Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14087
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Jonathan Alonso Moya Aguilar
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Alexandra GOMEZ BRUINEWOUD (Uruguay), member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Hyderabad FC, India
Represented by Hemant Raj Phalpher
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Jonathan Alonso Moya Aguilar, Costa Rica
Represented by Alberto Ruiz de Aguiar Diaz Obregón
INTERVENING PARTY:
Club Asociación Liga Deportiva Alajuelense, Costa Rica
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14087
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 May 2023, the Indian club Hyderabad FC (hereinafter: the Club or Claimant/CounterRespondent) and the Costa Rican player Jonathan Alonso Moya Aguilar (hereinafter: the
Player or Respondent/Counterclaimant) entered into an employment agreement
comprising a “player contract” and a “side letter addendum” (hereinafter jointly referred
to as: the Contract), valid from the 1 June 2023 until 31 May 2024.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly net
remuneration of USD 22,000 from 1 August 2023 until 31 May 2024 (i.e. 10 months).
3.
On 21 December 2023, the Club, the Player and a football intermediary named Debatiya
Sinha Roy (hereinafter: the Agency) signed a mutual “Termination Agreement” effective
from 23 December 2023.
4.
In accordance with the Termination Agreement, the parties acknowledged the following
terms:
“1. Player agrees that the Club has fulfilled all its obligations towards the Player under the said
Player Agreement including the obligation of payment of salaries and payment of any
commissions under the Agency Commission Agreement and the Club has no further dues to
pay or shall be due, claimable, or pending towards the Player or his Agency from the Club in
any event or an any account.
2. The Player agrees to remain in employment and fulfil its employment obligations as per the
Player Agreement and play and represent the Club in all competitions and matches as
required by the Club till 23 December 2023 and in lieu of the Club agreeing to an early
termination requested by the Player while the Player shall perform its obligations as per the
Player Agreement till 23 December 2023, and the Player shall forego and not be entitles to any
salary/ payments under the Player Agreement for the months of November and December
2023 which would otherwise fall due on 10 December 2023 and 10 January 2024.
3. Further the Player agrees and the Agency confirms that at the time of engagement of the
Player under the Player Agreement the Club and under an Agency Commission Agreement the
Club had paid Agents Fee to the Players Agency of INR 19,42,082/- and no further commission
was due to the Agency in relation to the said Player Contract. In lieu of agreeing to early
termination request by the Player, the Player agreed and the Agency confirms that the Player
shall refund 50% of such Agents Fee paid by the Club to the Player's Agency i.e amount of INR
9,71,041/- (Indian Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy One Thousand and Forty One) by no later
than 15 January 2024 ("Agency Fee Refund"). Proof of payment of such Agency Fee Refund
amount shall be provided by Player and Agency to the Club by no later than 15 January 2024.
4. Further at the time of Player employment by the club the Player was also paid a Sign on Fee
of USD 30,000/- by the Club. In lieu of agreeing to early termination request by the Player, the
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14087
Player has agreed to refund USD 14,000 /- (US Dollars Fourteen Thousand) to the Club
immediately on execution of this Agreement. (Sign on Refund). Proof of payment of such Sign
on Refund amount shall be provided by Player prior to travelling back and in any event shall
be provided before 22 December 2023. The Agency confirms the same”.
5.
Lastly, the parties agreed that in case of Player’s noncompliance with the terms of the
Termination Agreement, the following provision shall apply:
“10. In the event of breach of any of the terms of this agreement by the Player, the Player shall
be liable to compensate the Club to the tune of a value equivalent to 5 months of his monthly
fee under the Player Agreement plus interest along with additional compensations as per FIFA
Regulations. In any event and breach of the said term shall hold both the Player and the
Agency jointly and severally liable under this Agreement for default amount mentioned herein
this clause as well for additional remedies as per Indian Law as well as applicable FIFA
Regulations.
11. This Mutual Termination Agreement is without prejudice to legal remedies available to the
Club under the Player Agreement and shall not affect those of its provisions which are either
expressed to survive or are capable of surviving such termination”.
6.
By correspondence dated 11 November 2023, the Player put the Club in default of
payment of USD 44,000 and granted a deadline of 15 days to remedy the alleged breach.
7.
On 28 November 2023, the Club paid the Player a total of USD 44,000.
8.
Via WhatsApp message dated 5 December 2023, the Player communicated to the Club his
desire to return to Costa Rica in order to rejoin the family.
9.
Between the above date and 20 December 2023, the parties exchanged several
communications in order to reach an agreement for the termination of the Contract.
10. On21 December 2023, the Player concluded a new employment contract with the Costa
Rican club Asociación Liga Deportiva Alajuelense (hereinafter: the Intervening party).
11. On 27 December 2023, the Player provided the Club with proof of payment of the sign-on
fee stipulated under clause 4 of the Termination Agreement, in the amount of USD
14,000.
12. On 28 January 2024, the Club sent a reminder to the Player with regard to the latter’s
outstanding obligation under cause 3 of the Termination Agreement, namely the amount
of INR 971,041 to be paid by 15 January 2024.
13. On 26 February 2024, the Club requested once again the Player to pay the balance
amount of INR 971,041 by no later than 29 February 2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14087
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 16 March 2024, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Club
15. According to the Claimant, the Player failed to comply with the financial terms of the
Termination Agreement, namely by not paying the sum of INR 971,041 originally due on
15 January 2024.
16. Accordingly, the Club held that the Player shall be held liable to pay the relevant
compensation stipulated under clause 10 of the Termination Agreement.
17. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Player’s breach of the Termination Agreement
shall be considered as a premature termination of the employment contract without just
cause, thus entitling the Club to claim an additional compensation based on the residual
value of the same labour agreement.
18. The requests for relief of the Club, accordingly, were the following:
“To condemn PLAYER to pay in favour of HYDERABAD FC the compensation for
a. breach of Termination Agreement and
b. the unilateral premature termination of the Contract without Just Cause mid-season in
the total amount of USD 308,000 (United States Dollars Three Hundred and Eight
Thousand) (“Claimed Amount”) towards the Bank Detail of the Club provided
alongwith this Claim as per Bank Registration Form at Annexure 18
i. of a value equivalent to 5 months of his monthly fee under the Player Agreement which as
per the Player Contract and Side Letter also includes the fee under the side letters and such
addenda i.e total amount of USD 110,000 (United States Dollars One Hundred Ten
Thousand); (Towards Breach of Termination Agreement)
ii. Plus compensation as per Article 17 for breach of Player Contract leading to the Player
paying the Club the residual value of the Player Contract from 21 December 2023 till 31 May
2024 i.e., amount of USD 132,000 (United States Dollars One Hundred Thirty-Two
Thousand); (Towards Unilateral Termination of Player Contract Without Just Cause)
iii. Plus additional/aggravated compensations equivalent to 3 additional months
compensation i.e. USD 66,000 (United States Dollars Sixty Six Thousand) as per Article
FIFA Regulations on account of breach of Player Contract and Unilateral Termination
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14087
without Just Cause in the middle of the Season by the Player and for leaving the Club midseason as an aggravated situation caused for the Club impacting the Clubs season
prospects, squad depletion, play planning, co team member morale impact- by the PLAYER
causing an irreparable harm to the CLUB; (Towards Aggravated Compensation due to
abandoning the Club in Bad Faith mid-Season)
To also impose on the Player to also pay the corresponding interest at the rate of five
percent (5%) per annum applicable to the above Claimed Amount due from date of default
until the date of effective payment received by the Club…”
b. Position of the Player
19. In his reply, the Player first argued having acted in good faith by leaving time to the Club
to comply with its financial obligations in spite of the several months of delay.
20. In this respect, the Player held that the Club never communicated an estimated date for
the payment of his overdue salaries, nor it has ever clarified the reasons for the relevant
delay during the months prior to the termination of the Contract.
21. Accordingly, the Player stated that although the parties have eventually signed a mutual
termination agreement, the Player would have had a just cause to terminate the Contract
already in November 2023, as the Club at the time was in default of more than two
monthly salaries.
22. In this context, the Player also stated that the Club failed to pay his salary of November
2023, thus de facto pressuring the Player to sign the Termination Agreement on 21
December 2023.
23. The Player therefore lodged a counterclaim against the Club, demanding a compensation
from the latter for breach of contract without just cause.
24. In this context, the Player also held that the Termination Agreement shall be deemed as
null and void because the Player could not have validly waived his outstanding salaries at
the time, nor the Club had offered any equipollent consideration in this regard.
25. Furthermore, in the Player’s view, it would also appear evident the pressure put by the
Club in offering contractual terms of an abusive nature because of the Player’s lack of
time to properly assess the content and burdens of the Termination Agreement.
26. As a consequence, the Player held that even in the case that FIFA had not recognized the
Player’s just cause to terminate the Contract, the Club should nonetheless be held liable
to pay the Player’s outstanding remuneration for November 2023 and part of December
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14087
2023 until the date of signing of the Termination Agreement, while the latter shall be
deemed as null and void.
27. Subsidiarily, the Player pleaded that, should the Termination Agreement be considered
valid and binding, then the relevant compensatory clause in the amount of USD 308,000
shall be deemed as disproportionate and excessive in comparison to the actual debt
carried by the Player.
28. The Player also argued that the mentioned default would not correspond to any of the
Player’s obligations to provide his service under the employment contract, but rather to
commissions paid by the Club to agents that were not event contacted by the Player at
the time of entering the relevant labour relationship.
29. The Player therefore submitted the following requests for relief:
“PRIMARY
-
To reject the Club’s claim;
-
5% interest p.a.
-
To limit the Player’s debt to INR 971,041;
-
To order instead the Club to pay USD 154,000 as compensation for breach of
contract;
SUBSIDIARY
-
To order the Club to pay the sum of USD 36,903.23 as outstanding remuneration
under the Contract”.
c. Club’s response to the counterclaim
30. In replica to the counterclaim, the Club argued having accepted to sign the Termination
Agreement based on the sole pressure moved by the Player.
31. The Club also rejected the Player’s allegations according to which the latter would have
had just cause to terminate the Contract in November 2023, stating that the relevant
default had been remedied on time by the Club and no objections have been moved by
the Player afterwards.
32. As to the compensation claimed by the Club, the latter argued that this was calculated on
the basis of the pre-existing labour relationship between the parties, namely on the
assumption that if the termination of the Contract had not occurred, the Player would
have had to provide his services for further 5 months until 31 May 2024.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14087
33. In this context, the Club stated that it remained unable to find a replacement for the
Player and this has inevitably generated a damage for the competitivity of the team
during the rest of the season. Furthermore, the Club emphasized that the Player stopped
providing his services to the Club as from the beginning of December 2023.
34. In conclusion, the Club upheld its original request for double compensation based on
both the Contract and the Termination Agreement.
d. Comments by the Intervening party to the Club’s claim
35. On the basis of article 9 par. 4 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Football
Tribunal, FIFA requested the intervention of Asociación Liga Deportiva Alajuelense, as a
party to the proceedings, and to file its position to the Club’s claim.
36. However, the Intervening party did not provide its position in spite of having been invited
to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
37. 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 16 March 2024 and
submitted for decision on 27 June 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.
38. 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 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 Costa Rican
player and an Indian club.
39. 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 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 March 2024, the February 2024
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14087
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
40. 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. Merits of the dispute
41. 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
42. 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 the validity of the
Termination Agreement signed on 21 December 2023. In particular, the Chamber
observed that according to the Club, the Player failed to pay part of the amounts
stipulated under the Termination Agreement; hence, based on clause 10 of the same, he
shall be equally held liable for breaching the relevant employment contract, whereas the
Player argues having agreed on the premature conclusion of the employment
relationship subject to the pressure exercised by the Club and thus lodged a counterclaim
against the latter, alleging being still entitled to the salaries matured until the end of the
contract, and to the salaries waived in the termination agreement. In this respect, the
Chamber also noted that the Club argues that by signing the Termination Agreement, the
Player has waived any potential claims regarding his previous salaries.
43. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its first task was to establish whether the
Termination Agreement signed by the parties on 21 December 2023 shall be deemed as a
valid and binding contract and, in the affirmative, which amounts were outstanding under
the latter.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14087
44. In this respect, the Chamber wished to remark that, in line with art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, the Player bore the burden of proof that he had signed the Termination
Agreement under duress.
45. In this regard, the DRC was of the opinion that no convincing documentation, or any form
of evidence, was provided by the Player, which could support his allegation that the
Termination Agreement was signed under duress and that, as a consequence, said
agreement was to be declared null and void.
46. On the contrary, the Chamber observed that the parties (mostly upon initiative of the
Player) held several negotiations, either via email or WhatsApp, before reaching the
signing of the Termination Agreement.
47. Moreover, and in spite of the undisputed record of former quarrels between the parties
concerning the unpaid salaries of the Player, the latter acknowledged in his reply to the
claim that the Club eventually paid all the amounts for which it had been previously put in
default.
48. In the Chamber’s view, the Player cannot therefore “venire contra factum proprium” and
claim a premature termination of the employment contract by the Club without just
cause.
49. Having stated the above, the Chamber focused its attention to the question of whether
the Termination Agreement signed by the Player is to be considered a valid waiver for his
outstanding remuneration.
50. The DRC firstly turned its attention to the fact that the Player raised the potential
invalidity of the Termination Agreement before FIFA only, whereas he previously
performed (in part) the payments established thereto.
51. As to the referred waiver concerning the Player’ salaries of November 2023 and
December 2023, the majority of the DRC wished to remark that it did not disregard the
large CAS and DRC jurisprudence according to which player’s waiving of salary for work
already performed is – in principle – not allowed. The DRC and CAS jurisprudence
generally provide that a player in principle cannot waive his right to outstanding
remuneration for work already performed (see, e.g., DRC-REF FPSD-6249; CAS
2020/A/6727). Such a waiver would oblige the player to perform work without salary, as a
consequence of which the waiver would be null and void. Further, where a player waives
only outstanding entitlements and not future earnings, such a waiver shall similarly be
unenforceable. Moreover, where the Mutual Termination Agreement constitutes a
settlement rather than a waiver, these are similarly unenforceable if they contain a de
facto unilateral waiver by the employee and his claim has not been compensated through
a transaction. If the player indirectly waives payment of wages for work already done
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14087
and/or outstanding salaries via remission of a debt, i.e. stating that he has no financial
claims in the present or future when this is untrue, such a waiver is null and void.
52. Nevertheless, the majority of the Chamber wished to emphasize that an exception to the
said general rule is permissible when the waiver in question results part of a genuine
transaction involving concessions of comparable importance on the part of each party.
53. In concrete terms, CAS jurisprudence reveals that to assess whether such a transaction is
permissible, the court/deciding body is required to conduct a balancing of interests,
checking whether the mutual claims waived by each party are of comparable value. Put in
another way, whether there is an appropriate equivalence between the parties’ reciprocal
concessions.
54. In the opinion of the majority of the Chamber, the abovementioned balance in the matter
at stake would indeed subsist.
55. In fact, from the documentation produced by the Club, the DRC noted that on several
occasions, namely between the end of November 2023 and December 2023, i.e. prior to
the relevant termination of the Contract, the Player expressly manifested his will to
prematurely conclude the employment relationship with the Club and thus demanded
the latter to be released from his contractual obligations.
56. In this context, the Chamber observed that while at first instance the Player had
proposed to terminate the Contract against payment of the abovementioned salaries, in
front of the Club’s persisting reticence the Player expressly communicated the latter that
he would have waived his outstanding remuneration in exchange for the anticipated
“freedom”, namely in order to rejoin his family in Costa Rica.
57. In the view of the majority of the Chamber, it was therefore clear the Club’s original
intention to preserve the employment relationship with the Player, altered only by the
perseverance of the latter.
58. Conversely, the DRC assessed the Player’s evident desire to move back to his home
country, Costa Rica, for family reasons and at his earliest opportunity. The Chamber
found solid evidence of the above in the fact that on the same day in which the parties
signed the Termination Agreement, i.e., 21 December 2023, the Player signed also a new
employment contract with the Intervening party.
59. Furthermore, the DRC was eager to emphasise that a party signing a document of legal
importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its
own responsibility.
60. According to the majority of the Chamber, the Player consciously renounced the wages
he had accrued or could have accrued in exchange for a personal situation more in line
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14087
with his wishes and ambitions in life. The Club, on the other hand, was not obliged to
accept such conditions unless the Player made some concession, in this case, the waiver
of salaries for November and (part of) December 2023.
61. The majority of the Chamber therefore concluded that the Termination Agreement
signed on 21 December 2023 shall be deemed as valid and binding waiver.
62. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber turned its attention to the outstanding amounts
in favour of the Club under the Termination Agreement and took note of the fact that the
Player did not contest having failed to pay the amount of INR 971,041 stipulated under
clause 3 therein.
63. The Chamber therefore assessed that the said amount has remained outstanding in
favour of the Club since 15 January 2024, without any justification provided by the Player
for having failed to comply with the terms of the Termination Agreement.
64. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled the wording of clause 10 of the Termination
Agreement, based on which” In the event of breach of any of the terms of this agreement by
the Player, the Player shall be liable to compensate the Club to the tune of a value equivalent
to 5 months of his monthly fee under the Player Agreement plus interest along with additional
compensations as per FIFA Regulations. (…)”.
65. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, despite of the adoption of the
term “compensation” by the parties, the abovementioned clause is indeed a penalty
clause in favour of the Club, and it shall be analyzed as such.
66. With the above in mind, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to stress that penalty
clauses, in principle, may be freely entered into by the contractual parties and may be
considered acceptable, in the event that the pertinent written clause meets certain
criteria such as proportionality and reasonableness. In this respect, the Chamber
highlighted that in order to determine as to whether a penalty clause is to be considered
acceptable, the specific circumstances of the relevant case brought before the deciding
body shall also be taken into consideration.
67. In this regard, the Chamber outlined that the alleged penalty clause as stipulated in
clause 10 of the Termination Agreement, is in fact corresponding to 5 salaries under the
employment contract, i.e. 500% of the Player’s monthly remuneration.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that under clause 4 of the same agreement, the
Player had also undertaken to pay the Club a further amount of USD 14,000.
69. Taking into account the foregoing circumstances, as well as the jurisprudence of the
Chamber in this respect, the DRC found that the said penalty fee is excessive and
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14087
disproportionate, thus the Chamber determined that it had to be reduced to 50% of the
amount due, i.e. INR 485,520.50.
70. On account of the above considerations, and in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Player is liable to pay to
the Club the amounts which were outstanding under the Termination Agreement, i.e. INR
971,041 plus INR 485,520.50, based respectively on clause 4 and clause 10 of the latter.
71. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Club interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of INR 971.041 as from 16 January 2024
until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. 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.
73. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
74. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the club within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on playing in
official matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become immediately
effective on the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
75. The player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the club in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
76. The 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. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14087
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14087
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Hyderabad FC, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Jonathan Alonso Moya
Claimant/Counter-Respondent the following amount(s):
Aguilar, must pay to the
INR 971,041 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
INR 485,520.50 as contractual penalty.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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/Counterclaimant shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of
the restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
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 six months.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14087
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