Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2140
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Judge
passed on 18 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Golgol Tedros
Mebrahtu
BY:
Philippe Diallo (France), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Golgol Tedros Mebrahtu, Australia & Eritrea
Represented by Professional Footballers Australia
RESPONDENT:
Puskás Futball Club Kft, Hungary
Represented by Dr. Dányi Szilárd
Page 2
REF FPSD-2140
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 20 June 2019, the Australian and Eritrean player, Golgol Tedros Mebrahtu (hereinafter:
the Claimant or the Player) and the Hungarian club, Puskas FC KFT (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the Club) signed a document headed “Contract explanation” (hereinafter:
the Contract Explanation) which set out additional benefits the Respondent would provide
the Claimant during the term of their employment relationship.
2.
On 27 June 2019, the parties signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2021.
3.
Clause II, ord. 10 of the Contract states: “The professional management or the
management of the Employer may determine in his sole discretion at what team –or line
with the content of sub-point 8.a) – individually, or otherwise shall the Employee perform
his training work, or in the matches of what team he is obliged to participate”.
4.
Clause XII of the Contract states a gross monthly salary in favour of the Claimant of HUF
4,695,000 payable on the 10th day of each following month.
5.
The Contract Explanation states as follows: “The amount included in the contract is gross
4 695 000 Ft, which is net 3,963,185 Ft. This net 3 963 185 ft we schould [sic] be divided
with by 322.21 (1€ is 322.21 hungarian forint) and we receive the net euro amount which
is 12.300 € (12.000 € salary and 300 € apartment rental contribution).”
6.
The Contract Explanation further provided that: “the player shell [sic] be provided with a
car, and two two-way business class tickets per season”.
7.
In October 2019, the Player suffered an injury to his adductor (tear) which was not detected
and, as such, the Player continued to play and train.
8.
In December 2019, he sustained a further injury to the muscle (tear) for which he received
conservative treatment.
9.
In June 2020, the adductor became sensitive again.
10.
On 3 July 2020, the Player arranged to be examined by German physician Mr. Jürgen Lutz,
11.
On 21 July 2020, the Club organised for the Player to undergo an MRI scan and see a
specialist on 24 July 2020.
12.
On 23 July 2020, the Club Director, Mr Balázs Tóth, wrote to the Player stating that he had
to train with the Club’s second team and setting out the training schedule.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2140
13.
On 24 July 2020, at the club’s instruction, the Player was examined by Dr. Geza Abkarovits.
14.
On 26 July 2020, Dr. David A Young, orthopaedic Surgeon of the Melbourne Orthopaedic
Group, provided a report for the Club on behalf of the Player.
15.
On or about 26 July 2020, the Player provided a copy of Dr. Young’s report to the Club
Director, Mr. Toth, and requested permission to return to Australia to receive the proposed
treatment.
16.
On 26, 27 and 28 July, an exchange of multiple correspondence occurred. Inter alia, the
Player reiterated that he had not been provided a car and the Respondent requested the
Claimant to comply with the training schedule provided.
17.
On 30 July 2020, the Player’s representative, Professional Footballers Australia (PFA), sent a
letter to the Respondent requesting, inter alia, that the Claimant was reinstated in the first
team, provided a car, and be granted permission to travel to Australia to receive the
treatment suggested by Dr. Young.
18.
On 30 July 2020, the Club’s Managing Director, Mr. László Mészáros, wrote to the Player
denying that it was the Club’s contractual obligation to provide him with a car. The Club
deemed the Player’s absence from training as unjustified. Mr. Mészáros requested the
Player’s attendance at training and advised that the Player would not be paid wages for the
duration of his absence, commencing 24 July 2020.
19.
On 31 July 2020, the PFA wrote to the Club on the Player’s behalf, drawing the Club’s
attention to the express provision contained in the Contract Explanation that the Club must
provide the Player with a car or alternatively, if a car could not be provided in the interim,
that the Club arrange appropriate means of transportation so that the Player could attend
training.
20.
On 8 August 2020, the PFA wrote a further letter to the Club, inter alia, requested the
Club’s immediate permission for him to travel to Australia to seek treatment by Dr. Young
as described in his report, namely surgical intervention. In particular, it stated that “should
the Club fail to respond to this letter by 11 August 2020, its silence would be deemed as
permission”.
21.
On 11 August 2020, the Club wrote to the Player, terminating the Contract with immediate
effect.
22.
On 13 August 2020, the PFA wrote to the Club stipulating that the Club’s termination of
the contract was without just cause.
23.
On 18 January 2021, the Player entered into a professional football player contract with the
Australian club, Brisbane Roar Football Club, for the period 1 January 2021 to 30 June
2021. In accordance with the relevant employment agreement, the Player is entitled to
Page 4
REF FPSD-2140
receive a total gross salary of Australian Dollars (AUD) 40,000 for the whole term of the
cited contract.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
24.
On 24 March 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
25.
The claim of the Claimant
According to the Claimant, he is entitled to receive the following net amounts per month:
(a) HUF 3,866,520 (being the equivalent of EUR 12,000) as salary; and
(b) HUF 96,663 (being the equivalent of EUR 300) as an apartment rental contribution.
26.
The Claimants submits that the Club’s termination of the Contract was without just cause.
27.
The Claimant states he was completely transparent with the Club about the injury he had
sustained during the course of his employment with the Club and, in doing so, was in
compliance with his contractual obligation that he “submit himself to medical tests and
treatments”.
28.
Furthermore, the Claimant submits he was completely transparent with the Club about the
reason why he could not attend training, namely that the Club had failed to provide him
with a car. The Player requested that the Club comply with its obligations and provide a car
so that he could attend training – or, at the very least – provide an alternate means of
transportation.
29.
The Claimant further submits that the Respondent “has erred significantly in asserting that
the Player acted in such a way that made the maintenance of the ongoing employment
relationship impossible”.
30.
In the view of the Claimant, his position in this respect accords with the DRC’s wellestablished jurisprudence, insofar as the termination of an employment contract can only
be used as a last resort – that is, an ultima ratio measure.
31.
The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“The Player respectfully requests that the DRC:
(a) award the Player the following amounts:
Page 5
REF FPSD-2140
i. HUF 997,812 as outstanding salary for the period 24 July 2020 to 31 July 2020 (plus 5%
interest from 10 August 2020, being the due date of payment);
ii. HUF 36,349,580 being the Mitigated Compensation for the Club’s breach of the Contract
(plus 5% interest from 11 August 2020, being the termination date);
iii. EUR 766.83 and AUD 13,282.85 for the reimbursement of medical expenses;
iv. HUF 2,100,190 for the reimbursement of flight expenses, made up as follows:
a. HUF 1,737,700 being the cost of the flight ticket; and
b. HUF 362,490 being the excess baggage cost”.
b.
Position of the Respondent
32.
According to the Respondent, based on the Contract, the Club had no obligation according
to which the Club would have been obliged to provide a vehicle and flight tickets for the
Claimant.
33.
Regarding the Contract explanation, the Respondent states that it does “not have any
significance from the aspect of this case and that “the Contract provided by the Claimant is
a draft document without any marking of its date, whereas Exhibit 3 is dated 20 June 2019,
i.e. both documents were prepared before the conclusion of the employment contract
actually signed by its parties on 27 June 2019, therefore they are proven not to be the parts
of the contract actually concluded between the parties, they only and exclusively present a
phase in the negotiation process, but do not entail any obligations, i.e. they are merely
proposals.”
34.
The Respondent states that it did not undertake “to provide a car to Player, and the Club
only made a promise- which should not be considered as a contractual undertaking - that
Player would get one car out of the cars provided by the Club's sponsor for use as long as
such sponsor cars were available, and this issue was certified to be acknowledged by Player
upon his signing the contract, and this promise was indeed fulfilled by the Club towards
Player as long as such sponsor vehicles were made available by the Club sponsor.
Furthermore, the fact that the sponsoring company providing the sponsor cars cancelled all
the respective contracts with the Hungarian sports organisations, including the Club, that
the sponsoring company entered into contract with, cannot be held against the Club.
Accordingly, in line with the above, Player's allegation according to which the Club
breached their employment contract by not providing a car for Player is completely
unfounded”.
35.
In support of the above, the Respondent provides the witness statement of the Hungarian
intermediary involved in the player’s hiring.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2140
36.
Regarding the injury, the Respondent states that the Claimant failed to disclose it to the
Respondent until after he had been examined in Germany.
37.
The Respondent states that Dr. Young’s report provided by the Claimant “even according
to his own statement, could only review the alleged medical "history" and alleged
radiological results of Player - either of which were not listed in an itemised manner -, and
the location and dating of such medical documents are not included”.
38.
The Respondent states that the letters from 30 and 31 July sent by the PFA were never
received by the Respondent and as the Claimant has not provided a proof of receipt, it shall
be disregarded. Moreover, it states that the response received on that date was not related
to the aforementioned letter.
39.
The Respondent further states that the Claimant “did not seek any help from the Club to
rent a car in order that Player could travel to his place of work. In this regard, I wish to point
out that if Player had had such a request on the subject, the Club would have provided help
to Player. I also wish to note that cars can be rented in Hungary for as little a fee as HUF
6,000, which is less than EUR 17 per day, which could have been easily taken care of by
Player who had been living in Hungary for more than one year, therefore he had been
aware of travel means in Hungary and in Budapest, as he indeed had sufficient salary to
rent a car, and all the effort it would have required from Player was to type in "car renting
in Budapest" - in English language in an Internet browser, he would have surely found
numerous hits for the search”.
40.
The Respondent argues that the Claimant, despite several warnings sent to him on the legal
consequences of his actions, did not appear at his workplace and the Club was forced to
terminate the Contract as of 11 August 2020.
41.
The Respondent states that it “cannot accept Player's reasoning provided as sufficient
grounds for Player's absence, because none of the arguments provided or referenced by
Player can be considered as an unavoidable external circumstance that would entitle Player
to be exempted from work, Player's conduct described above can be considered such
material and significant breaches of contract, such wilful and grave violations of legislative
regulations as well as acting in such a way that makes the maintenance of Player's
employment impossible”.
42.
According to the Respondent, the only reason for Player to be moved to the second team
of the Club was solely of sports professional nature, and the decision had nothing to do
with the fact whether or not Player was injured. Moreover, the Respondent states that as
per Chapter II Section 10 of the Contract, the Club is not obligated to provide any reasoning
for its actions.
43.
In the view of the Respondent the fact that “Player (on one occasion) was able to source
his transportation means that Player could have done the same at other times as well, yet
Page 7
REF FPSD-2140
Player did not even make respective efforts the Club only and exclusively exercised its right
stipulated in the Contract when the Club terminated its Contract”.
44.
The Respondent submits that “the only subject for material assessment in this case should
be the issue whether Player committed the breach based on which the Club terminated the
Contract and not whether the Club could have applied milder sanctions against Player,
because in case the Honourable FIFA examined the latter case, it would practically override
the Contract between the Club and Player”.
45.
Regarding the outstanding salaries, the Respondent submits that “it rightfully did not settle
the salary of Player as of 20 July until the day of the termination of Player's employment, in
consideration of the fact that Player did not carry out any work activities”. Accordingly, the
Respondent states that the Claimant is not entitled to receive his salary for the period 24
July 2020 - 31 July 2020.
46.
The Respondent argues that the Player's reimbursement claim for his Australian medical
expenses would not be rightful even if the other statements of Player were true in the Claim,
as he did not prove the grounds and justification of such expenses.
47.
The request for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“the Claim is completely, i.e. both in terms of legal grounds and in value, unfounded,
therefore I kindly request herewith the complete dismissal thereof”.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
48.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge (hereinafter also referred to as DRC
Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 March 2021 and
submitted for decision on 18 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of
the February 2021 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.
49.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
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 February 2021), he is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Australian-Eritrean player and a Hungarian club.
50.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2140
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 March 2021, said edition of the
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b.
Burden of proof
51.
The DRC Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC Judge stressed
the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
52.
In this respect, the DRC Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
53.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
54.
The foregoing having been established, the DRC Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the player filed the claim at hand requesting
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
55.
In this context, the DRC Judge acknowledged that it is undisputed that the Respondent
terminated the Contract on 11 August 2020. Hence, the DRC Judge’s task shall be
determining if this termination was made with or without just cause and the consequences
which should arise.
56.
According to the evidence on file, the DRC Judge could observe that the Respondent sent
a notice on 30 July 2020 informing the Player that he had been absent since 24 July 2020
and that he was expected to attend training before 4 August 2020. Furthermore, the DRC
Judge noted that in this notice the Respondent states that it is not an obligation of the
Respondent to provide the Claimant with a car.
Page 9
REF FPSD-2140
57.
Regarding the obligation to provide a car, whilst it was not stated in the Contract, the DRC
Judge could observe that it was certainly contained in the Contract Explanation signed on
20 June 2019.
58.
The DRC Judge noted that the Respondent has not challenged the authenticity of the
Contract Explanation although it has stated that it belonged to the contract negotiations,
and in its support, it has provided the witness statement of the Hungarian Intermediary who
allegedly assisted in finalising the Contract.
59.
Upon analysing the Contract Explanation, it can be observed that it includes the sentence
“these points we not write in the contract”. Hence, the DRC Judge was convinced of the
fact that when the Contract was definitively signed on 27 June 2020 these player benefits
were not going to be written down.
60.
As the Contract and the Contract Explanation were negotiated concomitantly, the DRC
Judge was comfortable to determine that the Contract Explanation forms an integral part
of the Contract and thus, as a valid and binding document on the parties, the benefits
agreed therein should have been provided to the Player. It follows that by not providing a
vehicle to the Claimant, the Respondent was in breach of its own obligations vis-à-vis
Claimant.
61.
Moreover, the DRC Judge outlined that the Club’s default notice of 30 July 2020 is not
clear, and fails to provide a reasonable deadline for the Player to comply with the requests
indicated therein. Additionally, and irrespective of the above, the DRC Judge observed that
the Termination Notice dated 11 August 2020 terminated the Contract with immediate
effect.
62.
At this point, the DRC Judge wished to emphasise that, following the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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 a 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 for an employer to
ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, 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.
63.
Based on the aforementioned considerations, the DRC Judge deemed that the termination,
of the Contract by the Respondent was without just cause and the party in breach, the
Respondent, shall be bound to the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
64.
Having stated the above, the DRC Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2140
65.
First of all, the DRC Judge found that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per
Contract and Contract Explanation up until the date of termination in accordance with the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, the DRC Judge decided that
the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration that was outstanding at
the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of HUF 997,812.
66.
What is more, in line with its longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, as well as based on
the request of the Claimant, the DRC Judge decided to also award 5% interest on the
aforementioned amount, as from the due date, 10 August 2020, until the date if effective
payment.
67.
Along the same lines, the DRC Judge turned to the claim for reimbursement of the travel
and medical expenses incurred presented by the Claimant.
68.
In this regard, the DRC Judge noted that the Claimant presents clear evidence of having
paid HUF 2,100,190, EUR 766.83, and AUD 13,282.85. While these expenses were incurred
by the Player, they should have been paid by the Club in connection with the latter’s general
obligation to provide adequate medical support to its employee as well as the clear wording
of the Contract Explanation regarding the Respondent’s commitment to pay flight tickets
to the Claimant.
69.
As such, the DRC Judge decided to grant the Player the requested amounts and deemed
the Respondent shall be liable to reimburse them based on the principle pacta sunt
servanda.
70.
In continuation, the DRC Judge decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for
breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant
employment contract.
71.
In this context, the DRC Judge outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 Claimant 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.
72.
In application of the relevant provision, the DRC Judge held that he first had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in
the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC Judge established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2140
73.
Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent,
the DRC Judge took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with
the Contract as well as the time remaining on the same, along with the professional
situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the DRC Judge
pointed out that at the time of the termination of the Contract on 11 August 2020, it would
run until 30 June 2021.
74.
Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the Contract, the DRC Judge
concluded that its remaining value as from its early termination by the Respondent until its
regular expiry amounts to HUF 43,535,013, and that such amount shall serve as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
75.
In continuation, the DRC Judge remarked that following the early termination of the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute, the Claimant found new
employment and therefore was able to mitigate his damages.
76.
In particular, the DRC Judge noted that the Claimant found employment with Brisbane Roar
FC and was able to mitigate his damages for AUD 40,000, approximately equal to HUF
7,245,433. Consequently, the DRC Judge decided that such mitigation had to be deducted
from the residual value of the contract, in line with art. 17 of the Regulations as well as the
constant practice of the DRC.
77.
In view of all of the above, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the
amount of HUF 36,349,580 net to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract
without just case, which is considered by the DRC Judge to be a reasonable and justified
amount as compensation.
78.
Finally, in line with its longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC Judge decided to
also award 5% interest p.a. on the aforementioned amount as from the date of claim, i.e.
24 March 2021.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
79.
Finally, taking into account the considerations above, the DRC Judge referred to par. 1 lit.
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.
80.
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.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2140
81.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
82.
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.
83.
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. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
84.
The DRC Judge referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the
maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes
between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the DRC Judge decided that
no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
85.
Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC Judge recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
86.
Lastly, the DRC Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2140
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
1. The claim of the Claimant, Golgol Tedros Mebrahtu, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Puskás Futball Club Kft, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- Hungarian Florin (“HUF”) 997,812 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
10 August 2020 until the date of effective payment.
- HUF 36,349,580 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 24 March 2021 until the date of effective payment.
- HUF 2,100,190; EUR 766.83 and Australian Dollar (“AUD”) 13,282.85 as reimbursement of
expenses.
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 article 24 bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid 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 the ban shall be of
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 paid by the end of
the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with
article 24 bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players.
For the DRC Judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14
REF FPSD-2140
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 15