Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5337
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 April 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alen
Melunovic
BY:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela Collins (Australia), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
Alan Melunovic, Serbia
Represented by Mustafa Melih Kuyucu
RESPONDENT:
Samsunspor, Turkey
Represented by Mehmet Gokturk Aslan
Page 2
REF FPSD-5337
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 10 August 2021, the Serbian player Alen Melunovic (hereinafter: the player) and the
Turkish club Samsunspor (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract), valid between 10 August 2021 and 31 May 2022, with an
automated extension option for the season 2022/2023 if the player:
2.
-
Plays in the first 11 in 25 or more official matches of the club in the TFF 1st League
2021/2022 season and;
-
The total number of goals scored and assists made by the player reaches 15 or above
in official matches of the club in the TFF 1st League 2021/2022 season.
Based on the contract, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts:
In the season 2021/2022:
•
EUR 62,500 as sign-on fee, due ‘at the latest one week after the signature date of the
contract’;
•
EUR 212,500, payable in 9 monthly instalments of EUR 20,000 each on respectively
17 August 2021, 15 September 2021, 15 October 2021, 16 November 2021, 15
December 2021, 15 February 2022, 15 March 2022, 15 April 2022 and 17 May 2022,
as well as EUR 32,500 on 18 January 2022;
•
a bonus of EUR 10,000 in case the player enters the field in the first 11 , in 25 or more
official matches that the club plays in the TFF 1st League 2021/2022 season;
•
a bonus of EUR 10,000 in case the player scores more than 20 goals and assists in the
official matches that the club plays in the TFF 1st League 2021/2022 season;
•
a bonus of EUR 30,000 in case the club promotes to the TFF Super League at the end
of the 2021/2022 season.
Would the contract be extended for the 2022/2023 season:
•
EUR 275,000, in case the club still plays in the TFF 1st League in the season 2022/2023,
or
•
EUR 330,000, in case the club plays in the TFF Super League in the 2022/2023 season;
•
Additionally, the player was entitled to a total monthly housing and transportation
allowance of EUR 20,000, payable in monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 in the period
between August and May of the respective football seasons.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5337
3.
What is more, article 5 of the contract holds the following clauses:
‘The player hereby accepts Club Disciplinary Regulations, and any other instructions and
directives may be issued by the club at any time as well as all the rules, regulations or
degrees/guidelines of the TFF, UEFA, FIFA and any other competent institution that may be
altered at any time‘;
‘The Player’s annual period of leave and its conditions shall exclusively be determined by the
Club. During the term of the Contract, including the days off, the Player shall not travel
outside of the city and country without prior written permission of the Club or the authorities,
except for national competitions’;
4.
Approximately two weeks after 10 August 2021, the player got injured and on 11 September
2021, the player went – according to the player with the approval of the club’s officers - to
Switzerland, for medical examination. After his return to Turkey on 16 September 2021,
according to the player, the club decided that the player had to get some injections in the
Samsun university hospital, instead of undergoing an operation.
5.
On 15 November 2021, the club’s president requested the player to terminate the contract,
however, the player refused to do so.
6.
On 22 November 2021, the club issued a warning letter dated 18 November 2021, to the
player, requesting an explanation as to his medical examination in Switzerland. In reply on 22
November 2021, the player explained that he went to Switzerland with permission of the
club (i.e. the general manager, club’s doctor and coach) and explained that he wished to
receive ‘suitable conditions for the operation’.
7.
Also on 22 November 2021, the player put the club in default for the amount of EUR 63,000
as outstanding salaries and transportation and housing allowance for the months of
September, October and November 2020, providing a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default.
8.
On 30 November 2021, the club approved the player to undergo an operation.
9.
On 6 December 2021, the player agreed that the club would comply with the payment of its
outstanding remuneration by the end of December 2022. Eventually, on 31 December 2021,
the outstanding amount of EUR 63,000 was paid.
10. On 13 January 2022, after signing a new striker, the club allegedly announced to the player
that he would never be back in the first team, and in the meanwhile also had failed to pay
his salary for December 2021 and January 2022.
11. On 20 January 2022, the player was excluded from the squad ‘indefinitely upon the necessity’
until 13 February 2022.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5337
12. On 20 and 22 January 2022, the player put the club in default for the amount of EUR 54,500
as outstanding salaries and accommodation allowance, providing a deadline until 4 February
2021, to remedy its default, however to no avail. Also on 22 January 2022, the player
informed the club that his individual training sessions were held under unacceptable
conditions.
13. On 24 January 2022, the club send two letters to the player, asking him to clarify his departure
of the city of Samsun, obtaining medical service and not sharing medical information, as well
as failing to take care of his health. On 26 January 2022, the player denied said allegations
and explained that he was excluded without a valid reason from the team’s squad and that
he always acted in line with the club’s instructions.
14. On 27 January 2022, two fines of EUR 27,499.80 each, i.e. a total of EUR 54,999.60, were
imposed on the player by the club for violations of ethical rules and for his alleged nonapproved health constitute. What is more, the club increased said fines with 100% to EUR
109,999.20, as the player provided a weak defence.
15. On 28 January 2022, the player objected said fines and explained that he acted always in line
with what could be expected from him.
16. On the same day, 28 January 2022, the club unilaterally terminated the contract with the
player, due to the damaged trust between the club and the player.
17. On 11 February 2022, the player signed a new contract with the Serbian club FK Napredak,
valid between 11 February and 31 May 2022, based on which he was entitled to a total
amount of EUR 5,464.28.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 3 March 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player
19. In his claim, the player explains that the club had terminated the contract without just cause
and that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
20. The player explains that by leaving him out of the club’s first team and by failing to pay his
outstanding salaries, it violated its contractual obligations towards him.
21. The requests for relief of the player, as amended, were the following:
Page 5
REF FPSD-5337
•
EUR 54,500 as outstanding remuneration for the months of December 2021 and January
2022, plus ‘interest’ as from 28 January 2022;
•
To declare the fines imposed on the player invalid;
•
EUR 349,600 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value
of the contract in the period between 28 January 2022 and the end of the season
2022/2023, plus ‘interest’ as from 28 January 2022;
•
EUR 5,400 as additional compensation, plus ‘interest’ as from 28 January 2022, as well
as a second additional compensation of EUR 120,000, plus ‘interest’ as from 28 January
2022;
•
To order that the request for bonuses in case of a promotion to the Super League of the
club is ‘hidden’;
•
Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club.
•
Legal fees to be awarded.
b. Position of the club
22. In its reply, the club argued that shortly after arriving at the club, the player mentioned that
he had suffered an injury and that he could not attend training sessions. The club states that
its medical staff diagnosed that a surgery was needed, however that the player refused to
undergo the medical treatment as proposed by the club’s medical staff and on 11 September
2021, left Turkey without permission from the club. The club denies that it gave official
permission and explains that the WhatsApp messages are just ‘friendly talks’.
23. The club explains that after the player returned from Switzerland, he informed the club that
a treatment without surgery was proposed. Afterwards, the club sent the player on 20
September 2021 to the Medical Park Hospital, where according to the club the doctors
advised the player again to undergo an operation.
24. Moreover, the club argues that the player avoided to undergo an operation until 1 December
2021 and that it acted always in diligence with its medical obligations towards the player, as
it even asked for a second medical opinion in the University Hospital of Samsun.
25. Furthermore, the club argued that on 31 December 2021, it paid all outstanding amounts to
the player and that it validly imposed a fine of EUR 109,999.20 on the player for the violation
of the Club’s Disciplinary Regulations.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5337
26. The club explains that it deems that the player was in breach of his contractual obligations by
refusing an operation for a couple of months and as a result, not being able to train. As a
result, the club deems that the trust between the parties was breached.
27. Furthermore, the club explains that the fine it imposed on the player was valid as it was based
on art. 6.2.c and 6.4.d of the Club’s Disciplinary Regulations, as the player was requested to
provide his defence and as per art. 8 of the Club’s Disciplinary Regulations, it is authorized to
reduce or raise punishments. Further, the club deems that the fine is not excessive and
disproportionate.
28. In addition, the club explains that for the 2021/2022 season, it paid in total the amounts of
EUR 146,500 and TRY 10,625 as bonuses, despite the fact it was not even obliged to pay
such bonuses. The club also asks that the amount of TRY 10,625 is to be deducted from any
compensation that the DRC would possibly award to the player.
29. Also, the club argues that the player’s requests for amounts to be paid in the season
2022/2023 is groundless, as it not guaranteed that he would meet the requirements for the
extension of the contract.
30. In conclusion, the club deems that it had a just cause to terminate the contract and that
therefore, the player is not entitled to compensation for breach of contract or additional
compensation.
31. As a consequence, the club requests the DRC to confirm that it terminated the contract with
just cause, to confirm that the fine of EUR 109,999 was validly imposed and to reject the
player’s claims.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 3 March 2022 and submitted for decision
on 21 April 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
33. 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 (March 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
Page 7
REF FPSD-5337
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Serbian player and a
Turkish club.
34. 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 (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 March 2022, the August 2021 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
35. 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
36. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
37. 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 whether the player had acted in
line with the instructions regarding medical treatment the club had given him and whether
this alleged non-compliance with the medical instructions and his alleged illegally leaving of
the city of Samsun and the country of Turkey, for which he was later fined with an amount
of EUR 109,999.20, had given the club a just cause to terminate the contract with the player
on 28 January 2022.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether or not
the alleged non-compliance with the medical instructions provided by the club could first of
all be established, and if so, whether or not said circumstance gave the club a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the contract with the player and to impose a fine on him. What is more,
also the consequences of said unilateral termination should be evaluated by the Chamber.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5337
39. Contrary to the above allegations of the club, the members of the Chamber also noted that
the player explicitly denied such allegations and explained that he was given permission to
leave Turkey and undergo medical examinations in Switzerland in September 2021.
40. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse the allegation of the club that
the temporary absence of the player for 5 days in the period between 11 and 16 September
2021, and the alleged consequent non-compliance with medical instructions, consisted of a
breach of contract on his part.
41. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules
(October 2021 edition), according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of
proving it.
42. Moreover, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which only a
breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. 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 for an employer to assure 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 be an ultima ratio.
43. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber went on to analyse the documentation
provided by the parties in support of their allegations. In this respect, the Chamber noted that
the player had provided some messages he exchanged via WhatsApp with alleged officials of
the club. After having analysed the content of said messages, the Chamber concluded that
the content of said messages is not entirely clear in the sense that no explicit permission is
given to the player by the alleged employee of the club to travel abroad and/or to Switzerland
in the period between 11 until 16 September 2022, however that the content of said
messages, which was rather general, was also not contested by the club. What is more,
according to the members of the Chamber, it could be noted from these messages that the
club did not indicate to have any problems at all with the player travelling abroad for a medical
opinion.
44. Moreover, the members of the Chamber wished to express that it gave limited weight to the
club’s allegations that the player, due to his injury, could not participate in any training
sessions for a long period, as it is the club’s obligation to check the physical situation of the
player before entering into a contract with him.
45. Additionally, the members of the Chamber noted that – after the player travelled to
Switzerland in September 2021 – it took the more than two months, i.e. until on 18
November 2021, to bring up the issue of player’s alleged unauthorized absence, and
subsequently requested the player to provide an explanation. What is more, the Chamber
noted that after the player provided such explanation, the club no longer requested
Page 9
REF FPSD-5337
information from the player on his absence and focused on agreeing on a payment plan for
the outstanding amount of EUR 63,000.
46. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to point out that from the information on file, it turns out
that in January 2022, the club allegedly excluded the player from its first team, a circumstance
which is not denied by the club, and, after the player put the club in default for several other
outstanding amounts, brought up again the discussion about the player’s alleged absence in
September 2021. The club, consequently, asked the player again to provide a new clarification
as to his absence, which lead – after the player provided a renewed explanation – to the
imposture of a fine of EUR 54,999.60 for violations of ethical rules and for his alleged nonapproved health constitute, and a consequent increasing of said fine with 100% to EUR
109,999.20, as the player provided “a weak defence”.
47. After having evaluated the above circumstances, the members of the Chamber turned to the
club’s allegation that on 27 January 2022, it had validly imposed a fines of EUR 109,999.20
on the player, for his alleged absence of 5 days in the period between 11 and 16 September
2022.
48. In this context, the Chamber observed in relation to the fines imposed on the player by the
club the following circumstances: a) the fine was based on a (contested) absence without
authorization from the club’s offices, b) the player was asked to present his position to the
intention to imposture of the fines, however it appears that nor the player, nor FIFA in the
current proceeding, was provided a copy of the Club’s Internal Disciplinary Regulations, c)
after the player presented his position, the fine was allegedly doubled of the “weak defence”
of the player, and d) the total amount of the fines imposed on the player by the club
represents almost 35% of the player’s yearly salary.
49. After having analysed the above circumstances, the members of the Chamber were of the
unanimous opinion a fine corresponding to almost 35% of the player’s yearly salary for
a(contested) absence of a few days without authorization from the club, is clearly excessive
and disproportionate.
50. Furthermore, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, however taking into account
that one day after the imposture of the fine, on 28 January 2022 the club had unilaterally
terminated the contract, the Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or
any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set
off outstanding financial obligations towards players.
51. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the club’s argument in this connection and
concluded that the fines in the total amount of EUR 109,999.20 cannot be validly upheld and
shall therefore not be taken into consideration.
52. With the above in mind and after having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the
Chamber concluded that a short absence of 5 days under the circumstances of the present
Page 10
REF FPSD-5337
case, namely an unclear situation whether the player was allowed to travel to Switzerland for
medical examination, cannot be deemed as a substantial breach of an employment contract,
capable of triggering the consequences of an unlawful termination. Said circumstance, in
combination with the consequent disciplinary proceedings and the imposture of an excessive
and disproportionate fines by the club followed by the termination the contract one day later,
made the members of the Chamber come to the conclusion that the club had no justified
reasons to terminate the contract with the player.
53. In view of all the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that on 28 January 2022,
the club terminated the contract without just cause, as a result of which the player is entitled
to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
54. 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.
55. The Chamber 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 (one of
EUR 20,000 and the one of EUR 32,500), as well as accommodation and transportation
allowance in the amount of EUR 2,000 under the contract, amounting to a total amount of
EUR 54,500.
56. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 54,500.
57. 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 3 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
58. 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.
59. 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 which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
Page 11
REF FPSD-5337
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.
60. 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.
61. 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. In this respect, the members of the
Chamber reiterated that it deemed that the effective end date of the contract is the end of
the season 2022/2023, as the extension clause, which left the extension of the contract
essentially completely at the discretion of the club, as it could decide on whether or not the
player would be fielded, cannot be upheld against the player. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 355,000 (i.e. the amount of EUR 80,000 for the remainder
of the season 2021/2022 and the amount of EUR 275,000 for the 2022/2023 season) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
62. 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.
63. Indeed, the player found employment with the Serbian club FK Napredak. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to a total amount of EUR 5,464
in the period between 11 February and 31 May 2022. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 5,400.
64. 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 however noted that the contract was terminated
by the club, and therefore, the termination was not based on overdue payables, and therefore
decided to not award any additional compensation to the player.
65. 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 349,600
Page 12
REF FPSD-5337
to the player (i.e. EUR 355,000 minus EUR 5,400), which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
66. 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 the date of claim, 3 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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
72. 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-5337
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5337
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alen Melunovic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Samsunspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 54,500 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 March 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 349,600 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 3 March 2022 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 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
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 article 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
Page 15
REF FPSD-5337
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 16