Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4189
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 July 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nemanja Miletic
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
Alejandro Atilio Taraborelli (Argentina & Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Nemanja Miletic, Serbia
Represented by Mirko Poledica
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Al Raed, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
INTERVENING PARTY:
FK Partizan, Serbia
Represented Zoran Damjanovic and Ksenija Damjanovic
Page 2
REF FPSD-4189
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 7 October 2020, the Serbian player, Nemanja Miletic (hereinafter: player or Claimant/Counter-Respondent),
and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Raed (hereinafter: club or Respondent/Counter-Claimant) signed an employment
(hereinafter: ‘the contract’) valid as from 20 September 2020 until 19 June 2022.
2.
Pursuant to article 4 of the contract, the club had to pay to the player the total sum of USD 1,550,000 as
follows:
i)
USD 100,000 as an advance payment for each year
ii)
USD 54,167, monthly salary for the first year; and
iii)
USD 58,333, monthly salary for the second year.
3.
Additionally in accordance with article 11 of the contract, the player was entitled to 2 round flight ticket (‘home- Gassim -home’), for the entire season.
4.
On 29 December 2020, the player and the club concluded an advance payment agreement (hereinafter:
‘advance payment agreement’) in terms of which the parties agreed to settle the advance payment of
USD 100,000 which was due for the period 1 January 2021 until 30 June 2021 in 6 monthly instalments of
USD 16,666 each.
5.
Allegedly, after playing 29 matches for the club, the latter banned the player to train with the first team from
20 July 2021 without any explanation. Moreover, the club supposedly “verbally informed the player that he will
never train with the team and that he can leave the club.”
6.
On 30 July 2021, the player sent a letter to the club requesting to be immediately reintegrated to the first
team, failing which he will terminate the contract. The club failed to reply to the aforesaid correspondence.
7.
On 14 August 2021, the player sent a notice of default to the club reiterating his request to be reintegrated
to the first team, additionally requesting payment of his outstanding salaries for the months of June and
July 2021, granting it a deadline of 15 days to comply, failing which the player will terminate the contract,
however to no avail.
8.
On 24 August 2021, the club unilaterally terminated the contract, stipulating the following:
“Reference to the contract that signed between you and alraed Saudi FC on 7-10-2020 AD and pursuant to the
decision of the board director.
We wish to inform you that, your contact is unilaterally terminated by the club with effect from24 August 2021.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-4189
9.
On 1 September 2021, the player concluded an employment contract with the Serbian club FK Partizan valid
from 5 September 2021 until 30 June 2022, entitling him to a monthly salary of (Serbian Dinar) RSD 37,436.14
and additional monthly remuneration of EUR 9,000 from September 2021 until June 2022.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10.
On 3 November 2021, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the
parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
11.
Position of the Player
According to the arguments of the player, the club was continuously in breach of contract, moreover it failed
to reply to his notices and to amicably settle this matter with him.
12.
The requests for relief of the player, were that the club pay:
(a)
his outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 179,167 corresponding to his salaries for the
months of June 2021 (USD 54,167), July 2021 (USD 54,167) and August 2021 (USD 54,167) plus USD 16,666
corresponding to the advance payment for the month of June 2021 plus 5% interest p.a. from the respective
due dates; and
(b)
a flight ticket in the amount of USD 4,200 (EUR 3,590) plus 5% interest p.a. from 26 August 2021, until the date
of effective payment
(c)
compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. from 24 August 2021 for the residual value of the
contract (1 September 2021 until 19 September 2022), corresponding to the following:
-
USD 100,000 as advance payment for the second year
-
salary for September 2021 in the amount of USD 54,167 - 12 salaries at USD 58,333 for period October 2021
until September 2022 (total USD 699,996)
b.
13.
Position of the club
The club firstly argued that the parties agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Saudi Sport Arbitration
Center, Saudi Arabia relating to the settlement of disputes arising from the contract, based on art. 10 par. 2
of the contract, hence the claim should not have been filed at FIFA.
14.
In this context it referred to article 10 par. 2 of the contract which stipulated the following:
“The Saudi sport arbitration center (SSAC) is concerned with considering and resolving the disputes that arise
between the club and player on this professional contract, implementing and interpreting it.”
15.
According to the club, the player allegedly acted unprofessionally and without good faith.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4189
16.
In this context the club referred to a vehicle which was provided to the player and mentioned that the player
“made bad use of the vehicle and committed several Traffic Violations in the course of the contract in the total
amount of SR 17,000 which was not paid by the player.”
17.
According to the club, the apparently player failed to pay the said traffic fines hence after the first season of
the contract, the club informed the player that he would be subject to disciplinary proceedings for his traffic
behaviour and unpaid traffic violations, moreover the Player was not an “example to be followed off the field of
play as agreed to in art.6.6 of the contract – pursuant to the internal regulations of the club”
18.
The club indicated that hereafter, “the player retired from the trainings, matches and Club's facilities, without the
agreement of the Club and without a case of force majeure.”
19.
The club argued that the player did not fulfil his duty to provide his football activity to the club due to his
absence from work without the club’s authorisation, hence according to the club it was the player who was in
breach of contract. Moreover, the club indicated that it had just cause to stop paying the salaries of the player
and accordingly sent the termination notice to the player.
20.
In conclusion the club requested that the claim of the player be rejected and submitted a counterclaim
requesting that the player pay the club compensation for breach of contract for the period 1 September 2021
until 19 September 2022.
21.
The club’s request for relief were as follows:
(a)
The claim to be rejected as it should not have been filed at the FIFA Football Tribunal
If not so, subsidiarily:
(b)
The club shall not be liable to pay to the player the amounts of USD 183,367 as outstanding plus interest, nor
USD 745,503 as the amount due as compensation for termination of contract without just cause, plus interest,
nor be subject to the imposing of sporting sanctions.
(c)
The counterclaim shall be accepted, and the player’s new club shall be jointly liable and condemn to pay
compensation to the club in the total amount of USD 745,503.
c.
Player’s reply to the counterclaim
22.
The player in its reply to the counterclaim addressed the following matters:
-
“The player indicated that the club failed to discharge its burden in the present matter as the club failed to establish
who and the arbitrators of the SSAC are appointed, neither were the composition, statutes and regulations provided
by the club.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4189
-
the Club's only arguments in terms of the merits revolve around (i) the Player's alleged misconduct 'off the field'.
Namely, the Club alleges that numerous parking tickets were issued because of the Player's traffic offences and (ii)
the Player’s alleged absence from the Club’s activities. However, the Club does not furnish evidence for any of the
two. What is more, the Club’s notice on termination nowhere mentions any of these two reasons as a reason for the
termination.
-
the Player did not receive any of the parking tickets submitted by the Club, nor was he informed about them at any
point in the past. In fact, he was firstly introduced to this issue when he received the Club’s counter-claim. This is
also evidenced by the fact that the Club does not provide any trace of evidence which would show otherwise. Namely,
there is no proof whatsoever that the Club addressed this issue prior to the present litigation at FIFA, as same as
there is no any written
-
the Club refers to the parking tickets issued on 15/02/2020, 19/96/2020 and 18/04/2020, although the Parties’
Contract was signed in September 2020. Therefore, it is clear that the Club herewith submits factually incorrect
statements regarding the Player’s alleged traffic violations. For the sake of clarification, the Player does not exclude
the possibility that he exceeded the prescribed speed on certain occasions (which might have been recorded by the
surveillance cameras), however, this cannot be a subject matter of the present proceedings”
23.
In regard to the above, the player mentioned that even if it is true “that the Player was unduly absent from the
Club’s activities (quod non!), this would not entitle the Club to terminate the Contract.”
24.
The Player further mentioned that by the means of his letter of 14 August 2021 he warned the club about the
fact that he would terminate the contract due to the overdue payables. “In this regard, it is clear that the Club
terminated the Contract due to overdue payables, i.e., with intention of not paying its dues towards the Player.”
d.
25.
Position of the Intervening Party
The club FC Partizan (hereinafter: “Intervening Party”) provided its position to the claim and inter alia,
stipulated the following.
-
the Player's new status of free agent was publicly announced, and it started negotiations with the Player about a
possible engagement;
-
accordingly on 31 August 2021, the Intervening Party acted with due diligence and sent a letter to the Club in order
to clarify the issues of status of the Player and of existence of any dispute between the parties, however the Club
failed to answer the said letter;
-
It was not at all involved in termination of contract between the Player and the Club, it did not even know about the
circumstances between the Player and Club
26.
The Intervening Party therefore in conclusion requested the following:
-
to reject the counterclaim of the Club and to uphold the claim of the Player
Alternatively, in case the counterclaim of the Respondent is upheld:
Page 6
REF FPSD-4189
-
to significantly reduce calculated amount of compensation due to the Club;
-
to order that the Intervening Party is not jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation due to the
Club;
-
to order that no sporting sanctions are imposed on the Intervening Party.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a.
27.
Competence and applicable legal framework
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 November 2021 and submitted for decision on 21 July 2022. Taking into account the
wording of art. 34 of the June 2022 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
28.
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 (June 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Serbian
player and a Saudi Arabian club.
29.
However, the member of the Chamber acknowledged that the club contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies based on article 10 par.2 of the employment contract, which refers to the Saudi Sport
Arbitration Center, Saudi Arabia (hereinafter: “Saudi NDRC”).
30.
Taking into account the above, the members of the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. a)
and b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players , it is competent to deal with a matter as such,
unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of
equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an
independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Single Judge referred to the FIFA Circular
no. 1010, dated 20 December 2005.
31.
Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the members of the
Chamber considered that it should, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present
dispute contained a clear jurisdiction clause.
32.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that article 10 par.2 of the contract stipulated the following:
“The Saudi sport arbitration center (SSAC) is concerned with considering and resolving the disputes that arise
between the club and player on this professional contract, implementing and interpreting it.”
Page 7
REF FPSD-4189
33.
Having examined the relevant provision, the members of the Chamber concluded that article 10 par. 2 does
in principle constitute a clear and unambiguous jurisdiction clause in favour of the Saudi NDRC.
34.
However, after having analysed the information on file, the members of the Chamber noted that the club did
not provide any documentary evidence on the basis of which it could be concluded that the Saudi NDRC
would be compliant with the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid
down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as
well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations. In this regard, the
Single Judge pointed out that in particular, it could not be clearly established if the Saudi NDRC fully respects
the principle of equal representation.
35.
On account of all the above, the DRC established that the club’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to
deal with the present matter has to be rejected.
36.
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 (June 2022 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged on
3 November 2021, the August 2021 edition in force on the date of claim edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b.
37.
Burden of proof
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.
38.
Merits of the dispute
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
39.
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 club could justify the premature termination of the
contract with the player specifically based on the latter’s alleged traffic behaviour, traffic violations and offfield behaviour.
Page 8
REF FPSD-4189
40.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine if the club had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the contract on 24 August 2021.
41.
Before entering the analysis of this specific case, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties
that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other
words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of
the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there
are more lenient measures which can be taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual duties by
the counterparty, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
42.
The members of the Chamber noted that the player in his claim argued that the club from 20 July 2021 banned
him from training with the first team, without just cause and without any explanation, moreover, the club
“verbally informed him that he will never train with the team and that he can leave the Club.” Additionally, that the
club terminated his contract after the date of his default notice of 14 August 2021.
43.
The DRC further noted that the club on its account argued that the player was subject to disciplinary
proceedings for his traffic behaviour and unpaid traffic violations, additionally mentioning that the player was
not an “example to be followed off the field of play as agreed to in art. 6.6 of the contract – pursuant to the internal
regulations of the club” and that player on his own account retired from training. Furthermore, that the player
failed to fulfil his duty to provide his football activity to the club due to his absence from work without the
club’s authorisation, hence it was the player who was in breach of the contract. Accordingly, it therefore had
just cause to stop paying the salaries of the player.
44.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a
party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it and went on to analyse the documentation provided by
the parties in support of their allegations. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club failed to provide
the said internal regulations of the club which it relies on in justification as well as corroborating evidence
substantiating its claim relating to the alleged absence of the player.
45.
With the above in mind and after having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the Chamber concluded
that the reasons provided by the club i.e., traffic behaviour, alleged traffic violations, the player’s off-field
behavior and the alleged absence of the player under the circumstances of the present case cannot be
deemed as a substantial breach of an employment contract, capable of triggering the consequences of an
unlawful termination.
46.
As a result, the Chamber deemed that the club had terminated the contract – on 24 August 2021 - without
just cause and it is to be held liable for the consequences of such termination. As a result, the player is entitled
to his outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
47.
Consequently, the DRC decided that it must at this point reject the counterclaim put forward by the club.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4189
ii. Consequences
48.
Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of the unilateral termination by the club without just cause on 24 August 2021.
49.
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 total amount of USD 179,167 which were outstanding
under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. 24 August 2021 (i.e. (USD 54,167 monthly salary
times 3 plus USD 16,666 as advance payment).
50.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in
this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts
as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
-
USD 54,167 due and payable by 30 June 2021
-
USD 16,666 due and payable by 30 June 2021
-
USD 54,167 due and payable by 31 July 2021
-
USD 54,167 due and payable by 31 August 2021
51.
In relation to the flight ticket in the amount of EUR 3,590 claimed by the player, the DRC took into account the
evidence i.e., invoice; reservation details provided by the player which was not contested by the club and
decided to award the said amount to the player plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. from 25 August 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
52.
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.
53.
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.
54.
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.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4189
55.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation
of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from the date of its unilateral termination
until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 845,163 (i.e., the residual
value of the contract from 1 September 2021 until 19 September 2022) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
56.
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.
57.
Indeed, the player found employment with the Serbian club FK Partizan. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately a monthly salary of RSD 37,436.16 plus
EUR 9,000 per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 93,180 (approximately USD 99,590), that is, RSD 37,436.16 and EUR 9,000 per month from
September 2021 until June 2022.
58.
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 USD 745,573 to the player (i.e., USD 845,163
minus USD 99,590), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
59.
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 3
November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
60.
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.
61.
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.
62.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days of
Page 11
REF FPSD-4189
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, 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.
63.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is
attached to the present decision.
64.
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.
65.
Costs
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.
66.
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.
67.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the
parties.
Page 12
REF FPSD-4189
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Nemanja Miletic, is admissible and accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Raed, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Raed, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the following
amount(s):
(a)
(b)
USD 179,167 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
-
on the amount of USD 54,167 as from 1 July 2021
-
on the amount of USD 16,666 as from 1 July 2021
-
on the amount of USD 54,167 as from 1 August 2021
-
on the amount of USD 54,167 as from 1 September 2021
USD 745,503 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from
3 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
(c)
EUR 3,590 as a flight ticket plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 August 2021 until the date of effective payment.
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/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter-Respondent 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 13
REF FPSD-4189
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 14