Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-8354
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 February 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Nemanja Ilic
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
ANDRADE José Luis (Portugal), member
VERMEER Roy (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Nemanja Ilic, Serbia
Represented by SPF Nezavisnost
RESPONDENT:
VšĮ Jonavos futbolas, Lithuania
Represented by Antanas Paulauskas
Page 2
REF FPSD-8354
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 February 2021, the Serbian player Nemanja Ilic (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Lithuanian
club FK Jonava (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid until 30 November 2021.
2.
Article 4 of the Contract states inter alia as follows:
“The Club is committed to pay to the Player a fixed monthly fee of EUR 1,500 net. The Club provides
meals once a day, accommodation, and travel tickets”
3.
Article 9 of the Contract states as follows:
“9. 1. The Contract is made according to and is governed by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania.
9.2 Any dispute or controversy arising out of this Contract or related to it, its breach, termination. or
failure, is resolved by negotiations between the parties, on the basis of the principles of goodwill and cooperation.
9.3. If the disputes cannot be settled amicably, then they are subject for settlement in accordance with
the procedures of the LFF.”
4.
On 15 March 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent requesting to be invited to return
to Lithuania within 3 days. The Claimant also requested to be paid the salary of February 2021.
5.
On 20 March 2021, the Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent granting a new deadline
until 23 March 2021.
6.
On 24 March 2021, the Claimant terminated the Contract with the Respondent adducing just
cause. The Claimant inter alia states that:
“Due to banned me to train with a team and informed to leave the Club without just cause you have
breached the Contract unilaterally and without just cause. Therefore, you leave us no other choice than
to take legal steps against your club and to continue the career with another club in order to secure my
existence.
In accordance to the FIFA Regulations for Status and Transfers of Players, Art. 14., I herewith properly
terminate the current Contract - signed on 4 February 2021 for the period from 04/02/2021 until
30/11/2021 - with immediate effect, due to the unilaterally breaching of the contract without just cause
by your club, in order to be able to continue the career. Moreover, my duty herewith stops and I will not
return to your club anymore.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-8354
7.
On 24 March 2021, the Claimant concluded an employment contract with FK Sloboda Tuzla from
Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting on 24 March 2021 and ending on 31 May 2021.
8.
On 28 July 2021, the Claimant concluded an employment contract with FK Mladost Novi Sad from
Serbia starting on 1 August 2021 and ending on 15 June 2022.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 24 November 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. According to the Claimant, on 5 March 2021, the Respondent informed him that they no longer
count on his football services and on 6 March 2021 he returned to Serbia.
11. The Claimant sustains that “the Respondent was continuously breaching the Contract without just
cause, and, what is more, it did not provide any explanation in this regard. In addition, the Respondent
simply refused to answer the Claimant’s notices and failed to amicably settle this case”.
12. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief
To uphold that the Contract was breached unilaterally and without just cause by the Respondent, due
to persistent non-compliance by the Respondent, with the training terms and financial obligations.
To uphold the Claimant right to receive the outstanding salaries and damage compensation for the
breach of the Contract by the Respondent, amounting to the residual value of the Contract, valid until
30 November 2022, according to the FIFA RSTP, Art. 14 and 17.1, and according to Swiss law. and to
order that the Respondent, Jonava FC, has to pay to the Claimant as follows:
- Outstanding remuneration of totally EUR 2,446.80, plus interest, namely:
a. The salary for 24 days in February 2021 in the amount of EUR 1,285.68 plus 5% interest from 10
March 2021, according to the Contract Article 4 Paragraphs 1 and 2, until the date of effective payment;
(EUR 1,500:28 days = EUR 53,57 per day)
The salary for 24 days in March 2021 in the amount of EUR 1,261.12 plus 5% interest from 10 April 2021,
according to the Contract Article 4 Paragraphs 1 and 2, until the date of effective payment; (EUR 1,500:31
days = EUR 48,38 per day)
Sub 2 - Compensation of totally EUR 10,692.66 for breaching the contract without just cause by the
Respondent (for the period from 24 March 2021 until 30 November 2021) plus interest, namely:
Page 4
REF FPSD-8354
c. Seven (7) days for the month of March 2021 (period of 24 March 2021 until 31 March 2021) in the
amount of EUR 338,66 with 5% interest from 24 March 2021, according to the Contract Article 4
Paragraph 1 (EUR 1,500:31 days = EUR 48,38 per day)
d. The amount of EUR 10,354 with 5% interest from 24 March 2021 - (8 salaries per EUR 1,500 according
to the Contract Article 4 Paragraph 1, for the period 1 April 2021 – 30 November 2021 (total EUR 12,000)
– deduct EUR 556 which the Claimant earned until 31 May 2021 in FK Sloboda Tuzla from Bosnia and
Herzegovina and deduct EUR 1,090 which the Claimant earned until 30 November 2021 in FK Mladost
Novi Sad from Serbia.
TOTAL (Sub - Total 1 & 2) = EUR 13,139.46
b. Position of the Respondent
13. According to the Respondent, the DRC is not competent to hear the dispute.
14. The Respondent sustains that according to Clause 9.3 of the Contract “any disputes arising out of
the Contract or related to it are subject for settlement in accordance with the procedures of the
Lithuanian Football Federation” (hereinafter: LFF).
15. The Respondent provides a letter from the Secretary General of the LFF stating that:
“a) it has a special employment-related disputes between a club and a player resolution system
established in accordance with its regulations since 2014;
b) in accordance with the LFF Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the LFF Disciplinary
Code all the employment-related disputes between a club and a player are resolved at the national court
or at the LFF Appeal Committee, which acts as a national dispute resolution body, at choice of the
claimant;
c) since 2014 the LFF Appeal Committee had dealt with numerous disputes between the clubs and the
players of an international dimension.”
16. The Respondent argues that the Contract was terminated by a mutual verbal agreement between
the parties.
17. According to Claimant at the moment of the signature of the Contract the Respondent expected
to play in the top division of Lithuanian football (A lyga) in the season of 2021. However, the
respective organs of the LFF did not grant the Respondent a licence and ultimately competed in
the second top division of Lithuanian football (I lyga) in the season of 2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-8354
18. The Respondent states that the Claimant requested “to be released from his duties under the
Contract and leave the Club in order to seek for the better career options elsewhere. The Club in principle
has not objected to the Player’s request, what has consequently led to mutual and verbal agreement of
both the Player and the Club that the Contract is rescinded, and the Player is free to leave the Club”.
19. According to the Respondent, the Claimant had not “expressed any complaints to the Club neither
before leaving the Club for Serbia nor immediately afterwards”.
20. Regarding the correspondence sent by the Claimant, the Respondent states that “these letters have
neither been signed by the Player nor included any power of attorney confirming SPFN’s right to act on
the Player’s behalf. Therefore, the Club has not considered them as representing the true will or position
of the Player, especially after the Player and the Club had just recently separated amicably”.
21. Based on the above the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant terminated the Contract
without just cause.
22. The Respondent underlines that “the Player left the Club for Serbia in accordance with the mutual
agreement between him and the Club. The Club has not requested or forced the Player to leave. It was
the Player’s wish and decision, to which the Club agreed. If the Player had wanted to play for the Club,
he would not have left Lithuania or would have returned to it”.
23. Additionally, the Respondent deems that the Claimant had violated the principle of venire contra
factum proprium because during the period from 24 March 2021 to 24 November 2022, the
Claimant had “remained silent and did not request the Club to make any payments in relation to the
Contract or the alleged breach of it.”
24. In this regard, the Respondent sustains that the “behaviour or inaction of the Player has created
legitimate expectations to the Club that any issues in relation to the Contract are resolved between the
Club and the Player, that the Player waived any of his claims and/or decided not to pursue them.”
25. Lastly, the Respondent deems that the Claimant has failed in his duty to mitigate his damages. In
relation to the contracts submitted by the Claimant with his new employers, the Respondent
underlines that:
a) the Player’s submitted contract allegedly signed with FK Sloboda Tuzla is signed only on its last page
and does not contain the signature of the representative of national association, which give rise to
believe that the Player could have conceived the true version of the contract signed with FK Sloboda
Tuzla; it is highly unlikely that the Player could have agreed to pursue his career of professional football
player for such a low salary;
b) the Player’s submitted contract allegedly signed with FK Mladost Novi Sad does not contain the exact
number of his salary – it could have been much higher than the minimum net employment wage in the
Republic of Serbia;
Page 6
REF FPSD-8354
c) the Player has not submitted any statements from his bank accounts, which would reveal the true and
exact amount received from FK Sloboda Tuzla and FK Mladost Novi Sad; the Club is of the opinion that
the Player has decided to withhold the statements from his bank accounts, since they would reveal that
the Player has received much more from FK Sloboda Tuzla and FK Mladost Novi Sad than he claims.
26. The Respondent filed the following request:
the Club hereby kindly requests the Football Tribunal to dismiss the Player’s claim in its entirety.
c. Final comments of the Claimant
27. In relation to the competence, the Claimant deems that “the respondent did not submit any evidence
to prove their allegations, NDRC procedural rules, or other LFF rules that define the relationship between
players and clubs in the event of a dispute “. “The Respondent only submitted the statement of Secretary
General of LFF, Mr. Edgaras Stankevicius, in which they only provided information that was in the interest
of the Club and without any supporting documentation that would confirm their allegations. Such a
statement must be considered subjective and should be rejected”.
28. The Claimant sustains that the LFF does not have an independent arbitration tribunal with equal
representation of players and clubs, and Lithuania does not have a FIFPro affiliated players' union.
29. Thus, the Claimant reiterates that FIFA DRC has jurisdiction.
30. The Claimant considers that the allegation that the parties terminated the Contract verbally “is
frivolous and irresponsible”. Regarding the witness statement submitted by the Respondent the
Claimant states that “it was given for personal interest in order to remove responsibility from him”.
31. The Claimant argues that he sent several letters to the Respondent, “reminding the Respondent that
they breached the contract without just cause, is a clear proof that the contract did not terminate by
verbal agreement.” Thus, in the view of the Claimant, the Respondent admitted tacitly that it
breached the Contract without just cause.
32. Lastly, the Claimant sustains that the lack of registration of the Contract, confirmed by the
Secretary General of the LFF, would justify the termination of the Contract with just cause by the
Claimant.
Page 7
REF FPSD-8354
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 24 November 2022 and submitted for decision on 1
February 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.
34. Subsequently, the members of 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 employment-related dispute with
an international dimension between an Serbian player and a Lithuanian 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 Players (October 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 24 November 2022, the October 2022 edition edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
36. The Dispute Resolution Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies in favour of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of Lithuania)
(hereinafter: the NDRC of Lithuania), alleging that the latter is competent to deal with any dispute
deriving from the relevant employment contract, in accordance with its clause 9 of the Contract.
37. The Dispute Resolution Chamber also noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA
to adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the contract does not contain a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Lithuania and that the latter is not an independent
arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs.
38. Taking into account all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international
dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided
by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the
framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration
clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement
Page 8
REF FPSD-8354
applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the
Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber
(NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
39. In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the employment contract
at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of
the NDRC of Lithuania.
40. The DRC noted that observed that art. 9.3 of the Contract does not mention a deciding body and
exclusively refers “in accordance with the procedures of the LFF”. Furthermore, based on the
Respondent’s own allegations, the procedures of the LFF provide for the decision by the Appeal
Committee of the LFF or Lithuanian courts. Thus, the DRC underlined that those regulations do
not provide for an exclusive jurisdiction of an exclusive deciding body.
41. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for establishing the
competence of an NDRC was not met, and therefore, without the need to enter the analysis of any
further requirement, it established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to
deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter
as to the substance.
c. Burden of proof
42. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
43. 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 acknowledging all the abovementioned 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.
Page 9
REF FPSD-8354
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
44. 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 the justice of the early termination of the
Contract.
45. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to ascertain whether any of the
parties had breached the Contract and if the Claimant had just cause to terminate the employment
relationship on 24 March 2021.
46. The DRC noted that the Claimant adduces several motives for the existence of just cause such as
the lack of registration of the player for the season, the separation from training and the purchase
of a flight ticket by the Respondent in order for him to return to his home country.
47. In this context, the Chamber first reminded the parties that, in line with the contents of art. 18 par.
4 of the Regulations, as well as the jurisprudence of the Chamber, the validity of an employment
contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities, such as,
but not limited to, the registration procedure, which are of the sole responsibility of a club and
upon which a player has no influence. Consequently, the registration or not of the player with the
LFF does not exempt the club of complying with the financial terms of the contract. Finally, the
Chamber emphasised that it is the obligation of the club to ensure that all administrative
formalities are met for the player to be able to play, as per the employment contract.
48. The Chamber underlined that the evidence submitted by the Respondent, in particular the
statement by the Secretary General of the LFF, confirm the lack of registration of the Claimant.
49. The DRC turned to the matter of the mutual verbal termination as alleged by the Respondent. In
this regard, the DRC referred to art. 13. par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “A party
that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it” and it underlined the Respondent had not discharged
its burden of proof in this regard. Furthermore, the DRC was comforted in its decision by the fact
that based on the default notices sent by the Claimant during March 2021, it could be observed
that the Claimant had not agreed to the termination.
50. On account of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided that the club had been in breach of its
obligations by not registering the player. Therefore, the player had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the contract and the club should be held liable for the breach of the employment
contract and its early termination.
51. Thus, since the DRC had concluded the existence of just cause for the termination, it deemed not
necessary to assess the remaining arguments by the Claimant.
Page 10
REF FPSD-8354
ii. Consequences
52. 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 Respondent.
53. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 2 salaries under the contract,
amounting to EUR 3,000 net.
54. 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. EUR 3,000 net (i.e. EUR 1,500
net times 2).
55. 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 outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
59. 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
Page 11
REF FPSD-8354
amount of EUR 12,000 (i.e. the residual value) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
60. 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.
61. Indeed, the player found employment with two Serbian clubs FK Sloboda and Mladost. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contracts, the player was able to mitigate his damages
in an amount of approximately EUR 577 and EUR 1,152.62 respectively.
62. 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 the existence of overdue salaries at the time
of termination and therefore decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
63. In this respect, the DRC observed that the additional compensation would be equal to EUR 4,500
(i.e. EUR 1,500 times 3). However, were additional compensation be awarded the compensation
would exceed the residual value of the Contract and therefore decided to limit the additional
compensation to the amount successfully mitigated.
64. 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 EUR 12,000 net to the
player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
65. 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 24 November 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
66. 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.
67. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-8354
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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
e. Costs
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-8354
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nemanja Ilic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, VšĮ Jonavos futbolas, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- EUR 3,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
On EUR 1,500 net from 1 March 2021 until the date of effective payment;
On EUR 1,500 net from 24 March 2021 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 12,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 24 November 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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14
REF FPSD-8354
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).
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