Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15307
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Joy Lance
Mickels
BY:
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico)
CLAIMANT:
Joy Lance Mickels, Germany
Represented by Eljan Hasanli
RESPONDENT:
Al Faisaly, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Gorka Villar
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15307
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 August 2023, the German player Joy Lance Mickels (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Faisaly (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment agreement (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from the
aforementioned date until 13 July 2024.
2.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to the following amounts “net
of any taxes, bank fees and foreign exchange rates”:
−
−
3.
The Player was also entitled to:
−
−
4.
Monthly salary of USD 20,909, payable by the last day of each month.
Signing-on fee of USD 375,000, with USD 300,000 paid according to the Player’s
authorization dated 13 August 2023 to Sabah FC, and USD 75,000 to be paid “after
the accomplishment of medical and physical test and signing the contract.”
Performance bonuses as detailed in Article 5.3 “net of any taxes, bank fees and foreign
exchange rates” – USD 25,000 in case the team was promoted to the Saudi Pro
League for the 2024/2025 season and USD 20,000 “to be paid in case the Player’s total
goals and assist reach to 12 (twelve) in the 2023/2024 season.”
Certain benefits in kind, namely, 1 roundtrip economy flight ticket for himself and 1
for his wife, an adequate apartment, and an adequate car. The Player was also
entitled to a paid annual leave of 28 days.
On 6 June 2024, the Player sent a default notice to the Club for the following amounts and
granting a period of 15 days to remedy such default:
−
−
−
USD 114,545 for overdue salaries for 5.5 months
USD 20,000 for a performance bonus (12 goals and assists in 2023/2024 season)
USD 2,000 as reimbursement for a flight ticket purchased by the Player.
5.
On 17 June 2024, the Player received a payment of USD 67,000 from the Club.
6.
On 22 June 2024, the Player sent the Club a termination notice, declaring that he was
terminating the Contract due to outstanding salaries.
7.
On 23 June 2024, the Player signed a new contract with Sabah FC, valid as from 24 June
2024 through 30 June 2025. Sabah undertook to pay the Player a total of USD 200,000 net,
payable in 10 equal monthly instalments of USD 20,000 net payable no later than 15 days
from the end of the relevant month, between August 2024 to May 2025.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15307
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 20 July 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
9.
The Player sustained that he was owed a total of USD 90,632 in outstanding remuneration
for the 2023/2024 season.
10. The Player’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
”- 64,454 (sixty eight thousand four hundred fifty four) USD monthly remunerations according
to articles 5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration (salary for April, May, June and July 2024);
- 20,000 (twenty thousand) USD performance bonus (goals + assists to reach to 12 in the season
of 2023/2024) according to article 5.3 Conditional financial payments. Player has made 6 goals
and 5 assists in Saudi First Division Leage and 1 goal and 1 assist in King’s Cup (total 13); and
- 2,000 (two thousand) EUR (2,178 USD) the cost of flight ticket purchased by the Player (which
is not mentioned in the contract, but the Player purchased it to arrive at the Club’s location).”
b. Reply of the Respondent
11. In its reply, the Club detailed the following payments made to the Player:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
USD 300,000 out of the USD 375,000 signing-on fee (art. 5.2 of the Contract) paid to
Sabah FC per the Player’s authorization dated 13 August 2023.
USD 75,000 as the remainder of the signing-on fee, reflected in the Player’s bank
account records.
USD 7,474 as salary for the month of August 2023, paid on 10 October 2023. The
Player only worked 17 days in August, as the Contract began on 14 August, and USD
4,666 was deducted for housing expenses, pursuant to the Player’s agreement.
USD 16,243 as salary for the month of September 2023, paid on 16 November 2023.
USD 4,666 was deducted for housing expenses, pursuant to the Player’s agreement.
USD 16,243 as salary for the month of October 2023, paid on 26 December 2023.
USD 4,666 was deducted for housing expenses, pursuant to the Player’s agreement.
USD 20,867 as salary for the month of November 2023, paid on 23 January 2024.
USD 20,867 as salary for the month of December 2023, paid on 2 April 2024.
USD 17,772 as salary for the month of January 2024, paid on 16 April 2024. USD
3,136 (15%) was deducted for a disciplinary sanction.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15307
−
USD 83,636 as salary for the months of February, March, April, and May, plus USD
7,666 for the partial salary of June (totalling USD 91,302.63), paid via 2 bank
transfers:
o USD 67,000 on 17 June 2024
o USD 24,303 on 16 August 2024.
12. According to the Club, the Player was only entitled to salaries until 11 June 2024, as the
Player did not return from his holidays to rejoin the team on 12 June 2024. The Player in
fact never returned, as he sent his termination notice on 22 June 2024 with effect as of that
same date. Therefore, the Club contended that no salaries were owed.
13. Furthermore, the Club contended that no bonuses should be awarded to the Player as he
did not duly substantiate his entitlement.
14. Finally, as to the request for reimbursement of a flight ticket, the Club noted that the Player
did not provide proof of purchase and that this request should therefore be dismissed. In
addition, the Club noted that it was the Club who arranged the purchase of the Player’s
ticket and the Player acknowledged that he, unilaterally and without waiting for the Club,
bought his own ticket when the Club had already done so and was unable to cancel it. The
Club further indicated that the Player, in his email, accepted his own responsibility by only
requesting that half the cost of the ticket be reimbursed. Therefore, the Club maintained
that the request should not be granted.
15. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“First: The present response to the claim be admitted.
Second: The claim be dismissed in its entirety.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
16. In his replica, the Player acknowledged payment of the following amounts, totalling USD
190,556, as being paid on the following dates:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
10 October 2023 – USD 7,444
16 November 2023 – USD 16,212
26 December 2023 – USD 16,212
23 January 2024 – USD 20,867
2 April 2024 – USD 20,867
16 April 2024 – USD 17,755
17 June 2024 – USD 66.938
19 August 2024 – USD 24,261
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15307
17. The Player further calculated that, until the moment of termination, the Club was obligated
to pay the Player USD 209,090 from 14 August 2023 through 14 June 2024 (USD 20,090 x
10) and USD 5,575 for the 8 days from 15 through 22 June 2024 (USD 20,090/30 days times
8 days). Therefore, at the date of termination, the Player was owed USD 214,665, but had
only been paid USD 166,295, which represented a difference of USD 48,370.
18. Following the termination, the Player received USD 24,261, which he held should not be
deducted from the debt owed at the time of the termination of the Contract.
19. Thus, the Player maintained that the Club owed more than two months’ salaries to the
Player at the time of termination. As a consequence, under art. 14bis of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Player averred he was also entitled
the residual value of the Contract (USD 14,636 comprising the salary from 22 June through
13 July 2024).
20. Furthermore, the Player adduced evidence to demonstrate that he scored 6 goals and
provided 5 assists in the first division championship during the 2023/2024 season, and
scored 1 goal and provided 1 assist in the King’s Cup during that same season, thus entitling
him to the USD 20,000 bonus foreseen in his Contract upon achieving 12 total goals and
assists in the 2023/2024 season.
21. Taking into account all of the foregoing payments, the Player alleged that the amount
payable by the Club amounted to “USD 58,745 (USD 38,745 (salary) + USD 20,000 (bonus)).”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
22. In its duplica, the Club maintained that the payments acknowledged by the Player lined up
with its allegations in the reply to the claim, with minor discrepancies due to banking fees.
23. However, the Club considered that the Player’s calculations were incorrect as to the
amounts owed:
− Salary was owed only until 11 June 2024, as the Player unjustifiably failed to report
to work. The deduction for the 3-day absence was USD 2,090.
− Salary for the period from 14 to 22 June 2024 was also not owed due to the Player’s
absence from work.
− A USD 14,000 deduction had to be applied to the salaries for August, September,
and October 2023, in accordance with the Player’s express written request, to cover
the rent for a particular housing arrangement (a villa).
− A USD 3,136 deduction had to be applied to the January 2024 salary in light of the
disciplinary sanction imposed on the Player.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15307
24. The Club highlighted that the Player did not challenge or rebut the evidence provided
concerning the housing expenses and disciplinary sanction deductions, which must
therefore be accepted.
25. Hence, per the Club’s calculations, the Player was owed USD 189,864 in salaries. As the Club
had already paid him USD 190,556 – a fact that the Player acknowledged – no outstanding
salaries were due.
26. Regarding the Player’s request for compensation, the Club first argued that the claim
should be dismissed as it was not included in the Player’s original claim. Secondly, if such a
request were to be granted, the maximum amount that could be awarded would be USD
14,363, as established by the Player in his replica and in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (compensation may never
exceed residual value).
27. Concerning the bonus, the Club sustained that the goals and assists must have been
achieved in the first division championship. The relevant clause in the Contract must be
strictly construed and it did not explicitly state that goals and assists from all competitions
should be counted. Therefore, as the Player did not reach the condition of goals and assists
in the first division championship, he was not entitled to the bonus.
28. The Club therefore requested the following:
“In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the claim be dismissed in its entirety and
specifically:
1st. To dismiss the Player's claim regarding allegedly outstanding salaries, as the Club has
demonstrated that all amounts corresponding to the period worked have been duly paid and
that the deductions applied were justified pursuant to agreements between the parties and
disciplinary sanctions imposed.
2nd. To reject the Player’s claim for compensation for the termination of the contract, as such
claim was not included in the Player’s initial submission and its introduction in the second
submission constitutes an untimely request. a. Subsidiarily, in the event that compensation is
awarded, to limit this amount to USD 14,363, in strict application of Article 17(1)(ii) of the FIFA
Regulations, which stipulates that compensation shall never exceed the residual value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
3rd. To dismiss the Player’s claim for the USD 20,000 bonus, as he has failed to meet the
contractual condition, having not reached the threshold of 12 goals and assists in the First
Division championship, in accordance with reasonable interpretation of the contractual clause.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15307
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single 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 20 July 2024 and submitted for
decision on 23 May 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.
30. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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 German player and a Saudi Arabian club.
31. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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
32. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
33. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15307
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this matter concerned a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract, with the parties strongly disputing the existence of any amounts owed to the
Player. Whereas the Player, in his replica, modified his request for relief to request USD
58,745 from the Club, the Club argued that in principle the Player was owed nothing, and
subsidiarily, was only owed at most USD 14,636 as compensation for breach of contract.
35. The Single Judge further recalled that the Player calculated his entitlements as follows:
−
−
−
−
Up until the moment of termination, the Player was owed USD 214,665, but had
only been paid USD 166,295.
Subsequent to the termination, he was paid USD 24,261, leaving a balance to date
of USD 24,109 in outstanding remuneration.
He additionally sought payment for the goals and assists bonus in the amount of
USD 20,000
Furthermore, he was entitled to compensation for breach of contract amounting to
USD 14,636.
36. Conversely, the Club sustained that several deductions were warranted, in addition to not
owing salaries from 14 to 22 June 2024, or, in principle, compensation for breach of
contract for the residual value.
37. In this context the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether there
was any outstanding remuneration, whether the Contract was terminated with just cause,
and, if so, whether any compensation was owed to the Player and in what amount.
Was there outstanding remuneration? If so, in what amount?
38. Considering that the Contract had a start date of 14 August 2023 and an end date of 13 July
2024, and a stated monthly remuneration of USD 20,909 payable at the end of each month,
the Single Judge considered that the total value of the Contract equalled USD 229,325.
39. The Single Judge then recalled that the Player terminated the Contract on 22 June 2024,
which meant that the Player was a priori owed a total of USD 220,556 in monthly
remuneration from August 2023 through June 2024.
40. As far as the alleged deductions were concerned, the Single Judge noted that the housing
deduction was duly substantiated by an email from the Player dated 18 August 2023,
whereby he expressly agreed that USD 14,000 be deducted from his “dues” as the price
difference for the purpose of moving to a particular housing arrangement. Therefore,
without further elements or allegations adduced by the Player, the Single Judge was
satisfied that this deduction was properly made.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15307
41. As far as the deduction arising from the disciplinary sanction, the Single Judge noted that
the Club provided a notice dated 24 January 2024 indicating that the Player would be
deducted 15% of his January salary for being late to a training session on 9 January 2024
and a lunch meal on 10 January 2024. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that the
evidence on file also included further exchanges between the Player and the Club via email
concerning the disciplinary sanction, culminating in an apparent in-person meeting on 6
February 2024.
42. Finally, the Single Judge observed that no further proof beyond the foregoing was adduced
by either party, and the Player did not directly challenge the Club’s assertions on this point.
Therefore, the Single Judge was satisfied, based on the evidence in the file, that this
deduction was also properly made.
43. As to the salary for June 2024, the Single Judge considered that the Club did not provide
sufficient evidence to substantiate a contractual or regulatory basis for withholding the
Player’s salary due to the alleged absences. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that,
based on the evidence on file and in line with the established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, the full salary for June 2024 was owed.
44. Therefore, considering the foregoing deductions, the Single Judge considered that the total
amount of outstanding monthly remuneration in principle equalled USD 203,420. Since
the Player acknowledged having received USD 190,556 from the Club in his replica, the
Single Judge concluded that, considering all submissions and evidence filed by the parties
in the course of the proceedings, there was a remaining balance of USD 12,864 in
outstanding monthly remuneration.
45. Moreover, the Single Judge considered that the Player had duly substantiated his
entitlement to the goals and assists bonus. In this respect, the Single Judge did not find the
Club’s position convincing, in that it could not be reasonably inferred from the drafting of
Article 5.3 of the Contract that the goals and assists to be taken into account for the bonus
could only be achieved in a particular competition. Contrary to the promotion bonus
contained in the same clause – which the Single Judge noted did specify that it was
conditioned upon the team being promoted to the Saudi Pro League – the goals and assists
bonus only specified that these had to be accumulated in the 2023/2024 season. Therefore,
the Single Judge concluded that the Player was also entitled to the bonus of USD 20,000 as
part of his outstanding remuneration.
46. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that there was a total outstanding remuneration of USD
32,864 pursuant to the Contract.
47. In addition to the foregoing, the Single Judge observed that the Player appeared to
withdraw his request for a flight ticket reimbursement in his request for relief included in
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15307
his replica and, that, in any event, the Player recognized that there was no contractual basis
for such a reimbursement. As such, the Single Judge decided not to award such amount.
Was the Contract terminated with just cause?
48. Turning now to the termination of the Contract, the Single Judge again recalled that the
Player put an end to his employment relationship with the Club. via his termination notice
dated 22 June 2024.
49. The Single Judge also highlighted that, prior to that, the Player had sent a default notice on
6 June 2024 claiming inter alia 5.5 monthly salaries owed, totalling USD 114,545. He
subsequently received a payment of USD 66,934 on 17 June 2024, leaving a total
outstanding of USD 47,607 of the salaries claimed at the time of termination, based on the
Single Judge’s calculations detailed here and in the preceding paragraphs.
50. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Player had just
cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations, as (i) the Player was
owed more than 2 monthly salaries on 22 June 2024, and (ii) he had previously sent a
default notice to the Club granting it 15 days to remedy the breach.
ii. Consequences
51. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
52. As developed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the Single Judge observed that the
outstanding remuneration, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player,
amounted to USD 32,864.
53. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the total amount
outstanding under the Contract, i.e., USD 32,864.
54. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, 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.
55. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15307
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
56. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge 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)).
57. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the Player’s claim, the Single Judge proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of USD 8,768 (i.e., the prorated salary for 13 days in July 2024)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
58. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal 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.
59. Indeed, the Player found employment with Sabah FC. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately USD 16,667 per month
(USD 200,000 prorated over 12 months of duration). Therefore, the Single Judge concluded
that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 6,989, that is, USD
16,667 divided by 31 days times 13 days in July 2024.
60. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
61. In this respect, since the Single Judge noted that awarding the Player three salaries would
amount to USD 62,727, thus resulting in awarding compensation higher than the residual
value. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to limit the additional compensation to USD
6,989.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15307
62. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the amount of USD
8,768 to the Claimant (i.e., USD 8,768 minus USD 6,989 plus USD 6,989), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
64. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
65. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest, if any) 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
66. 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.
67. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
68. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15307
69. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
70. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15307
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joy Lance Mickels, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Faisaly, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 32,864 as outstanding remuneration;
- USD 8,768 as compensation for breach of contract.
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. 15
REF. FPSD-15307
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. 16