Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9299
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 July 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Tristan Koskor
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT:
Tristan Koskor, Estonia
Represented by K&S Legal
RESPONDENT:
Pegeia 2014, Cyprus
Represented by Mr Marios Apostolidis
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9299
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 July 2022, the Estonian player, Tristan Koskor (hereinafter: the Claimant or player),
and the Cypriot club, Pegeia 2014 (hereinafter: the Respondent or club) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 August 2022 until
30 June 2023.
2.
According to the Claimant, art. 1.3 of the Contract foresaw a net monthly remuneration of
EUR 5,000 between 31 August 2022 and 30 April 2023, as well as a promotion bonus of
EUR 2,000 net and various additional advantages such as accommodation, a car and a
return flight ticket.
3.
On the other hand, the Respondent alleged that the Contract only foresaw a monthly net
remuneration of EUR 150 to which the Claimant would be entitled.
4.
At an unspecified date in December 2022, the Claimant allegedly requested a private
meeting with the president of the Respondent, complaining about his minimum
participation in matches and expressing the wish to play more frequently.
5.
On 20 December 2022, the parties allegedly signed a mutual termination Agreement
(hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
6.
In accordance with such Agreement, it was purportedly stipulated as follows:
“After a mutual agreement between the [Respondent] and the [Claimant], the [Respondent]
accepts to give a free transfer to the [Claimant], by mutually terminating earlier the professional
Contract Agreement that both parties have signed on 31 July 2022 for the football season
2022/2023.
[The Respondent] paid in full to the [Claimant] all amounts of salaries / bonuses and has no
further financial obligations or obligations of any other type towards the player, including and
arising from any oral & written agreements and from the professional Contract Agreement that
both parties have signed on 31 July 2022 for the football season 2022-2023.
The [Claimant] declares that he has no further financial requisitions and demands or
requisitions/demands of any other type from [the Respondent] and that he has been paid in full
all amounts of salaries / bonuses included and arising from any oral & written agreements and
from the professional Contract Agreement that both parties signed on 31 July 2022 for the
season 2022-2023.”
7.
According to the Respondent, the Claimant specifically requested not to forward said
Agreement to the Cypriot Football Association until he would find a new club, and that, in
the meantime, the Claimant would continue to train with the rest of the team. The
Respondent purportedly agreed to such alleged request.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9299
8.
On the same day, the Respondent provided the Claimant with a handwritten cash receipt
of EUR 20,000 for the salaries between August 2022 and November 2022.
9.
On 26, 27 and 28 December 2022 the Respondent communicated “fitness session plans” to
the Claimant.
10. On 6 January 2023, according to the Respondent, the Claimant allegedly requested to be
included in the match on 7 January 2023, in spite of the Termination Agreement being in
place.
11. On 7 January 2023, the Claimant participated in an official match for the Respondent.
12. On 10 January 2023, according to the Respondent, the Claimant allegedly threatened the
president of the former, stating that he changed his mind about leaving the Club and that
if he did not receive EUR 15,000 in cash by the end of the week, he would tell the squad
that his signature on the Termination Agreement was forged and that he would submit a
claim for the residual value of the Contract.
13. On 11 January 2023, a representative of the Respondent informed the Claimant that he has
been removed from the team, that he should no longer participate in training sessions and
should only use the gym for personal workouts, because the Respondent wishes not to be
held responsible for any potential injury.
14. On the same day, the Claimant replied to said message, informing the Respondent that he
has a valid Contract which he intends to honour and that he expects the Respondent to do
the same. He further stated that, in case of any injuries, he expects to be treated the same
way as any other player, and in accordance with the rules of the CFA. The Claimant lastly
outlined that, if he found a different club willing to provide him with “normal conditions”,
he would mutually terminate the Contract.
15. On 14 January 2023, the Cypriot agent who facilitated the transfer of the Claimant to the
Respondent sent a “signed” copy of the Termination Agreement to the Claimant’s Estonian
agent, stating that the Claimant “already signed his mutual release”.
16. On the same day, the Claimant replied, informing that he never signed the Termination
Agreement, has never seen the document, and that consequently it had been forged. The
Claimant also stressed that he had no intention to terminate the Contract.
17. Following such correspondence, the Respondent allegedly threatened the Claimant that it
would call the police to evict him from his apartment if he did not accept the terms of the
Termination Agreement and vacated the accommodation immediately.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9299
18. On 15 January 2023, the Claimant sent a further email to the Respondent, outlining that he
signature was forged, that he had been banned from participating in training, and that he
was forced to leave his accommodation, and that on the basis of such alleged abusive
behaviour, he terminated the Contract unilaterally with alleged just cause.
19. On 18 January 2023, the Respondent contacted the Claimant, informing the latter that the
Termination Agreement is valid and binding, and at the same time that the Contract
registered with the CFA allegedly only foresaw a salary of EUR 150 net.
20. On 23 January 2023, the Claimant responded, asserting to the Club that the registered
Contract with CFA is falsified, and that the salary for December 2022 remained unpaid. The
Claimant further emphasized that the Respondent is acting in utmost bad faith.
21. Following the departure of the Claimant from Cyprus, the parties exchanged
correspondence, with the Respondent offering the Claimant EUR 5,000 plus legal fees “to
drop the issue”, whereas the Claimant insisted on receiving a compensation of EUR 15,000.
The Respondent also emphasized in this exchange of correspondence that the Claimant
“came to the club as a main striker (...) but kept his form below bar in every single game, scoring
0 goals and having a generally speaking below average performance.”
22. On 20 February 2023, the Claimant signed an employment contract with Estonian club
JK Narva Trans (hereinafter: the New Club) valid as from the date of signature until
3 December 2023 (hereinafter: the New Contract).
23. The New Contract foresaw the following net remuneration :
-
As from the date of commencement of the New Contract until 30 June 2023: EUR 510;
As from 1 July 2023 until 3 December 2023: EUR 810 net;
An unspecified “scholarship fee”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9299
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 16 February 2023, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA. A brief summary of the parties’ submissions is outlined below.
a. Position of the Claimant
25. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent had forged the Termination
Agreement, excluded him from training, and forced to leave his accommodation under
threat of calling the police to do so.
26. The Claimant also argued not having been paid the salary for December 2022. In this
regard, he emphasised that the Respondent submitted a forged copy of the Contract in
which his salary was stated as EUR 150 net, whereas the payment slip for his salaries
from August 2022 – November 2022 clearly indicate that he received remuneration of
EUR 20,000 net – i.e. EUR 5,000 net monthly.
27. The Claimant further emphasised that he had communicated with the Respondent’s
fitness staff following the alleged signature of the Termination Agreement, as well as
participating in an official match, which all support the line of argument that he had not
signed such Agreement and continued to be part of the team until the Respondent
informed him of his exclusion.
28. The Claimant thus requested EUR 25,000 net as compensation, corresponding to the
alleged residual value of the Contract as from December 2022 until April 2023.
29. Lastly, the Claimant requested annual interest of 5% as from 23 December 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
b. Reply of the Respondent
30. In its reply, the Respondent argued that the Claimant allegedly signed a valid and binding
Termination Agreement, acknowledging all outstanding amounts having been paid and
waiving the right to any future amounts.
31. The Respondent emphasised that the signature on the Termination Agreement matched
the one on the Contract (which was also uploaded on TMS), and that, as a consequence,
the allegation of forgery must be dismissed.
32. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant had insisted on leaving the club due to a lack
of playing time, signing the Termination Agreement, and thereafter plotting a scheme of
“blackmailing” the club’s president in order to unlawfully obtain compensation he is not
entitled to.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9299
33. The Respondent made reference to several purported oral agreements with the
Claimant, according to which the latter allegedly requested to be included in the match
squad despite the Termination Agreement in place.
34. The Respondent equally submitted several affidavits from club staff members
corroborating that the Claimant had allegedly signed the Termination Agreement and
that he had requested to be included in the matchday squad, and only excluded from
training after his threats to the president.
35. In conclusion, the Respondent insisted on the validity of the Termination Agreement and
thus requested the claim to be rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
36. In his brief replica, the Claimant pointed to the lack of evidence submitted by the
Respondent, as well as the contradictory submissions – namely that a player would
request to be included in a matchday squad to end up playing only one minute in said
match.
37. The Claimant also emphasised again that the alleged copy of the Contract describing a
salary of EUR 150 net is entirely contradictory with the payment slip, which the
Respondent did not contest.
38. The Claimant also briefly informed the Administration of his new Contract, stating that
his salary combined with the “scholarship fee” amounted to EUR 1,200 net.
39. In short, the Claimant reiterated all previous arguments.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
40. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated all previous arguments, presenting no further
supporting evidence.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9299
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
41. 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 16 February 2023 and
submitted for decision on 7 July 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
May 2023 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.
42. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 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 player from
Estonia and a club from Cyprus.
43. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 February 2023, the October 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
44. 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
45. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9299
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
46. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute which version of the
Contract is authentic, or “true”, whether or not the Termination Agreement can be
considered valid and binding, and lastly whether or not, based thereon, there are any
potential damages to be claimed on the basis of the potentially unlawful breach of the
Contract by the Respondent.
47. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine firstly what the
contractual basis of the claim at hand was, followed by establishing the circumstances of
the parties’ departure from the Contract, and lastly whether or not the Claimant had just
cause to terminate the Contract, provided it had not been mutually terminated
beforehand.
48. The Chamber firstly recalled the parties’ submissions, beginning with the Claimant, who
argued that he terminated the contract with just cause due to abusive behaviour and
outstanding remuneration. The Claimant asserted that his signature on the Termination
Agreement was forged, that he was excluded from training without any justification, that
he was evicted from his accommodation and threatened with police intervention. In the
absence of a valid and binding Termination Agreement, therefore, the Claimant outlined
that the Contract was terminated with just cause due to abusive behaviour by the
Respondent.
49. On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the line of argument of the Respondent, who
submitted that the Termination Agreement is valid and binding, on account of the fact that
the signature thereon matches with the signature on the Contract, and that it is signed with
live ink. It was further noted that the Respondent further justified the inconsistent
behaviour following the Termination Agreement with alleged “oral agreements” with the
Claimant and corroborated its allegations with witness statements from its current staff
members.
50. Before entering the analysis of the parties’ respective submissions, the Chamber recalled
the wording of art. 13 par. 5, according to which a party asserting a certain fact bears the
burden of proving its veracity.
51. Having outlined the above, the Chamber firstly turned to consider which version of the
Contract could be deemed as authentic.
52. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant provided as evidence
a payment slip in the amount of EUR 20,000, which was dedicated to covering salary
payments for the months of August, September, October and November 2022. The
Chamber considered this evidence essential in support of the Claimant’s line of argument
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9299
that the Contract foresaw a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000 net. Equally, the Chamber
took note of the fact that said evidence remained uncontested by the Respondent, who
only relied on the fact that the copy of the Contract submitted by itself had been also
uploaded to TMS, which it ultimately deemed insufficient to outweigh the picture painted
by the Claimant.
53. In light of the above, the Chamber firstly established that the Claimant’s version of the
Contract, foreseeing a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000 net, should be considered as
the basis of the present proceedings.
54. Subsequently, the Chamber moved to the question of the validity of the Termination
Agreement.
55. In this respect, the Chamber wished to highlight that various – uncontested – exchanges of
correspondence between the parties had been submitted as evidence to the file, in which
the Respondent was seen to provide the Claimant with training instructions, the latter
participating in a match for the Respondent, and lastly him being excluded from
participating in training sessions with the rest of the team, all following the purported
signature of the Termination Agreement.
56. Compared thereto, the Chamber observed that the Respondent largely relied on
uncorroborated allegations of “oral agreements” made between the Claimant and itself to
explain the participation in the match and the training instructions.
57. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the witness statements provided by the
Respondent as part of its submission. In this respect, it wished to remark that all of these
witness statements came from its current staff, therefore presenting a conflict of interests
which rendered them, in the Chamber’s estimation, of limited probative value to the
current proceedings.
58. Lastly, the Chamber investigated the contested signature on the “original version” of the
Termination Agreement, which had been sent to the FIFA Administration by the
Respondent, particularly in comparison to other documents signed by the Claimant, the
authenticity of which remained uncontested.
59. In this respect, the Chamber deemed appropriate to remind the parties that, as a general
rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such
as the one of alleged falsified signatures of documents, and that such affairs fall into the
jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.
60. Having analysed the respective signatures on the Termination Agreement and other
documents closely, the Chamber was able to establish minor inconsistencies with the
contested signature, which further substantiated the suspicion of the Chamber on the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9299
basis of the Respondent’s contradictory behaviour following the alleged signature of the
Termination Agreement.
61. Therefore, in conclusion, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent failed to meet its
burden of proving that the Termination Agreement was valid and binding, and that the
doctrine of venire contra factum proprium was applicable in the case at hand. Consequently,
the Termination Agreement was considered invalid, and the Chamber moved on to
consider the lawfulness of the unilateral termination of the Contract by the Claimant.
62. In doing so, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only
a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment
of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
63. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant’s allegation of him being excluded
from training and being evicted from his accommodation went unchallenged by the
Respondent, as well as no contradictory evidence being on file.
64. Furthermore, it was remarked that the Respondent argued against the alleged outstanding
salary of December 2022, and the compensation by saying that the Claimant has waived
his entitlement thereto in the Termination Agreement, but since the Termination
Agreement was established as being invalid, the Chamber dismissed this line of argument.
65. Lastly, the Chamber deemed it noteworthy that the Respondent alluded to the Claimant’s
poor performance in correspondence exchanged following the termination notice sent by
the Claimant in January 2023, which it considered to shed light on the reasons for the
overall conduct exhibited by the Respondent.
66. Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, with one outstanding monthly salary, and with
the Claimant having been excluded from training and evicted from his accommodation, the
Chamber concluded that the termination of the Contract by the Claimant constituted an
ultima ratio measure. Therefore, the Chamber held that the Contract was terminated by
the Claimant with just cause, in line with art. 14 par. 2 RSTP.
ii. Consequences
67. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9299
68. 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 one salary under
the contract, amounting to EUR 5,000 net.
69. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
EUR 5,000 net.
70. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 1 January 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
71. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
72. 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.
73. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
74. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 20,000 net (i.e. the residual value of the Contract, or
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9299
four monthly salaries between January 2023 and April 2023) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
75. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
76. Indeed, the player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the New
Contract, the player was entitled to a remuneration of EUR 6,000 net in the overlapping
period between the two contracts, considering his monthly salary and additional
scholarship fee, which collectively amounted to a monthly sum of EUR 1,200 net. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages by EUR 6,000 net.
77. 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 club, and
therefore decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
78. In this respect, the DRC calculated the amount of additional compensation to be
EUR 15,000 net, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player, which was,
however, limited to EUR 6,000 net, i.e. the mitigated amount, in order not to exceed the
residual value of the Contract.
79. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 20,000 net to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
80. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 January 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
81. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9299
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
82. 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.
83. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
84. 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.
85. 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
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9299
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Tristan Koskor, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Pegeia 2014, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 5,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 January 2023 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 16 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9299
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 16