DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14451
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 July 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Yerson Candelo Miranda
BY:
Angela COLLINS (Australia), Single Judge
CLAIMANT:
Yerson Candelo Miranda, Colombia
Represented by Ariel Reck
RESPONDENT:
Sociedad Deportiva Aucas, Ecuador
Represented by Enric Ripoll Gonzalez
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14451
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 July 2023, the Colombian player, Yerson Candelo Miranda (hereinafter: the Claimant
or the Player), and the Ecuadorian club, Sociedad Deportiva Aucas (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the Club), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from 1 August 2023 until the end of the 2023 season.
2.
According to the information retrieved from the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
2023 season in Ecuador ended on 29 December 2023.
3.
In clause 4 of the Contract, the parties established the Player’s basic remuneration as
follows:
“CUARTA: REMUNERACIÓN BÁSICA
EL CLUB se compromete a pagar a EL JUGADOR, por sus servicios profesionales, durante
la vigencia de este contrato, la remuneración de $500,00 (QUINIENTOS DÓLARES DE LOS
ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA), mensuales, para efecto de inscripción y registro en el
Ministerio de Trabajo.”
Freely translated into English:
“FOURTH: BASIC REMUNERATION
THE CLUB agrees to pay THE PLAYER, for his professional services, during the term of this
contract, a remuneration of $500,00 (FIVE HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS), per
month, for the purpose of registration with the Ministry of Labor.”
4.
The Contract also had a jurisdiction clause:
“DÉCIMA CUARTA: LEY APLICABLE Y DISPUTAS
La ley aplicable será del Ecuador. Las partes renuncian a domicilio y acuerdan que toda
disputa por la ejecución o interpretación de este contrato será resuelta amigablemente
a través de Mediación, y de no llegar a un acuerdo, solucionarán sus diferencias ante los
órganos jurisdiccionales de la Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol en primera instancia y
directamente al TAS (Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte por sus siglas en francés) en instancia
final.”
Freely translated into English:
“The applicable law shall be Ecuadorian law. The parties waive domicile and agree that
any dispute over the execution or interpretation of this contract will be resolved amicably
through mediation, and if they do not reach an agreement, they will settle their
differences before the jurisdictional bodies of the Ecuadorian Football Federation in the
first instance and directly before the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) in the final
instance.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14451
5.
Along with the Contract, the parties signed an Annex (hereinafter: Annex 1) by which the
Player was entitled to receive an annual bonus:
“1.-Prima anual 2023.- Las partes han acordado una prima anual, que pagará
mensualmente EL CLUB a favor de EL JUGADOR, por el tiempo de validez y duración del
presente contrato de $19.500,00 (DIEZ Y NUEVE MIL QUINIENTOS DÓLARES DE LOS
ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA), mensuales, misma que se pagará a partir del 1 de agosto
de 2023 hasta la finalización de la temporada 2023.
En caso que, por el cometimiento de actos de indisciplina señalados en el presente
contrato, el jugador no actuare en los partidos del campeonato de fútbol, el CLUB no
cancelará los valores proporcionales correspondientes a la prima anual ni serán
considerados como rubro para indemnización alguno por concepto de terminación
contractual.”
Freely translated into English:
“1.- Annual bonus 2023.- The parties have agreed on an annual bonus, which shall be
paid monthly by THE CLUB in favour of THE PLAYER, for the time of validity and duration
of the present contract of $19,500.00 (NINETEEN THOUSAND AND NINE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS), monthly, which shall be paid as of August 1, 2023
until the end of the 2023 season. In the event that, by committing acts of indiscipline
indicated in the present contract, the player does not perform in the matches of the
football championship, the CLUB shall not pay the proportional values corresponding to
the annual bonus nor shall they be considered as an item for any indemnification for the
concept of contractual termination.”
6.
Furthermore, Annex 1 established the following regarding fines:
“Multas: El jugador acepta la tabla de multas establecidas para el Equipo de primera
categoría y que forman parte del reglamento interno del Club.”
Freely translated into English:
“3.- Fines: The player accepts the table of fines established for the first team and which
are part of the Club's internal regulations.”
7.
Allegedly, and according to the Club, in August 2023 the Player, along with other
teammates, was found to have allowed unauthorised persons into the hotel room. It is to
be noted that the Player disputed these allegations.
8.
Allegedly, and according to the Club, the Club notified a fine equal to 30% of September’s
salary to the players involved in the aforementioned situation, including the Player.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14451
However, allegedly the Player refused to sign the notification, unlike his teammates, who
allegedly signed and paid the fine. It is to be noted that the Player disputed these
allegations.
9.
On 8 September 2023, the Player requested the Club an advance payment of USD
37,004.72, for the salaries of August, September and 15 days of October.
10. On 24 November 2023, the Club paid the Player USD 9,416.38, corresponding to 15 days of
October.
11. Allegedly, and according to the Club, in August, September, October and November 2023
the Player requested football shirts and shorts for USD 1,230. It is to be noted that the
Player disputed these allegations.
12. Allegedly, and according to the Club, in October and November 2023, the Player requested
two tickets costing USD 20 and two tickets costing USD 12. It is to be noted that the Player
disputed these allegations.
13. Allegedly, and according to the Club, on 3 December 2023 the Club played its last match of
the 2023 season.
14. On 20 March 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 60,000,
corresponding to the salaries for October, November and December 2023, setting a 10
days’ time limit to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 23 April 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
16. According to the Claimant, the Club failed to pay the salaries for October, November and
December 2023, in the amount of USD 20,000 each.
17. Furthermore, the Player argued that, although clause 14 of the Contract established the
competence of the Ecuadorian NDRC, this NDRC did not comply with the requirements to
be considered independent. Therefore, FIFA was competent, as it was an employmentrelated dispute with international dimension.
18. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14451
“1.-Se tenga por determinado el monto económico del reclamo y se admita la jurisdicción
de la CRD.
2.-Por los fundamentos vertidos se condene al Club Sociedad Deportiva AUCAS al pago
de usd 60.000. más intereses (5% anual) desde el 05.10.2023 sobre usd 20.000,
05.11.2023 sobre usd 20.000 y 05.12.2023 sobre usd 20.000.”
Freely translated into English:
"1.-The economic amount of the claim is determined and the jurisdiction of the DRC is
admitted.
2.-On the grounds stated above, the Club Sociedad Deportiva AUCAS is ordered to pay
usd 60,000 plus interest (5% annual) from 05.10.2023 on usd 20,000, 05.11.2023 on usd
20,000 and 05.12.2023 on usd 20,000".
b. Position of the Respondent
19. According to the Respondent, the Player miscalculated the amount owed by omitting
relevant information needed to perform the calculation.
20. In this regard, the Club argued the following:
a) On 4 August 2023, the Player requested an advance payment of USD 5,000.
b) The Player requested the Club pay some expenses which he incurred, i.e., a mattress, a
bed and a guarantee for a lease, totalling USD 4,206.35.
c) On 8 September 2023, the Player requested an advance payment of the salaries for
August, September and 15 days of October, totalling USD 37,004.72.
d) The Club paid USD 9,416 for the remaining 15 days of October in cash.
e) The Club imposed a fine of 30% of the Player’s salary, USD 6,000, due to his misbehaviour
during a pre-match concentration. As the Club had made advance payments to the Player,
this amount had to be deducted from the salary for the following month.
f) The 2023 season ended on 3 December 2023, with the last match that was played by the
Club.
g) In August, September, October and November 2023, the Player requested football shirts
and shorts, costing USD 1,230. According to the Club, the amount that should be deducted
from October and November’s salary because of this request was USD 930.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14451
h) In October and November 2023, the Player requested two tickets costing USD 20 and
two tickets costing USD 12.
21. In light of the above, the Club made a new calculation and stated that the total debt towards
the Player regarding the months of October, November and December 2023 was USD
15,614 and, with interest, USD 15,927.50.
22. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“1. Que, en caso de que FIFA estime una condena, se condene a Aucas a pagar
UNICAMENTE el saldo adeudado al jugador, teniendo en cuenta los descuentos
voluntariamente solicitados por este de camisetas, boletería y anticipos de salario
pagados por el club al jugador, más un interés calculado a prorrata de una tasa anual
del 5%.
2. Que la condena no sea mayor a la suma de USD $ 15.927,5 de acuerdo con la
liquidación arriba realizada y justificada, valor que incluye el monto adeudado y los
intereses moratorios correspondientes.”
Freely translated into English:
"1. That, in the event that FIFA deems a condemnation, Aucas be ordered to pay ONLY
the balance owed to the player, taking into account the discounts voluntarily requested
for shirts, tickets and salary advances paid by the Club to the Player, plus interest
calculated on a pro rata basis at an annual rate of 5%.
2.That the condemnation should not exceed the sum of USD $ 15,927.5 in accordance
with the settlement made above and justified, value that includes the amount owed and
the corresponding moratory interest."
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
23. In his rejoinder, the Player argued that the Contract ended on 31 December 2023, which
was the end of the 2023 season. Additionally, he mentioned that the Ecuadorian
championship ended on 17 December 2023. The Player stated that, in the event that there
was any doubt, the principle of contra stipulatorem should apply. Moreover, according to
the Player, the Club acknowledged that he worked at least until 3 December 2023.
Therefore, he assured that December’s salary was due and payable.
24. Additionally, the Player alleged that the Club sought to deduct items that were not part of
the claim, such as an advance payment made in August.
25. Furthermore, the Player argued that the alleged fine that the Club was claiming to deduct,
was imposed on another player and also from that player’s August salary.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14451
26. Moreover, the Player mentioned that the deductions regarding the tickets and football
shirts were not applicable, in that the evidence provided was not signed by the Player. In
addition, it included alleged requests made in August and September, which were not part
of the months being claimed.
27. Notwithstanding the above, the Player acknowledged the payments made by the Club
regarding the salary for October 2023, and amended his request for relief as follows:
“Por lo tanto, solicitamos a la CRD que haga lugar a la demanda por la suma reclamada
de USD 40.000.-más intereses al 5% anual.”
Freely translated into English:
“Therefore, we request the DRC to uphold the claim for the claimed amount of USD
40,000.-plus interest at 5% per annum."
d. Final comments of the Respondent
28. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its final comments
within the granted time limit.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter: Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent
to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took note that the present matter was
presented to FIFA on 23 April 2024 and submitted for decision on 24 July 2024. Taking into
account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players June 2024 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 an Ecuadorian club.
31. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14451
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 April 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 she 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. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain
financial obligations by the Respondent as per the Contract, namely USD 60,000.
35. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay
salaries for October, November and December 2023, each amounting to USD 20,000.
36. Conversely, the Single Judge noted the Club’s argument that the Player made a
miscalculation by omitting relevant information in his claim. According to the Club, several
deductions must be made to the claimed amount, including advance payments made by
the Club, a fine imposed on the Player, and football shirts and tickets granted by the Club
to the Player at his request. In this sense, the Single Judge observed that the Club stated
that the amount owed was, until 31 May 2024, USD 15,927.50.
37. The Single Judge also pointed out that, after the Club’s submission, the Player
acknowledged the payment of October’s salary and, therefore, modified his claim from USD
60,000 to USD 40,000. Thus, the Single Judge decided that it was not necessary to consider
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14451
all the arguments and evidence provided by the Respondent regarding the alleged
deductions that should have been applied to October’s salary.
38. Additionally, the Single Judge took note that, according to the Club, the owed amount for
November and December 2023 was USD 15,290.
39. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
salaries for November and December 2023, totalling USD 40,000, had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent, or whether the amount owed was USD 15,290.
40. Regarding the salary of November 2023, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not
provide any evidence proving it paid this salary and even recognised in its calculation that
it owed the Player USD 13,290. However, the Single Judge also considered that the Club
argued that a deduction of USD 6,710 was supposed to be made, as (i) the Player requested
tickets for USD 20, (ii) football shirts for USD 690 and (iii) the Club imposed a fine of USD
6,000 to the Player due to his misbehaviour. Therefore, the Single Judge proceeded to
analyse each of the arguments raised by the Respondent, to determine whether these
deductions could be applicable.
41. In connection with the deduction of USD 20 corresponding to the tickets, the Single Judge
took into account that the Club did not provide any evidence that proved that the Player
bought those tickets and for the mentioned price. The Single Judge pointed out that the
only mention of these tickets on file was a statement made solely by the Club in its
response to the claim. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that this deduction could not
be applicable, as the Club did not fulfil its burden of proof.
42. Concerning the football shirts, the Single Judge observed that the Club provided a
document that allegedly showed that in November 2023 the Player requested eight shirts
and six shorts, for USD 690. However, the Single Judge noted that this document was not
signed by the Player and there was no evidence of its origin. Likewise, the Single Judge
remarked that the Club failed to provide any proof of consent on the Player’s side for this
set-off over his remuneration. Thus, the Single Judge deemed that this deduction could also
not be applicable.
43. With regards to the fine, the Single Judge bore in mind the Club’s argument that the Player,
along with other four players, was found to have allowed unauthorised persons into the
hotel room. In this sense, the Single Judge observed that the Club stated that it had notified
the fine on the September salary to all the involved players, but the Player refused to sign.
Since the Player had received advance payments, the Club mentioned that this fine could
only have been applied to his November salary.
44. The Single Judge noted that the evidence provided by the Club with the response to the
claim was only a notice addressed to another player, informing him that the fine agreed on
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14451
2 September 2023 would apply to his August salary. In addition, the Single Judge saw that
Club provided a payslip regarding this other player, showing a deduction from his salary.
45. Nevertheless, the Single Judge highlighted that there was no evidence that showed that the
Player had been involved in this situation and that the Club decided that it would impose a
fine on him specifically. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that the fine, at least with
the other player, was agreed on 2 September 2023 and that the Player requested an
advance payment on 8 September 2023. Thus, the Single Judge remarked that the
argument that the fine could not be applied to prior salaries because advance payments
had been made should be disregarded, as the Club could have made deductions from the
amount given in advance.
46. On top of the above, the Single Judge stated that the Club did not prove that the Player was
ever invited to contest the fine or provide any explanations concerning the alleged
disciplinary infraction. Similarly, there was no clear contractual or regulatory basis for the
imposition of the sanction, let alone in a retroactive way.
47. In light of the abovementioned, the Single Judge established that all the Club’s arguments
should be set aside and that the amount owed to the Player for the salary of November
was USD 20,000.
48. Then, the Single Judge moved to analyse the arguments raised by the Parties with reference
to the salary of December 2023. The Single Judge recalled that the Player argued that the
end of the 2023 season was 31 December 2023 or, at least, 17 December 2023, when the
Ecuadorian championship ended and, therefore, he was entitled to receive the complete
salary. On the contrary, the Club stated that the end of the 2023 season was on 3 December
2023, when the Club allegedly played its last match, and that the Player was only entitled
to the proportional salary for 3 worked days, which was USD 2,000.
49. In this regard, the Single Judge emphasised that the wording of the Contract was clear: the
Contract was valid from 1 August 2023 until the end of the 2023 season.
50. Thus, the Single Judge decided that the Contract ended with the end of the 2023 season as
established in the Contract, which, according to TMS, was on 29 December 2023.
Consequently, the Single Judge asserted that the Player was entitled to December’s salary
in full and determined that the Club owed him USD 20,000.
51. Finally, the Single Judge detected that the parties also disputed the date from which interest
should apply. The Single Judge saw that the Player requested interests over the due
amounts as from the fifth day of each month and that the Club, on the contrary, argued
that interests should be applicable as from 30 days after the last day of each month.
52. The Single Judge noted that the Contract did not establish the due date of the salaries.
According to the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Single Judge
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14451
determined that the salaries had to be paid on or before the end of each month and,
therefore, interest should be applicable from the day after the due date, i.e., first day after
the end of each month.
53. As a consequence of all the above and based on the general principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge decided to award the Player USD 40,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as
from the day after each due date.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
54. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
55. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Player put the club in default of payment
of the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the
club a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract. Although the Club proved having
paid USD 20,000 of the salary for October 2023, it failed to prove that it had a contractual
basis to justify its non-payment regarding the remaining USD 40,000.
56. Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations was met in the case at hand.
57. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations she
has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in
mind that this is the eighth offence by the Club within the last two years, the Single Judge
decided to impose a fine of USD 17,500 on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit.
c) of the Regulations.
58. In this connection, the Single Judge highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14451
60. 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.
61. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
62. 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.
63. 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
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14451
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yerson Candelo Miranda, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sociedad Deportiva Aucas, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount:
- USD 40,000 as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 20,000 of as from 1 December 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount USD 20,000 of as from 1 January 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.
8.
A fine in the amount of USD 17,500 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid
to FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-14451:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14451
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14451
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 Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 16