Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-7222
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 01 February 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Plamen Ivanov Iliev
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Plamen Ivanov Iliev, Bulgaria
Represented by SILA International Lawyers
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
AFC Hermannstadt, Romania
Represented by Cosmin-Răzvan Pană
INTERVENING PARTY 1:
Pirin FC, Bulgaria
INTERVENING PARTY 2:
Universitatea Cluj, Romania
Page 2
REF FPSD-7222
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 February 2022, the Bulgarian player, Plamen Ivanov Iliev (hereinafter: the Player),
and the Romanian club, AFC Hermannstadt (hereinafter: Hermannstadt) signed an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022
(hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
In accordance with clause III.2 of the Contract, the parties agreed that the term of the
Contract would automatically be extended until 30 June 2023 if Hermannstadt were to be
promoted to Liga 1 at the end of the season 2021/2022.
3.
In accordance with clause IV of the Contract, Hermannstadt undertook to pay to the
Player remuneration as follows:
Salary:
-
EUR 5,000 net between 14 February 2022 and 30 June 2022;
-
(in case of contractual extension), EUR 8,000 net between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023;
-
EUR 300 monthly accommodation allowance.
Bonuses:
-
EUR 10,000 net in case of promotion and the Player is involved in at least 75% of
all matches;
-
EUR 7,500 net in case of promotion and the Player is involved in between 50% and 75% of
all matches;
-
EUR 5,000 net in case of promotion and the Player is involved in between 25% and 50% of
all matches;
-
EUR 2,500 net in case of promotion and the Player is involved in less than 25% of
all matches.
-
EUR 500 net for each match won during the “play-off” stage;
-
EUR 250 net for each match played in the play-off, provided Hermannstadt is promoted to
-
Liga 1 at the end of the season 2021/2022.
4.
On 30 June 2022, the Contract was extended in accordance with clause III.2 thereunder,
as Hermannstadt was promoted to Liga 1.
5.
On 11 August 2022, the Player put Hermannstadt in default of payment of
EUR 30,100 net, in relation to the following contractual concepts, granting the latter a
deadline of 15 days to rectify the alleged breach:
Page 3
REF FPSD-7222
6.
-
EUR 5,000, May 2022 salary;
-
EUR 5,000, June 2022 salary;
-
EUR 8,000, July 2022 salary;
-
EUR 600, accommodation allowance for June 2022 and July 2022;
-
EUR 10,000, promotion bonus;
-
EUR 1,500, match bonuses.
On 26 August 2022, Hermannstadt replied to the default notice, outlining that despite its
financial difficulties, it would attempt to remedy the alleged breach of contract, and
confirmed having paid the salary for May 2022 (EUR 5,000) on 12 August 2022, as well as
having made a further payment of RON (Romanian Lei) 83,500 (approx. EUR 17,133),
corresponding to the following amounts:
-
EUR 5,000, June 2022 salary;
-
EUR 600, accommodation allowance (June 2022 and July 2022);
-
EUR 10,000, promotion bonus;
-
EUR 1,500, match bonuses.
7.
Hermannstadt further assured the Player in said correspondence that it would pay the
remaining salary for July 2022 (EUR 8,000) as soon as possible.
8.
On 27 August 2022, the Player terminated the Contract unilaterally.
9.
On 29 August 2022, Hermannstadt sent a letter to the Player, requesting the latter to
revoke the contractual termination.
10. On the same day, the Player signed an employment contract (hereinafter: New Contract 1)
with the Bulgarian club FC Pirin (hereinafter: Pirin) valid as from the date of signature until
31 May 2023. The Player informed Hermannstadt of his new employment situation
immediately thereafter.
11. In accordance with New Contract 1, Pirin undertook to pay the Player a monthly
remuneration of EUR 1,500 net.
12. On 5 September 2022, the Player was provisionally registered with Pirin following a
decision by the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber.
13. On the same day, the Player and Pirin mutually terminated New Contract 1.
Page 4
REF FPSD-7222
14. Still on the same day, the Player and the Romanian club Universitatea Cluj
(hereinafter: Cluj) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: New Contract 2) valid as
from the date of signature until 5 June 2023.
15. In accordance with New Contract 2, Cluj undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of
EUR 8,500 net.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 27 August 2022, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
17. On 29 September 2022, Hermannstadt filed a counterclaim against the Player, Pirin and
Cluj.
18. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
19. According to the Player, Hermannstadt failed to comply with its financial obligations
under the Contract, in particular, not paying an amount in excess of two monthly salaries
despite having been put in default and granted a 15-day deadline to do so.
20. Moreover, the Player outlined that, although Hermannstadt made partial payments with
regards to the amounts that were outstanding, DRC jurisprudence dictates that the debt
in question must be paid in full, and that partial payments do not undermine the just
cause of the subsequent termination of the Contract.
21. By acknowledging that the amount of EUR 8,000 net had remained outstanding at the end
of the granted period, and when the Contract was terminated by the Player, the latter
argued that there was just cause to terminate the Contract, entitling him to compensation
as well as the remaining outstanding remuneration.
22. The Player requested an amount of EUR 8,000 net as outstanding remuneration, as well
as EUR 88,000 net as compensation due to termination of the Contract with just cause.
23. Lastly, the Player requested interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2022 on the amount of
EUR 8,000 net, as well as from 27 August 2022 on the amount of EUR 88,000, until the
date of effective payment.
Page 5
REF FPSD-7222
b. Counterclaim of Hermannstadt
24. Hermannstadt argued that the Player showed a lack of flexibility and understanding for
the former’s financial situation, of which he was well aware, namely that it was undergoing
insolvency proceedings. In this respect, Hermannstadt wished to point out that the Player,
after having received a substantial payment which resolved the majority of the former’s
debt towards him, and receiving written assurance that the remaining amount would be
paid soon, lodged a claim before FIFA on the same day that the Contract was terminated,
demonstrating manifest intent not to continue the contractual relationship, and
ultimately bad faith.
25. Herrmannstadt also alleged that it paid all salaries that were allegedly outstanding at the
time the Contract was terminated, as its internal books allegedly recorded that the debt
towards the Player had been resolved, but for an amount of EUR 169. Hermannstadt, in
this respect, provided as evidence a bank extract showing all payments made towards the
Player under the Contract – consistently titled “Financial entitlements; Hermannstadt
Football Club Association) – in an amount of RON 157,433 or approximately EUR 30,000, as
well as proofs of payment of the amounts acknowledged by the Player, i.e. EUR 5,000 and
EUR 17,133 respectively.
26. Hermannstadt also purported that, despite its internal records showing that most of its
debts towards the Player had been resolved when it was put in default, it made payments
to the Player for amounts which had not been due in order to demonstrate good faith
and its intent to continue the contractual relationship.
27. Furthermore, Hermannstadt asserted that, when signing New Contract 1, terminating
said contract immediately upon the Player’s provisional registration, and shortly after
signing Contract 2, the Player, FC Pirin and Universitatea Cluj engaged in a bridge transfer,
in order to circumvent the Regulations of the Romanian Football Federation, which
stipulate that players are prohibited from signing a contract with Romanian clubs if they
have no proof of their previous contract having been terminated and any disputes in
relation to said contract having been settled.
28. Hermannstadt, thus, argued that the Player, as well as Pirin and Cluj, are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation on account of the unlawful termination of the
Contract by the Player.
29. Hermannstadt requested compensation of EUR 500,000, corresponding to the value of
the Player, which the former was allegedly deprived of asking a transfer fee in said
amount for.
30. Subsidiarily, should the Chamber not consider the previous figure as reasonable / fair
compensation, Hermannstadt requested EUR 58,416, corresponding to all amounts paid
Page 6
REF FPSD-7222
to the Player during the term of the Contract, as well as EUR 10,000, corresponding to the
transfer fee paid by the former to FC Dinamo 1948 when the Player joined on
14 February 2022.
c. Reply of the Player to counterclaim
31. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player largely reiterated his arguments, in particular
that Hermannstadt failed to pay the entire debt for which it was put in default on
11 August 2022.
32. In particular, the Player referred to the bank extracts provided by Hermannstadt to argue
that the amount of EUR 8,000 had, indeed, remained unpaid, as well asserting that the
individual payments made by Hermannstadt were described as “Financial entitlements:
Hermannstadt Football Club Association”, thus being labelled in a generic way so as to
cause the Player confusion and create the impression that all amounts were paid.
33. The Player also put forward that, had the amounts been paid, as Hermannstadt now
claimed, it would have contested the default notice sent by the Player on 11 August 2022,
and not acknowledged a debt of EUR 8,000 on 26 August 2022.
34. In conclusion, the Player rejected the counterclaim and maintained his previous request
for relief.
d. Reply of Pirin to counterclaim
35. In its reply to the counterclaim, Pirin largely reiterated the arguments submitted by the
Player, in particular that the Contract was terminated with just cause, and that the
argument of a bridge transfer is moot in the present case.
36. Moreover, Pirin outlined that it does not have standing to be sued in the present case,
based on the fact that it is not the beneficiary of the Player’s services, as the Contract was
terminated within hours of his registration, and that joint liability in accordance with art.
17 par. 2 of the Regulations only applies to the party which has benefited from the Player’s
contractual violation, in this case, according to Pirin, said beneficiary being Cluj.
37. In conclusion, therefore, Pirin rejected the counterclaim.
e. Reply of Cluj to counterclaim
38. For its part, Cluj equally reiterated the arguments submitted by the Player, in particular
that the Contract was terminated with just cause, and that the argument of a bridge
transfer is moot in the present case.
Page 7
REF FPSD-7222
39. Furthermore, Cluj argued that Herrmannstadt provided insufficient evidence to
corroborate its claim for EUR 500,000, and equally, the more modest sum of EUR 58,426,
as these do not conform with the criteria for calculating compensation set out by the
Regulations.
40. Lastly, Cluj contended that it had nothing to do with the contractual situation between
the Player and Pirin, and simply contracted the Player on the basis that there was a mutual
termination of New Contract 1 between the two.
41. In conclusion, Cluj rejected the counterclaim.
Page 8
REF FPSD-7222
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
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 27 August 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.
2.
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 a
Bulgarian player and a Romanian club.
3.
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 27 August 2022, the
July 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
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
5.
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 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.
Page 9
REF FPSD-7222
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
6.
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 fulfilment of certain
financial obligations under the Contract, and, by consequence, the lawfulness of the
contractual termination which took place on 27 August 2022.
7.
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 Hermannstadt, and if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had been fulfilled as claimed.
8.
The Chamber firstly referred to 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).
9.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled the arguments submitted by the Player, namely that
he possessed just cause to terminate the Contract, based on the fact that Hermannstadt
failed to pay an amount of remuneration exceeding two monthly salaries, despite having
been put in default and granted 15 days to remedy such alleged breach of contract. The
Chamber also took note of the line of argument used by the Player that partial repayment
of an amount for which a club was put in default does not discharge the latter of the
obligation to fully comply with the default notice, thus still giving rise to just cause for the
player to terminate the relevant contract.
10. On the other hand, the Chamber observed that Hermannstadt contended the lawfulness
of the termination, as the latter claims to have acted in good faith and constantly
communicated with the Player. The Chamber further noted the evidence of allegedly
having complied with the financial obligations towards the Player, as well as the line of
argument submitted by Hermanntadt that the Player’s immediate new employment and
lack of flexibility demonstrated that his intent to leave was premediated.
11. Having considered the above, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, which outlines that a party asserting a fact carries the burden of proving
its veracity. Thus, in the present case, it deemed that Hermannstadt bore the burden of
proving that it, indeed, complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded
between the parties.
12. From the above, the Chamber was able to establish that Hermannstadt failed to
demonstrate that, at the time of termination, the debt of EUR 8,000 had been resolved,
Page 10
REF FPSD-7222
as claimed. In this regard, the Chamber observed that Hermannstadt had expressly
acknowledged said debt during its exchange of correspondence with the Player (letter of
26 August 2022), as well as, during its proceedings before the Football Tribunal, provided
only generic proofs of payment titled “Financial entitlements; Hermannstadt Football Club
Association”, which could not be linked to the payment of the specific contractual concepts
which were alleged as outstanding in the present case, and thus insufficient to meet the
burden of proving that the amounts in question, i.e. the salary for July 2022 of EUR 8,000
had, indeed, been remitted.
13. Having established that Hermannstadt was indeed in default of payment of EUR 8,000
towards the Player, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the lawfulness of
the contractual termination.
14. In this respect, the Chamber referred to its own jurisprudence to lay down that the formal
requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations are still considered as satisfied if the
defaulting party (i.e. Hermannstadt) fails to fully comply with its financial obligations as
set out in the relevant default notice, within the stipulated time period of 15 days,
precisely in order to avoid a situation in which a debt is repaid only partially with the scope
of avoiding the termination of the contract (Pablo v Poli Timisoara, DRC Single Judge Decision
of 28 February 2020).
15. Therefore, as Hermannstadt failed to remit the entire amount as requested by the Player
within the time limit granted, the Chamber deemed the requirements of art. 14bis to be
met in the present case. Thus, it was concluded that the Contract was terminated by the
Player on 27 August 2022 with just cause.
16. Lastly, and in light of the above-mentioned conclusion, the Chamber did not deem it
necessary to enter deliberations as to the joint liability of Pirin and Cluj, nor the potential
existence of a bridge transfer in accordance with art. 5bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
17. 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
Hermannstadt.
18. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, was equivalent to EUR 8,000,
corresponding to one monthly salary under the Contract.
19. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that Hermannstadt is liable to pay to the Player the
Page 11
REF FPSD-7222
amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination,
i.e. EUR 8,000 net.
20. In addition, 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 at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 1 August 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
21. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by Hermannstadt 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.
22. 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.
23. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Hermannstadt 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.
24. 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 net amount of EUR 88,000 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, or
11 times EUR 8,000 net) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
25. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-7222
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.
26. Indeed, the Player ultimately found employment with Cluj. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 8,500 net per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 85,000 net, that is, 10 times EUR 8,500 net.
27. 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 (i.e.
Hermannstadt), and therefore decided that the Player shall receive additional
compensation.
28. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
EUR 24,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
29. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Hermannstadt must pay the
amount of EUR 27,000 net to the Player (i.e. EUR 88,000 minus EUR 85,000 plus
EUR 24,000), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
30. 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 27 August 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
31. 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.
32. 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-7222
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
33. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Hermannstadt must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the latter, 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 Hermannstadt in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
34. Hermannstadt shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
35. 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
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-7222
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Plamen Ivanov Iliev, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, AFC Hermannstadt, has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, the following amount(s):
- EUR 8,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 August 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 27,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 27 August 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-7222
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 16