Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15931
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Japhet Eloi Manko Ngumbete
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Japhet Eloi Manko Ngumbete, Congo
Represented by Talel Ben Hadj
RESPONDENT:
Alnahda, Oman
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15931
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 13 July 2024, the Omani club Alnahda (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) offered
the Congolese player Japhet Eloi Manko Ngumbete (hereinafter, the Claimant or the Player)
an employment contract by means of the so-called “Draft contract” (hereinafter, the Offer).
2.
Also on 13 July 2024, the Player signed the Offer and returned it to the Club.
3.
The Offer provided, inter alia, the following:
“1. [The Player] joints the ranks of the first team with a total amount of USD 50,000 for the
period from 15/07/2024 to 30/05/2025 or the end of the sports season.
2. [The Player] receives a contract deposit upon signing USD 10,000.
3. [The Player] shall receive a monthly basic salary of OMR 1,544, which is equivalent to USD
4,000.
(…)
8. The Club committed with agreement after the Player pass the medical and technical test and
after getting the player’s international card.
9. The contract shall be cancelled without any financial obligations if Clause No. (8) is not
fulfilled.
(…)
19. This is not a contract and does not count, but rather an offer and it is not valid until the club
has signed it in an official capacity and the player has come to the Sultanate.
4.
On 20 July 2024, the Club send to the Player an employment visa, which would be valid
for two years.
5.
On 22 July 2024, the Club issued the Player flight tickets to Oman.
6.
On 25 July 2024, the Player arrived in Oman.
7.
Upon arrival in Oman on 25 July 2024, the Player attended a medical test and was
issued a resident card by the Club.
8.
On 26 July 2024, the Player started training with the Club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15931
9.
On 5 August 2024, the Player travelled with the Club to Dubai, where he participated
in a training camp, played in two friendly games and scored a goal.
10. On 13 August 2024, the Club verbally informed the Player that they would no longer
require his services.
11. On 14 August 2024, the Player put the Club in default, and requested payment of USD
10,000 per the “contract deposit” as stipulated in Clause 2 of the Offer. Furthermore,
the Player informed the Club that the unilateral termination of the employment
contract would constitute an unjustified breach of the agreement.
12. According to the Player, also on 14 August 2024 the Club offered him to mutually
terminate the employment relationship in exchange for USD 2,700, and he was
informed that he should not attend the training sessions.
13. Also on 14 August 2024, the Player sent an email to the Club informing that he rejected to
terminate the contract in exchange for USD 2,700. Furthermore, the Player insisted in his
request for the payment of USD 10,000 and urged the Club to cease preventing him from
training.
14. On 17 August 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player in the following terms:
“1. Referring to clause No. (8) and clause No. (9) of the draft contract, which states clause (8),
this contract is valid only after obtaining the player’s international card and passing the medical
and physical examination.
2. Clause No. (9). The contract is cancelled without any financial obligations if clause No. (8) is
not met.
3. Clause No. (19). This is not a contract and is not valid, but rather just an offer and will not be
valid until the club officially signs it and the player arrive in the Sultanate.
4. The issuance of obtaining a work card (resident) for the aforementioned player was to
facilitate his entry into the United Arab Emirates where the first team camp is there to test him
technically and physically and has nothing to do with the subject of contracting with the player
in the first place.
5. The club does not recognize any statements or any talk issued by any person, but only
recognizes what is issued through its official messages and the club does not offer any amounts
due to the absence of a contractual relationship with the player.
6. Based on what is stated in the aforementioned clauses and the fact that the player did not
pass the technical and physical examination (attached is the technical and physical examination
report) for the club therefore we inform you of the expiration of the validity of the offer submitted
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15931
to you for the reasons mentioned above.
7. We confirm repeatedly that there is no officially concluded contract with the player.
8. The player is not allowed to attend the first team training at all.
9. The player was given a period of one week from this date, ending on 22/08/2024, to leave the
Sultanate, and the club will book a return ticket for him to his country, as the player is sponsored
by the club and the club is obliged to do so.
10. The club will take appropriate action if the player fails to comply with the specified period”.
15. Also on 17 August 2024, the Player replied insisting on the fact that, with their actions, the
Club was unilaterally terminating the employment relationship, and requested a flight
ticket to travel back home.
16. On 18 August 2024, the Club provided the Player with a flight ticket to Congo, and insisted
on the content of its previous letter.
17. On 21 August 2024, the Player flew back to Congo.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 5 September 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
19. According to the Player, after returning a signed copy of the Offer, the Club informed him
that they had started the procedure for his transfer in the Transfer Matching System (TMS),
that they had also signed the Offer, and that he would receive a copy of it upon his arrival
in Oman.
20. The Player sustained that the parties clearly entered into an employment contract, as
proved by the employment visa secured by the Club as his sponsor, as well as the fact that
he trained and played for the Club for more than three weeks.
21. According to the Player, the Club’s decision to no longer require his services constitutes a
termination of contract without just cause. As such, the Player claimed being entitled to the
following amounts and concepts:
- USD 14,666.67 as outstanding remuneration (i.e., USD 10,000 as “contract deposit”; USD
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15931
2,000 as half of July 2024 and USD 2,666.67 per 20 days in August 2024); and
- USD 35,333.33 as compensation for breach of contract, by deducting the outstanding
remuneration from the residual value of the contract.
22. The Player requested the following relief:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting FIFA DRC to determine that the
Club terminated the employment relationship with the Player without just cause and to order
the Club to pay him the following amounts:
• USD 14,666.67 as outstanding salaries + 10% interest from the relevant payment dates until
the date of effective payment.
• USD 35,333.33 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause + 10% interest
from the relevant payment dates until the date of effective payment.
• USD 5,000 for the moral damages caused to the Player, who is staying until the end of the
season without a team.
• USD 500 for translation costs.
In addition, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to impose sporting sanctions on the Club for
breach of contract within the protected period”.
b. Position of the Club
23. On 20 November 2024, the Club submitted its reply to the claim together with several
emails exchanged with FIFA Legal Digital Support informing of technical problems
accessing the Legal Portal.
24. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent initially pointed out that, when signing a player,
they first send a draft contract and not an official contract “because we do not know whether
this player is technically and physically ready or not”. In this respect, the Club sustained that
the document sent to the Player was not an official contract, but rather a draft.
25. Furthermore, the Club argued that the draft was subject to the Player’s passing the medical
exam and obtaining the international card. In this regard, the draft would be cancelled
without any financial obligations if the foregoing was not fulfilled.
26. According to the Club, before the start of the season it held an external camp in the United
Arab Emirates, which included friendly matches against Al Wasl and Al Nasr, and the Player
was included in those matches. In this respect, the Club sustained that the Player was not
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15931
technically and physically ready, “and this alone is sufficient to cancel the draft contract
according to its terms”.
27. The Club requested the following relief:
“Cancel the player’s complaint from the beginning and cancel the compensation he is
demanding for the reasons we mentioned in this letter and because the club is the one who
suffered greatly as a result of his player”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 5 September 2024 and submitted for decision
on 12 December 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.
29. 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 2024
edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Congolese player
and an Omani club.
30. 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 (October 2024 edition), and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 5 September 2024, the June 2024 edition of said Regulations is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the Club’s reply to the claim
31. On 12 September 2024, the FIFA General Secretariat notified the claim of the Player to the
Club, and invited it to provide its position on the claim until 2 October 2024.
32. On 20 November 2024, the Club provided its reply to the claim.
33. After having conducted a thorough examination of the IT issues denounced by the Club in
its reply to the claim, the FIFA General Secretariat confirmed that the Respondent did
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15931
indeed encounter particular technical problems accessing the Legal Portal, which
prevented him from providing his position on the claim until said technical issues were
resolved, on 20 November 2024.
34. In particular, the FIFA General Secretariat confirmed that, after being notified of the claim
of the Player, the Club requested assistance via the Legal Portal and also provided evidence
confirming the technical problems.
35. In view of the above and considering the exceptional circumstances, the Chamber decided
that the Club’s reply is admissible.
c. Burden of proof
36. 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 TMS.
d. Merits of the dispute
37. 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
38. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that it
concerned a claim by a player against a club with regard to existence of a contractual
relationship, the termination of the alleged employment relationship between the parties
and its consequences.
39. The Chamber observed that, according to the Player, the Offer constituted a valid and
binding employment agreement concluded between the parties that was subsequently
unilaterally terminated by the Club when it informed him about its decision to no longer
require his services. Based on this, the Player claimed to be entitled to outstanding
remuneration, compensation for breach of contract, moral damages and translation costs.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15931
40. The Chamber also observed that, for its part, the Club argued that the Offer did not
constitute an official contract, but rather a draft. In this respect, according to the Club the
Offer was subject to the Player’s passing a medical examination and to obtaining an
international card. Moreover, the Club sustained that the Player was not physically and
technically ready, which is why it informed him that his services would no longer be needed.
41. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that it had to address the following questions:
I. Is the Offer a valid and binding employment contract?
II. In such a case, did the Club have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
***
I.
Is the Offer a valid and binding employment contract?
42. The Chamber initially underscored that, before addressing any potential breach of contract
and its consequences, it first had to assess whether the Offer is indeed a valid and binding
employment contract.
43. In doing so, the Chamber initially wish to remind the Club of the clear and explicit wording
of art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, according to which the validity of an employment
contract cannot be made subject to a successful medical examination and/or the grant of
a work permit. Accordingly, any contractual provision contrary to art. 18 par. 4 of the
Regulations shall be considered as invalid.
44. Furthermore, the DRC recalled the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of the
Chamber that dictates that in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid
and binding, apart from the consent of both the employer and the employee (which is
usually manifested by the signature to the relevant agreement), it should contain the
essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their
role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the
employer to the employee.
45. On this note, the DRC further recalled that it is also a well-established jurisprudence of the
Chamber that the actual signature of the contract is not the sole element to determine
whether there was an existing contractual relationship between the parties. Instead, the
validity and the enforcement of the contract should be established on the basis of a
comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions taken by the parties within the
context of their relationship. Put differently, the signature requirement is essentially the
easiest way that a party has to prove their counterparty has entered into a contract.
However, the DRC underscored that, in line with the jurisprudence of both the Chamber
and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an employment agreement can be materialized
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15931
with the wish to be executed, and the signature can be understood as a requirement to
prove the club’s acceptance, but it is not the only evidence.
46. With the above in mind, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, and
determined that it was for the Player to prove the existence of a valid and binding
employment contract from which he is now claiming outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract.
47. In this regard, the DRC turned its attention to the evidence presented by the parties.
48. The Chamber first noted that the Offer submitted by the Player included all the
aforementioned essential elements of an employment contract, except for the Club’s
signature. The DRC noted that the Offer included the parties and their respective roles, the
duration of the employment relationship as well as the remuneration payable by the Club
to the Player in exchange for the latter’s services.
49. With regard to the consent of the parties, the Chamber observed that the Player’s is
obvious and does not need further analysis. As to the consent of the Club, the DRC went
on to analyse whether there were any other elements on file that could confirm the Club’s
consent to entering into an employment relationship with the Player.
50. In this regard, and even though the Offer was not signed by the Club, the DRC found that
its consent could be inferred from the other evidence submitted by the Player and also
from the Club’s own position, which did not dispute that it had sent the Offer or that the
Player had indeed joined the Club.
51. In particular, the Chamber noted that in the employment visa submitted by the Player and
granted by the Omani government it is indicated that his occupation would be “sportsman”.
In addition, the Chamber also noted that the Club itself confirmed having sponsored the
visa for the Player in its communication dated 17 August 2024 and also in its reply to the
claim.
52. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Player also provided evidence of travel to Oman
and training with the Club which, again, was confirmed by the Club’s reply to the claim.
53. Based on the foregoing considerations and, after a thorough examination of the
documentation on file, the Chamber found that Player succeeded in demonstrating that
the Club also consented to entering into an employment agreement with the Player. As a
result, it concluded that the Player sufficiently proved the existence of a valid and binding
employment relationship between the parties, and therefore decided that the Offer was a
valid and binding employment contract between the parties. Accordingly, determined that
the Offer shall be considered, in the case at stake, as the contractual basis of the present
dispute.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15931
II.
Did the Club have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
54. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber turned to the question of whether,
as argued by the Player, the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated
without just cause by the Club.
55. In doing so, the DRC initially recalled its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence,
according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the
termination of a contract. 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. Accordingly, a premature
termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio measure.
56. With the above in mind, the DRC noted that, according to the Player, the Club terminated
the Contract after the latter informed him that it no longer required his services. The
Chamber also observed that the Club did not dispute the foregoing, but rather confirmed
that, by means of its letter dated 17 August 2024, it had decided to no longer count on the
Player as he did not pass the medical examination and as he was allegedly not physically
and technically ready after the training camp held in the United Arab Emirates.
57. Once having determined that failure to pass a medical examination does not affect the
validity of an employment contract and therefore cannot be cited as grounds to terminate
an employment relationship, the DRC also wished to outline that, in accordance with its
well-established jurisprudence, a player’s performance cannot be a valid reason for an
employer to cease paying due salaries or terminate an employment contract, as this is a
purely unilateral and subjective evaluation by the club.
58. On account of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the Club unlawfully terminated the
employment contract with the Player by means of its latter dated 17 August 2024, and that
the Club should therefore be held liable for the consequences thereof.
ii. Consequences
59. Having stated the above, the DRC turned its attention to the question of the consequences
of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
60. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amount to USD 16,000 as follows:
- USD 10,000 as “contract deposit”, which was due upon conclusion of the Offer;
- USD 2,000 for the period 15 July to 31 July 2024; and
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15931
- USD 4,000 for August 2024, considering that the employment contract was terminated
on 17 August 2024.
61. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the employment contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD
16,000.
62. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from their due dates until the date of
effective payment, as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 10,000 as from 14 July 2024;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 as from 1 August 2024; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 18 August 2024.
63. 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.
64. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
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.
65. 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.
66. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Respondent to the Claimant 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15931
67. 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
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 34,000 (i.e.,
the residual value of the Offer for the period from September 2024 to May 2025) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
68. In continuation, the Chamber verified 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
Chamber 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.
69. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the employment contract.
70. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
71. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 34,000, representing the residual value of the contract.
72. Without prejudice to the foregoing, and in the absence of any legal and/or contractual
basis, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s entitlement to moral damages.
73. 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% per annum as of 18 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. 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
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15931
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
e. Costs
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15931
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Japhet Eloi Manko Ngumbete, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Alnahda, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
USD 16,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 10,000 as from 14 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,000 as from 1 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 4,000 as from 18 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
USD 34,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as from
18 August 2024 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15931
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15931
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 – 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