Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15040
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 November 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bruno
Leonardo Martinho Gomes
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
CLAIMANT:
Bruno Leonardo Martinho Gomes, Portugal
Represented by Roberto Terenzio
RESPONDENT:
HRNK Zmaj (M), Croatia
Represented by Vice Urlic
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15040
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 March 2024, the Portuguese player Bruno Leonardo Martinho Gomes (hereinafter:
the player or Claimant) and the Croatian club HRNK Zmaj (M) (hereinafter: the club or
Respondent) - apparently - concluded an employment contract valid until 30 June 2026
(hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
In accordance with art. 2 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant
as follows:
1- “The club undertakes to pay the Player for these services a monthly gross basic remuneration
of net amount of EUR 1,000, to be paid at the latest on the 25th of the month.
2- The Player’s remuneration and the other financial entitlements will be paid to the Player as
follows, always indicating the reason for the relevant payment.
3- The club is obliged to pay this amount until 30 June 2024, when it will decide on the extension
of the contract. In case the contract is extended the club is obliged to pay the Player 1.500,00
per month in the next 12 months. The club is obliged to pay that amount until 30 June 2025.
In case the contract is extended, the club is obliged to pay the Player EUR 2.000,00 per month
for the next 12 months".
3.
The first page of the Contract reads, inter alia, “the football club enters into a contract with
the player in cooperation with a company based in Belgrade and which has its own role in the
project with our club.
The football club confirms that it is a company from Belgrade represented by Vladan Boskovic…”
4.
On 22 February 2024, the Croatian Football Federation (HNS) on behalf of its affiliated club
(i.e., the Respondent) entered a transfer instruction in the FIFA Transfer Matching System
(TMS) for the permanent engagement of the player as “amateur” (ref. TMS 819360). In this
context, the player’s former FA delivered the relevant International Transfer Certificate
(ITC) on 26 February 2024, which receipt was formally confirmed by the HNS on 19 March
2024.
5.
By means of an email dated 16 April 2024, the player put the club in default of payment of
the relevant salary due for March 2024 and contextually argued having been prevented
from accessing the club’s training facilities as from 9 April 2024. The player’s email was sent,
amongst the others, to the address “hrn****[email protected]” which is the e-mail currently
used by the club in the TMS.
6.
On 17 April 2024, the player received an
“vla***********[email protected]” stating the following:
from
the
address
“Dear Roberto,
I will answer to you. If you represent sports law, you must first inform yourself about the laws of
the league and the rules of the players. The club you mentioned plays in the AMATEUR level of
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15040
competition where there are no clear rules. The contract that Bruno signed is a working
document that would have been authorized if we certified it at the embassy and certified it as
an official document between two persons. The purpose of that contract is to respect MY
obligations towards players who enter the amateur level of the competition. So, don't waste your
time and waste words. If Bruno had been smart, he could have had a home for the next 18
months, but he obviously didn't take certain things seriously, especially not me. I wish you a
pleasant day. For anything you need, contact me on my phone number + 381 [** ** ** ***]
Vladan Boskovic”.
7.
On 26 April 2024, the player sent another email, both to the club’s and Mr. Boskovic’s
abovementioned addresses, acknowledging that the club had reinstated the player into the
first team’s training sessions, but contextually arguing that the club’s default with regard to
the player’s outstanding salaries of March and April 2024 had not been remedied. The
player thus granted the club a deadline of 15 days to pay the alleged outstanding amounts.
8.
On the same day, Mr. Boskovic replied to the player stating what follows:
“Mr Roberto, read the email I sent you several times. You have every answer in it. I will mention
certain things to you AGAIN and there is no need after this email to contact anyone and send us
your stupid warnings. Bruno won't get a single euro, because he's rude and because he's an
ordinary girl. That's your first answer. I explained the second one and it's based on what level of
competition the club player is in and the example of the contract that Bruno signed with me.
Don't waste our time anymore. All the best”.
9.
On 23 May 2024, the player notified both the club and Mr. Boskovic the unilateral
termination of the Contract due to overdue payables.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 26 June 2024, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the player
11. According to the player, the club failed to comply with its financial obligations under the
Contract and reacted in an abusive manner against the player’s default notices.
12. In this respect, the player held that the club’s breach of contract was of such blatancy to
the extent of giving the player a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 23 May
2024.
13. The requests for relief of the Claimant, accordingly, were the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15040
“a) Order the Club to pay the Player the amount of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) net of taxes,
as outstanding salaries relevant to the months of March and April 2024 (i.e. 1,000 EUR x 2) plus
an interest at rate of 5% per year starting from: i) 26 March 2024 for the salary of March 2024
and ii) from 26 April 2024 for the salary of April 2024;
b) Order the Club to pay the Claimant EUR 44,000 (forty-four thousand euros), net of taxes, as
compensation for breach of contract without just cause, calculated since the date of termination
of the Employment Contract until its natural expiration (namely (i) EUR 2,000 as monthly salaries
of May and June 2024; plus (ii) EUR 18,000 as sporting season 2024/2025, i.e. 12 monthly salaries
of EUR 1,500; plus (iii) EUR 24,000 as sporting season 2025/2026, i.e. 12 monthly salaries of EUR
2,000) plus an interest at rate of 5% per year starting from the date of the termination letter 23
May 2024;
c) Order the Club to pay an Additional Compensation - also\or in consideration of the specificity
of sport - pursuant to article 17 FIFA RSTP equal to six salaries, i.e. EUR 6,000 (six thousand
euros), or in subordinate way to three monthly salaries, i.e. EUR 3,000 (three thousand) plus an
interest at rate of 5% per year starting from the date of the termination letter 23 May 2024”.
b. Position of the club
14. According to the club, Mr. Boskovic never acted as legal representative of the club, nor has
he ever been associated in any manner to the team, hence he would have no authority to
negotiate or conclude any type of agreement on behalf of the club.
15. In this context, the club held that that no professional employment contracts have ever
been in force between the latter and the player.
16. Furthermore, the club declared having filed a “criminal charge against unknown offender
because of the criminal act-signature falsify”.
17. The request for relief of the club was therefore to reject the claim in its entirety-
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15040
c. Rejoinder of the player
18. In his replica, the player rebutted the club’s allegation, arguing that he could have not been
registered with the team without Mr. Boskovic’s consent and involvement.
19. In this context, the player provided a copy of the communications held with Mr. Boskovic
emphasising how the latter would provide the player with all the details related to his
“project” for the development of young talented players in Croatia through the club’s
investments. Furthermore, in the player’s view, the content of the said communication
would directly corroborate Mr. Boskovic’s confirmation of the Contract’s duration of “2
years and 4 months” as well as of the club’s delay in the payment of the player’ salary for
March 2024.
20. In continuation, the player produced further screenshots of the correspondence held in
February 2024 with another player of the club, Mr. Marin, who referred to a person named
“Vladan” depicting him as the subject effectively in charge of the club, including the
payment of the player’s remuneration.
21. The player therefore upheld his original requests for relief.
d. Club’s final statements
22. In its final submissions, the club maintained the previous defensive statements, thus
arguing that the player was indeed registered with the club but as an amateur only, and
reiterating that Mr. Boskovic was never associated to the club, hence he would not be
authorized to stipulate or sign any type of contract on behalf of the club.
23. In support of its position, the club provided copy of the relevant confirmation from the
Croatian Football Federation that the player was registered as amateur as no employment
contracts were ever deposited.
24. The club therefore pleaded to reject the claim once again.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 June 2024 and submitted
for decision on 5 November 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March
2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15040
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
26. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 edition), the Single Judge
is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese player and a Croatian club.
27. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 June 2024, the June 2024 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
28. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she 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
29. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
30. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of a binding and enforceable employment
contract.
31. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the club denied having ever authorized Mr.
Vladan Boskovic to legally represent the club in any affair, thus he was not entitled to sign
the relevant employment contract with the player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15040
32. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was therefore to establish
whether the labour agreement produced by the player would actually impose any
contractual (thus enforceable) obligation on the club.
33. In this respect, the Single Judge wished to establish that no objections were submitted by
the parties with regard to the requisites of the contract to be deemed as such nor to the
authenticity of Mr. Boskovic’ signature on the said agreement.
34. The Single Judge conversely emphasized that the document produced by the player
contained – in principle - all the “essentialia negotii” which are recalled by the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in order for an employment
contract to be considered as valid and binding. Hence, in the Single Judge’s view the sole
bone of contention would be the question of whether the club shall be considered as
bound by the agreement signed by Mr. Boskovic with the player.
35. In this regard, the Single Judge remarked that, regardless of the player’s registration as
amateur or not, the existence of an employment contract between a club and a player
earning more for his footballing activity than the mere reimbursement of his incurring
expenses would pose no doubts as to the professional status of the said player and,
therefore, would render the club financially liable. In this case, the Single Judge is satisfied
that there is a signed document whereby the player is in principle entitled to remuneration
exceeding the expenses incurred for his footballing activity.
36. With the above in mind, the Single Judge started assessing the documentation produced
by the parties in support of their position and observed that the club requested (and
obtained) a “Historical account of persons authorized for representation”, prepared by the
HNS, where the name of Mr. Vladan Boskovic does not appear.
37. Nonetheless, the Single Judge pointed out that the absence of Mr. Boskovic’s name on the
above list would not constitute, per se, irrefutable evidence that the said person had
actually never participated in the club’s business or could be held to bind the club.
38. On the contrary, the Single Judge pointed out that anchoring the validity of employment
agreements exclusively to the content of the above-mentioned list would allow the
respective clubs to easily disavow signed contracts by simply alleging that they were only
signed by persons not expressly authorised as club representatives before the relevant
member association or other governing body.
39. As a consequence, the Single Judge continued her investigation on the matter and analysed
the content of the screenshots submitted by the player, whereby the latter alleged having
held several conversations in WhatsApp with Mr. Boskovic and argued having been offered
an employment contract by the latter.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15040
40. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that while both the timing and the content of the
relevant communications appear coherent with the chronology and the history of the facts
already acknowledged by the parties, the said screenshot could not be deemed as decisive
evidence of Mr. Boskovic’s actual involvement in the club’s affairs and/or apparent
authority.
41. The Single Judge therefore turned her attention to the exchange of e-mails between the
player and Mr. Boskovic during the month of April 2024 and noted that, despite the fact
that both of the player's default notices were sent to the club's official e-mail address, Mr.
Boskovic was the only one to reply to the player on each occasion. This was despite the fact
that the said correspondence had not even been forwarded to the player's e-mail initially.
42. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that, although the player had expressly mentioned Mr.
Boskovic in his communications, the club never contested Mr. Boskovic’s role or otherwise
questioned Mr. Boskovic’s inclusion in the exchange. In this context, the Single Judge also
observed that the second default notice dated 26 April 2024 was sent both to the club’s
official address and to Mr. Boskovic’s address. However, there is no evidence on file of the
club reacting to either the player’s correspondence or Mr. Boskovic’s interventions.
43. In this respect, the Single Judge found it curious, to say the least, that the club filed a
complaint against “unknown persons” on 2 August 2024, i.e. almost three months after the
player's termination of the Contract and only after the player's complaint before the FIFA
Football Tribunal (cf. para. 16 above). In any case, the Single Judge deemed the foregoing
to be irrelevant for purposes of her analysis of the central question.
44. As a matter of fact, the Single Judge assessed that, in spite of having been granted a second
round of submissions during the relevant proceeding, the club has never argued being
unaware of the contract termination by the player nor it has ever disputed having received
the abovementioned communications by the latter. Furthermore, once again the Single
Judge noted that the club has never held it was unaware of Mr. Boskovic’s replies to the
player or of the player’s apparent understanding that Mr. Boskovic spoke for the club.
45. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed the club’s contradicting conduct as a mere
attempt to escape its financial liabilities towards the player. In particular, the Single Judge
was of the opinion that, on the basis of the evidence provided, Mr. Boskovic appears to
have played a central role in the contractual negotiations and communications with the
player, as the latter apparently signed the relevant employment contract in good faith
when Mr. Boskovic appeared to be directly involved in the club’s affairs since the first stage.
46. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that all the circumstances of the case, combined
with the totality of the evidence in the file, enabled her to reach the level of comfortable
satisfaction sufficient to establish that the club had in fact entered into an employment
relationship with the player and therefore decided that the club was liable to pay the player
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15040
any financial dues arising from the relevant employment contract, despite the lack of
registration(s).
47. Having ascertained the existence of a valid and binding contract between the parties, the
Single Judge decided to tackle the issue of whether the claimed amounts had in fact
remained unpaid by the club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of
the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
48. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails 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).
49. In this context, the Single Judge noted that the player claims not having received his
remuneration corresponding to the months of March 2024 and April 2024, due respectively
on 25 March and 25 April.
50. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player has provided written evidence of
having put the club in default on 26 April 2024, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the contract on 23 May 2024.
51. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties. Nonetheless, the club failed to provide any evidence in this regard.
52. With all the foregoing in mind, the Single Judge concluded that the player had a just cause
to unilaterally terminate the contract on 23 May 2024, based on art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
ii. Consequences
53. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
54. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 2 salaries under
the contract, amounting to EUR 2,000.
55. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
2,000 (i.e. 2 times EUR 1,000).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15040
56. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge 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.
57. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge 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.
58. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
59. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision provides
for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
60. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of EUR 44,000 (i.e. the residual value) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
61. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15040
62. Indeed, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the Contract.
63. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par.1 i) 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.
64. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 44,000 as the residual value of the Contract.
65. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the termination of the contract, i.e.,
23 May 2024, until the date of effective payment.
66. Finally, the Single Judge highlighted that the sums due by the Respondent to the Claimant
as established in the present decision shall be paid net of any tax as in accordance with the
Contract.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
68. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
69. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15040
70. 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.
71. The Single Judge 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
72. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
73. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
74. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15040
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bruno Leonardo Martinho Gomes, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, HRNK Zmaj (M), must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
EUR 2,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 26 March 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,000 as from 26 April 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
EUR 44,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
23 May 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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15040
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. 15