Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6813
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 February 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Dieudonne Dieumerci Mbokani Bezua
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Dieudonne Dieumerci Mbokani Bezua, Congo DR
Represented by Mr Guy San Bartolome Sarrey
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Kuwait SC, Kuwait
Represented by R&A Sports Law
INTERVENING PARTY:
KVRS Waasland SK Beveren, Belgium
Page 2
REF FPSD-6813
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 June 2021, the Congolese player, Dieudonne Dieumerci Mbokani Bezua
(hereinafter: the Player), and the Kuwaiti club, Kuwait SC (hereinafter: the Club) signed an
employment contract valid as from 4 July 2021 until 4 July 2023 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player a total net salary
of EUR 2,530,000, payable as follows:
-
2021-2022 season:
o EUR 880,000 sign-on fee;
o 10 x EUR 65,000 as monthly salary
-
2022-2023 season:
o EUR 500,000 seasonal bonus;
o 10 x EUR 50,000 as monthly salary
All salary instalments were stipulated to be paid by the last day of each respective month.
The sign-on fee of EUR 880,000 was payable upon delivery of the ITC, whereas the
seasonal bonus of EUR 500,000 was payable by no later than 1 July 2022.
3.
On 3 February 2022, the Club sent the Player a letter, warning the latter that he had been
absent for 12 days, without notice or authorization, and that the justification that he was
with the national team in Bahrain was insufficient. Therefore, the Club stated that it would
reduce the Player’s salary by 20% for the 12-day period of absence, and asserted that if
such conduct were to happen again, it would be considered as grounds to terminate the
Contract.
4.
On 7 February 2022, the Player replied, stating that he was with the national team and
that he received an official confirmation letter which had also been sent to the Club for
information. The Player also outlined that no matches were organized involving the Club
during his absence, and when he attended training on 3 February 2022, the Club’s
premises were empty. He, therefore, renounced the salary deduction threatened by the
Club.
5.
On 8 February 2022 the Club replied to said letter, denying once again that he was
authorized to leave for national team duty. Moreover, the Club revealed that the Player
was not only on national team duty during his absence, but also in Belgium, called as a
legal witness. The Club lastly reiterated that the salary for the contested period will be
reduced and a further incident will lead to termination of the Contract.
6.
On 11 February 2022, the Player replied, largely reiterating his previous stance and
further threatening to seek redress before CAS.
Page 3
REF FPSD-6813
7.
On 21 February 2022, the Player allegedly sent a further correspondence to the Club, once
again making his previous position known to the Club.
8.
On 7 March 2022, the Player formally put the Club in default of payment of EUR 69,000,
corresponding to the pro rata remaining salary of EUR 4,000 for January 2022 and the full
salary of February 2022, granting the latter a deadline of 15 days to remedy the alleged
breach.
9.
On 12 May 2022, the Player again put the Club in default, for the amount of EUR 65,000,
corresponding to the salary of April 2022 (which fell due on 30 April 2022), requesting said
amount “without delay” and stating that “he will only train if the outstanding salaries are
paid”.
10. On 18 June 2022, the Club sent the Player a WhatsApp message informing him that
training for the new season would commence on 25 June 2022, and enclosed flight tickets
and visa for the latter.
11. On 20 June 2022, the Player sent a letter requesting clarification on why he was being
called to training 20 days before everyone else. Furthermore, the Player requested
payment of the following monies:
-
“Special bonus concerning the Cup as well as Championship”;
-
Salary for June 2022 (not due as of said date);
-
Seasonal bonus of EUR 500,000, due on 1 July 2022.
12. On the same day, the Club replied, stating that the allegation about other players
beginning later is untrue; furthermore, the Club stated that it was very attached to the
Player’s services, but would be open to discuss if the Player intended to leave.
13. On 24 June 2022, the Player sent a letter and proof of a positive COVID-19 test to the Club,
stating that he was unable to attend training until 5 July 2022. Moreover, he reiterated
that he would refuse to attend training if he was not paid the amounts alleged as
outstanding in the correspondence of 20 June 2022. Lastly, the Player alleged that his
accommodation in Kuwait was “cancelled” and requested clarification.
14. On 26 June 2022, the Club replied and stated that there were no unpaid match bonuses
due to the Player.
15. On 3 July 2022, the Club once again invited the Player to return and provided him with
flight tickets dated 5 July 2022 and a travel visa.
Page 4
REF FPSD-6813
16. On 4 July 2022, the Player replied to the Club and indicated that he was in quarantine until
the morning of 6 July 2022, and that he would only be able to fly if the test was negative.
Furthermore, the Player put the Club in default of payment of the June 2022 salary and
the seasonal bonus of EUR 500,000, granting 15 days to comply with the request.
17. On 7 July 2022, the Player once again sent the Club a positive COVID-19 test, and stated
that he could not travel. Furthermore, he requested payment of the same amount as
before, as well as an explanation why his apartment and car lease were “cancelled”.
18. On the same day, the Player received a payment of EUR 47,500 from the Club.
19. On 11 July 2022, the Player once again sent a default notice, for the amount of
EUR 517,500, granting 15 days to remedy the alleged breach, and reiterating the request
for an explanation about the car and apartment.
20. On 18 July 2022, the Club once again sent tickets and a visa, without any further
explanation.
21. On 20 July 2022, the Player terminated the Contract unilaterally.
22. On 26 September 2022, the Player signed an employment contract with the Belgian club
KVRS Waasland Beveren (hereinafter: the New Club), valid as from the date of signature
until 30 June 2023 (hereinafter: the New Contract).
23. In accordance with the New Contract, the New Club undertook to pay the Player a gross
monthly salary of EUR 13,500, as well as a monthly allowance of EUR 400. It was stipulated
in the New Contract that the first salary is paid pro-rata.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 24 July 2022, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
25. On 1 September 2022, the Club filed a counterclaim against the Player.
26. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
27. According to the Player, the Club failed to pay the seasonal bonus of EUR 500,000, as well
as repeatedly remitting several monthly salaries incompletely, thus giving rise to just
cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations.
Page 5
REF FPSD-6813
28. The Player stressed that he had his salary reduced without any justification, which
constituted abusive behaviour by the Club.
29. In conclusion, the Player requested payment of outstanding remuneration of
EUR 544,000, corresponding to the seasonal bonus of EUR 500,000, as well as small
portions (between EUR 100 and EUR 17,500) of unpaid salary instalments in the amount
of EUR 44,000, and lastly compensation in the amount of EUR 500,000, corresponding to
the residual value of the Contract.
30. Furthermore, the Player requested interest on the above amounts at the standard rate
of 5% p.a. as from the respective due dates.
31. Lastly, the Player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions under art. 17 par. 4 and
art. 24 of the Regulations.
b. Counterclaim of the Club
32. According to the Club, the Player terminated the Contract without just cause, as the latter
allegedly engaged in abusive behaviour by refusing to return to training. Furthermore,
the Club rejected the COVID-19 tests the Player sent, as they allegedly did not have a valid
QR code.
33. Moreover, the Club asserted that the Player provided no proof of having been in Congo
DR, recovering from COVID-19, and that failure to corroborate this constituted bad faith
on his part.
34. The Club also outlined that the Player, by submitting incessant default notices for
amounts which had not even fallen due yet, demonstrated that he wanted to terminate
the Contract at all costs, whereas the Club always acted in an amicable manner, trying to
keep the contractual relationship intact.
35. The Club, therefore, requested payment of compensation in the amount of
EUR 1,000,000.
c. Player’s Response to Counterclaim
36. In response to the counterclaim, the Player reiterated all of his previous points and added
as follows.
37. Firstly, the Player insisted that he did not refuse to render his services and return to the
Club, but that he was incapacitated by COVID-19. The Player argued that the tests sent to
the Club and submitted to the file meet the burden of proof in accordance with art. 13
par. 5.
Page 6
REF FPSD-6813
38. The Player also stressed that the repeated failure to pay full salaries justified the
termination of the Contract as an ultima ratio measure.
39. In conclusion, the request for relief by the Player remained unchanged.
d. New Club’s Response to Counterclaim
40. The New Club was requested to provide its position to the counterclaim of the Club as an
intervening party in the present dispute.
41. With regards to the lawfulness of the Player’s contractual termination, the New Club
reiterated the Player’s arguments.
42. As for the potential joint/several liability and inducement to the termination, the New Club
stated that it cannot be held jointly and severally liable for any potential compensation,
nor sanctioned for inducement, because at the time the Contract was terminated, there
was no contract signed between itself and the Player, as well as no communication at all
regarding any potential negotiation. Indeed, the New Club pointed out, the New Contract
was only signed more than two months after the Contract was terminated, thereby
displacing the presumption of inducement.
43. In short, the New Club requested the dismissal of the counterclaim.
Page 7
REF FPSD-6813
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
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 presented to FIFA on 24 July 2022 and submitted
for decision on 23 February 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2022 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.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players October 2022 edition), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
player from Congo DR and a Kuwaiti club.
3.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022
edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 July 2022, the July 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by
or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
5.
Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
Page 8
REF FPSD-6813
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
6.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the non-payment of
certain financial obligations under the Contract, as well as the lawfulness of the
contractual termination by the Player, dated 20 July 2022.
7.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether the
amounts claimed as having remained outstanding by the Player had, indeed, not been
remitted, and if so, whether the Club had a valid justification for defaulting on such
payments. Subsequently, and more centrally, the Chamber acknowledged that it had to
assess whether or not the Contract was terminated by the Player with- or without just
cause, and what the consequences of such termination were.
8.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter and first took note of the allegation of the Player that the Club, by cancelling the
Player’s vehicle lease and accommodation, as well as failing to pay various instalments
under the Contract, either partially or fully, was in breach thereof in a consistent and
substantial manner so as to give rise to just cause to terminate the relationship
prematurely, in line with art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations. The Chamber observed that
the amounts in dispute were various incomplete monthly payments in the amount of
EUR 44,000 net, and, most notably, the seasonal bonus of EUR 500,000 net.
9.
On the other hand, the Chamber recalled the arguments raised by the Club, particularly
that the Player refused to return, used an invalid COVID-19 test which did not have a
working QR Code, and acted in an abusive manner which demonstrated a manifest
intention to terminate the Contract at all costs. The Chamber also pointed out that the
Club had not contested the non-payments and merely justified these with the abovementioned allegations of abusive behaviour.
10. Bearing in mind the foregoing, as well as the principle of burden of proof, the Chamber
observed that the Club provided no evidence of the Player’s QR code not working, and
that he was under no obligation to notify the Club of his whereabouts while recovering
from disease. Furthermore, in terms of justifying himself for his absence, despite the
warnings that he would “refuse to train” if he was not paid the outstanding amounts, the
Chamber recalled that the Player provided positive COVID-19 tests to establish that he
had a justification for not returning to Kuwait for training. Lastly, the Chamber raised that
the absence from training in February, though not deliberated any further by the parties,
appeared justified, as the Player’s Member Association notified the Club prior to him
leaving, contrary to the Club’s allegations.
Page 9
REF FPSD-6813
11. Based on the aforementioned, the Chamber established that the Club had no valid
justification on defaulting on the above-mentioned payments, and thus concluded that
the latter is, in any event, liable to pay the disputed amounts to the Player as outstanding
remuneration under the Contract.
12. As for the termination of the Contract, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the
parties that 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. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual
duties by the counterparty, such measures must be taken before terminating an
employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever
be an ultima ratio measure.
13. Having established the above, the Chamber noted that, in addition to the outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 544,000 net at the time of termination, the Club had
also terminated the Player’s car and apartment lease, which the former had neither
contested in its correspondence with the Player, nor in its submission before the Football
Tribunal.
14. Taking into consideration that the Player had been owed an amount which made up
almost 25% of the entire value of the Contract, as well as having basic commodities such
as his accommodation and vehicle stripped by the Club, the Chamber concluded that the
termination of the Contract on 20 July 2022 was, indeed, an ultima ratio measure by the
Player.
15. Thus, the Chamber concluded, the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract.
ii. Consequences
16. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Club.
17. The Chamber observed that the uncontested outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, was equivalent to
EUR 544,000 net.
18. 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 amount
which was outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
EUR 544,000 net.
Page 10
REF FPSD-6813
19. 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 Player interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the following dates:
- On the amount of EUR 100 net, as from 1 November 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 100 net, as from 1 December 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 7,400 net, as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 3,700 net, as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 3,700 net, as from 1 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 3,700 net, as from 1 April 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 3,800 net, as from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 4,000 net, as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 17,500 net, as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- On the amount of EUR 500,000 net, as from 2 July 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
20. 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.
21. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
Page 11
REF FPSD-6813
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by
the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
22. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
23. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 500,000 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
24. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
Player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
25. Indeed, the Player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 13,500 per
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of EUR 123,750, that is, 9 times EUR 13,500 between October 2022 and
May 2023, plus 5 days pro-rata for September.
26. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and
therefore decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
27. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
USD 150,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
28. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-6813
of EUR 500,000 net to the Player (i.e. EUR 500,000 minus EUR 123,750 plus EUR 150,000,
limited to an amount of EUR 123,750), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
29. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 20 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
30. 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.
31. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
32. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
33. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
34. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
35. 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.
Page 13
REF FPSD-6813
36. 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.
37. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-6813
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Dieudonne Dieumerci Mbokani Bezua,
is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Kuwait SC, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the following amount:
- EUR 544,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 100 of as from 1 November 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 100 of as from 1 December 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 7,400 of as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,700 of as from 1 February 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,700 of as from 1 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,700 of as from 1 April 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 3,800 of as from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 4,000 of as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 17,500 of as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 500,000 of as from 2 July 2022 until the date of effective
-
payment.
- EUR 500,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus
5% p.a. as from 20 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
Page 15
REF FPSD-6813
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-6813
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).
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 17