Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17435
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luis Esteban
Vanegas Mendoza
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA and France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT:
Luis Esteban Vanegas Mendoza, Colombia
Represented by Cristiano Novazio
RESPONDENT:
CSU Alba Iulia, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17435
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 23 July 2024, the Colombian player, Luis Esteban Vanegas Mendoza (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and the Romanian club, CSU Alba Iulia (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia a monthly salary of EUR 1,100 net “payable at the latest on the 25 day of the next month
of the month its being paid”.
3.
In addition, clause 5 lit. X and XI of the Contract read as follows:
“X. to provide the Player with medical care in the form of regular medical treatment for the
activities related to the purpose of the contract;
XI. to cover all costs of Player’s medical treatment and rehabilitation, in accordance with the
procedures set out in art. 6, to the extent that they are not covered by the health insurance,
unless the underlying injury or illness of the Player is the result of a breach of Article 3 (ix) above.”
4.
On 10 August 2024, according to the Player, he suffered an injury during a friendly match.
5.
Pursuant to the MRI examination performed on 16 August 2024, there was a suspected
rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament of the Player.
6.
On 24 August 2024, the Player and an individual named Mr. Aurelian (the alleged Sport
Director of the Club) (hereinafter: the Director) held the following conversations s via
WhatsApp:
“[24/8/24, 4:23:06 AM] Player: “Aurelian, my friend, could you please tell me what the doctor
explained and what my condition is?”
[24/8/24, 4:26:48 AM] Director: “The ligament is torn, only 30% of it is still good. Surgery is
needed, and the recovery period is a minimum of 5 months”.
7.
On 26 August 2024, the Director sent the Player the following WhatsApp message: “[h]i.
Personally, I had high hopes for you to help us a lot. I regret that you got injured. Think about
what would be the best option for you to terminate the contract amicably so that both you and
the club are satisfied. We’ll have to find another central defender. Housing and meals for him
will cost money. It’s impossible for us to afford two players. Think carefully, and let me know by
tomorrow evening what solution works for you”.
8.
By correspondence dated 27 August 2024, the Player requested the Club (i) to immediately
arrange and provide the necessary medical attention, including the surgery required and
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17435
all the related postoperative care with expenses covered by the Club; (ii) to fully comply
with all the terms of the Contract during the recovery period; and (iii) to refrain from any
attempt to terminate the Contract. The Player granted 24 hours to the Club to reply to his
request.
9.
On the same day (i.e. 27 August 2024), the alleged president of the Club sent a WhatsApp
message to the Player in which he affirmed (i) that the Player had only a tourist permit, (ii)
that the immigration department was informed, (iii) that the immigration department could
issue an order against the Player to leave the country and (iv) that he could not play if he
performed the surgery.
10. By correspondence dated 29 August 2024, the Player informed the Club the Club that the
surgeon allegedly designated by the Club for the operation was on holidays for two months
and that considering the severity of the Player’s condition, further steps needed to be taken
to ensure the surgery would be performed without any further delay. Moreover, the Player
reiterated that it was the Club’s responsibility to obtain a valid work visa.
11. On 29 August 2024, the Club replied to the Player as follows (quoted verbatim):
“-The club holds a valid contract with football player Luis Esteban Vanegas Mendoza, which we
fully intend to honor.
-Concerning Mr. Vanegas's recent injury and the required medical procedure, we acknowledge
that the surgeon who was set to perform the surgery is currently on vacation until mid-October
2024. We have communicated with Mr. Vanegas and have agreed to explore suitable medical
options in Colombia, with the club covering all associated expenses of the procedure and the
rehabilitation.
-Regarding his visa status, Mr. Vanegas entered Romania on a tourist visa, which prevents us
from registering him with the Romanian Football Federation. To register, he must possess a valid
Romanian residency card, obtainable only through a different visa classification (D/AS). Mr.
Vanegas will need to apply for this visa at the Romanian Embassy in Colombia. The club will
assist him by providing the necessary support and documentation for his visa application. Once
he secures the visa, we can proceed with his residency registration.”
12. On 4 September 2024, the Player and the alleged president of the Club held the following
communication via WhatsApp (quoted verbatim):
“[4/9/24, 2:28:20 a.m.] President: “If the operation costs 4000 in Colombia I pay it”
[4/9/24, 2:28:31 a.m.] President: “But not 9800 or 10000 euro”
[4/9/24, 2:28:55 a.m.] President: "If you undergo surgery in Colombia for 4,000 euros, like here,
I’ll give you the money tomorrow."
[4/9/24, 2:45:29 a.m.] President: "Here, including recovery, it costs 4,000 euros."
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17435
[4/9/24, 5:22:43 a.m.] Player: "Mr. President, there’s a doctor here in Romania, in Bucharest,
who’s asking for 4,000 dollars for the surgery and would be willing to perform it as soon as
possible."
[4/9/24, 5:23:35 a.m.] President: "Is he asking only for the surgery, without recovery?"
[4/9/24, 5:24:49 a.m.] Player: "Well, the recovery would be part of it. If you want, I can do it in
Colombia because I don’t know how to travel to another place."
[4/9/24, 5:25:42 a.m.] Player: "Here I am, I can’t bear the knee pain anymore, Mr. President."
[4/9/24, 5:25:50 a.m.] President: "And who would pay for the recovery in Colombia?"
[4/9/24, 5:26:55 a.m.] Player: "President, if the club, as you say, paid less than 2,000 euros,
everything would cost less than 6,000."
[4/9/24, 5:28:03 a.m.] President: "Where Mociu went for surgery, everything including recovery
costs 4,000 euros."
[4/9/24, 5:28:08 a.m.] President: "Do you understand?"
13. On 5 September 2024, the Player and the alleged president of the Club held the following
WhatsApp discussions:
“[5/9/24, 7:22:10 a.m.] Player: "I just went to immigration to see if they could extend my tourist
visa for a few days after the surgery, and they told me I have 3-4 days to leave Romania;
otherwise, I’ll be arrested. So, ok, what are we going to do? This was the club’s responsibility, and
I wasn’t even able to complete the 90 days. So, I’ve discussed it to see what we can do. The only
solution is for me to go to Colombia."
[5/9/24, 7:23:50 a.m.] Player: "I was there, and they were speaking to me, but you didn’t respond.
Please, tell me what we’re going to do before I take action."
[5/9/24, 7:26:09 a.m.] President: "I told you from the beginning what we could do, but you didn’t
believe me”.
[5/9/24, 7:26:27 a.m.] President: "Your visa is a tourist visa. You need a work visa or one for other
purposes."
14. On 7 September 2024, the Player travelled from Romania to Colombia.
15. On 18 October 2024, the Player informed the Club that the surgical intervention could not
be postponed any longer and invited the Club to pay, within 3 days from this
correspondence, the amount of COP 22,000,000 in order to consent the Player to urgently
set the surgery in Colombia. The Player has requested that the Club provide any necessary
documentation required to obtain a work visa, in order to facilitate the Player’s return to
Romania following the period of recovery after surgery.
16. On 1 November 2024, the Player sent a termination notice to the Respondent mentioning
that the latter was persisting in breaching the Contract by not supporting him with the
surgery and by omitting to pay the salary of September 2024.
17. On 5 November 2024, the Player had the surgery.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17435
18. The Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he did not sign a new contract
following the termination of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 12 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
20. The Claimant argued that the Respondent “failed to respect its main contractual obligations
that correspond to the fundamental rights of the Player, i.e. the right to receive medical
assistance, the right to get a valid work visa and to be regularly registered in the National
Federation and the right to receive the payment of his salaries at the agreed deadlines”. He
referred to clause 5 lit. X and XI of the Contract.
21. The Claimant further added that “the Club refused to pay not only the amount necessary to
receive the rehabilitation treatments, but also the sum that the Player needed for the surgery,
i.e. COP 22.000.000, that corresponds more or less to the amount of Euro 4.000,00 that the
President of the Club allegedly promised to pay. The bad faith is evident.”
22. The Claimant also added that:
•
“The Club omitted to set an urgent surgery in Romania after the injury occurred
•
The Club only referred that the surgeon of its trust would be on vacation for two months
with the consequence that the doctor could perform the surgery only in October
•
The Player was invited to find a medical solution for the surgery in Colombia
•
The Club failed to support the Player in finding a doctor in Romania available to perform
the surgery with urgency
•
The Club refused to pay the costs for surgery and rehabilitation
•
The Player was forced to leave Romania with urgency due to the fact that he had not a
work permit due to the Club’s responsibility.
•
The Player was compelled to endure a long journey despite being in pain and to
independently seek a solution for undergoing surgery in Colombia.
•
The Player acted in good faith by sending several communications and warnings and
remaining patient for a long period of time.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17435
•
The Player made a last written attempt by requesting the Club to pay the amount of COP
22.000.000 to arrange and cover only the cost of the surgery.
•
The Club failed to answer, demonstrating a complete lack ok interest in the Player’s
health.
•
The Club failed to pay the salary of September 2024 and October 2024 and the violation
is aggravated by the fact that that Player needed his salary to at least partially cover the
surgery costs.”
23. The Player considered that he “is entitled to receive the outstanding remuneration, a
compensation equal to the remaining value of the contract until the end, the expenses for the
surgery and the rehabilitation that the Club should have paid, and the moral damages”. As to
the moral damaged he stated that “the multiple conducts of the Club, consisting, among the
others, in leaving the Player with pain on his knee for months, putting the Player in danger with
the state authorities, leaving the Player, who was seriously injured, to undergo a long trip to
reach Colombia, failing to pay his salaries in a delicate moment considering that he had not
money to take care of his health constitute egregious and particular circumstances that allow
FIFA Tribunal to recognize moral damages. Regarding the calculation, according to FIFA case
law, the Player considers fair an additional compensation of € 6.600,00 equivalent to six months
of salary.”
24. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“The Claimant respectfully requests to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FIFA Football
Tribunal to:
1. Determine that the Respondent is liable for the breach of contract.
2. Determine that the Player terminated the employment contract for just cause on the basis
of the art. 14 FIFA RSTP.
3. Determine that the Respondent is liable for the payment of € 11.000 net (€ 2.200 net as
outstanding salaries and € 8.800 net as compensation).
4. Grant the Claimant with 5% (five percent) interest over the amount recognized, as provided
by the established jurisprudence of FIFA bodies.
5. Determine that the Respondent is liable for the payment of COP 20.814.007 as
reimbursement of the medical expenses for the surgery and for the rehabilitation.
6. Determine that the Respondent is liable for the payment of € 6.600 as a moral damage.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17435
7. Refund all the expenses and fees incurred by the Claimant in connection with the
proceedings together with the interest thereon.
8. Impose to the Respondent the ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods considering that the
breach of contract occurred during the protected period or impose any other measure
provided by the Regulations.”
b. Position of the Respondent
25. Despite being invited, the Respondent failed to provide its position.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 12 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 13 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
27. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 Colombian player and a Romanian club.
28. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17435
c. Merits of the dispute
30. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber then proceeded to examine the substance of the matter and took note of
the fact that this is a claim brought by the Player, who asserted that he had just cause to
terminate the Contract on the grounds that the Club failed to provide medical assistance,
secure a valid work visa, ensure proper registration with the Romanian Football Federation,
and pay his salaries.
32. The Chamber, then stressed that the Club did not respond to the claim, entailing that the
Chamber’s decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is, the
argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21 par. 1
of the Procedural Rules.
33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player terminated the Contract with just cause and the consequences herein.
34. Having established the above, the Chamber recalled that based on art. 14 par. 1 of the
Regulations only a breach or fault of significant gravity justifies the termination of a
contract. Also, according to article 14 par. 1, it is established that “In general, just cause shall
exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably and in good faith be
expected to continue a contractual relationship.”
35. In this respect the Chamber considered that the Club did not provide any support to the
Player’s injury despite several requests and let the Player alone in resolving this matter.
Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Club failed to pay September 2024’s salary as
no evidence was provided by the Club in this regard.In view of the above, the Chamber
concluded that the Club failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Player.
36. Moreover, the Chamber observed that as acknowledged by the Club on its correspondence
dated 29 August 2024, the Club failed to register him in the Romanian Football Federation
and provide a valid work visa.
37. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with well-established
jurisprudence, the failure to register a player constitutes serious misconduct by a club.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17435
Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that it is the club’s responsibility to secure the
necessary visa or work permit for the Player. In the present case, the Chamber noted that
no sufficient evidence or explanation was provided as to why the Player, despite actively
working with the Club, did not possess a valid work visa. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the club failed to fulfill its obligations.
38. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided that the Player established that the Club’s
actions constituted a breach of materially serious nature and that was no longer interested
in his services which justified the termination of the Contract. Accordingly, the Chamber
concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract with the Club on 1
November 2024.
ii. Consequences
39. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
40. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player are September and October 2024
salaries.
41. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
2,200.
42. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 1,100 as from 26 October 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
-
On the amount of EUR 1,100 as from 1 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
43. The Chamber then observed that the Player requested reimbursement of medical
expenses. In this respect, the Chamber stated that the Player is, in principle, entitled to
such reimbursement. However, the Chamber noted the following:
-
Regarding the reimbursement of COP 19,896,007, the evidence provided by the
Player showed that this amount was paid by the Player’s insurance provider, Seguros
de Vida Suramericana, and not by the Player himself. Therefore, the Chamber
emphasized that the Player did not personally incur this expense.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17435
-
Regarding the reimbursement of COP 918,000, the evidence submitted indicated
that this amount corresponds to the estimated cost of physiotherapy. As of the time
of the claim, this expense had not yet been incurred. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that no amount is to be reimbursed.
44. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s medical expenses request.
45. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
46. 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 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.
47. 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. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall
be equal to the residual value of the Contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
Player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
48. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 8,800 (i.e. the 8 xEUR 1,100) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
49. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17435
50. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
51. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
52. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 8,800, as the residual value of the contract.
53. Moreover, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on
said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
54. Lastly, regarding compensation for moral damages, and based on the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, decided to reject this claim due to a lack of legal basis. Furthermore, the
Chamber highlighted that the Claimant did not provide any/sufficient evidence or
justification regarding the alleged moral damages suffered, or their quantification.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17435
58. 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.
59. 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
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17435
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Luis Esteban Vanegas Mendoza, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, CSU Alba Iulia, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 October 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,100 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 8,800 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
November 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17435
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15