DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16892
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Reagy Baah
Ofosu
BY:
Sihon GAUCI (Malta)
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER- RESPONDENT:
Reagy Baah Ofosu, Germany
Represented by Berlin Sports Law
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FC Botosani, Romania
Represented by Dragos Balta
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16892
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 February 2024, the German player, Reagy Baah Ofosu (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant/ Counter- Respondent), and the Romania club, FC Botosani (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid as from 12 February 2024 until 30 June 2024.
2.
According to clause 4 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to the following
remuneration:
3.
-
EUR 9,724 net due until 30 March 2024;
-
EUR 18,000 net due until 30 June 2024.
According to clause 5 par. ii of the Contract, the parties agreed as follows:
“The Club undertakes […] to ensure the Player/ Professional footballer:
The amount of 400 EUR net/month, representing the counter value of the meal, with the
exception of the periods when he is on vacation or in cantonments;
The amount of 250 EUR net/month, for the purpose of renting an apartment, and the player will
have the obligation to pay on time all the utilities consumed as well as common expenses,
according to the list of Association of owners, under the penalty of paying penalties or related
delay ordered/ practiced by utility providers/ Association.”
4.
On 17 June 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player stating that he did not have to attend
the training sessions and that he was free to train with any third club as from that date.
5.
On 2 July 2024, the Player had a WhatsApp conversation allegedly with one of his
teammates in which he was informed that the rest of the players received a bonus “for
Mioveni” of EUR 3,000 and for those who did not play, the Club paid EUR 2,200.
6.
On 16 July 2024, the Club informed the Player via WhatsApp that they will make all the
payments at the end of the week and that they “will surely pay you the bonus with mioveni”.
7.
On 12 September 2024, the parties had the following conversation on WhatsApp:
Player: “Adi did you want me talk to Mr. Iftime?”
Club: “Reagy you can talk. But aura was 2 weeks in medical. I will pay next week but forget that
I paid for the month of June without you coming back.”
Player: He attached the letter of 17 June 2024.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16892
8.
On 17 October 2024, the Player sent the following email to the Club:
“I speak on behalf of Berlin Sports Law in representation of our client Reagy Baah Ofosu (Power
of Attorney attached).
We were mandated to collect the outstanding salaries due by your club to Mr.Baah,
corresponding to EUR 6.000,00. In this sense, please find attached a notice of default, in which
your club was granted the period of 10 days to fulfill its financial obligation towards our client.
In case the overdue amount is not paid within this deadline, we will have no other option than
to commence legal procedures against your club before the competent FIFA dispute resolution
body.”
9.
The default notice attached in the aforementioned email provided the following:
“On behalf of Mr. Reagy Baah Ofosu, we were mandated (PoA attached) to collect the
outstanding salaries due by your club to our client, pursuant to the “Sports Activity Contract”
(hereafter “Employment Contract”) signed by the parties on 12 February 2024.
According to Article 4.1 of the Employment Contract, your club had to pay EUR 9.724,00until
30/03/2024 and EUR 18.000,00 until 30/06/2024. The first installment was correctly paid, but
the second installment was only partially paid. Mr. Reagy Baah Ofosu has only received, until
the present date, EUR 15.000,00. Therefore, there is an outstanding amount of EUR 3.000,00
regarding the second installment of the salary.
Moreover, your club also has not paid our client the bonus of EUR 3.000,00related to the last
game of the league. This bonus was promised by your club to all players that participated in
that match, and former colleagues of Mr. Reagy Baah Ofosu have already received this payment.
Therefore, FC Botosani owes Mr. Reagy Baah Ofosu the total amount of EUR 6.000,00 (six
thousand euros). In view of the foregoing, the present notification is a formal and final notice of
default addressed to FC Botosani urging your club to proceed with the payment of EUR 6.000,00,
within 10days as from the receipt of this letter, i.e., on or before the 28thof October2024, to the
bank account that Mr. Reagy Baah Ofosuused to receive his salary.
Please note that, should you fail to send the proof of payment of the outstanding debt by the
foregoing deadline to the e-mail address [email protected], Mr. Reagy Baah Ofosu will
have no other option than to commence legal proceedings before the competent FIFA dispute
resolution body, without further warning, to recover the full outstanding amount at stake,
including the applicable interest”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16892
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 4 November 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent
11. The Player lodged a claim before FIFA requesting the following relief:
“a) Pay to the Claimant the amount EUR 6,000.00 (six thousand euros), corresponding to
outstanding remuneration;
b) Pay to the Claimant 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amount of as of 30 June 2024,
until the date of effective payment.”
12. The Player alleged that according to the Contract, the parties had agreed that the Player
would be entitled to receive a total salary of EUR 27,724 paid in 2 instalments: (EUR 9.724
until 30 March 2024 and EUR 18,000 paid until 30 June 2024).
13. Regarding the payment of the bonus, the Player claimed that the parties agreed on a bonus
of EUR 3,000 in case the Club won the “Relegation Play-Off against CS Mioveni, guaranteeing
its spot in the first division.” In this regard, the Player clarified that it is important to notice
that this bonus is different from the one present in art. 4.3 of the Contract as this “Mioveni
Bonus” was verbally agreed between the parties when it was decided that the Respondent
would have to play against CS Mioveni to avoid relegation.
14. However, and despite the above verbal agreement and contractual provisions, the Player
argued that the Club only paid EUR 15,000 for the second instalment of the salary and did
not pay the “Mioveni Bonus”. Thus, the total amount due corresponded to EUR 6,000.
b. Position of the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant
15. In its reply, the Club disputed the requested amount and lodged a counterclaim.
16. The Club argued that the Player’s expenses for meals and accommodation for the duration
of the Contract were higher that the amounts initially “established according with the
Contract.” In this regard, the Club provided the following list of expenses (quote verbatim):
For meals:
“February 2024
- The amount to be paid: EUR 152
- The amount paid by the club: EUR 177 (584 lei)
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16892
March 2024
-
The amount to be paid: EUR 297
The amount paid by the Club: EUR 636 (3.166 lei)
April 2024
-
The amount to be paid: EUR 227
The amount paid by the Club: EUR 441 (2.193 lei)
May 2024
-
The amount to be paid: EUR 207
The amount paid by the club: EUR 607 (3.023 lei)
The total amount to be paid by the club: EUR 1.801
The amount to be paid been paid according to the contract: EUR 883
Conclusion:
The Club paid on behalf of the Player EUR 918 more than the amount agreed in the contract.”
For accommodation:
“February 2024
- The amount to be paid: EUR 50
- The amount paid by the club: EUR 500
March 2024
-
The amount to be paid: EUR 50
The amount paid by the club: EUR 500
April 2024
-
The amount to be paid: EUR 50
The amount paid by the club: EUR 500
May 2024
-
The amount to be paid: EUR 50
The amount paid by the club: EUR 500
The total amount paid by the club: EUR 1,000
The amount to be paid been paid according to the contract: EUR 2,000
Conclusion: The Club paid on behalf of the Player 1,000 Euro more than the amount agreed in
the contract.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16892
17. In view of the above, the club argued that they paid EUR 1,000 more than the amount
agreed in the Contract.
18. In addition, the Club claimed that the Player also bought 8 t-shirts that “he did not pay them
to the club. That was a total amount of 1,220 lei. About 245 Euro. Thus, the Player owes to the
Club the amount of 245 Euro.”
19. Therefore, the total amount due to the Club by the Player was EUR 2,128 for the meals,
accommodation and t-shirts bought from the Club.
20. Consequently, the Club concluded the following (quote verbatim):
“- Total amount to be paid by the Player: 46,124 Euro (including here the following amounts:
10,000 Euro- bonus for signing the contract, 9,724 Euro- 1st installments, 18,400 Euro- 2nd
installments and 8,000- performance bonus at the end of the season 2023/2024)
- Total amount paid to the Player: 44,296 Euro
Conclusion: Difference to be paid to the player- 1,828 Euro
The Club didn’t pay the amount of 1,828 Euro because the player left the team after the last
match against Mioveni and was not present to the training camp of the until the end of June
2024. For this reason Exceptio non adimpleti contractus shall be applied related to Claimant’s
request related to non- fulfilment of the club’s financial obligations.”
21. In addition, according to the Club “on 17 June 2024, after a lot of discussion between the
Claimant and the President of AFC Botosani, the club agreed to allow to the Player to train with
any other third party. The parties verbally agreed that for the last part of June 2024, the Player
will not ask his contractual remuneration.” (quote verbatim)
22. The Club also stated that after the last match with FC Mioveni, the Player left the Club, and
they never agreed in writing on the payment of a bonus for that last game. In addition, the
Club stated the following regarding the above bonus (quote verbatim):
“Related to this fact it should be noted that even the Claimant is asking this bonus, it recognizes
that this bonus was never agreed by the parties according with the contract concluded in
February 2024.
The parties couldn’t agree such type of bonus while according with the article iii from the
contract other bonuses than those specified in the contract should have been approved by the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16892
Board of Directors. Without any approval from the Board of Directors none of the persons from
the club were not entitled to talk about this bonus, as it trying to suggest the Claimant.”
23. Finally, the Club requested the following relief (quote verbatim):
“1. To fully reject the Claimant’s Claim.
2. To fully accept the Counter- Claimant’s counterclaim.
3. To condemn the Claimant to pay the Counter- Claimant the amount of EUR 2,128 representing
the amount paid extra for meals and accommodation and also the total amount due by the
Player for the T-Shirts bought and not paid by him to the Counter- Claimant.
4. Subsequently, in case the court will find out that the Counter Claimant owes to the Claimant
the sum of EUR 1,828 as an unpaid remuneration, to compensate each other the amounts due
and to oblige the applicant to pay to the defendant the amount of EUR 300.
5. For the effect of the above, to state that the Claimant shall be condemned to pay any and all
costs of the present proceedings, if any.”
c. Claimant/ Counter- Respondent’s reply to the counterclaim
24. In his reply, the Player underlined that the Club did not dispute that the second instalment
of the salary remained partially outstanding.
25. In addition, the Player denied having verbally waived his outstanding salary and alleged
that the Club unilaterally decided to withhold part of his salary.
26. With respect to the “Mioveni bonus”, the Player asserted that the Club did not dispute the
existence of an agreement concerning the bonus. Instead, the Club's only objection was
that the agreement had not been formalized in writing.
27. In view of the above, the Player reiterated that the total outstanding amount was EUR
6,000.
28. Concerning the counterclaim and reimbursement of the alleged expenses, the Player
asserted that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it incurred expenses for the
Player’s meals and accommodation exceeding the amounts stated in the Contract. In this
regard, the Player underlined the fact that the evidence provided was in Romanian and no
translation in one of the FIFA languages was provided. Therefore, the content of the
invoices and proof of payments could not be understood.
29. Based on the breakdown of the expenses provided in the claim, the Player stated that the
Contract mentioned that the Club undertook to pay EUR 400 per month for meals.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16892
Therefore, the Player argued that it is unclear why the “amount to be paid” (cf. par. 15 of the
summary) was not equivalent to EUR 400 and instead fluctuates each month.
30. The Player also noted that the same inconsistency with the amounts occurred in the
breakdown provided for the accommodation expenses. Based on the Contract the amount
to be paid corresponded to EUR 250 and the “amount to be paid” appearing in the
breakdown is EUR 50.
31. In addition, the Player argued that even if the DRC accepted the untranslated proof of
payments, the document lacked probative value as it failed to specify what these alleged
expenses refer to and why the Club paid more than what was contractually stipulated.
32. In any case, according to the Player any amount exceeding the contractual agreement
could not be charged to the Player based on the legal principle of nemo potest venire contra
factum proprium.
33. Furthermore, the Player asserted that he was never informed that any expenses exceeding
the agreed amounts would be charged to him or deducted from his salary. For that reason,
the Player argued that he had every reason to believe that the Club bore sole responsibility
for covering these expenses and that no reimbursement would be requested. Therefore,
the Club’s attempt to retroactively claim these amounts constituted a clear violation of the
principle of nemo potest venire contra factum proprium.
34. Regarding the alleged payments that the Club made, the Player claimed that the Club did
not provide any evidence proving that the outstanding amount was only EUR 1,828 and
that the Player waived his salaries.
35. Concerning the Club’s allegations about the Player not returning to the Club in June, the
Player reiterated that he had received a letter from the Club stating that he did no longer
need to attend the trainings.
36. In addition, the Player claimed that the Club did not challenge the authenticity of the
WhatsApp conversations in which the Club stated that they would pay him the bonus of
EUR 3,000.
37. Finally, the Player reiterated his request for relief:
“a) Fully accept the Player’s claim sentencing the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the total
amount of EUR 6,000 plus 5% interest as from the due dates until the date of effective payment;
b) Fully reject AFC Botosani’s counterclaim;
c) Sentence the Respondent/ Counterclaimant to bear all the costs of the present proceedings.”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16892
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 4 November 2024 and
submitted for decision on 30 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.
39. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
German player and a Romanian club.
40. 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. 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
41. 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
42. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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 assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16892
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
43. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly disputed the amount that corresponded to the outstanding
remuneration.
44. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine which
amounts remained outstanding at the moment of the termination and whether the bonus
was validly agreed between the parties.
45. Firstly, the Single Judge briefly recalled that the Player requested the following amounts:
-
EUR 3,000 as the balance of the second instalment that was due on 30 June 2024;
-
EUR 3,000 for the bonus that was verbally agreed and acknowledged by the Club in
a WhatsApp conversation.
46. The Single Judge also recalled that the Club requested the following amounts:
-
EUR 2,128 as the amount paid extra for meals and accommodation and also the
total amount due by the Player for the t-shirts bought and not paid by him to the
Club.
-
Or EUR 300, in case the DRC considered that the amount of EUR 1,828 is still
outstanding, offsetting their debts.
47. Regarding the outstanding salary, the Single Judge noted that the Club disputed the total
outstanding amount corresponding to the salary contractually stipulated. However, the
Single Judge observed that the Club did not provide any proof of payment demonstrating
that the payment of EUR 3,000 corresponding to the balance of the salary had been made.
48. In addition, the Single Judge took note of the Club’s allegations according to which the
Player verbally waived the amount of EUR 1,828 and he was not entitled to it as he did not
return to trainings after 17 June 2024.
49. Nevertheless, the Single Judge observed that the Player denied having verbally waived his
salary and he provided a document signed by the Club on 17 June 2024, according to which
the Club informed him that he was a free agent and he no longer needed to attend the
trainings. In this regard, the Single Judge also noted that the Club did not dispute this
document.
50. Therefore, considering that (i) no evidence was provided in the contrary by the Club and (ii)
the Player did not waive part of his salaries, the Single Judge considered that the amount
of EUR 3,000 corresponding to the balance of the 2nd instalment remained outstanding.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16892
51. Having established the above, the Single Judged continued with the assessment of the
bonus that was allegedly orally agreed between the parties.
52. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the Player provided a WhatsApp conversation to
support that this bonus had been indeed agreed by the parties. According to the WhatsApp
conversation between him and the president of the Club, the latter informed him that the
Club would pay the “Mioveni bonus”.
53. The Single Judge also took note of clause 4 par. iii of the Contract according to which “The
club reserved the right to grant cash bonuses or other bonuses (other than those specified in
this contract), subject to their approval by the Board of Directors of the [Club].”
54. However, the Single Judge noted that the Club argued that this bonus was not contractually
agreed and that any oral agreement had to be later approved by the Board of Directors.
Therefore, according to the Club, no one could promise the payment of a bonus without
prior approval from the Board of Directors.
55. The Single Judge observed that, notwithstanding the above, the Club did not contest the
existence of a verbal agreement for a bonus of EUR 3,000, nor did it deny that the
WhatsApp conversation took place between the Player and the Club’s president.
56. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that it remained undisputed that the president of
the Club verbally agreed with the Player on a bonus of EUR 3,000 and that the former
acknowledged via a WhatsApp conversation that the amount remained outstanding.
57. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge also mentioned that the fact that such
bonus was not approved by the Board of Directors and not contractually stipulated could
not discharge the Club from paying this amount.
58. Consequently, the Single Judge considered that such verbal agreement with the Club’s
president was binding and the Player was entitled to a bonus of EUR 3,000.
59. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that the Club argued that it paid more than what
was contractually stipulated for the Player’s meals and accommodation.
60. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that the Club provided different documentation
to demonstrate that these expenses had been incurred by the Club. However, the Single
Judge noted that such documents were not translated into English, Spanish or French and
therefore, based on art. 13 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules the Single Judge decided not to
take this evidence into account.
61. In addition, as pointed out by the Single Judge, the Club did not explain (i) why they paid
more for the Player’s accommodation and meals, (ii) why the “amount to be paid” provided
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16892
in the breakdown was less than the amount stipulated and (iii) the contractual basis to
request the reimbursement of such amounts.
62. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that, in the absence of a contractual basis to request
the reimbursement of such expenses and the required evidence and explanations, the
amounts requested by the Club should be rejected. The Single Judge considered that the
Club has not met its burden of proof demonstrating why the amounts requested should
be reimbursed to the Club.
63. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that to award the Player EUR 6,000,
corresponding to EUR 3,000 of the balance of the 2nd instalment of the Player’s total
remuneration and EUR 3,000 for the bonus verbally agreed between the parties.
64. Finally, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 30 June 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
65. The Single Judge then 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.
66. 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 for more than 30 days, and granted the Club
with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
67. Accordingly, the Single Judge also 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 were met in the case at hand.
68. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Club within the last two years, the
Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4
lit. a) of the Regulations.
69. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16892
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16892
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent, Reagy Baah Ofosu, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant, FC Botosani, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant must pay to the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent the
following amount:
- EUR 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent are rejected.
5.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration 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.
8.
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.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16892
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. 16