DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11066
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 January 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Joel Yves Mall
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), member
CLAIMANT:
Joel Yves Mall, Switzerland
Represented by Paolo Torchetti
RESPONDENT:
Olympiakos Nicosia, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11066
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 July 2022, the Swiss player Joel Yves Mall (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player) and
the Cypriot club Olympiakos Nicosia (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment agreement valid from 1 August 2022 to 31 May 2023 (hereinafter: the
Contract).
2.
Pursuant to art. 1.3 of the Contract, the Claimant would be entitled to a monthly net salary
of EUR 1,500.
3.
Furthermore, art. 13 of the Contract reads as follows:
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved
according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.
4.
On 3 September 2022, the Parties apparently concluded an additional agreement titled
"Supplementary Contract" (hereinafter: the Private Agreement).
5.
In accordance with the Private Agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant, inter alia, the following sums:
“1. (…)
• With the signing of the present agreement an amount of €11,000 (NET)
• From 01/09/2022 until 30/09/2022, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/10/2022 until 31/10/2022, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/11/2022 until 30/11/2022, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/12/2022 until 31/12/2022, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/01/2023 until 31/01/2023, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/02/2023 until 28/02/2023, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/03/2023 until 31/03/2023, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/04/2023 until 30/04/2023, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
• From 01/05/2023 until 31/05/2023, an amount of 6000 EURO (NET)
6. Every game, for both championship and/or cup, in which no goal will be conceded by the
goalkeeper, there will be an extra bonus of €1,000 per match”.
6.
On 26 May 2023, the Claimant participated in the Respondent’s last match of the relevant
season in Cyprus.
7.
On 27 May 2023, the Claimant left Cyprus via plane.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11066
8.
By correspondence dated 1 June 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of EUR 33,500 granting the latter a deadline of 10 days in order to remedy the
alleged breach.
9.
On 2 June 2023, the Respondent replied to the Claimant requesting an extension of the
relevant deadline until 20 June 2023, presenting the following arguments:
“The reason why this extension is requested is because there is no competent at the moment to
approve or execute payments. The amounts owed to the player are not contested and are going
to be fully paid. We just need some time for the new Board to be appointed”.
10. On 12 July 2023, following a second default notice from the Claimant, the Respondent sent
an email to the latter, apologizing for the delay occurred in the relevant payment and
asking for a further grace period until the end of August in order to comply with its
obligations towards the Player.
11. On the very same date, the Claimant replied to the Respondent, refusing to grant any
further extension of the abovementioned deadline.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 26 July 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
13. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
under the Contract and the Private Agreement.
14. In particular, the Claimant argues that, notwithstanding the several reminders and
communication in this respect, the Respondent remains in default of three salaries related
to the months of March, April and May 2023 as well as the relevant clean-sheets bonuses.
15. In conclusion, the Claimant holds that the Respondent shall be held liable to pay a total of
EUR 33,500 net as outstanding amount plus a 5% interest per annum.
16. Furthermore, the Claimant requests:
-
“to fix a sum of 5,000 CHF to be paid by the Club to the Player, to contribute to the payment
of its legal fees and costs; and
-
to order the Club to pay the whole administration costs and fees”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11066
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Respondent first contests the competence of FIFA to deal with the present
dispute in favour of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Cyprus Football
Association (hereinafter: the NDRC of the CFA), based on an explicit and clear arbitrationclause under art. 13 of the Contract.
18. In this respect, the Respondent states that the NDRC of the CFA is constituted as a fully
impartial and independent tribunal, thus complying with the relevant framework of
regulations established by FIFA, starting from the Circular no. 1010.
19. In support of the above, the Respondent provided an English translation of the Regulations
of the NDRC of the CFA and a list of its current members. Notwithstanding the above, no
copy of the said regulations in their original language (i.e. Greek) has been provided, in
spite of FIFA General Secretariat’s clear and unequivocal request to that effect on 5
December 2023.
20. As to the substance, the Respondent objects to the validity of the Private Agreement
submitted by the Claimant, arguing that the signature supposedly affixed by the Club on
the said document differs from the one appearing in the Contract. The Respondent also
contests the absence of any Club’s official stamp as usually affixed to such documents.
21. In continuation, the Respondent denies holding any further liability towards the Claimant,
alleging having paid a total of EUR 20,000 as full settlement of the Player’s due
remuneration for the season 2022/2023. A copy of the relevant receipt in Greek has been
provided by the Respondent, who also enclosed a translation into English.
22. In conclusion, the Respondent pleads for a rejection of the claim in its entirety.
c. Claimant’s rejoinder
23. In response to the Club’s arguments, the Claimant first contests the allegations regarding
the jurisdiction of the NDRC of the CFA, holding that the said body does not comply with
the prerequisites established by FIFA under the relevant framework, including, inter alia,
FIFA Circular no. 1010.
24. Accordingly, the Player insists on the competence of FIFA to deal with the present dispute,
also pointing out that the Private Agreement remains silent as for what concerns the issue
of jurisdiction.
25. Moving to the substance, the Claimant denies having ever received any payment with
regard to his outstanding remuneration for the season 2022/2023, arguing that the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11066
relevant receipt produced by the Respondent does not contain any indications regarding
the date or place of signature nor the presence of any witnesses. Moreover, the Claimant
argues that his signature has been forged, thus the said document shall be disregarded.
26. Accordingly, the Claimant upholds his original requests for relief.
d. Respondent’s final submissions
27. In its final statement, the Respondent maintains its position with regard to the jurisdiction
of the NDRC of the CFA and counters the Claimant’s objections to the alleged proof of
payment of his outstanding remuneration.
28. In support of its arguments, the Respondent provided a hard copy of the relevant payslip
(undated), enclosing four additional receipts of payments allegedly realized in favour of the
same Claimant in order to prove the authenticity of the abovementioned document.
29. In this context, the Respondent points out that no date had been indicated in any of the
payment receipts produced, hence such absence does not represent a prerogative of the
receipt contested by the Player.
30. Furthermore, the Respondent argues that all the Claimant’s signatures affixed in the
aforementioned documents appear similar, hence it denies having committed forgery.
31. In conclusion, the Respondent insisted on its request to reject the claim in its entirety.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 26 July 2023 and submitted for
decision on 24 January 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 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.
33. 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, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11066
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Swiss
player and a Cypriot club.
34. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s objection,
according to which, the NDRC of the CFA shall be recognized as the competent judicial body
as per what stipulated under clause 13 of the Contract.
35. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant conversely insists on the competence of FIFA to
adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the NDRC of the CFA is not an independent
arbitration tribunal as it does not guarantee fair proceedings nor respect the principle of
equal representation of players and clubs.
36. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear
an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension.
Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an
independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the
framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such
arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration
tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation
of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA
National Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard Regulations (hereinafter: the Standard
Regulations), which came into force on 1 January 2008.
37. In this respect, and prior to delving into any assessment of the relevant NDRC ‘s compliance
with the principles abovementioned, the Chamber wished to remark that all submissions
and evidence produced before the Football Tribunal must abide by the mandatory
formalities established under the Procedural Rules. In particular, the Chamber wished to
refer to art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, according to which all the evidence upon
which a party intends to rely must be filed in the original language and, if applicable,
translated into English, Spanish or French. The members of the DRC also wished to recall
the core principle stressed under art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it.
38. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber noted that, in spite of having been requested to
do so by the FIFA General Secretariat on 5 December 2023, the Respondent failed to comply
with art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules by not providing copy of the Regulations of the
NDRC of the CFA in their original language as approved by the relevant body of the CFA,
submitting instead only a translation of the said document into English.
39. By doing so, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent has de facto prevented
the panel from verifying the accuracy of the relevant translation and its congruence with
the original document.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11066
40. In any event, even if the CFA NDRC Regulations as submitted by the Respondent would be
the correct regulations to apply to assess the NDRC’s compliance with the principles as set
out above, the Chamber noted a potential flaw within the structure of the CFA NDRC.
41. Pursuant to art. 22.7(1) of the CFA NDRC Regulations, it would seem that in cases where
the NDRC Chairman or one of its members resigns, passes away or is suspended, it is the
Executive Committee of the CFA, which will “elect a new member or Chairman for the
remaining of the term”. Evidently, this entails that the equal representation principle cannot
be guaranteed.
42. In that respect, art. 22.7(2) seems to be inconsistent with the mentioned paragraph 1 as it
provides that “for an appointment of a new member, the provisions of the above paragraph
22.3 have to be fulfilled”. However, art. 22.3 does not foresee any provisions relating to an
appointment; it rather addresses the issue of applicable law. Whether this is simply a typo
and art. 22.7(2) is actually referring to art. 22.4, it is not possible to establish, again given
that the Respondent failed to provide, despite FIFA General Secretariat’s request, a version
of the original NDRC Regulations as approved and passed by the CFA.
43. The above concern even becomes more tangible if one analyses arts. 22.11 and 22.12 of
the CFA NDRC Regulations, which address conflict of interests. In particular, even if it results
from those articles that it is possible for parties to file a recusal against an NDRC member,
which will be decided by the NDRC in the absence of the conflicted member, it is all but
clear the way in which the recused member will be substituted, should he/she be removed.
It may well be that art. 22.4 would apply. However, it could also be that such removal would
qualify as a “suspension” in the sense of art. 22.7(1), in which case it would be the Executive
Committee of the CFA, the body responsible for “electing” a substitute. Again, in the latter
case, the principle of equal representation would not be met.
44. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection
towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and FIFA
is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
45. 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 26 July 2023, the aforementioned edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
46. The Chamber recalled once again 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11066
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
47. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
48. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the Respondent strongly disputes the existence of
outstanding amounts in favour of the Claimant.
49. In particular, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s objections to the validity of the
Private Agreement submitted by the Claimant as well as the latter’s allegations regarding
the purported forgery of the receipt of payment produced by the Club.
50. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its first task was to determine which of the
documents submitted by the parties constitute a valid and binding source of obligations,
and subsequently to verify which amounts have remained outstanding in favour of the
Claimant, if any.
51. In this respect, the Chamber first observed that the Contract was not an object of dispute
by the parties, and that, according to the Claimant, the Club failed to pay the latter’s salaries
related to the months of March, April and May 2023, for a total of EUR 22,500 (i.e., EUR
7,500 x 3).
52. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the validity of the
Private Agreement filed by the Claimant, arguing that (i) the Club’s signature affixed therein
does not match the one on the Contract and that (ii) the relevant Club’s stamp is missing.
53. In this context, the Chamber however wished to emphasize that prior to the submission of
its statement of defence, the Respondent did not object to any of the Player’s claims,
including those concerning its obligations under the Private Agreement. In particular, the
Chamber observed that in its e-mail dated 2 June 2023, addressed to the Claimant – the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11066
authenticity of which remained undisputed – the Respondent declared that “the amounts
owed to the player are not contested and are going to be fully paid”.
54. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the several receipts submitted by the Club as
evidence of the previous payments made to the Claimant and observed that they all refer
to an amount of EUR 6,500, which largely differs from the relevant sum stipulated under
the Contract (i.e., EUR 1,500), thus convincing the Chamber that the effective value of the
remuneration agreed in favour of the Claimant was higher than what alleged by the
Respondent. Put differently, if the Contract was the only document concluded between the
Parties, the Respondent failed to explain why then it made substantially higher payments
to the Claimant.
55. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that indeed the Respondent undertook to pay, inter
alia, the clean-sheet bonuses stipulated in the Private Agreement, each amounting to EUR
1,000. In this context, the Chamber noted that during the relevant season, the Player
succeeded in not conceding any goal for 11 matches, thus being entitled, in principle, to a
total of EUR 11,000.
56. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber moved its attention to the receipt of payment
produced by the Respondent in order to assess whether the latter had actually paid the
sum of EUR 20,000 to the Claimant and settled its debts, fully or in part.
57. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the position of the Claimant, who after denying
having ever received nor signed the above receipt, accused the Respondent of having
fabricated the said document.
58. In this context, the members of 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 jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. Notwithstanding
the above, the Chamber observed that the Respondent was not able to provide any
clarification regarding the circumstances in which the said document has been allegedly
signed by the Claimant, in particular the date of signature, nor it provided any witness’
statement in this respect. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that in spite of having been
allegedly signed by the Player in person, thus supposedly before the latter had left Cyprus
on 27 May 2023, the receipt in question does not appear in any of the subsequent
correspondences exchanged between the parties, whereas on 2 June 2023 as well as on 12
July 2023 the same Respondent openly acknowledged its debt towards the Claimant,
namely for an even higher amount than the one indicated in the referred receipt of
payment and thus in any event superseding all Respondent`s previous statements in this
regard.
59. In fact, the Chamber considered that if indeed the Respondent had paid to the Claimant
EUR 20,000 at some point at the end of the 2022/2023 season, the Respondent should have
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11066
been able to corroborate this with other documentation, for instance, bank statements or
cash withdrawals. In this respect, the Respondent could not even explain the method by
which this payment was allegedly made. The fact that its Board changed is not, in the
Chamber’s view, good reason to fail to provide any explanation whatsoever around the
supposed payment.
60. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that, in spite of the documentation
produced by the Club, it was not convinced to its comfortable satisfaction that the Player
had indeed received EUR 20,000 at some point at the end of the 2022/2023 season.
61. As a consequence, on the basis of venire contra factum proprium 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 total outstanding amount of EUR 33,500.
62. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the relevant due dates until the date of
effective payment.
ii. Consequences of overdue payables
63. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
64. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and
granted the Respondent a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
65. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations was met in the case at hand.
66. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. On account of the above and bearing
in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two years, the
Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
67. In this connection, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11066
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11066
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Joel Yves Mall.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Joel Yves Mall, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Olympiakos Nicosia, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
EUR 22,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7,500 as from 1 April 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7,500 as from 1 May 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7,500 as from 1 June 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
EUR 11,000 net as outstanding bonuses plus interest p.a. as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 October 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 November 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 January 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,000 as from 1 February 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 March 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 1 April 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 4,000 as from 1 May 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-11066
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with 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. 14
REF. FPSD-11066
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. 15