player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
68.
Indeed, the player found employment with:
a. Moto Club SL between 29 October 2020 until 07 May 2021. In accordance with the
pertinent employment agreement, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration
of BRL 1,100 for the cited period. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player
mitigated his damages in the approximately amount of USD 404.44 (i.e. from
November to December 2020, when the player found a new employment with Retro
FCB, superseding the remaining period of the employment relationship with Moto Club
SL); and
b. Retro FCB between 12 January 2021 until 31 December 2021. In accordance with the
pertinent employment agreement, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration
of BRL 3,000 for the cited period. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player
mitigated his damages in the approximately amount of USD 2,888.86 (i.e. from January
until May 2021).
69.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations and decided
that no additional compensation should be granted to the player since said amounts are
expressly subject to the termination of the employment contract being due to overdue
payables – which was not the case at stake.
70.
On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case
at hand, the DRC decided that the club shall pay the amount of USD 56,706.70 to the
player (i.e. USD 60,000 minus USD 404.44 and minus USD 2,888.86), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
Page 12 of 15
REF 20-01688
71.
Additionally, the Chamber also decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
72.
Finally, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
73.
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 and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
74.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does
not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the
player communicates the relevant bank details to the club, provided that the decision is final
and binding, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for
the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become
effective on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
75.
The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
76.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
77.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
78.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 13 of 15
REF 20-01688
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lucas Goncalves da Silva Santos, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Khaleej, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- USD 56,706.70 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13
November 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant
bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with
this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA
languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank
details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end
of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14 of 15
REF 20-01688
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 15 of 15