Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17647
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Sony Norde
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Sony Norde, Haiti
Represented by Professional Footballers Association of Malaysia (PFAM)
RESPONDENT:
Kedah Darul Aman Football Club, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17647
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 March 2024, the Haitian player, Sony Norde (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant),
and the Malaysian club, Kedah Darul Aman Football Club (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
1 March 2024 until 30 April 2025.
2.
Clause 2 of the Contract, along with “Schedule A” and “Schedule B”, established the Player’s
remuneration and benefits, inter alia, as follows (quoted verbatim):
“ARTICLE 2: PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION.
1. The Player shall sign this Contract and agrees to provide his services as a football
player; the Club will pay the salary according to SCHEDULE A.
2. Other benefits and terms are stated in SCHEDULE B.
3. Bonus incentive and any other payment thereof shall be at the absolute discretion of
the Club.”
(…)
SCHEDULE A – SALARY
a) First Season
Season 2024/2025: USD 14,000.00 Nett per month and must be paid no later than the
7th of the following month.
Date of notice for extension of contract: 01st NOVEMBER 2024
SCHEDULE B - OTHER BENEFITS
a. The following Insurance Policies as taken by the Club:Personal Accident Policy - sum insured RM 120,000.00 Medical Hospitalisation and
Surgical Insurance
(PLEASE STATE THE MEDICAL / HOSPITALISATION AND SURGICAL POLICY VALUE AND
ATTACH THE POLICY SCHEDULE)
Minimum RM 60,000.00.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17647
Life Insurance (for professional Player only) - sum insured RM 10,000.00 with extension
to permanent disability policy of RM 25,000.00.
NOTE: THE VALUE OF THE LIFE INSURANCE AND PERMANENT DISABILITY HAVE TO BE
INCREASED DUE TO THE SHORT PERIOD A PLAYER PLAYS FOOTBALL AND THIS
CONTRIBUTION MONEY WILL BE THE PLAYER’S RETURN IN THE FUTURE ONCE HE STOPS
PLAYING FOOTBALL
b. Free medical benefit inclusive of hospitalisation expenses to the Player by the medical
officer appointed by the Club. Payment for specialist treatment and dental treatment is
not included unless previously mutually agreed upon by the Club. The maximum liability
of the Club under this Clause shall not exceed RML200.00 per year.
c. During the period of the contract, the Player is entitled to 14 (days) annual leave
subject to the approval of the Club.
d. Other benefits as agreed upon between the Club and the Player:
1.
Salary
2.
3.
4.
Signing fee
Agent fee
Flight ticket
5.
Medical insurance
6.
Accommodation
USD 14,000.00 Nett
Pending on Medical Test
USD 14,000.00
USD 10,000.00
1 Trip return (Economy
Class) for Player + 4
Family Members - (HAITIMALAYSIA-HAITI)
Provide for length of
contract
·Provide by KDA FC with
rental not exceeded
RM3,000.00 per month.
·The Player shall bear
exceeded house rental,
all the utility bills and
other expenses related to
the accommodation.
Upon completion of his
employment with the
Club, should the Player
return
the
accommodation in a like
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17647
7.
Transportation
8.
Match bonuses
original state, the Club
shall be entitled to
deduct the cost of any
repairs
from
any
outstanding payments
owed.
Car as provided by KDA
FC
Match Bonus Rate: (List
Of 20 Players)
(…)”
3.
On 10 September 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment of USD
77,000, corresponding to half of the salary for April 2024, the full salaries for May, June, July
and August 2024, and the signing fee. The Player granted the Club 10 days to comply with
the payment.
4.
On 19 September 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s letter and informed him that it was
still in the final process of resolving his outstanding payments. Thus, the Club requested
additional time to review all the relevant documents.
5.
On 11 November 2024, the Player sent a new notice of default to the Club, requesting
payment of USD 93,872.17, corresponding to the full salaries for May, July, August,
September and October 2024, the balance for June 2024, and the signing fee. The Player
granted the Club 15 days to comply with the payment.
6.
On 20 November 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s letter (quoted verbatim):
“REP: NOTICE OF CLAIM (OUSTANDING PAYMENTS) - SONY NORDE
With all due respect, the matter above and our letter Ref No.: KDAFC/021 /( 05 )/TT/ 2024
- ik dated 18th November 2024 are referred.
It is hereby informed that after a review by Kedah Darul Aman Football Club (KDA FC),
the outstanding amount is RM 353,426.50 (USD 79,842.41). This outstanding amount
includes salary arrears (until November 2024) and signing fee, and has been deducted
for salary advances by the player, payment of outstanding electricity bills for the player's
house (TNB), and rental payments for the player's house (December 2024 to April 2025).
The deduction for the rental payment because his family will continue to live in Alor Setar,
Kedah until April 2025. Furthermore, the house rental agreement is between KDA FC and
the owner of the house, and the rental payments must be made by KDA FC. Here we
attach the detail summary of payment, detail deduction and all payment receipt for your
attention.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17647
Therefore, the proposed payment schedule for the outstanding payment as follows:
NO
1
DESCRIPTION
1st Payment
AMOUNT
RM 50,000.00
2
2nd Payment
RM 50,000.00
3
3rd Payment
RM 50,000.00
4
4th Payment
RM 50,000.00
5
5th Payment
RM 50,000.00
DATE
Before End of
30th November
2024
Before End of
31st December
2024
Before End of
31st
January
2025
Before End of
28th February
2025
Before End of
30th April 2025
(…)”
7.
Also, the Club attached a detailed calculation to its reply, along with several documents and
proof of payments. In this calculation, the Club acknowledged owing the balances for the
salaries for March, May, June, July, August, September, October and November 2024, as
well as the signing fee. Nonetheless, the Club deducted some advance payments, electricity
bills and rental fee.
8.
On 25 November 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s letter (quoted verbatim):
“NOTICE OF CLAIM (OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS) SONY NORDE
With all due respect, we refer to the above matter and your letter Reference No.:
KDAFC/021/(06)/TT/2024-ik dated 20 November 2024.
The Player acknowledges that the total outstanding amount of RM353,426.50
(USD79.842.41) is payable according to the payment schedule proposed by the Club.
In this regard, the Player has requested that the Club agree to pay an additional 10%
should there be any delay or failure to make the payments by the dates outlined in the
schedule. Should the Club fail to comply with the agreed payment terms, we reserve the
right to take the necessary action.
We kindly request that the Club confirm its agreement to the Player’s request so that we
may withdraw the Notice of Claim dated 11 November 2024 (Ref. No.: LPFA/11/166/NAH).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17647
We hope this matter can be resolved amicably to maintain the positive relationship
between both parties.
(…)”
9.
Also on 25 November 2024, the Club stated the following:
“REP: NOTICE OF CLAIM (OUSTANDING PAYMENTS) - SONY NORDE
With all due respect, the matter above and your letter Ref No.: LPFA/11/179/NAH date
25th November 2024 are referred.
We are pleased to inform you that Kedah Darul Aman Football Club (KDA FC) has
acknowledged the player’s request regarding the additional late payment charges
associated with the Instalment schedule for his outstanding salary payments.
Accordingly, KDA FC has held further discussions with the player regarding this matter.
As a result of the discussions, both parties have reached an agreement to reduce the
additional late payment charges from 10% to 5% only.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 2 January 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. The Player argued that, although he complied with all his obligations, the Club failed to pay
his salaries. Thus, the Player mentioned that he sent a notice of default on 10 September
2024, which was replied to by the Club, stating that they were resolving the outstanding
payments.
12. Nonetheless, the Player asserted that he sent a new notice on 11 November 2024, which
was replied to by the Club, informing that the outstanding remuneration was MYR
353,426.50 (USD 79,842.81). Additionally, the Player stated that the Club included a
proposed schedule to settle the remaining outstanding amount.
13. In this respect, the Player pointed out that he acknowledged the total outstanding amount
and requested that the Club agree to pay an additional 10% if there was any delay or failure.
Finally, the Player stated that the Club responded, indicating that the parties had reached
an agreement to reduce the additional late payment charges from 10% to 5%. In this
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17647
regard, the Player clarified that he disagreed with the reduction of these charges to 5% and
wished to maintain his original request of 10%.
14. The Player asserted that the Club failed to comply with the payments and made the
following breakdown of the outstanding remuneration (quoted verbatim):
“15.A detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute is as follows:
i. 1st payment amounting to USD11.294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid immediately;
ii. 2nd payment amounting to USD11,294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid immediately;
iii. 3rd payment amounting to USD11,294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid by 31 January
2024 (sic) as per the payment schedule in Exhibit SN-7;
iv. 4th payment amounting to USD11,294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid by 28 February
2025 as per the payment schedule in Exhibit SN-7; and
(V) 5th payment amounting USD34,647.25 (RM153,426.50) to be paid by 30 April 2025
as per the payment schedule in Exhibit SN-7.
*Note: conversion rate of 1USD: RM4.427 is based on the daily conversion rate)”.
15. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“16.Under the above circumstances, in this grievance, I respectfully request that the FIFA
DRC hereby award the Player;
i. the Club immediately pay the total claim in the amount of USD79,824.57
(RM353,426.50);
ii. the Club to pay an additional 10% should there be any delay or failure to make
payments by the dates outlined in the schedule.
iii. sanctions under Article 12bis of the RSTP, cumulatively and severely, including fining
the Club or banning the Club from registering new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two registration periods; and
iv. any other or further remedy that the DRC deems appropriate.”
b. Position of the Respondent
16. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17647
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 2 January 2025 and submitted for decision on
3 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
18. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Haitian player and a Malaysian club.
19. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
20. 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
21. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17647
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration.
23. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club failed to pay him part of his
remuneration and, although the Club proposed a schedule to pay the debt, it failed to
comply with the agreed terms. Thus, the Chamber noted that the Player requests the total
amount of the debt, plus an additional 10% due to the Club’s non-compliance.
24. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber determined
that the decision shall be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
25. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish (i) what the debt
claimed by the Player is, (ii) when it was due to be paid, (iii) what the actual outstanding
amount is, (iv) whether the club has complied with the payments, and (v) if there is an
additional amount to be paid by the Club as a consequence of any default.
a) What is the debt claimed by the Player?
26. First, the Chamber observed that, although the Player on 11 November 2024 put the Club
in default for USD 93,872.17, on 25 November 2024 he acknowledged that the actual debt
was MYR 353,426.50 (USD 79,842.41). Additionally, the Chamber remarked that the Player
is requesting this amount in this claim.
27. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the debt claimed by the Player amounts to MYR
353,426.50 (USD 79,842.41).
b) When was the debt supposed to be paid?
28. Then, the Chamber moved on to analyse when the debt was supposed to be paid. From
the detailed breakdown included in the Club’s response on 20 November 2024, the
Chamber saw that the amounts owed to the Player corresponded to the balance of the
salaries for March, May, June, July, August, September, October and November 2024, as
well as to the signing fee.
29. Regarding the salaries, the Chamber noted that “Schedule A” of the Contract stated that
they were to be paid on the seventh day of the following month, while there was no
payment date for the signing fee. Considering that this fee was accrued when the Contract
was signed, the Chamber interpreted that, in the absence of any stipulated date, the Club
was obliged to pay it on the date of signature of the Contract, i.e., 24 March 2024.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17647
30. Based on the above, the Chamber initially considered that all the owed amounts were
already due when the Player lodged this claim.
31. Notwithstanding, the Chamber also noted that, within the correspondence exchanged
between the parties, they appear to have negotiated an agreement to settle the debt in
five instalments, as proposed by the Club. In this sense, in the Chamber’s opinion, it is
unclear whether the parties concluded the negotiations and actually rescheduled the
payment of the debt.
32. In this respect, the Chamber first pointed out that there is no agreement signed by the
parties in which it was established that they agreed upon a rescheduling of the debt.
Nonetheless, the Chamber also highlighted that in his reply sent on 25 November 2024,
the Player stated that he “acknowledges that the total outstanding amount of RM353,426.50
(USD79.842.41) is payable according to the payment schedule proposed by the Club”, which can
be interpreted as an acceptance of the Club’s proposal to reschedule the payment.
33. Without prejudice to all the above, the Chamber recalled that the Player, in his claim, made
a detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute considering the same due dates stipulated
in the payment schedule. Specifically, the Player stated that the breakdown was as follows
(quoted verbatim):
“15.A detailed breakdown of the amount in dispute is as follows:
i. 1st payment amounting to USD11.294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid immediately;
ii. 2nd payment amounting to USD11,294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid immediately;
iii. 3rd payment amounting to USD11,294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid by 31 January
2024 (sic) as per the payment schedule in Exhibit SN-7;
iv. 4th payment amounting to USD11,294.33 (RM50,000.00) to be paid by 28 February
2025 as per the payment schedule in Exhibit SN-7; and
(V) 5th payment amounting USD34,647.25 (RM153,426.50) to be paid by 30 April 2025 as
per the payment schedule in Exhibit SN-7.”
34. Additionally, the Chamber recalled that the Player’s requests for relief were the following:
“16.Under the above circumstances, in this grievance, I respectfully request that the FIFA
DRC hereby award the Player;
i. the Club immediately pay the total claim in the amount of USD79,824.57
(RM353,426.50);
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17647
ii. the Club to pay an additional 10% should there be any delay or failure to make
payments by the dates outlined in the schedule.
iii. sanctions under Article 12bis of the RSTP, cumulatively and severely, including fining
the Club or banning the Club from registering new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two registration periods; and
iv. any other or further remedy that the DRC deems appropriate.”
35. In this sense, although in his first request for relief the Player claimed the total amount as
originally agreed, the Chamber noted that, in the second request, he referred again to the
dates outlined in the schedule.
36. In light of the above, and despite the absence of a formal agreement signed by both parties
to reschedule the debt, the Chamber underscored that the Player’s own acknowledgement
was the determining factor in interpreting that the parties had indeed agreed upon a the
new payment schedule, by means of which the Club was obliged to pay the amounts in five
instalments, on the dates outlined therein.
c) What is the outstanding amount?
37. Having stated the above, the Chamber pointed out that the Player lodged the claim on 2
January 2025. Considering the schedule proposed by the Club, which was accepted by the
Player and acknowledged in this claim, the first instalment was to be paid before 30
November 2024 and the second instalment was to be paid before 31 December 2024. Thus,
the Chamber acknowledged that these instalments were already due when the Player filed
his claim.
38. However, the Chamber underlined that the third instalment fell due on 31 January 2025,
while the fourth on 28 February 2025 and the fifth would fall due on 30 April 2025.
Additionally, the Chamber stressed that the parties did not make any mention to a potential
acceleration clause in case one instalment was not paid. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that these instalments were not due when the Player lodged his claim.
39. In this regard, the Chamber wished to mention that the date when the claim is lodged is
dispositive. In this sense, the Chamber considered that if the amounts were not due at the
time of filing, they could not be awarded.
40. For this reason, the Chamber determined that, in the present case, the outstanding
amounts are only the first and the second instalment, while the rest of the claim shall be
deemed premature, without prejudice to any future claim that may be filed by the Claimant
regarding those instalments.
d) Has the Club complied with the payments?
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17647
41. The Chamber then remarked that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract and/or that it had
a valid reason for not doing so. Nevertheless, the Club failed to provide any evidence
demonstrating that it had complied with its obligations.
42. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the Club failed to pay the Player MYR 100,000,
corresponding to the first two instalments stipulated in the schedule.
43. Additionally, although the Player requested the amounts in USD, the Chamber noted that
in the proposed schedule the Club included all the amounts in MYR. Thus, the Chamber
asserted that, considering that the parties had agreed on a rescheduling of the terms
proposed by the Club, the amounts should therefore be awarded in MYR, as stipulated in
this schedule.
44. Consequently, the Chamber decided to award the Player MYR 100,000 as outstanding
remuneration without interest, as it was not requested (ne ultra petita).
e) Is there an additional amount to be paid as a consequence of the
default?
45. Lastly, the Chamber moved on to analyse whether there was an additional amount to be
paid, considering the Claimant’s request to be awarded an additional 10%.
46. In this regard, the Chamber noted that indeed the parties were negotiating an “additional
payment” in case of delay or failure. The Chamber observed that the Player requested,
through a letter, that this additional payment be 10%, and the Club then sent a letter saying
that the parties had agreed upon reducing this additional payment to 5%. Additionally, the
Chamber saw that, in this claim, the Player asserted that he did not agree with reducing the
additional payment and requested “the Club to pay an additional 10% should there be any
delay or failure to make payments by the dates outlined in the schedule.”.
47. While the Chamber acknowledged that the parties agreed upon a rescheduling of the debt,
considering that the Club proposed a schedule and the Player accepted it and
acknowledged it in this claim, it also observed that it appears there was no agreement
regarding this additional payment.
48. Specifically, the Chamber pointed out that, on the one hand, the Player requested an
additional payment of 10%, which was ratified in his claim, and on the other hand, the Club
only agreed on an additional payment of 5%. Thus, the Chamber considered that, despite
the fact that the parties rescheduled the debt, they did not come to an agreement regarding
a possible contractual penalty.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17647
49. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that the parties did not even determine whether
this additional payment would be a percentage of the total owed amount or only on the
instalments that fell due. Also, in the Chamber’s opinion, there is a lack of clarity in the
Player’s request, as it is not possible to understand on which amount he is requesting an
additional payment of 10%, or if his request is related to a past or future event.
50. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that there is no contractual basis or supplementary
evidence to establish that the Player is entitled to any additional payment. Based on this,
the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim related to the additional payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
54. 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.
55. 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. Costs
56. 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,
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17647
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
57. 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.
58. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17647
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sony Norde, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kedah Darul Aman Football Club, must pay to the Claimant MYR 100,000
as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected, without prejudice to any claim that may be
filed with FIFA for the third, fourth and fifth payment instalments set forth by the parties,
which were premature at the date the claim was lodged.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17647
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17