Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-180
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 July 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player JANOTA Michal
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA / France), Deputy Chairman
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
JANOTA Michal, Poland
Represented by Mr Jakub Laskowski
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Al Fateh FC, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Al Tamimi & Company Advocates & Legal Consultants
INTERVENING PARTY:
Central Coast Mariners FC, Australia
Represented by Susanah Ng & Associates
Page 2 of 24
REF FPSD-180
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 27 May 2019, the Polish player, Mr Michal Janota (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Saudi club, Al Fateh SC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 20 June 2019
until 19 June 2021.
2.
In the contract –under clause 14 thereof–, the parties inserted their respective email
addresses for notification purposes, as follows:
[email protected] (club);
[email protected] (player).
3.
Clause 2.3 of the contract contains an extension option in favour of the club regarding the
term of the contract. In particular, the said clause reads as follows: “The club is eligible to
extend this contract for one more season as a third year from 20 June 2021 to 19 June
2022”.
4.
In accordance with clause 4.2 and 4.3 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the
player, inter alia, a monthly salary of USD 35,000, during the first 12 months of the contract,
i.e. as from July 2019 until June 2020; and USD 37,500 during the following 12 months of
the contractual relationship i.e. as from July 2020 until June 2021. The said clauses further
provide that the monthly salary was payable on the last day of each month.
5.
Clause 13 of the contract provides 2 different buy-out clauses. On the one hand, clause
13.2 provides that “the club has the right to terminate this contract without just cause only
after the first year of this contract, subject to the payment of a compensation in an amount
of USD 180,000 […] if the termination occurs during the summer of 2020 transfer window,
and a compensation in an amount of USD 90,000 […] if the termination occurs in the winter
of 2020/2021”.
6.
On the other hand, clauses 13.3 and 13.4 state the following: “3. Both parties expressly
agree that the player has the right to terminate his contract without just cause only within
a registration period fixed by SAFF (i.e. transfer window) and in any case no later than 25
(twenty-five) days to the end of the relevant registration period fixed by SAFF, subject to
the payment of a compensation in the amount of USD 3,000,000 […] and paid to the club
in full prior to termination; 4. For the purpose of article 13.3, the player must give a written
notice of termination to the club together with the proof of payment of the relevant
compensation amount”.
7.
In addition to the contract, on 20 June 2019, the parties concluded a separate document
titled “Side Letter”, which subject-matter was to amend the content of several clauses of
the contract and to further regulate the contractual obligations of the parties in order to
“avoid possible misunderstanding resulting from different interpretation of regulations,
different cultural background or common practice”.
Page 3 of 24
REF FPSD-180
8.
In accordance with clause 1.4 of the Side Letter, the parties agreed on the following:
“Provisions of the Side Letter hereof remain valid for the whole period of the validity of the
Contract and constitute basis of Parties´ rights and obligations”.
9.
Clause 2 of the Side letter further developed the benefits that the club undertook to provide
the player with ex. clause 5 of the contract: medical insurance, flight tickets for his family
(4 return tickets), accommodation, transport and annual leave.
10.
Clause 5 of the Side letter amended the content of clause 13.3 of the contract. In particular,
the said clause 5 provides that, should the player wish to terminate the contract, he could
do so by paying a buy-out clause in the amount of USD 3,000,000 which could be paid by
the player himself or by a third club interested in signing the player. In this context, the
aforesaid clause provides that, should the said payment be made and should the player
issue a termination letter, the club would “execute TMS records within 3 working days and
the [player] will be free from any disciplinary responsibility”.
11.
Allegedly, on “25 January 2020, President of AI-Fateh contacted Mr Piotr Jozwiak, the
intermediary representing the Player, on Whatsapp requesting him to persuade the Player
to terminate the Contract with Al·Fateh by mutual consent or find as soon as possible a
club Interested in acquiring the Player's registration rights, free of charge. During a call on
25 January 2020 the President of AI-Fateh informed Mr Jozwiak about the decision of the
Club to separate him from the team and assign to lndividual trainings”.
12.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that, as from 27 January 2020, he was prevented from
training with the rest of the team, without any training plan. Moreover, he argued that he
was denied access to the locker room, gym and other facilities to which the first team had
access as well as assistance from the physiotherapists and doctors.
13.
On 14 March 2020, the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (hereinafter: SAFF) decided to
suspend all sporting activities in Saudi Arabia as from 15 March 2020.
14.
Subsequently, “each player was instructed by the Club that [they] may leave Saudi Arabia
and return to its country of domicile for the period of COVID-19 outbreak, provided that
[they] will sign a document confirming that [they agree] in advance on the right of the Club
to reduce the player's salary after the agreement with the player or his representative in
accordance with the FIFA and SAFF guidelines”.
15.
By means of a Whatsapp message sent by the president of the club, Mr Saadd Alafaliq, to
the player´s agent, Mr Piotr Jozwiak, on 8 April 2020, the former confirmed to the player
was not registered with the club and that he could not guarantee that the player would be
registered during the next transfer window.
16.
According to the player, on 13 April 2020, the club sent to the Player the draft of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 13 April 2020 (hereinafter: the CBA) to be
concluded between AI-Fateh, its players and coaches, in accordance with which the club
Page 4 of 24
REF FPSD-180
requested the player to accept to receive 50% of his salaries for the period during which
the football competitions in Saudi Arabia are suspended. In this respect, the CBA further
contemplated that, should the said suspension last more than 6 months, the parties would
review the salary reduction to be applied (cf. clauses 2.1 lit (ii) and 2.3 of the CBA).
17.
By means of his correspondence dated 23 April 2020, the player requested the club to
provide him with information regarding the following aspects: whether he was eligible to
play for the club after the end of the winter-summer transfer window of 2020; whether he
was registered with the club within the SAFF for the ongoing season; the proportionality of
the 50% reduction on the players´ entitlements.
18.
Thereto, the club replied on 26 April 2020, stating that the issue of the registration of the
player was not to be discussed at that moment in time and that “the only priority is to
address the negative impact of COVID-19 outbreak […]”. In addition, the club urged the
player to sign the CBA, which the club considered “fair, reasonable and proportionate due
to the negative impact caused by the COVID-19 outbreak”.
19.
On 8 May 2020, the player sent a correspondence to the club, dated 7 May 2020, whereby
the player reiterated the inquiries made to the club in his letter of 23 April 2020, since the
club failed to reply thereto; and pointed out that the club failed to provide any evidence
regarding the losses incurred by the latter as a consequence of the Covid-19 outbreak. In
this context, the player requested the club to disclose all the relevant financial information
of the club in order to determine whether the proposed 50% salary discount is reasonable.
20.
On 14 May 2020, the club sent a communication to the players of the team, informing
them that the club had allegedly incurred in losses that amount to SAR 6,000,000 (approx.:
CHF 1,500,000).
21.
By means of his correspondence dated 20 May 2020, sent to the Respondent on 22 May
2020, the player highlighted the bad faith of the club, which failed to confirm to him
whether he is registered with the club. The player further stressed that, should the club not
allow him to train with the rest of the team and confirm to him that he is registered within
the SAFF, he would assume that the club has not registered him and the club would have
breached the contract. As to the player´s adhesion to the CBA, the player maintained that,
as long as the club kept breaching the contract, he would not sign any such agreement.
22.
In reply thereto, the club sent a letter dated 29 May 2020, whereby the latter stressed that
the contractual and employment status of the player have remained unchanged. In
addition, the club stressed that it had complied with all of its contractual obligations
towards the player.
23.
By means of his correspondence dated 10 June 2020, the player rejected the allegations of
the club and held that the fact that the club had not registered him since January 2020 has
prevented him from playing for the Respondent, which is the subject-matter of the contract,
and that –therefore– the club has de facto breached the contract. The player pointed out
Page 5 of 24
REF FPSD-180
the bad faith of the club, which failed to confirm whether the player was registered within
the SAFF and obliged him to train alone. In addition, the player insisted in reaching an
amicable solution and suggested terminating the contract against payment of a final
settlement amount of USD 481,050 by the club.
24.
The club replied thereto on 16 June 2020, rejecting the proposal of the player and arguing
that it signed the player against payment of a transfer fee that amounted to USD 430,000;
and that, if the club accepted the proposed settlement, it would not only lose the amount
paid as transfer compensation, but would also make its loss double. Therefore, the club
stressed that the player is the one who should pay a monetary compensation should he
wish to terminate the contract.
25.
By means of its letter dated 18 June 2020, the player clarified that he does not intend to
terminate the contract with the club but, in order not to do so, the club needs to prove that
he is registered within the SAFF and allow him to train with the rest of the team. What is
more, the player granted the club a deadline until 21 June 2021 to confirm to the player
the aforementioned points.
26.
On the 21 June 2020, the player was informed that training sessions would be reassumed
and that he should travel back to Saudi Arabia by 22 June 2021.
27.
The player sent a letter to the club on the same date, reiterating his previous position and
adding that he could not fly back to Saudi Arabia, insofar the club failed to provide him
with the corresponding VISA and since he could not undergo a PCR test and get the results
in less than 24 hours, as the club requested.
28.
On 23 June 2020, the club replied to the player, on the one hand acknowledging the
difficulties that the player is facing in order to travel back to Saudi Arabia, but on the other
hand warning the player that, if he does not do so, the player would be breaching the
contract.
29.
On 28 June 2020, the club informed the player that he had missed the flight that the club
booked for him for 28 June 2020 (flight ticket allegedly provided to the player on 27 June
2020). In the said communication, the club maintained that the player was urged to travel
to Paris on 30 June 2020 in order to travel back to Saudi Arabia with the remaining players
of the club.
30.
By means of his email of 29 June 2020, the player insisted in being willing to travel to Saudi
Arabia, but maintained that the club provided him with a flight ticket last minute, without
granting him enough time to undergo the corresponding medical test in order to take a
plane. In addition, the player –once again– raised his concerns regarding the lack of
confirmation of the club in connection with his registration and his admission to join the
training sessions with the rest of the team.
Page 6 of 24
REF FPSD-180
31.
On 1 July 2020, the player arrived in Saudi Arabia and received instructions to train
individually (cf. Whatsapp messages exchanged – Annexes 5 and 7 to the claim).
32.
On 4 July 2020, the player put the club in default of payment in the amount of USD 92,300,
corresponding to the outstanding salaries of March 2020 (partially outstanding – USD 7,442
due), April 2020 (partially outstanding – USD 14,858 due), May 2020 and June 2020 (these
last 2 salaries fully outstanding), thereby granting the club a 15 days deadline to remedy
the default. By means of this correspondence, the player also requested the club –once
again– to provide him with the necessary financial documentation to evaluate whether the
salary reductions proposed by the club are proportionate. In this regard, the player informed
the club that, should the club do so and should the player consider that the salary reductions
proposed are proportional, he would accept to receive 50% of his salaries during the
months of May and June 2020, i.e. USD 35,000 in total; and would also consider the
acceptance of salary reductions practiced on his salaries as from 15 March 2020 until April
2020; however, to no avail.
33.
On 6 July 2020, the club made a partial payment in the amount of USD 20,142,
corresponding to a partial payment of the monthly salary of May 2020.
34.
By means of his correspondence dated 23 July 2020, in view of the fact that the club failed
to provide him with the requested financial documentation and insofar the club failed to
comply with the payment of the full salaries of May and June 2020, the player unilaterally
terminated the contract.
35.
By means of its letter dated 3 August 2020, the club informed the player that it had never
received his default notice of 4 July 2020 (cf. Annexe 9 of the statement of defence).
36.
On 4 August 2020, the SAFF announced that football activities were resumed.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
37.
On 17 September 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the positions of the parties is detailed in continuation.
A.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
38.
In his statement of claim, the player requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration
and compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 522,157 net, plus 5%
interest p.a., broken down by the player as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: USD 99,980, plus 5% interest p.a. as from their respective due
dates:
Page 7 of 24
REF FPSD-180
USD 7,442 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of March 2020;
USD 14,858 corresponding to the salary of April 2020;
USD 14,858 corresponding to the salary of May 2020;
USD 35,000 corresponding to the salary of June 2020;
USD 27,822 corresponding to the salary of July 2020 (pro-rata calculated by the
Claimant as from 1 July until 23 July 2020, i.e. until the date of termination; to be
considered that the monthly salary as from July 2020 amounts to USD 37,500).
Compensation for breach of contract: USD 422,177, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23
July 2020:
USD 9,677 corresponding to the residual value of the contract as from 24 July
2020 until 31 July 2020;
USD 412,500 corresponding to the residual value of the contract as from 1
August 2020 until 19 June 2021.
39. In his claim, the Claimant explained the following: “During the window registration period
in January 2020 AI-Fateh acquired registration rights to three additional foreign (non-Saudi)
players, increasing the number of such players to 10. In the same time Organizational
Statutes of the Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Professionals Cup League Competition Saudi
Arabian explicitly states that each Club is entitled to register only up to 7 foreign (non-Saudi)
players and requires all clubs to register all of their players. As such. the Club explicitly
breached regulations of Saudi Arabia Football Federation (SAFF) and was required to
waive/de-register 3 non- Saudi players with immediate effect”.
40. In this context, the player explained that, on 26 January 2020, i.e. 5 days before the end of
the registration period in Saudi Arabia, the club –through its President and, on 27 January
2020, through the Head Coach of the first team– verbally communicated to the player that
the club was no longer interested in his services and adopted, inter alia, the following
behaviours towards the player:
“De-register[ed] the Player from the Club in the electronic system SPUS maintained
by SAFF, what resulted in - inter alia - ineligibility of the Player to participate in any
football competitions of the club until the end of 2019/2020 season”. In this context,
the player held that he “was deleted from the Club's squad in the opinion-forming
internet portal transfermarkt.com and marked as a free agent since 1 February 2020.
It seems clear that such decision of the Club was another element of the Club's policy
in order to demonstrate to the Player that he is no longer welcome at AI-Fateh and
shall leave the Club as soon as possible in order to continue his sporting career;
Page 8 of 24
REF FPSD-180
“[F]ully separate[ed] the Player from the fellow teammates and training staff of AlFateh” and prevented the player from participating in any football activity within the
club. In this respect, the player held that, as “from 27 January 2020, the Player was
deprived from the possibility to attend team group trainings of the Club as well as
have any contact with the first team of the Club”;
“[F]orce[d] the Player to train alone and/or - occasionally - among Individual players
of the Respondent”. In addition, the Claimant held that he “was forbidden to use
the locker room, gym and other facilities of the first team while any member of the
team is present thereof, have not received match plans, was forbidden to attend
technical meetings, etc”.
During the said meeting, the player maintains that the club “offered [him] to
terminate the Contract instantaneously or to transfer or to loan him to a club of his
choice, free of charge. The Player refused to accept the termination of the Contract”.
41. In this context, the Claimant explained that, as from 27 January 2020, i.e. the date as from
which the player was prevented from participating in any football activity within the team of
the Respondent, until 23 July 2020, i.e. the date on which the player unilaterally terminated
the contract, no member of the club requested him, “in person or through conference call
and/or video-conference platform, to discuss his position in the Club and/or to provide any
information on the scope and content of individual trainings”.
42. As to his de-registration, the Claimant firstly held that the club, on 8 April 2020,
acknowledged not having registered him during the winter transfer window of the season
2019/2020 and explained that, in accordance with “article 21 point 2 of the Organizational
Statutes of the Prince Mohammed Bin Salman Professionals Cup League Compeunon Saudi
Arabian [hereinafter: the "SPL Statutes"], clubs competing in Prince Mohammed Bin Salman
Professionals Cup League Competition [hereinafter: “the WSPL”] shall register through SPLIS
electronic system at least 16, but no more than 30 players, provided that each team is entitled
to register only up to 7 foreign (non-Saudi) players”.
43. The above being clarified, the Claimant maintained that “in order to comply with Article 21
of the SPL Statutes, AJ-Fateh was required to de-register or not to register three […] players
from the league competitions before 31 January 2020”.
44. Consequently, the Claimant held that “AJ-Fateh [decided to] register before 31 January 2020
to the competitions of the SPL the following non-Saudi players: 1) Koval. 2) Aguirregaray, 3)
Saadane, 4) Wikheim. 5) te Vrede, and two newly acquired players: 6) Kadrii and 7)
Bendebka”; and “the three remaining non Saudi players having valid contracts, i.e. [the
Claimant], André Pinto and Sasa Jovanovrc were not registered to the Club due to Article 21
of the SPL Statutes and binding limit of non-Saudi players”.
45. As to the CBA sent by the club to the player on 13 April 2020, the Claimant held the
following:
Page 9 of 24
REF FPSD-180
“The [CBA] was never before consulted with the Player and was provided to him In
the PDF version, already signed by the President of AI-Fateh”;
“In accordance with the draft [CBA] all players with a monthly salary higher than
USD 5,330 (mainly non Saudi players) had to accept a 50% reduction of their salaries”
as from 15 March 2020 until the end of the suspension of the competitions;
The club failed to provide to any of the “non-Saudi players any evidence
demonstrating any financial losses suffered by the Club In connection with COVID-19
outbreak”.
46. Moreover, the player held that, upon his return to Saudi Arabia on 1 July 2020, the Team
Manager of the club informed him that he would continue training individually, together
with another non-Saudi player of the team, Mr Andre Pinto.
47. In this context, the Claimant held that, on top of the confirmation provided by the president
of the club via Whatsapp on 8 April 2020 8 the lack of confirmation from the Respondent
that the player was actually registered with it within the SAFF shall be seen as an
acknowledgement from the club that the player was not registered with the club. However
–continued the player– irrespective of his de-registration y the club during the term of the
contract, the fact that the club prevented him from participating in group team trainings and
prevented him from maintaining his “football form and fitness” since January 2020 in order
to force the player to accept an early termination of the contract shall suffice in order to
consider that the club breached the contract.
48. What is more, the Claimant argued that he lost his trust in the Respondent, which led him
to not be able to expect –in good faith– that the Respondent would comply with its
contractual obligations towards him in the future and, hence, he had no alternative but to
unilaterally terminate the contract on 23 July 2020. In this respect, the player argued that he
terminated the contract in accordance with both, art. 14 (due to the de-registration, the
individual training plan and denial of access to the club´s facilities and services) and art. 14bis
of the RSTP, in view of the fact that the club failed to pay his full monthly salaries as from
March 2020 onwards, despite the player having put the club in default of payment in
accordance with art. 14bis RSTP.
b.
49.
Position of the Respondent
On its part, the Respondent rejected part of the argumentation of the Claimant and argued
that the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause on 23 July 2020. In this
context, the Respondent lodged a counter-claim against the player before FIFA, requesting
to be awarded compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 3,000,000
ex. clause 13.3 of the contract (no interest was requested). Subsidiary –continued the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant–, should FIFA consider that amount as excessive, the player
Page 10 of 24
REF FPSD-180
shall be ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract to the club in the amount of
USD 930,000 (no interest was requested), broken down by the club as follows:
USD 430,000 corresponding to the transfer compensation paid by the club to the
player´s former club;
USD 450,000 corresponding to the residual value of the contract, as from July 2020
until June 2021 (37,500*12 = 450,000);
USD 50,000 as legal fees.
50. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant wished to stress that the player was signed by the
Respondent as a key incorporation into the team, where he played 13 official matches during
the 209/2020 season, i.e. half of the matches played by the club, and that it paid a transfer
compensation of USD 430,000 to the player´s former club, Arka Gdynia SSA, which the
Respondent considered as a huge investment in the player.
51. What is more, the club rejected having de-registered the player and having instructed him to
undergo individual trainings.
52. The Respondent further held that it “discussed with the Agents of the Player a possible
transfer of the Player, on a temporary basis (i.e. loan), during the registration period in
January 2020”. In this respect, the Respondent argued that it never “proposed a permanent
transfer free-of-charge or the termination of the contract”. What is more, the Respondent
stated that “the possible temporary transfer (i.e. loan) of the Player was related to the fact
that the Player was not having the expected impact in the team’s performance, which
resulted in many negative results and Al Fateh FC struggling in the classification table to
remain in the Saudi Professional League”. In this respect, the club emphasized that it was
“in the bottom of the table for many weeks, but in any case always in relegation places”.
53. Moreover, the club maintained that “the disrespectful attitude and lack of commitment from
the Player were prejudicial to the team”.
54. Regarding the allegation of the Claimant that he was prevented from participating in training
sessions, the club argued that the player had “issues” with the Head Coach and with other
“colleagues” and that it was the player who decided not to participate in most “team
gatherings, including meals”. In this respect, the Respondent maintained that, should the
allegations of the player regarding having been banned from participating in group trainings
be true, quad non, that would have only occurred during February 2020, insofar “no further
matches or training sessions” took place after 15 March 2020, date on which the SAFF
suspended “all football activities”.
55. The Respondent held that it was the player who breached the contract by staying in his home
country for 4 months and by refusing to “return to the club several times”.
Page 11 of 24
REF FPSD-180
56. The above being explained, the Respondent referred to the financial impact of Covid-19 and
maintained that it suffered important economic losses, i.e. losses of SAR 800,000, following
the reduction of the sponsorship fees that the club received from its main 2 sponsors, as well
as its own losses, arisen upon the problems the Respondent had to “collect transfer fees
from players transferred to other teams”.
57. In this context, the Respondent referred to the CBA that it sent to the players of the team,
as well as to all the correspondence exchanged with the player, and argued that the
conditions offered to the player were the same as the ones proposed to the rest of the team
and that the “big majority of the players and coaching staff” signed the CBA and that “even
the few players who did not sign it, they accepted without claiming any compensation”. In
this regard, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was the only player who de facto did
not accept the contents of the CBA and that players cannot be treated differently in
accordance with “Saudi National Law and FIFA Guidelines”. In this respect, the Respondent
held that it “is entitled to make a salary reduction in the context of a force majeure situation
like the COVID-19 outbreak pursuant to Saudi National Law, namely Sharia principles which
are the core fundamental rules of Saudi legal system”.
58. As to the termination of the contract, the Respondent maintained that the player terminated
the contract without just cause on 23 July 2020, insofar “all due amounts” for the months
of March and April 2020 were duly paid to the player. In this respect, the Respondent
maintained that the only outstanding amount at the date of the default notice allegedly sent
by the player on 4 July 2020 was USD 35,000, corresponding to the salary of May 2020,
which was fully paid by the club on 6 July 2020. Regarding the salary of June 2020, the club
argued that payments were “normally processed in the first week of the following month”
and that, therefore, the said amount was not outstanding yet at the date on which the player
allegedly sent his default notice to the club.
59. What is more, the Respondent rejected having received the default notice dated 4 July 2020.
In this respect, the club referred to the said correspondence, which states that the email
address of the club is [email protected], and held that the actual e-mail address of the
club is [email protected], which was the only valid email address to be used for
notification purposes, as per the contract; reason why the said correspondence never reached
the Respondent. The Respondent further rejected having received any correspondence from
the player by courier to its registered address. What is more, the club argued that the
termination letter was sent to the correct e-mail address of the club, but that the default
notice was not.
60. The above being explained, the club insisted in the fact that the player failed to comply with
art. 14bis of the RSTP by terminating his contract without having duly put the club in default
of payment in accordance with the aforesaid article. Hence, the Respondent argued that the
player terminated the contract without just cause.
61. As to the argument of the player that he terminated the contract with just cause ex. art. 14
RSTP, the club held that it could not possibly violate the rights of the player by prohibiting
Page 12 of 24
REF FPSD-180
him to participate in group training sessions, insofar all football activities were suspended
between 14 March and 4 August 2020. Hence, the Respondent stressed that the player
terminated the contract without just cause on 23 July 2020.
c.
Replica of the player
62. In his replica and reply to counter-claim, the player reiterated his previous argumentation
and rejected the allegations of the club. What is more, the player stressed that the club failed
to provide any evidence in support of its allegations that: the player was duly registered with
the club, the player was not separated from the group trainings and that the club paid his
salaries on time. Therefore, the Claimant held that, insofar the club could not prove that the
aforesaid breaches were not committed, it is to be determined that the club de-registered
the player, made the player train alone and failed to comply with the payment of his salaries,
circumstances that –according to the player– shall lead to the unequivocal conclusion that
the club lost its interest on the player and was forcing him to leave the club. In this context,
the player wished to stress that he terminated the contract with just cause on 23 July 2020
ex. art. 14 of the RSTP.
63. The player further held that the club only contested his arguments in a general manner,
without entering into the details of the case. In this respect, the player stated that the club
failed to properly contest his argument regarding his de-registration by the club in order for
the latter to not exceed the quota of 7 foreign players registered with the club at the same
time.
64. The player argued that even though he played in 50% of the matches in which the club
participated during the season 2019/2020, as stated by the club, that does not change that
he did not play in any single match as from 27 January 2020, date on which he was separated
from the rest of the team.
65. In this respect, the player held that the club failed to contest the fact that, out of the 58
group training sessions of the team, held between 27 January 2020 and 23 July 2020, the
player was not allowed to participate in any of them. The player further referred to his
statement of claim and Annexes, where the latter submitted Whatsapp evidences regarding
his training dates, which differed from the group training dates; which evidences that the
player was indeed instructed to train alone. Moreover, the player provided a link to the social
media platforms of the club, where the latter allegedly posted more than 300 pictures of the
training sessions held between 27 January and 23 July 2020, without the player appearing
in any single picture.
66. The player also rejected the allegations of the club regarding his disrespectful attitude
towards the Head Coach and his peers.
67. Concerning the allegation of the Respondent that the salaries were payable in the first week
of the following month, the player contested the said allegation while referring to clauses
Page 13 of 24
REF FPSD-180
4.2 and 4.3 of the contract, in accordance with which salaries were payable on the last day
of the month. Moreover, the player held that not even one of his salaries was paid on its due
date.
68. In connection with the argument of the Respondent that it did not receive the default notice
of 4 July 2020, the Claimant argued that it duly sent all correspondence addressed to the
club to its email address: [email protected]. In this respect, he referred to the
content of the said letter and held that it was an error in all the letters sent to the club, but
that they all were sent to the correct email address of the club, which is demonstrated by the
fact that the club did reply to some of his previous notices. The player further held that the
club is acting in bad faith by trying to induce FIFA that the default notice of 4 July 2020 was
wrongly notified. Moreover, the player argued that the said default notice was also sent to
the club via registered mail.
69. The player further alleged that so far he has not been provided with any evidence regarding
the financial losses incurred by the club due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In this regard, the
player argued that the letters provided by the club as evidence that his main sponsors reduced
their financial support to the club do not constitute enough evidence of the allegations of
the club that it incurred in financial losses that may serve as basis for the unilateral reductions
practiced on the player´s salaries. What is more –continued the player–, the club
communicated to the players that it had incurred in losses of SAR 6,000,000 and that, as per
the documentation provided by the club along with its statement of defence, the latter only
incurred in losses of SAR 800,000.
70. Regarding the argument of the club that Covid-19 is a force majeure situation that prevented
him from normally complying with its financial obligations towards the player, the latter held
that the Covid-19 does not per se create a force majeure situation in a specific country and
that, even if it was such a situation, the club was not entitled to unilaterally stop paying the
salaries of the player, as it did.
71. In its reply to the counter-claim, the player reiterated his previous argumentation. In
particular, the player stressed that he had just cause to terminate the contract as per both,
art. 14 and art. 14bis of the RSTP. The player stated that he was “treated without dignity
and without any due respect”.
72. The player further alleged that, in the unlikely scenario that the DRC considered that the
player terminated the contract without just cause, the following considerations need to be
made: regarding the request of the club to be awarded USD 3,000,000 as compensation for
breach of contract, the player stated that clause 13.2 of the contract shall be deemed null
and void, insofar it “lacks reciprocity, clarity and is unambiguously unbalanced favouring
significantly the club”; regarding the amount subsidiary requested by the club, i.e. USD
880,000, the player argued that the said amount cannot serve as benchmark for the value
the club attributed to the player, insofar it de-registered him in January 2020 and prevented
him from training with the team, which demonstrates that the club had no interest at all in
the player. In the even more unlikely scenario that the DRC considered that the player shall
Page 14 of 24
REF FPSD-180
pay compensation for breach of contract to the club, the player requested the DRC to
“reduce drastically” the amount requested by the club, not to award the club any amount
as legal fees and to not be imposed sporting sanctions.
d.
Player´s new employment situation and unsolicited correspondence of
the player
73. On 11 December 2020, the player concluded a new contract with the Australian club, Central
Coast Mariners FC (hereinafter: the new club), valid as from 30 December 2020 until 30 June
2021, against payment of a total fixed amount of AUD 83,056 net (approx.: USD 62,566 –
conversion made on the date on which the contract was concluded).
74. In this context, the player requested to be awarded –upon mitigation of his damages
considering his new income with the said Australian club– an additional compensation ex.
art. 17 RSTP.
75. After having submitted his replica and reply to counter-claim, by means of his letter dated
19 January 2021, whereby the player communicated to the FIFA administration his new
contractual situation, the player also provided an email sent by the SAFF, whereby the latter
confirmed on 12 November 2020 that the player was de-registered from the club on 31
January 2020.
e.
Position of the player´s new club – intervening party
76. In its position as to the claim lodged by the club against the player, the new club argued that
it only entered into negotiations with the player on 23 October 2020, i.e. 4 months after the
termination of the contract.
77. What is more –continued the new club– the salary of the player with the new club is
significantly lower than the salary the player earned with the club, reason why the new club
could not have induced the player to terminate the contract with the club.
78. As to the eventual application of art. 17 RSTP, the new club held the following: “Article 17.2
of the FIFA RSTP should not apply in this case as Al-Fateh FC failed to request for it.
Alternatively, it should not automatically apply as CCM is at no fault or involved in the Player’s
decision to terminate the Al-Fateh FC Contract. The imposition of an automatic joint liability
on a new club in situations like this is punitive to both the player (as his prospects of finding
new employment may be affected) and the new club who is innocent and is only held
responsible by default due to its status as the player’s next immediate club”.
Page 15 of 24
REF FPSD-180
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
79.
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 17 September 2020 and
submitted for decision on 1 July 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.
80.
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. a) and
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players edition January 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 an Polish player
and a Saudi club, with the intervention of an Australian club.
81.
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 January 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 September 2020, the August 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
82.
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.
83.
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.
84.
Merits of the dispute
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
Page 16 of 24
REF FPSD-180
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
85. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the request of the player, who requested to be awarded outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 522,157,
plus 5% interest p.a., against which the club lodged a counterclaim, whereby the latter
requested to be awarded compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD
3,000,000 or, subsidiary, USD 930,000. In this respect, the Chamber noted that no default
interest whatsoever was requested by the club.
86. The above being stated, the Chamber wished to briefly summarize the petita of the player.
In doing so, the DRC recalled that, on his part, the player argued that the club de-registered
him in January 2020, prevented him from training with the team, denied him access to the
services provided by the club, failed to pay his monthly salaries on time, unilaterally reduced
his salaries and even failed to pay the salaries of May and June 2020 in full on their due
dates, to only proceed with a partial payment of the salary of May 2020 on 6 July, once the
player had put the club in default of payment on 4 July 2020.
87. In view of the aforementioned events, acknowledged the DRC, the player argued that he
had no alternative but to terminate the contract on 23 July 2020. In this respect –noted the
Chamber–, the player maintained that he terminated the contract with just cause ex. art. 14
RSTP, since the club constantly breached the contract, which led the player to lose his trust
in the club´s compliance with its contractual obligations towards him; and ex. clause 14bis
RSTP, since he duly put the club in default of payment in accordance with the referred
provision on 4 July 2020.
88. Regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that the club sent to its players on 13
April 2020, the DRC noted that the player held that he never agreed to be bound by any
such agreement, since the club was blatantly breaching the contract by not registering him
and by preventing him from training with the rest of the team and that, nevertheless, the
club unilaterally reduced his salaries to 50% thereof.
89. What is more –pointed out the DRC– the player referred to the several notices sent to the
club, whereby the player requested the club to provide him with financial information in
support of the proportionality concerning the proposed 50% salary reduction, which was
never provided by the club. In addition, acknowledged the DRC, the player referred to the
documentation provided by the club in its statement of defence and counter-claim, by means
of which the club argued having incurred in losses of approximately SAR 800,000. In this
respect, continued the Chamber, the player held that the club informed the players of the
team –without providing any supporting documentation– that it had incurred in losses of
SAR 6,000,000, which demonstrates the bad faith of the club.
Page 17 of 24
REF FPSD-180
90. The position of the player being explained, the DRC wished to briefly summarize the
argumentation brought forward by the club. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged
that, on its part, the club argued that: the registration status of the player remained
unchanged, that he was not prevented from training with the rest of the team and that it
duly complied with its financial obligations towards the player, with the exception of the
payment of the salary of May 2020, which was paid late, i.e. on 6 July 2020.
91. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that the player
breached the contract by staying in his home country for 4 months and not joining the rest
of the team until 1 July 2020. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected the
arguments of the player regarding having forced the player to leave the team and argued
that it made a huge investment in the player, which is demonstrated by the fact that it paid
a transfer compensation of USD 430,000 to sign the player.
92. Regarding the default notice sent by the player on 4 July 2020, the DRC noted that the club
held that it never received it, since it was sent to a wrong e-mail, as shown in the body of
the said letter. Therefore, the club argued that the player terminated the contract without
just cause, insofar his personality rights were not violated (hence, art. 14 RSTP cannot apply)
and insofar the player never put the club in default ex. art. 14bis of the RSTP.
93. Concerning the CBA, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
argued that a reduction of 50% was reasonable and proportionate. Moreover, the club
argued that it was accepted (explicitly or tacitly) by all the players of the team, with the
exception of the player and that it shall be applied uniformly to all players as per the FIFA
Covid-19 Guidelines.
94. In the first place, the Chamber wished to stress that it had to be assessed whether the player
terminated the contract with or without just cause.
95. In view of all of the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the club indeed de-registered
the player at the end of January 2020. In this regard, explained the Chamber, not only the
several default notices sent by the player to the club asking about his registration status with
the club (which remained uncontested) shall be considered, but also the lack of documentary
evidence provided by the club to contest such extent and, more importantly, the Whatsapp
message sent by the club to the player on 8 April 2020, whereby the former acknowledged
that the player was not registered with the club at that moment in time and that it may not
register him during the following transfer window.
96. What is more, underscored the Chamber, the confirmation in writing that the SAFF sent to
the player on 12 November 2020 informing the player that the club de-registered him on 31
January 2020 shall be considered, in view of its material importance to the dispute at hand.
97. Regarding the argument of the club that the player breached the contract by staying in his
home country during approximately 4 months (as from mid-March until 1 July 2020), the
Chamber concluded that the said argument cannot be upheld, since the football related
Page 18 of 24
REF FPSD-180
activities –as pointed out by both parties– were suspended during the said timeframe and
were only resumed in August 2020.
98. At his point, the Chamber deemed it needless to enter into a further analysis of the
compliance of the default notice –sent by the player to the club on 4 July 2020– with art.
14bis in order to determine whether the player terminated his contract with our without just
cause, insofar it has been confirmed by the club (in its Whatsapp of 8 April 2020) and by the
SAFF (in its e-mail of 12 November 2020) that the club de-registered the player on 31 January
2020, which constitutes a blatant breach of the contract, given that the main subject-matter
of the contract was that the player could render his professional services to the club, subjectmatter which became impossible upon the club´s unilateral de-registration of the player.
99. In this context, the Chamber was of the opinion that –albeit relevant– the fact that the club
had prevented the player from training with the rest of the team as from 27 January 2020
onwards and had failed to comply with its financial obligations towards the player do no
longer need to be assessed in order to determine if the player terminated the contract with
just cause on 23 July 2020, since –as a matter of fact– the player already had just cause to
terminate the contract as from 31 January 2020.
100. As to the CBA offered by the club, the Chamber wished to make reference to the FIFA
Guidelines on Covid-19, which grant a predominant position to the good faith that must be
shown in the negotiations undertaken between a club and its players. In this regard, the
Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the club completely lacked of any good faith
since the moment it de-registered the player and failed to communicate that circumstance
to him, despite having been requested by the player on several occasions in this respect.
101. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the reductions practiced by the club on the player´s
financial entitlements shall be deemed as unlawfully practiced. In conclusion, the Chamber
determined that the player terminated the contract with just cause on 23 July 2020 ex. art.
14 RSTP. Concerning the amounts outstanding at the date of termination, the Chamber
pointed out that the club failed to provide any evidence to reboot the allegations of the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent that the amount of USD 99,980 (cf. point 38 of the
summary) is still outstanding.
ii. Consequences
102. 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 / Counter-Claimant during the protected period.
103. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the DRC went on to deal with the
consequences of the early termination of the employment contract. First of all, the DRC
concurred that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must fulfil its obligations as per
Page 19 of 24
REF FPSD-180
employment contract up until the date of termination of the contract in accordance with
the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
104. On account of the above considerations and the documentation on file, the DRC decided
that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. USD
99,980 (cf. point 38. above for breakdown).
105. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim, as well as the DRC’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC decided to award the Claimant interest of 5% p.a.
as of the respective due dates.
106. In continuation, the DRC decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the
basis of the relevant employment contract.
107. In this context, the DRC outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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.
108. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC held that it, first of all, had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in
the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
109. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, the DRC
took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment
contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional
situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the members of
the Chamber pointed out that, despite the contract´s premature termination on 23 July
2020, if organically continued, the contract would have run until 19 June 2021.
Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the DRC concluded
that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the club until the
regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD 422,177 (cf. point 38. above).
110. In continuation, the DRC remarked that following the early termination of the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute, the player was able to find a new employment.
In particular, the DRC noted that, on 11 December 2020, the player signed a new contract
Page 20 of 24
REF FPSD-180
with the Australian club, Central Coast Mariners FC, valid as from 30 December 2020 until
30 June 2021, whereby the player was entitled to a total fixed amount of AUD 83,056 net
(approximately USD 62,566 - conversion made by the FIFA administration taking as basis the
date on which the contract was concluded); namely –stressed the DRC– the player´s income
with the new club during the overlapping period amounts to the full amount of the new
contract, i.e. USD 62,566.
111. Nevertheless, since the player terminated the contract, inter alia, due to overdue payables,
the player shall be awarded an additional compensation in accordance with art. 17.1 (ii) of
the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC wished to refer to the content of the said regulatory
provision, which reads as follows: “in case the player signed a new contract by the time of
the decision, the value of the new contract for the period corresponding to the time
remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall be deducted from the residual value
of the contract that was terminated early(the “Mitigated Compensation”). Furthermore, and
subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables, in addition
to the Mitigated Compensation, the player shall be entitled to an amount corresponding to
three monthly salaries (the “Additional Compensation”). In case of egregious circumstances,
the Additional Compensation may be increased up to a maximum of six monthly salaries. The
overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated
contract”.
112. In this context, and considering the circumstances of the present case, in particular the
abusive attitude of the club, which was in default of payment of more than 4 monthly
salaries, failed to grant the player the corresponding working visa for him to render his
services for the club, prevented him from training with the rest of the team and –what is
more– proceeded with the unilateral de-registration of the player, the members of the
Chamber unanimously decided that the club should pay to the player an additional
compensation of 6 monthly salaries to the player, insofar the circumstances that surrounded
the breach of contract committed by the club and the consequent termination of the contract
with just cause by the player shall have the consideration of egregious circumstances.
113. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC referred to the last sentence of art. 17.1 (ii) of the
Regulations and underscored that, if the said additional compensation was added to the
mitigated compensation due to the player, the residual value of the contract would be
exceeded, which cannot occur. Thus, the DRC determined that the player shall be entitled to
the residual value of the contract as overall compensation for breach of contract ex. art. 17
of the Regulations, i.e. USD 422,177.
114. In addition, taking into account the player’s claim, as well as the DRC’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC decided to award the player interest of 5% p.a. on
the amount granted as compensation for breach of contract as from 17 September 2020,
i.e. the date on which the claim was lodged by the player before FIFA, until the date of
effective payment.
Page 21 of 24
REF FPSD-180
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
115. Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 81. above, 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.
116. 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.
117. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant / CounterrRespondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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 Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
118. 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.
119. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
d.
Costs
120. 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.
121. 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.
Page 22 of 24
REF FPSD-180
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, JANOTA Michal, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Al Fateh FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following
amounts:
USD 99,980 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
On the amount of USD 7,442, as from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On the amount of USD 14,858, as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On the amount of USD 14,858, as from 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On the amount of USD 35,000 as from 1 July 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On the amount of USD 27,822 as from 24 July 2020 until the date of effective payment.
USD 422,177 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 September
2020 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent
of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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).
7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-
Page 23 of 24
REF FPSD-180
Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the following
consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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 24 of 24