Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16942
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Ousmane Kokoe Coumbassa
BY:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Ousmane Kokoe Coumbassa, Guinea
Represented by Mr Hamouda Bouazza
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Al Shorta Sports Club, Iraq
Represented by Mr Islam Hisham
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16942
I. Facts of the case
1. In January 2024, the Guinean player Ousmane Kokoe Coumbassa (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Iraqi club Al Shorta SC (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: Contract) valid as from 1 February 2024 until
30 August 2026.
2. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total
remuneration of USD 270,000, payable as follows:
-
-
USD 70,000 during the season 2023/2024 in the following instalments:
o 35% following the passing of the medical examination and delivery of the ITC
o 35% at the beginning of the second part of the season
o 30% at the end of the season
USD 90,000, the exact payment dates of which are to be defined in a separate agreement
USD 110,000, the exact payment dates of which are to be defined in a separate
agreement
3. Furthermore, the following remuneration was fixed in the Contract:
-
Accommodation with meals
Entry visa
A “four person economy class travel ticket”
4. Moreover, the Contract included the following provision related to the potential premature
termination thereof under its art. 12:
“In the event this Contract is terminated by the Club for cause, or by the Player without cause, the
Club is entitled to a compensation in the amount equal to the residual value of the Contract.”
5. Lastly, art. 15 of the Contract contained the following stipulation:
“The First Party shall have the right to terminate this contract if the Second Party breaches any
provision of this contract, or fails to abide by the regulations and directives the Executive
Committee of the Club or fails to perform his job satisfactory subjecting him to compensate
the First Party the value of the contract plus 25% of the value of the Contract.”
6. At the end of the season 2023/2024, the Respondent allegedly proposed a mutual
termination the Contract, which the Claimant rejected.
7. On 23 August 2024, the Claimant sent the Respondent a letter requesting a clarification
about his contractual situation, as well as the training schedule for pre-season and flight
tickets to travel from Conakry (Guinea) to Iraq to resume his activity with the club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16942
8. On 29 August 2024, the Respondent provided the Claimant with a flight ticket scheduled for
3 September 2024.
9. On 3 September 2024, the Claimant arrived in Baghdad.
10. On 4 September 2024, the Claimant allegedly arrived at the club’s premises in order to
request the training schedule, however, upon his arrival the club representatives allegedly
informed him that he was precluded from participating in training.
11. At an unspecified date around this time, the Respondent allegedly excluded the player from
the pre-season organized in Cairo.
12. As from 4 September 2024, the Claimant was allegedly stuck in his hotel room, and forced
to train on his own.
13. On 25 September 2024, the Claimant sent a warning letter to the Respondent, stating that
the Respondent allegedly proposed a mutual termination at the end of the previous season,
which he rejected, and that he was excluded from training and from the pre-season camp
in Egypt. The Claimant specified in this letter that he was forced to stay in his hotel room as
from 3 September 2024 (sic) and that he was training by himself. The Claimant requested
to be reintegrated into the team immediately, and requested whether the exclusion was
temporary or permanent.
14. On 26 September 2024, the Claimant allegedly suffered from a medical emergency and
requested, through his legal counsel, the intervention of the club, as he did not know
anyone locally.
15. On the same day, a representative of the Respondent took the Claimant from his hotel room
to the hospital, where he underwent an analysis, and then returned to the hotel.
16. On the same day still, the Claimant sent a further warning letter, requesting once again
reintegration into the squad, and further asserting that the salaries for July 2024 and August
2024 remained unpaid. The Claimant requested the payment of USD 15,000 (the two
aforementioned salaries) within 72 hours, or to be informed whether he would be obliged
to terminate the Contract prematurely with just cause.
17. Even still on the same day, the Claimant requested clarification from the Iraqi Football
Federation as to whether he was registered to play with the club for the respective season
or not.
18. On 29 September 2024, the Claimant requested updates from both the Respondent and the
Iraqi Football Federation.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16942
19. On 1 October 2024, the Claimant provided a further deadline of 24 hours to the Respondent
to reintegrate him into the squad and to pay the outstanding salaries of USD 22,500 (three
salaries between July 2024 and September 2024).
20. On the same day, the Claimant once again requested an update from the Iraqi Football
Federation.
21. On 3 October 2024, the Claimant sent a reminder to the Respondent and to the Iraqi
Football Federation regarding the previous correspondence.
22. On 10 October 2024, the Claimant once again provided a deadline of 24 hours to the
Respondent to reintegrate him and to pay the outstanding remuneration owed by the latter.
23. On 16 October 2024, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract.
24. On 28 January 2025, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Tunisian club
Esperance Sportive de Zarzis (hereinafter: the New Club) valid as from the date of signature
until 30 June 2026 (hereinafter: the New Contract).
25. Pursuant to the New Contract, the New Club undertook to pay the Claimant TND 1,000 as a
monthly salary and TND 15,000 as an annual bonus directly proportionate to the percentage
of matches in which the Claimant would participate.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16942
II. Proceedings before FIFA
26. On 5 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
27. On 7 December 2024, the Respondent filed a counterclaim against the Claimant.
28. A summary of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
29. In his claim, the player argued that he was owed several salaries, as well as having been
treated abusively by the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant argued that he was
excluded from pre-season, forced to train alone and proposed mutually terminations of
the Contract, making him feel unwelcome.
30. The Claimant also pointed out that he proactively sought to remedy the situation and
reached out to the Iraqi Football Federation to ascertain whether or not he was even
permitted to play in official matches with the club, to no avail.
31. The Claimant thus argued that he had a just cause to terminate the Contract prematurely
in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
32. In conclusion, the Claimant formulated the following request for relief:
-
USD 7,500 as outstanding remuneration (based on a calculation of USD 90,000
annually, divided by 12 to calculated the monthly remuneration), for the months of
July 2024 – October 2024;
-
Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 170,000;
Interest as from the relevant due dates;
Sporting sanctions on the Respondent.
b. Counterclaim of the Respondent
33. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant never contacted the former regarding his return
to Iraq and was absent without authorisation from the training camp in Egypt.
34. The Respondent equally asserted that the Claimant did not contact the former upon
conclusion of the training camp in Egypt and continued to be absent from training.
35. Additionally, the Respondent included in its list of submissions a post on its social media
networks that it was scheduled to participate in an AFC Champions League match against
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16942
Al Nassr FC, by virtue of which it understood that the player was informed of the relevant
schedule.
36. The Respondent subsequently stated that the Claimant “reappeared” on 25 September
2024, when putting the former in default of his salary for July 2024 and August 2024,
although he had allegedly already been paid for July 2024. The Respondent thus denounced
the Claimant’s inactivity and argued that he was in violation of his obligations by being
absent and requesting amounts which he had already received in bad faith.
37. As for the alleged de-registration, the Respondent argued that the registration period in
Iraq was between 2 August 2024 and 2 October 2024, and that during this period the
Claimant showed no interest in pursuing the Contract, due to his continued absence.
Moreover, the Iraqi Football Federation reduced the number of foreign players clubs would
be able to register, leading the Respondent to hold off on the Claimant’s registration in
attendance of his change in attitude. In any event, the de-registration (or lack thereof) was,
in the club’s opinion, not a valid reason to permit the Claimant to prematurely terminate
the Contract.
38. The Respondent equally argued that the Claimant requested the salary for September 2024
in his later default notices in bad faith, as he was absent during the entire month and did
not render any services. Moreover, the Respondent outlined that the deadlines of 24h in
his default notices were in contravention of art. 14bis of the RSTP.
39. In conclusion, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not have a just cause to
terminate the Contract prematurely due to his continued absence and the lack of sufficient
overdue payables.
40. As a result of this purported breach, the Respondent argued that the Claimant was liable
to pay compensation for breach of contract.
41. The Respondent argued in this sense that art. 15 of the Contract governed the calculation
for compensation and that the Claimant shall be held to pay the residual value of the
Contract (USD 200,000) plus 25% as a penalty (USD 67,500), in total USD 267,500.
42. In view of the above, the Respondent’s main request for relief sought USD 267,500 as
compensation for breach of contract, plus interest as from the “respective due date”, and
USD 5,000 as legal fees.
c. Reply of the Claimant to the Counterclaim
43. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player denied that he was absent from training, as
alleged by the Respondent.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16942
44. The Claimant outlined that the Respondent never communicated the dates for the
resumption of training or the pre-season camp in Egypt, as well as never formally
requesting him to return or warning him that he was absent.
45. The Claimant equally argued that the Respondent failed to demonstrate having paid the
salary for July 2024.
46. The Claimant also referred to the section related to remuneration in the Contract to argue
that the Respondent was obligated to provide him with flight tickets to return to Iraq
following the summer break. Thus, the delay in providing him with this ticket was
contributory to his absence, in addition to a lack of information about the training schedule
once he had arrived.
47. What is more, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent failed to rebut the allegations
that it had not informed him of the schedule, and merely placed the responsibility on him
to reach out about the schedule, which he had done once the pre-season training had
concluded.
48. The Claimant equally denounced the consistent failure of the Respondent to reply to his
many default notices.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
49. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 6 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 13 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
50. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations)
(January 2025 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 Guinean player and an Iraqi club.
51. 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. 29 of the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16942
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
52. 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
53. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
54. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the lawfulness of the premature contractual termination. Both
parties contend that they had a just cause to prematurely depart from the Contract as a
result of the counterparty’s respective breach.
55. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Claimant had a just cause to prematurely terminate the Contract, and what the
consequences of such termination may be for the parties.
56. Prior to entering into the analysis of the matter at stake, the Chamber recalled the parties’
respective submissions. On one hand, the Claimant argued that he terminated the Contract
with just cause due to outstanding remuneration and abusive behaviour. In particular, he
argued that three salaries had remained outstanding and that he was excluded and
ostracised by the Respondent following the summer break.
57. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not have a just cause to
prematurely terminate the Contract. The Respondent based its assertions on the
Claimant’s allegedly unauthorised absence, as well as apparent lack of interest to pursue
the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16942
58. Having set out the above, the Chamber firstly noted that, in the case at hand, (and also
confirmed by the Claimant) the requirements under art. 14bis were not met at present,
since the Claimant had not provided a 15-day deadline to the Respondent in any of his
default notices. Thus, the lawfulness of the termination shall be determined in accordance
with art. 14 of the Regulations.
59. With this in mind, in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations and the jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal, the Chamber recalled that just cause arises as a consequence of a
sufficiently serious or consistent breach of contract. Where the parties are able to, they
should turn to other measures to remedy their contractual relationship. A premature
contractual termination shall only constitute an ultima ratio / measure of last resort
60. The Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence that it had
complied with its financial obligations under the Contract. In particular, whereas the
Claimant argued that three salaries remained outstanding (July 2024 – September 2024),
the Respondent only provided proof of payment of USD 70,000 corresponding to the
preceding season.
61. Based on this, the Chamber noted that three salaries were indeed due at the time of
termination to the Claimant.
62. In the interest of justifying the non-payment, which was uncontested in the matter at stake,
the Respondent argued that the Claimant had been absent for an extended period of time,
permitting it not only to withhold his salaries, but equally, not to register him.
63. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Claimant had sent to the Respondent
several requests to not only send him the official schedule, but eventually to reintegrate
him into the team’s training sessions and official matches. These requests were already
communicated before the Claimant’s return to Iraq, in light of the (unsubstantiated)
allegations of having been proposed a mutual termination agreement, and well after his
arrival in Iraq.
64. Importantly, in the Chamber’s view, the Respondent never addressed these allegations,
either with the Claimant directly, or in the present proceedings. Moreover, the Respondent
never warned the player or initiated disciplinary proceedings regarding his allegedly
unauthorised absence – a key step in building an argument that the Claimant had fallen
short of his obligations.
65. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent has failed to corroborate its
argument that the Claimant had been absent without authorisation, and, on the contrary,
fell short of its obligations in terms of integrating the player following the summer break
and permitting him to train with the rest of the team.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16942
66. To conclude, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had not only failed to remit three
salaries between July 2024 and September 2024, without a valid justification, but also
excluded the Claimant unlawfully from its quotidian activities.
67. As a (perhaps final) contributing factor, although the deadline to register the player was
shortly before the termination took place and the discord between the parties had already
grown prior thereto, the Respondent also failed to register the player in order to participate
in official competitions.
68. In light of all the circumstances in the present case, the Chamber concluded that the
contractual termination by the player dated 16 October 2024 was a measure of last resort,
thus being with just cause in accordance with art. 14 RSTP.
ii. Consequences
69. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
70. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to four salaries
under the Contract, between July 2024 and October 2024, amounting to USD 30,000.
71. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
USD 30,000.
72. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of USD 7,500, as from 1 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 7,500, as from 1 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 7,500, as from 1 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of USD 7,500, as from 16 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
73. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16942
contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
74. 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.
75. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
76. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 170,000 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, or
USD 60,000 for the remainder of the season 2024/2025, and USD 110,000 for the season
2025/2026) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
77. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
78. Indeed, the player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately TND 1,000 per month, as
well as an annual performance bonus, directly proportionate to the amount of matches
participated during that season, of up to TND 15,000.
79. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of TND 47,000, that is, 17 times TND 1,000 plus 2 x TND 15,000 during the
overlapping period between the two contracts. This was held to be equivalent to
USD 15,750.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16942
80. 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 inter alia due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the
Respondent, and therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional
compensation.
81. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
USD 22,500, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player. The Chamber noted
that this additional compensation fully made up for the mitigation of the Claimant’s
damages
82. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
USD 170,000 to the Claimant (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, having accounted for
mitigation and additional compensation), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
83. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
84. Lastly, as a result of the above, the Chamber equally decided to reject the Respondent’s
counterclaim in full.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
85. 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.
86. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
87. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16942
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
88. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
89. 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
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16942
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Ousmane Kokoe Coumbassa, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Al Shorta Sports Club, must pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent the following amount(s):
- USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 1 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 1 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 1 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 16 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
- USD 170,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
16 October 2024 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 / Counterclaimant 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16942
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16942
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17