Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7940
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 April 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Ivan Graf
BY:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA and France), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon GAUCI (Malta), member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT:
Ivan Graf, Croatia
Represented by Go 4 Sports AG
RESPONDENT:
Shakhter, Kazakhstan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7940
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 2 February 2021, the Croatian player Ivan Graf (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Kazakhstani club, Shakhter (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the first contract) valid as from the date of signature until
30 November 2022.
2.
According to clause 3 of the first contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant
a monthly salary of KZT 4,500,000 to be paid no later than the 10 day “of the month following
the calculated one in proportion to the hours worked”.
3.
According to clause 3.7 of the first contract “all amounts in this Contract are indicated after
tax deduction ("net"), unless otherwise specified in certain provisions of the Contract. The Club
shall transfer any taxes, social contributions and other obligatory payment related to the
Employee’s labor activities to the budget at the rate of the current legislation of the Republic of
Kazakhstan”.
4.
According to clause 7 of the first contract, inter alia:
“[…]
7.4 In case of early termination of the Contract at the Initiative of the Employee in the absence
of guilty actions of the Club, or at the initiative of the Club, but in the presence of guilty actions
of the Employee, the Employee is obliged to pay the Club compensation for early termination of
the Contract in the amount of no more than the employee’s monthly salary for 3 (three) months
in tenge. This compensation is final and cannot be reduced or increased depending on the
further employment of the Employee. The specified payment shall be made within 2 (two)
months from the date of termination of the Contract.
7.5 In case of early termination of the Contract at the Initiative of the Club in the absence of
guilty actions of the Employee, or at the initiative of the Employee, but in the presence of guilty
actions of the Club, the Club is obliged to pay the Employee compensation for early termination
of the Contract in the amount of no more than the employee’s monthly salary for 3 (three)
months in tenge. This compensation is final and cannot be reduced or increased depending on
the further employment of the Employee. The specified payment shall be made within 2 (two)
months from the date of termination of the Contract.
[…]”
5.
On 29 September 2021, the Player and the Club signed an additional agreement to the
contract (hereinafter: the second contract) pursuant to which the first contract was
extended until 30 November 2023.
6.
According to clause 1 of the second contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the
Claimant a monthly net salary of KZT 1,800,000 as from 1 January 2022.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7940
7.
According to the second contract:
“3. Clause 7.4, and 7.5. Contracts -exclude.
4. In Appendix N°2 to the Agreement, clause 2, supplement clause 2.1., which shall be stated as
follows “For the proper fulfilment by the Employee of the obligations under this employment
contract, the Employer undertakes to pay the Employee from 01.01.2022 a monthly sum of
money from sponsorship funds in proportion to the hours worked in the following amount:
3 200 000 (three million two hundred thousand) tenge (“net”)
5. In the season of 2022, the employee is additionally set a lump sum payment in the amount of
20 000 000 (twenty million) tenge (“net), which is paid until 10.04.2022”.
8.
On 10 September 2021, the Club issued a letter of guarantee, indicating that the Club
guarantees to pay a bonus for participation in the UEFA Conference League in the amount
of KZT 3,360,000 until 30 September 2021.
9.
On 16 November 2021, the Club issued a letter of guarantee, indicating that the Club
guarantees to pay a bonus for participation in Olimpbet Football Championship among
Premier League teams and the RK Cup drawing in the amount of KZT 2,903,125 until 20
February 2022.
10. On 12 January 2022, the Player tested positive for COVID-19.
11. On 31 August 2022, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
KZT 36,503,125 corresponding to the salaries from January to August 2022, the Conference
League 2021 bonus and the bonus stated in the guarantee letter dated 16 November 2021.
The Claimant set a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
12. On 5 September 2022, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the amount of KZT 3,200,000.
13. On 12 September 2022, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the amount of KZT 1,800,000.
14. On 16 September 2022, the Player sent a termination notice to the Respondent considering
that more than 2 monthly salaries remained allegedly unpaid.
15. On 10 January 2023, the Player signed an employment contract with the club Kyzyl-Zhar SK,
valid as from the date of signature until 15 November 2023, including a monthly net salary
of KZT 1,500,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 20 October 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7940
a. Position of the Claimant
17. On 20 October 2022, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA
for breach of contract.
18. According to the Claimant, he terminated the contract with just cause in accordance with
art 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) as more than 2
salaries were due and requested payment of his outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract.
19. The Claimant requested the following relief:
a) “To uphold that the contract was unilaterally breached without just cause by the
Respondent, according to FIFA RSTP, IV. art. 14. & art. 14bis and according to Swiss law
CO, art. 337 par. 1.a) & art. 337b);
b) To uphold the right of the Claimant to receive the outstanding salaries, bonuses and the
compensation until the end of his contract, i.e. until 30 November 2023, for the breach of
the contract by the Respondent, according to the FIFA RSTP, IV. art. 14., 14bis & 17.1. and
according to Swiss CO, art. 337 par. 1.a), art. 337b, 339 par. 1., and to order to the
Respondent to pay as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7940
c) 5 % interest rate p.a. is applicable for every single payment since the due date until the
day of effective payment for the due amounts of KZT 21’503’125. -- under b) i-ix; according
to Swiss CO, art. 104 and 339 par. 1;
d) 5 % interest rate p.a. is applicable for the compensation of KZT 75’000’000. -- under b) xxi); upon the date of termination from 16.09.2022 until the day of effective payment,
according to Swiss CO, art.104 and 339 par. 1;
e) To impose disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent, according to FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, art. 14bis. 17.4”.
b. Position of the Respondent
20. In its reply, with regards to the outstanding remuneration, the Respondent stated that it
paid the total amount of KZT 100,128,372.85 and that the due amount by the Club to the
Player as of 31 August 2022 was KZT 10,462,650.71. The Club considered that the amount
requested by the Player of KZT 21,503,125 was not due.
21. The Club further added that in January 2022 the “accruals and payments” were not made
by it, considering that the Player tested positive to a COVID test and was unable to play,
therefore, according to the Club the non-payment was justified on the basis of clause 3.3
of the first contract and clause 2.1 of the second contract.
22. With regards to the termination of the contract, the Club acknowledged that as of the day
of termination the Player had valid reason to terminate the contract considering that the
amount due by the Club was KZT 10,462,650.71. The Club clarified the following: “the
Player’s two-monthly salary is 5,000,000 tenge net x2= 10,000,000 tenge net, while the actual
debt of the Club after all payments to the Player is 10,462,650.71 tenge net”.
23. With regards to the compensation, the Club referred to clause 7.6 of the contract which
according to the Club shall apply. In case the Chamber decides that clause 7.6 is invalid, the
Club argued that no additional compensation shall be awarded to the Player as it would be
unreasonable and disproportionate.
24. The Respondent requested the following relief:
a) “To accept the claim of the Claimant Ivan Graf in part.
b) The Defendant, Football Club Shakhtar, is to pay the Claimant, Mr. Edin Rustemovich, the
amount of KZT 10,462,650.71 net as outstanding consideration plus 5% per annum on the
said amount from the date of payment to the date of actual payment.
c) The Defendant, Football Club Shakhtar, must pay the Claimant, Mr. Edin Rustemovich, the
amount of 15,000,000 tenge net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% per annum
on the specified amount from September 16, 2022 until the date of actual payment.
d) Claimant’s further claims are dismissed”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7940
25. It is to be noted that the Respondent used another name to refer to the Claimant in its
request for relief.
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
26. The Claimant acknowledged the payments of the Respondent. However, he specified that
in addition to the amount that the Respondent recognized due (KZT 10,462,650.71), the
following amounts shall be added:
a) KZT 4,500,000: December 2021, salary and sponsorship funds;
b) KZT 1,486,957: January 2022, rest of salary KZT 1,800,000 (only KZT 313,043 paid)
c) KZT 2,643,478: January 2022, rest of sponsorship funds KZT3,200,000 (only KZT 556,552
paid)
d) KZT 666,667: February 2022, rest of sponsorship funds KZT 3,200,000 (only KZT
2,533,333 paid)
Total: KZT 9,297,102.
27. Additionally, the Claimant stated that “in accordance with the Respondent’s listing the amount
of KZT 10’462’650.71 was only due as per day of termination. However, the listing had a clerical
error, whereof the amount was due of KZT 10,468,606.85, i.e. KZT 5’956.14 more as previously
listed by the Respondent”.
28. The Claimant finally concluded that at the time of the termination the amount due by the
Club was KZT 19,765,708.85.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
29. The arguments of the Respondent remained unchanged.
30. The Respondent argued that the amount due at the termination was KZT 10,562,650.71.
31. The Respondent further added that it did not pay December and January salaries
considering that:
“In clause 6.1. The Parties have agreed that "The amount of the benefit paid in connection
with an employment injury or occupational disease of the Employee is one hundred percent
of the average wage." Covid disease is not an employment injury or an occupational disease
of an Employee. In this regard, he was accrued and paid wages in proportion to the hours
worked, namely from January 24, 2022, when the Player actually arrived at the training
camp, which is confirmed by an electronic ticket and boarding passes for the ZagrebIstanbul-Antalya flight. All supporting documents were attached to Respondent’s first
response.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7940
Thus, the facts show that the Player during the period from December to January 24, 2022
was not at the location of the Respondent’s Club, and, therefore, did not fulfil his labor
duties under the Agreement, and therefore cannot claim payment for this time”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 20 October 2022 and submitted
for decision on 12 April 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2022 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.
33. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player from Croatia and a club
from Kazakhstan.
34. 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 Players (October 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 October 2022, the October 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
35. 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 Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
36. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established; the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7940
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 the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the main dispute is the justice of the early termination
of the contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial
obligations by the Respondent as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
38. 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.
39. 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).
40. The Chamber noted that at the moment the default notice was sent more than 2 salaries
were due, as acknowledged by the Player and the Club, the Chamber further noted that
the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 31
August 2022, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 16
September 2022.
41. 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. However, the Respondent does not dispute that it owed more than 2 salaries
to the Claimant.
42. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
43. 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. In
doing so, the DRC started by examining the outstanding amounts sought by the Player.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7940
44. As to the amount of KZT 10,462,650.71, the Chamber observed that this amount is not
contested by the Respondent and thus shall be awarded. The Chamber further noted,
according to the calculations and documents provided by the Parties that a clerical error
occurred when the Club provided its calculations. As such, the DRC concluded that the
amount of KZT 5,956.14 shall be added to the overall sum.
45. As to December 2021, January 2022 and February 2022 payments, the Chamber noted that
the Respondent indicated that it did not pay the full amount, considering that the wording
of contract stated that the salary is to be paid “in proportion to the hours worked” and that
the Player was partially absent.
46. The Chamber also noted that the Club in various part of its reply (calculation of monthly
salary and compensation of the salary) stated that the base salary of the Player is KZT
4,500,000 or KZT 5,000,000. Moreover, the Chamber recalled its longstanding
jurisprudence in accordance with sickness is not a valid justification for the non-payment
of a player’s remuneration. In particular, the Chamber stressed that accepting the position
of the club would be contrary to FIFA regulations, as the Club owes a general duty of care
to the Player during illness or in case of injury - even more so in the context of a global
pandemic. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Player is entitled to the unpaid
remuneration during the Player’s sickness with COVID-19, KZT 9,297,102.
47. The Chamber also noted that September 2022 salary (KZT 5,000,000) shall be included as
part of the outstanding remuneration, in that no evidence has been presented that this
sum has been paid.
48. 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., KZT
24,765,708.9 (i.e., KZT 10,462,650.71 plus KZT 5,956.14 plus KZT 9,297,102 plus KZT
5,000,000).
49. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the following amounts:
a) On the amount of KZT 4,500,000 5 % interest as from 11 January 2022 until the
effective date of payment.
b) On the amount of KZT 4,130,435 plus 5 % interest as from 11 February 2022 until
the effective date of payment.
c) On the amount of KZT 666,667 plus 5 % interest as from 11 March 2022 until the
effective date of payment.
d) On the amount of KZT 10,468,606.71 plus 5 % interest as from 30 August 2022
until the effective date of payment.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-7940
e) On the amount of KZT 5,000,000 plus 5 % interest as from 16 September 2022
until the effective date of payment.
50. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club 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, 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.
51. 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 second contract at the
basis of the matter at stake.
52. 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.
53. 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 contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of KZT 70,000,000 (i.e., 5,000,000 times 14) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
54. 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.
55. Indeed, the Player found employment with Kyzyl-Zhar SK. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately KZT 1,500,000 net per
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-7940
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of KZT 13,766,129 net.
56. 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 club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
57. In this respect, the DRC remarked that the Claimant would be therefore in principle entitled
to the amount of additional compensation of KZT 15,000,000 net, i.e., three times the
monthly remuneration of the player. However, the Chamber reminded the parties that, as
per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, the overall compensation
may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract, and thus the
additional compensation is capped to the amount of mitigation.
58. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of KZT 70,000,000 (i.e., KZT 70,000,000 minus KZT 13,766,129 plus KZT 13,766,129) which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
59. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 September 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-7940
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.
63. 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.
64. 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
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-7940
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ivan Graf, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Shakhter, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
-
KZT 4,500,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
KZT 4,130,435 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 February
2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
KZT 666,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 March
2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
KZT 10,468,606.71 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30
August 2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
KZT 5,000,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
September 2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
KZT 70,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 16 September 2022 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. 14
REF. FPSD-7940
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-7940
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 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 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 16