Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 May 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alain Mouangue
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Alain Mouangue, Cameroon
Represented by Eleven & Law
RESPONDENT:
Eastern Company SC, Egypt
Represented by Mr Nasr El Din Azzam
Page 2 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
I.
Facts
1.
On 24 September 2019, the parties concluded an employment contract valid “for three years”
2.
According to clause 2 of the contract, the total value of the contract was established in the
amount of USD 27,000, payable as follows:
Season 2019/2020
USD 2,400 on 30 August 2019;
USD 240 on 1 September 2019;
USD 240 on 1 October 2019;
USD 240 on 1 November 2019;
USD 240 on 1 December 2020;
USD 240 on 1 January 2020;
USD 240 on 1 February 2020;
USD 240 on 1 March 2020;
USD 240 on 1 April 2020;
USD 240 on 1 May 2020;
USD 240 on 1 June 2020;
USD 3,200 on 30 June 2020;
Season 2020/2021
USD 2,700 on 30 August 2020;
USD 270 on 1 September 2020;
USD 270 on 1 October 2020;
USD 270 on 1 November 2020;
USD 270 on 1 December 2020;
USD 270 on 1 January 2021;
USD 270 on 1 February 2021;
USD 270 on 1 March 2021;
USD 270 on 1 April 2021;
USD 270 on 1 May 2021;
USD 270 on 1 June 2021;
USD 3,600 on 30 June 2021;
Season 2021/2022
USD 3,000 on 30 August 2021;
USD 300 on 1 September 2021;
USD 300 on 1 October 2021;
USD 300 on 1 November 2021;
USD 300 on 1 December 2021;
USD 300 on 1 January 2022;
USD 300 on 1 February 2022;
USD 300 on 1 March 2022;
USD 300 on 1 April 2022;
USD 300 on 1 May 2022;
Page 3 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
USD 300 on 1 June 2022;
USD 4,000 on 30 June 2022;
3. Art. 4 of the contract stipulated the following:
“1- This contract should be certified and the club shall pay the fees of certifying
(…)
3. the player should bear the taxes of this contract and other remuneration according to the
law"
4.
The player signed an undated statement, by means of which he agreed to waive USD 4,000 for
the first season.
5.
On 17 December 2020, the legal representative of the player sent a default notice, indicating
the following:
“Pursuant to the Contract, my client was entitled to the following remuneration:
•2019-2020 season : USD 4,000 insofar my client accepted to waive half of his remuneration for
this season, i.e. USD 4,000;
•2020-2021 season : USD 9,000;
•2021-2022 season : USD 10,000.
However, since the beginning of the contractual relationship, your club has only paid USD 2,400
to my client, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 6,380
Furthermore, my client informed me that your club attempted to force him to sign a
termination agreement whereby he would have waived all his claims towards your club. My
client refused to do so insofar he is willing to perform his contractual obligations.
Following this refusal, the situation became even more unbearable as your club prevented my
client from training with the team and evicted him from the room he was occupying
I kindly invite you to pay my client his outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 6,380
within 15 days.”
6. On 3 January 2021, the legal representative of the player sent a termination letter indicating
the following:
“no reaction was given to our correspondence. Consequently, in line with Articles 14 and 14bis
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), my client hereby notifies you
the termination of the Contract with just cause. Moreover, in accordance with Article 17.1 RSTP,
Eastern Company SC shall pay my client, within 5 days, the amount of USD 21,600.”
7.
On 23 April 2021, the player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed.
8.
On 11 January 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract without just cause and
requested the following:
- To consider the contract as having been terminated with just cause by the Claimant on 3
January 2021;
-To order the Respondent to pay the sum of USD 5,650 outstanding remuneration, plus interest
at 5% per annum from each due date;
-To order the Respondent to pay the sum of USD 14,950 as compensation, plus interest at 5%
per annum from 3 January 2021;
Page 4 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
-To impose a ban on the registration of new players on the Respondent
9. The Claimant argued that the Club attempted to force him to terminate the Contract, in
violation of article 14 par. 2 RSTP considering the following:
- the Club removed him from the team and prevented him from training;
- the Club evicted him from the provided accommodation;
- the Club attempted him sign a termination document
10. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent considered that the Player's allegations in regards
to abusive conduct are not backed by any reliable evidence. The club considered that the
player acted in bad faith.
11. The club argued that it did not receive the default notice of 17 December 2020 since “the person
in charge of the Club's TMS account had his 30-day annual leave”. The club attached a
statement from the TMS manager, noting that he did not respond to the default notice (which
he only became aware of on 15 January 2021) because of “fear that it might be a scam”.
12. The club denied that the player was evicted or treated in a bad manner. In this respect, the
club argued that it was the player who did not report after the 2019/2020 season.
13. In relation to the player’s argument that he received only USD 2,400, the club stated that “this
is more or less true”.
14. The Respondent argued that the player’s salary was subject to tax deductions, as follows:
- 25% income tax following art. 8 of the Egyptian Tax Law (note: copy of art. 8 on file);
- 10% fees corresponding to the Player’s Practice License, paid to “the Syndicate of Sports
profession”, following Law 3 of 1987 (amended by law 63/2010) (note: copy on file),
according to which foreign player should pay 10% to practice football in Egypt.
- 1.71% “corresponding to the player’s contribution to registration fees of the EFA contract”
- 3% as per law no. 83 / 2020, established if “the player’s contract value is less than 3 million
EGP”.
15. As a result, the club stated that the player’s net salary for the season 2019/2020 amounts to USD
2,410 (i.e. 4000 – 25% - 1.71% - 10% -3%).
16. The Respondent further considered that the Player had no just cause to terminate the Contract,
as he received all the remuneration due for the 2019/2020 season and all salaries concerning
the 2020/2021 season have not fallen due yet.
17. On a subsidiary basis, the club considered that, “if FIFA, hypothetically, considers that the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract, he shall not be granted compensation” due to his
“bad faith”.
18. “In the most unlikely scenario”, the Club requested amount shall be mitigated.
19. In his replica, the Claimant insisted in its initial request.
Page 5 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
20. As to the payable taxes, the Claimant referred to the matter CAS 2020/A/6727 and stated that
the onus is on the Club to demonstrate that (i) it has informed the Player of the existence and
amount of the deductions that should be made and (ii) it has actually paid the amounts that
were allegedly deducted. However, the club considered that the club failed to meet its burden
of proof.
21. The Claimant further considered that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof in
relation to his alleged absences.
22. As final comments, the Respondent summarized its position as follows:
A. Season 2019/2020 taxes and fees were duly paid on behalf of the Player
B. Salaries concerning Season 2020/2021 shall not be considered as outstanding
C. Termination Document shall not be considered as a reliable evidence
D. The default notice wasn’t properly made
E. The Player was the one in breach
F. Alternatively, in the unlikely scenario if FIFA considers that the Player has just cause to
terminate, he shall not receive any compensation or at least have his requested
compensation mitigated
23. The club considered that the salaries for the season 2020/2021 shall not be considered as
outstanding due to the interruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
24. The club provided a statement dated 14 July 2019, certifying that it paid EGP 1,531,580 in
income tax.
25. The club stated, in support of its allegations concerning the evidence of payment of taxes, that,
following Egyptian law, “the documents submitted shall not contain any reference of the Player
unless the latter expressly requested from the Tax Authority to be given a statement indicating
his name, middle name and surname, salary, the type of income and the value of the deducted
tax.”
26. Moreover, the club considered that the player acted in bad faith since it “is clearly
demonstrated in view of the facts at hand since, its behavior of silence for a whole year was
obviously planned since the beginning to mislead FIFA and scam the Respondent into getting
what isn't due.”
27. Concerning the use of the TMS, the Respondent explained that it “was a third division club at
the time, its work in regards to registering the players shall not be calqued to the work of top
tier clubs in Egypt.”
28. The Respondent provided a document stating that it paid EGP 34,050 [approx. USD 2,100] as
“3% of the federation from the players' contracts on 2019-2020 season”
29. The Respondent considered that the player’s possible compensation shall be mitigated by
considering his net salary (25% + 1,71% + 10% + 3%)
Page 6 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
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.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and emphasised that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes
with an international dimension between players and clubs.
3.
In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations
of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this
respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering the date
when the claim was lodged, the January 2021 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.
4.
With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the
substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well
as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
5.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that, on 24 September 2019, the parties concluded an
employment contract valid “for three years”.
6.
Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim for breach of contract
without just cause, noting that, after having put the club in default, the player terminated
the contract on 3 January 2021.
7.
On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s position, according to which
the player's allegations are not backed by any reliable evidence. The Chamber further
noted that, according to the Respondent, it did not receive the player’s default notice, since
“the person in charge of the Club's TMS account had his 30-day annual leave”
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber understood that the main legal issue at stake is to
determine whether the player had a just cause to terminate the contract on 3 January 2021.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise 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 a continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Page 7 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to
ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
10. In analyzing the circumstances surrounding the matter at stake, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber reminded the parties of the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry
the burden of proof”.
11. In application of the aforementioned principles, the Chamber first addressed the
Respondent’s argument concerning the default notice sent by the player. Indeed, according
to the club, it did not received the default notices because its TMS manager was on leave.
12. In relation to this argument, the Chamber understood that, in any case, it was the club’s
responsibility to manage the absences of any employee, as it is the case for any club or
company. Hence, and after observing the evidence collected during the course of the
investigation, the Chamber considered that the player sufficiently proved that he duly sent
his default notice to the club prior to the termination of the contract.
13. As to the substance, the Chamber noted that, in his default notice, the player indicated that
the club owed him the following monies:
•2019-2020 season : USD 4,000 insofar my client accepted to waive half of his remuneration
for this season, i.e. USD 4,000;
•2020-2021 season : USD 9,000;
•2021-2022 season : USD 10,000.
However, since the beginning of the contractual relationship, your club has only paid USD
2,400 to my client, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 6,380
14. In view of the above, the Chamber considered of utmost importance to recall the player’s
financial entitlements since 24 September 2019 until the date of termination of the contract.
In particular, the Chamber observed that, for the aforementioned period, the player would
have been entitled to the following amounts:
Season 2019/2020: USD 8,000
USD 2,400 on 30 August 2019; USD 2,400 (from 1 September 2019 until 1 June 2020 240*1)
and USD 3,200 on 30 June 2020;
Season 2020/2021: USD 4,050
USD 2,700 on 30 August 2020; USD 1,350) from 1 September 2020 until 1 January 2021
(270*5)
Total: USD 12,050.
Page 8 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
15. Moreover, the player acknowledged that he waived USD 4,000. Consequently, the Chamber
understood that the player was entitled to USD 8,050 for the applicable period. In addition,
the Chamber observed that the player further acknowledged that he received USD 2,400,
16. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that, potentially, at the date of termination of the
contract, the amount of USD 5,650 would have been outstanding.
17. In relation to said outstanding amounts, the Chamber noted that the club argued that it
deducted 1.71% for registration fees.
18. However, in relation to said argument, the Chamber observed that the contract clearly
stipulated that this cost shall be borne by the club (art. 4 par. 3). As a result, the Chamber
dismissed the argument of the club in this regard.
19. In addition, the Chamber further took into account the Respondent’s argument, according
to which the player’s salary was subject to 25% income tax following art. 8 of the Egyptian
Tax Law
20. However, on this note, the Chamber observed that the Respondent did not support with
evidence that the player was specifically subject to a tax rate of 25%.
21. In this respect, the Chamber also took into account the documentation provided by the
player. Yet, in this regard, the Chamber observed that the evidence provided by the club
concerning the payment of taxes is previous to the contract (certificates from 2018 and June
2019), and therefore irrelevant. The Chamber observed that the club did not provide a
detailed set of payment slips that could certify that his remuneration was duly withheld for
tax purposes.
22. As a result, the Chamber dismissed the arguments of the club in relation to the applicable
income taxes.
23. Moreover, the Chamber further noted that the Respondent further argued that the player
was subject to “10% fees corresponding to the Player’s Practice License”.
24. In relation to said argument, the Chamber observed that the club only provided a partial
translation of the Law 63/2010. However, after duly examining the contents of the evidence
provided by the parties, the Chamber considered that remains unclear who is obligated to
pay the aforementioned amount, i.e. whether the player or the club.
25. In view of the lack of convincing evidence in this respect, the Chamber established that it
could not accept the aforementioned deduction.
26. In addition, the Chamber further noted the Respondent’s argument, according to which, in
any case, the outstanding salaries shall be not considered as such due to the interruptions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Page 9 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
27. However, on this note, the Chamber observed that the contract clearly stipulated the
payment of salaries on certain specific dates, and no negotiation or agreement was reached
concerning a possible postponement of the payments.
28. In sum, after duly assessing the evidence and arguments at stake, the Chamber considered
that it can be established that USD 5,650 gross were outstanding at the date of termination
of the contract.
29. Consequently, in strict application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber established that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, the total
outstanding amount of USD 5,650 gross, and this amount shall be granted to the player,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates.
30. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the aforementioned amount represents a
significant part of the player’s annual salary (i.e. 70% of his salary of the season 2019/2020).
As a result, and considering that the Respondent seriously neglected its financial obligations
towards the player, the Chamber established that the player terminated the contract with
just cause and that he is therefore entitled to compensation.
31. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the
termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber decided that, in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the club is liable to pay compensation to
the player.
32. In this respect, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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.
33. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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.
34. 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
Page 10 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other
objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.
35. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other
benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which
criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber
deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations
allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in
the calculation of the amount of compensation.
36. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of
termination with just cause, i.e. payments comprised between 1 February 2021 until 30 June
2022, as follows:
USD 270 on 1 February 2021;
USD 270 on 1 March 2021;
USD 270 on 1 April 2021;
USD 270 on 1 May 2021;
USD 270 on 1 June 2021;
USD 3,600 on 30 June 2021;
Season 2021/2022
USD 3,000 on 30 August 2021;
USD 300 on 1 September 2021;
USD 300 on 1 October 2021;
USD 300 on 1 November 2021;
USD 300 on 1 December 2021;
USD 300 on 1 January 2022;
USD 300 on 1 February 2022;
USD 300 on 1 March 2022;
USD 300 on 1 April 2022;
USD 300 on 1 May 2022;
USD 300 on 1 June 2022;
USD 4,000 on 30 June 2022;
Total: USD 14,950 (i.e. 4950 + 10 000)
37. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant would have received in total USD
14,950. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 14,950, serves as the
basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the case at hand.
38. 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
Page 11 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC, 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.
39. In this respect, the Chamber verified that the player did not conclude any new contract
afterwards.
40. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s claim and that the
club must pay the amount of USD 14,950 as compensation for breach of contract in the case
at hand.
41. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent
must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount as of the date
of the claim.
42. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
43. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, in the
event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as
from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision,
communicates the relevant bank details to the 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 effective on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
45. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
Page 12 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alain Mouangue, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Eastern Company SC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- USD 5,650 gross as outstanding remuneration, plus interest as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1 600 as from 1 July 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2 700 as from 31 August 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 270 as from 2 September 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 270 as from 2 October 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 270 as from 2 November 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 270 as from 2 December 2020 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 270 as from 2 January 2021 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 14,950 gross as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5%
interest p.a. from 11 January 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with
this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant
bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the
due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the
end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present
matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
REF 21-00096 FPSD-635
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 of 14