Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00783
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 December 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kire Markoski
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Angela Collins (Australia), member
Aby Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
KIRE MARKOSKI, North Macedonia
Represented by Mr. Josep F. Vandellos
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
AEL PODOSFERIA DIMOSIA, Cyprus
INTERVENING PARTY:
MFK KARVINA, Slovakia
Page 2 of 13
REF 20-00783
I. FACTS
1.
On 1 July 2018, the North Macedonian player Kire Markoski (hereinafter: the Claimant/CounterRespondent or player) and the Cypriot club AEL Podosferia Dimosia (hereinafter: the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant or club) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract), valid as from 1 July 2018 until 31 May 2020.
2.
In accordance with the contract, the club undertook to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
from 31 August 2019 until 31 May 2020, inter alia, a monthly net salary of EUR 5,500.
3.
On 2 July 2018, the parties signed an “additional agreement”, whereby the Respondent/CounterClaimant undertook to pay to the player, inter alia, the following amount: “EUR 2,000 net if the
club wins the Cyprus Championship”.
4.
Moreover, on an unspecified date, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant also signed a standard employment agreement, which “regulated
their employment relationship in accordance to the national law”.
5.
On 5 February 2020, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in
default of payment of EUR 13,000, corresponding to the salaries of December 2019 and January
2020 in the amount of EUR 5,500 each, as well as to the cup bonus in the amount of EUR 2,000,
granting the Respondent a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default.
6.
On 13 February 2020, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant made a payment of EUR 4,000, without
allocating said payment to any specific consideration.
7.
Thereafter, on 21 February 2020, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the
contract in writing, insofar the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to pay all the outstanding
amounts owed to him.
8.
Once the employment relationship was terminated, on 15 April 2020, the Respondent/CounterClaimant made a further payment, this time of EUR 5,500, corresponding to the outstanding
salary of January 2020.
9.
On 27 May 2020, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, explaining that despite him complying with his contractual
obligations, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to duly pay his salaries as well as the cup
bonus.
10. In this context, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argued that he had to put the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment in several occasions and, as a consequence
thereof, he was paid but only partially.
11. In his request for relief, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested to be awarded outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 25,500, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 21 February 2020, broken down by the player as follows:
Page 3 of 13
REF 20-00783
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 3,500
In this regard, the player explained that, from the outstanding moneys due to him, i.e. EUR 13,000,
the club only paid the amount of EUR 9,500 and, hence, he is entitled to EUR 3,500.
Compensation for breach of contract: EUR 22,000
- EUR 5,500 corresponding to the salary of February 2020;
- EUR 5,500 corresponding to the salary of March 2020;
- EUR 5,500 corresponding to the salary of April 2020;
- EUR 5,500 corresponding to the salary of May 2020.
12. In its reply to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is of
the opinion that the judicial bodies of the Cyprus Football Association, i.e. the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Cypriot NDRC) should be competent to deal with the matter at
hand.
13. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant refers to article 13 of the contract, which holds
the following clause:
‘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’.
14. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the abovementioned cause is clear and exclusive.
Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant explains that the Cypriot NDRC meets the principle
of parity and equal representation, and is guaranteeing all other prerequisites as laid down in FIFA
Circular 1010.
15. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted an extract of the Regulations of the Cyprus Football
Association, allegedly the edition 2019, in order to back its argument that FIFA lacks competence
to deal with the matter at hand.
16. In reply to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
explained that by lodging a counterclaim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is contradicting itself
that FIFA is not competent to deal with the matter at hand.
17. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that the Cypriot NDRC does not respect the
principle of equal representation, as laid down in FIFA Circular no. 1010, as well as that the
amendment to the CFA Regulations that came into force in June 2019 (and which changed several
articles compared to previous versions of the Regulations), whereas the Claimant/CounterRespondent signed the contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 1 July 2018. Hence,
according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the amended CFA Regulations are inapplicable
to the present dispute and the dispute shall be governed by the Regulations in force prior to the
amendment.
18. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that the amended regulations of the
Cypriot NDRC, only amended article 22.4.3 and left article 22.4.5 unchanged. Said article still fails
to respect the principle of equal representation, as laid down in FIFA Circular no. 1010. The
Page 4 of 13
REF 20-00783
Claimant argues in this respect that “it is a well-established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC that
the CFA NDRC does not seem to observe the principle of equal representation between players
and clubs, in light of the fact that the regulations in place grant the CFA influence on the selection
process of player members as opposed to club members”.
19. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent referred to two recent decisions of the DRC
(cases 19-01801 and 20-00212), were the above-mentioned circumstances are confirmed.
20. Moreover, as to the substance, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued as to the substance of
the matter that the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary if EUR 5,500 net, and that indeed,
on 21 February 2020, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contract
because of two outstanding salaries for the months of December 2019 and January 2020.
21. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is however of the opinion that the termination was made
without just cause, as it conflicts the wording of art. 9.2 of the standard employment agreement
signed by the player, which is an integral part of the contract.
22. Article 9.2 of the standard employment agreement reads as follows:
‘9.2 The player shall be entitled to terminate the employment agreement in writing to the club if
the club:
9.2.1. Shall be guilty of serious or persistent breach of the terms and conditions of this contract
9.2.2. Fails to pay any due payables or other benefits, allowances or bonuses due to the player
within 30 days since the date that the club has been put in default in writing by the player’.
23. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant explains that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should have
put the club in default for 30 days as of 5 February 2020, but instead only granted the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant 15 days, until 20 February 2020 and consequently, terminated the
contract on 21 February 2020.
24. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant explains that the salary for December 2019 was aid
on 13 February 2020, and that the salary for January 2020 was paid on 15 April 2020.
25. As a result, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is of the opinion that the Claimant/CounterRespondent terminated the contract without just cause and lodged a counterclaim, claiming the
total amount of EUR 22,000 net, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.
26. In reply to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
stated that that the Standard Employment Contract, referred to in the employment contract
between the parties is not a collective bargaining agreement, and as such – since it is imposed by
the GFA Regulations – does not grant equal bargaining power to the Claimant/CounterRespondent. Since the standard employment contract is not a CBA in the sense of art. 14bis of
the FIFA Regulations, paragraph 3 of said article is not applicable to the matter at hand.
Page 5 of 13
REF 20-00783
27. Also, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent confirmed having received the amount of EUR 3,500,
related to the remaining salary for January 2020, on 11 August 2020.
28. In conclusion, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent amended his claim, and requests that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant be ordered to pay him compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 22,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. as from 21 February 2020.
29. After having been requested by the FIFA Administration, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
confirmed that he remained unemployed between 21 February and 30 April 2020, and that on
1 May 2020, he entered into a contract with the Czech club MFK Karvina, valid between 1 August
2020 and 30 June 2021. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent however explains that in the period
between 1 May 2020 and 18 July 2020, he played as an amateur with said club, and that on 18
July 2020, said contract was terminated with mutual consent, as a result of which he did not
receive remuneration as per the contract.
30. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explained that on 31 August 2020, he signed a
contract with the North Macedonian club FC Academy Pandev, however that “the validity of this
Contract falls outside the scope of the subject matter of the present dispute”.
31. What is more, in reply to the entire file, the player’s first new club, MFK Karvina, did not submit
any further statements.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. 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 submitted to FIFA on 27 May 2020. Taking into account the wording of
art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition March 2020), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake. The matter concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a North Macedonian player
and a Cypriot club, with the involvement of a Czech club.
3.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has
jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
4.
Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of
the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal
with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing
fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has
been established at national level within the framework of the Association and/or a collective
Page 6 of 13
REF 20-00783
bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration
tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20
December 2005. In this regard, the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the
FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force
on 1 January 2008.
5.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber wished to stress that the club was unable to prove
that, in fact, the CFA “National Dispute Resolution Chamber” meets the minimum procedural
standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players, in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations.
6.
In this respect, the DRC referred to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and
underlined that this principle was one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order
for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is
mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the Circular no. 1010 as
well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as
follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year
renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and
club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or
appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such
associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three
and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following:
“The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for
example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed
arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be
selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to
exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list.”
7.
What is more, while analysing the documentation submitted by the parties in this respect, in
particular, the members of the Chamber concurred that the “Regulations for the Registration and
Transfer of Football Players and the DRC Procedural Regulations (2019)”, in accordance with its
article 22.4.4, the two members which are elected by the Pancyprian Football Players’ Association,
need to be approved by the CFA, whereas such condition does not apply to the appointment of
club representatives. What is more, based on article 22.4.5 of the Cyprus NDRC Regulations, in
case Pancyprian Football Players’ Association refuses or fails to nominate a player representative,
the CFA has also potential influence on the selection process of player representatives, as opposed
to club representatives.
8.
Taking into account the foregoing articles of the Cyprus NDRC Regulations, the members of the
Chamber were of the opinion that the Cyprus NDRC does not fully respect the principle of equal
representation, as laid down in FIFA Circular no. 1010.
9.
In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the club’s objection to the competence of
FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber
is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
to consider the present matter as to the substance.
Page 7 of 13
REF 20-00783
10. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2020 edition), and considering that
the claim was lodged on 27 May 2020, the March 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
11. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
submitted by the parties. 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.
12. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that, on 1 July 2018, the player and the club had concluded
an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2018 until 31 May 2020. As to the financial terms of
said employment contract, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon between the
parties that the club would remunerate the player with a monthly salary of EUR 5,500 net in the
period between 31 August 2019 and 31 May 2020.
13. Equally, the DRC acknowledged that, on the same date, the player and the club concluded an
additional agreement, whereby the player would be entitled to an amount of EUR 2,000 net if
the club would win the Cyprus Championship. Moreover, on an unspecified date, the player also
undersigned a standard employment agreement, which “regulated their employment relationship
in accordance to the national law”.
14. The members of the Chamber then turned to the claim of the player, who maintained that – after
having put the club in default on 5 February 2020 for an amount of EUR 13,000 (corresponding
to two monthly salaries and a bonus payment of EUR 2,000) and granting a deadline until 20
February 2020 to remedy the default – he only received a partial payment of EUR 4,000. As a
result, on 21 February 2020, the player unilaterally terminated the contract, based on art. 14bis
of the Regulations.
15. In this respect, the DRC noted that the club is of the opinion that the player did not follow the
correct proceeding of terminating the contract, as he should have followed the stipulations of art.
9.2 of the standard employment agreement, which stipulate that the player is only entitled to
unilaterally terminate the contract once he has given the club a deadline of 30 days to remedy its
default in relation to outstanding payments. What is more, the club explains that the salaries for
December 2019 and January 2020 were paid on 13 February and 15 April 2020 respectively.
16. As a result of the foregoing, the club is of the opinion that the player terminated the contract on
21 February 2020 without just cause, and that as a result, it is entitled to compensation for breach
of contract in the amount of EUR 22,000.
17. Analysing the circumstances surrounding, the Chamber first of all recalled that in accordance with
art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, the player – who wants to terminate his contract because of
outstanding amounts - has to put the club in default in writing and has to grant a deadline of 15
Page 8 of 13
REF 20-00783
days to the club to fully comply with its financial obligations. What is more, the Chamber also
took note of art. 14bis par. 3, which stipulates that ‘collective bargaining agreements validly
negotiated by employers’ and employees’ representatives at domestic level in accordance with
national law may deviate from the principles stipulated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. The terms
of such an agreement shall prevail’.
18. Keeping in mind the above article, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the standard
employment agreement signed by the player and the club cannot be considered as a document
that is negotiated between employers’ and employees’ representatives at domestic level in
accordance with national law. As such, the Chamber concluded that the standard employment
agreement cannot deviate from the conditions laid down in art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations.
19. Furthermore, turning to the club’s argumentation that it paid the salaries for December 2019 and
January 2020 to the player, the Chamber noted that the payment of the salary for January 2020
only took place on 15 April 2020, i.e. after the unilateral termination of the contract. Said
circumstance can therefore not be of influence on the answer to the question whether or not the
player terminated the contract with or without just cause. Moreover, according to the player, on
13 February 2020, he only received an amount of EUR 4,000, which is not the full salary for the
month of December 2019.
20. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that on 21 February 2020, the club did not fully
satisfy its outstanding debts in the amount of EUR 13,000, despite having been informed by the
player by means if his default letter dated 5 February 2020. The club only paid an amount of EUR
4,000 before the unilateral termination of the contract, as a result of which on the date of
termination, an amount of EUR 9,000 remained outstanding.
21. Recalling the provisions set out in art. 14bis par. 1 according to which in the case of a club
unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will
be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor
club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to
fully comply with its financial obligation(s), the Chamber concluded that the player had just cause
to unilaterally terminate the contract.
22. As a result, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and
should bear the consequences thereof.
23. Having established that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment
contract without just cause, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such
breach of contract. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
decided that the player is entitled to receive from the club an amount of money as compensation
for breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant
contract, if any.
24. The Chamber then reverted to the player’s claim, from which it clearly follows that at the day of
the unilateral termination of the contract, 21 February 2020, and taking into account the payment
made on 15 April 2020 in the amount of EUR 5,500, on 27 May 2020, the date of the claim, an
amount of EUR 3,500 remained outstanding.
Page 9 of 13
REF 20-00783
25. However, the Chamber wished to point out that in his last submission, the player acknowledged
that on 11 August 2020, he received an additional payment from the club in the amount of EUR
3,500. As a result, the Chamber concluded that on the date of the decision, 10 December 2020,
there were no outstanding amounts to be paid by the club to the player, as the club had fulfilled
all of its financial obligations towards the player until the date of the unilateral termination of the
contract.
26. In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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.
27. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by which the parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by either contractual party in the
event of breach of contract. In this respect, the members of the Chamber concluded that no such
clause was present in the contract.
28. 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 the said provision provides for
a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account
at the discretion of the deciding body.
29. 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 employment contract until
31 May 2020. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player was to receive 4 monthly salaries
of EUR 5,500 each for the period between February and May 2020.
30. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the members of the Chamber decided that the residual
value of the contract until 31 May 2020, corresponds to the total amount of EUR 22,000.
31. 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, 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.
Page 10 of 13
REF 20-00783
32. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed between 21 February
and 30 April 2020 and that on 1 May 2020, he found new employment with the Czech club MFK
Karvina, however on an amateur basis and therefore not being able to mitigate his damages. $
33. 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 22,000 to the
player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
34. Furthermore, in accordance with its established jurisprudence and taking into account the request
of the player, the Chamber further decided that interest at the rate of 5% p.a. was to be applied
over the amount of EUR 22,000 as from 27 May 2020, i.e. the date of the claim.
35. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing
that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected.
36. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision,
the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of
the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
37. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay
the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods.
38. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent
does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the
Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank
details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods
shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
39. Finally, the Chamber 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. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
Page 11 of 13
REF 20-00783
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Kire Markoski, is partially accepted
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, AEL Podosferia Dimosia, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the
following amounts:
- EUR 22,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 27 May 2020 until the effective date of payment.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
5.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
must pay the due amount.
6.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in
accordance with this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the
official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant / CounterRespondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall
arise:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount
is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 12 of 13
REF 20-00783
NOTE RELATED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE DECISION:
In accordance with arts. 15 and 18 of the Procedural Rules, this correspondence only communicates
the findings of the decision without grounds.
Should any of the parties wish to receive the grounds of the decision, a written request must be
received by FIFA, within 10 days of receipt of notification of the findings of the decision. Failure to
do so within the stated deadline will result in the decision becoming final and binding and the parties
being deemed to have waived their rights to file an appeal.
Whenever procedural costs are due, the grounds of the decision will only be notified to the party
requesting the grounds and upon payment of the relevant procedural costs. If the procedural costs are
not paid within 20 days of the notification of the findings, the request for the grounds shall be
deemed to have been withdrawn. As a result, the decision will become final and binding and the
relevant party will be deemed to have waived their right to file an appeal.
No costs shall be charged if a party decides not to ask for the grounds of the decision and, where
applicable, the advance of costs will be reimbursed to the relevant party.
NOTE RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL COSTS:
If applicable, payments to FIFA should be made by wire transfer in Swiss francs (CHF) to the following
bank account:
366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) UBS Zurich,
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A, Clearing number 230, IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
Please mention the applicable reference number
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 13 of 13