Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7231
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 March 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Torell Ondaan
BY:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Torell Ondaan, the Netherlands
Represented by Eleven & Law
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
U Craiova 1948 SA, Romania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7231
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 August 2021, the Dutch player Terell Ondaan (hereinafter the Player) and the
Romanian club U Craiova 1948 SA (hereinafter the Club) concluded an employment
agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement) valid as from 15 August 2021 until
30 June 2023.
2.
In accordance with Clause V of the Employment Agreement, the Player and the Club
(hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) agreed upon the following financial conditions:
For the season 2021/2022 (15.08.2021– 30.06.2022)
“i) 10,000 EUR (tenthousand) net, as a signing-on fee, paid within 7 (seven) working days
from the date the player the player receives the ITC and the registration certificate from the
police, payable in lei, at the official exchange rate of the BNR on the day of the payment;
ii) 7,500 EUR (seventhousandfivehundred) net, monthly fee, paid in lei, at the official
exchange rate of the BNR on the day of the payment. The date from which the player is eligible
for payment of the consideration is the date from which his contract is validly registered with
the RFF/PFL.
The payment obligation of each instalment shall be due on the 15th of each month following
the month for which the instalment is paid (for July the payment instalment shall become due
on 15 August, for August, the payment instalment shall become due on 15 September, etc).
iii) a match bonus of 500 EUR (fivehundred) only for victory and only if the player is in the
starting 11;”
−
EUR 300/month for accommodation
For the season 2022/2023 (01.07.2022– 30.06.2023)
“i) 8,500 EUR (eightthousandfivehundred) net, monthly fee, paid in lei, at the official exchange
rate of the BNR on the day of the payment.
The payment obligation of each instalment shall be due on the 15th of each month following
the month for which the instalment is paid (for July the payment instalment shall become due
on 15 August, for August, the payment instalment shall become due on 15 September, etc).
ii) a match bonus of 500 EUR (fivehundred) only for victory and only if the player is in the
starting 11;”
−
3.
EUR 300/month for accommodation
In Clause IX of the Employment Agreement, the parties agreed upon the following
jurisdiction clause:
“XI. Dispute resolution
The disputes arising from the conclusion, performance, modification, suspension or
termination of this contract shall be settled, upon choice by parties:
i) by the domestic sports commissions and/or the courts having substantive and
territorial competence, in accordance with the civil law provisions and
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7231
ii) by submitting any disputes related to the employment agreement to the FIFA DRC in
application of FIFA Regulations.
The provisions of the Civil procedure code in matters of arbitration are fully applicable to this
contract.” (emphasis added)
4.
On 20 May 2022, the Player sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the amount
of EUR 15,000 within the next 15 days.
5.
It appears that the Player was released for international duty (national team of Guyana)
from 4 to 16 June 2022.
6.
Allegedly, the Player failed to report back to the Club for the following sessions: (i) training
session of 18 June – 25 June 2022; (ii) Summer training camp in Austria of 25 June to 5 July
2022; (iii) training session of 6 July - 13 July 2022; (iv) 13 July to 19 July 2022.
7.
On 4 July 2022, the Player sent a default notice to the Club, requesting the amount of
EUR 7,500 within the next 14 days. In the said letter, the Club is also informed that “the
player returned from the National Team with Guyana and has been awaiting a flight ticket from
the club to Bucharest since that time, as agreed. However, this has never been received.”
8.
On unspecified dates, several WhatsApp exchanges took place, allegedly between the
intermediary of the Player and the director of the Club concerning the late payment of
salaries, poor performance of the Player and a potential mutual termination of their
employment relationship.
9.
On or around 13 July 2022, the Club informed the Player that it will organize disciplinary
proceedings against the latter.
10. On 13 July 2022, the Club initiated proceedings regarding the late return of the Player from
his international duty to the Club (Ref. No. FPSD-6719).
11. On 14 July 2022, the Player sent a letter to the Club regarding his absence, asserting that
he was fulfilling his national duty with the team of Guayana, and tested positive to COVID19, which the Club was duly informed about. In this respect, the Player asserted that “he
was never put in default to return to Romania. This is normal as the Club was aware of the
situation. Now, for the first time on 13 July 2022, the Club tries to force the Player into a
termination by referring to an alleged unauthorized absence.”
12. Finally, the Player confirmed his availability to attend a disciplinary meeting of 19 July 2022
and added “Indeed today, it seems that the club has still not complied with the request to pay
the overdue salaries (7.500, EUR), these amounts have been overdue for 2 months now. We
hereby once again refer to our formal notice in compliance with article 14bis FIFA RSTP and
request the immediate payment.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7231
13. On 18 July 2022, the Club “initiated a legal proceeding before the Romanian Football
Association requesting (i.) the legal right to terminate the contract and (ii.) requesting a 50.000,
EUR (fifty thousand euros) compensation for breach of contract from the Player.”
14. On 19 July 2022, a disciplinary meeting has been held.
15. On the same day, as a follow up, the Player sent the following letter to the Club:
16. Allegedly, based on the submission of the Club, on 28 July 2022, the Romanian National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) passed a decision in the matter, stating that the Player
who was absent without leave form the training sessions and, consequently, terminated
the Employment Agreement without just cause.
17. On 2 August 2022, the Player sent his position to a Romanian NDRC, arguing that the
respective national body is not competent to deal with the matter as it does not comply
with the prerequisites of the FIFA Circular 1010.
18. On 4 August 2022, the Player terminated the Employment Contract with the Club.
19. On 26 September 2022, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber passed the
following decision in the case Ref. No. FPSD-6719:
“1. The claim of the Claimant, U Craiova 1948 S.A., against the Respondent, Guyana Football
Federation, is accepted.
2. The Respondent is responsible for the infringement of the relevant provision of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) related to release of players to
association teams (art. 1 par. 7 and 9 of Annexe 1 to the RSTP).
3. In application of art. 1 par. 10 of Annexe 1 to the RSTP, the next time the player, Torell
Ondaan, is called up by the Guyana Football Federation after the notification of the present
decision, the period of release for the player in question shall be shortened as follows:
a. International window: by two days;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7231
b. Final competition of an international tournament: by five days.”
20. On 5 October 2022, a decision has been passed by the Romanian NDRC, which declared
itself not competent to deal with the matter.
21. The Player informed FIFA General Secretariat that he did not join any new club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
22. On 30 August 2022, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player / Claim
23. The requests for relief of the Player were the following:
“- Find that Craiova has breached the employment contract and Mr. Ondaan left the club with
Just cause;
- To Order Craiova to pay Mr. Ondaan the sum of 120.600, EUR NET for payment of overdue
salaries and compensation;
- To Order Craiova to pay Mr. Ondaan an additional compensation of 51.000,00 EUR for the
abusive termination, in alternative 25.500, EUR for the termination based on overdue
salaries;
- In accordance with Article 17 of the RSTP apply a sporting sanction against Craiova;
- To award interests calculated at 5% p.a. on the amount requested for payment arrears from
the day the payment was due, until the day these sums are effectively paid;
- To award interests calculated at 5% p.a. on the amount requested for compensation from
the day current claim was lodged, until the day the sums are effectively paid;
- Order the Claimant to bear the legal fees and costs incurred by the Respondent in relation
to this matter.”
24. The Player firstly argued that FIFA is competent to hear the current dispute since: (i) there
is no exclusive jurisdiction clause, (ii) the NDRC in Romania does not comply with the
prerequisite of the FIFA Circular 1010, (iii) the Respondent initiated proceedings before FIFA
regarding the late return of the Player from his international duty to the Club (FPSD-6719)
already before any other proceedings in Romania.
25. Thereafter, the Player argued that he terminated the Employment Agreement with just
cause, due to the outstanding salaries.
26. The Player provided for the following break-down:
Outstanding salaries
- Outstanding salary May 2022: 7.500, EUR
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7231
- Outstanding salary June 2022: 7.500, EUR
Compensation
- Remaining salary July 2022- end of contract (12x 8.500,00): 102.000, EUR
- Remaining compensation transport and housing July 2022- end of contract (12x 300,
EUR): 3.600, EUR.
- An additional compensation of 6-months value of the Contract (51.000, EUR)
b. Position of the Club / Counterclaim
27. The Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player with the following request for relief:
“I.
1. Dismiss the application to join this case to the case submitted by U Craiova 1948
SA on 13 of July 2022 to the FIFA PSD, case with ref. no. FPSD-6719;
2. Find that the competence to settle this matter, pursuant to the arbitration clause
provided in the contract entered into by the parties, falls with the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Romanian Football Federation, such being the first legal
body before which this matter has been brought, having the subject matter the
termination of contract relationships, on 28 July 2022;
3. Dismiss the claim filed by the Player ONDAAN TORELL LIONEL against U Craiova
1948 SA in its entirety;
4. Order that the Player bear the cost of these proceedings;
5. Order that the Player cover the Counter-defendant’s legal fees and other expenses
incurred in connection with these proceedings.
II. In the counterclaim, we kindly request that you:
1. Establish the termination without just cause of the contract between the parties by
the Player;
2. Order the Player to pay to U Craiova 1948 SA the compensation provided for under
Art. 17, point 1 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter
the FIFA RSTF), which is the amount of EUR 50,000 (fiftythousand);
3. Order the suspension of the Player for termination without just cause of the
contract, for a period of 4 months, according to Art. 17, point 3 of the FIFA RSTF.”
28. The Club argued that the Romanian NDRC has the competence to deal with the matter
based on Clause IX of the Employment Agreement.
29. As to the substance of the matter, the Club argued that the Player was absent from the
Club for a significant period of time, “there being a legitimate uncertainty with respect to the
intention of the Player Ondaan Torell Lionnel to return to the team, we were forced to transfer
another player for the position of Ondaan Torell Lionnel, namely Yassine Bahassa, which
generated unanticipated additional costs in the budget club.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7231
30. Allegedly, as from 19 July 2022, the Player reported to the Club but “refused to follow the
training schedule and, probably considering the claim submitted by the Club against him, the
Player left the team starting with 4 August 2022”.
31. What is more, the Club argued that on 4 August 2022, it paid the “Player the full
remuneration for May 2022 and the partial remuneration for June 2022, in respect of the
period during which the Player was not absent without leave from the team’s training
session.”
32. The Club provided evidence that it made a payment of RON 57,120 (approx. EUR 11,584)
to the Player.
33. In view of the above, the Club was of the opinion that the termination by the Player was
abusive, not falling under the criteria of art. 14bis / 14 of the Regulations.
c. Position of the Player / Reply to the Counterclaim
34. The Player rejected the counterclaim of the Club and reiterated his previous request for
relief.
35. The Player argued that he “can only conclude that the Club tries to manipulate the case in their
favor by spreading misinformation and focusing on the player's alleged absence to circumvent
its professional obligations” as the Club indeed had outstanding salaries towards him.
36. In this respect, the Player reiterated that ”there can be no discussion that the June 2022 salary
was due on 15 July 2022 (read: before the formal notice dd. 19 July 2022). This means that the
formal notice dd. 19 July 2022 was in compliance with the FIFA RSTP, and at this date following
amounts were overdue:
- Outstanding salary May 2022: 7.500, EUR
- Outstanding salary June 2022: 7.500, EUR”
37. Finally, the Player was of the opinion that he “received part of his overdue salaries AFTER the
deadline of final formal notice (the legal deadline to pay was 3 August 2022) and AFTER the
formal termination letter was sent (the Club received the termination letter dd. 4 August 2022).”
38. The Player provided for evidence that he, indeed, received the amount of RON 57,120
(approx. EUR 11,584).
39. As to his alleged absence, the Player contested the provided reports, claiming that the Club
was “perfectly aware of the whereabouts of the Player as during this alleged absence the Club
was trying to force the Player into a mutual termination.” In support of his allegations, the
Player referred to the WhatsApp messages between the intermediary and the director of
the Club.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7231
40. The Player further added that it “never received any formal notice, or WhatsApp message, let
alone one of the offense reports notifying him about the potential breach and requesting him
to return to the Club.”
41. The Player concluded that the Club “did not establish the existence of a just cause in order to
apply a disciplinary sanction, let alone terminate the Contract.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. 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 30 August 2022 and submitted
for decision on 23 March 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2022 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.
43. 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 October 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is – in principle – competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Dutch player and a Romanian club.
44. The Chamber then recalled that, however, the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of Clause IX of the Employment Agreement, alleging
that the competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment
contract is the “National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Romanian Football Federation,
such being the first legal body before which this matter has been brought, having the subject
matter the termination of contract relationships, on 28 July 2022.”
45. In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether
there is a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a different deciding body than
the DRC. Consequently, the Chamber recalled the wording of said Clause IX and pointed
out that that it foresees two different fora, what is more, one of them being the FIFA DRC.
46. In this regard, also considering the Romanian NDRC declared itself not competent (see
par. I./20.), the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of
FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that it has jurisdiction to deal
with the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7231
47. 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 (October 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 August 2022, the July 2022 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
48. 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
49. 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
50. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this case concerns a termination of a contract taking
place on 4 August 2022.
51. In this context, the members of the DRC recalled the arguments of the parties and
summarized that whereas the Player argued that he had just cause to terminate the
contract based on outstanding salaries, the Club highlighted that the Player failed to return
to trainings as from 18 June 2022, after coming back from his international duty.
52. Firstly, the Chamber remarked that there is a previous decision passed by the Chairman of
the Players’ Status Chamber, however, this case of late return concerns a dispute between
the Club and the Member Association. Consequently, the DRC wished to highlight that the
outcome of the case does not imply any wrongdoing of the Player and solely focuses on
the non-compliance of the provisions of the Annexe 1 of the Regulations concerning
Member Association.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-7231
53. The foregoing being established, the members of the DRC turned their attention to the
evidence provided by the parties and wished to briefly summarize the main facts of the
case in chronological order:
-
The Player was released for international duty (national team of Guyana) from
4 to 16 June 2022.
-
The trainings of the Club resumed on 18 June 2022, yet the Player failed to attend
those trainings.
-
In this respect, there is no evidence on file that the Player tried to travel back to
Romania, yet it is clear that he returned from his international duty back to the
Netherlands (i.e. COVID-19 certificate on file taken in the Netherlands).
-
Equally, there is no evidence on file that the Club requested the Player to attend
the training sessions / training camp.
-
It remained undisputed that a WhatsApp exchange between the intermediary
and the director of the Club took place. In this respect, it appears from the file
that both parties wished to depart from the contract; what is more, the Club is
unambiguous in its statements regarding the “poor” performance of the Player.
-
The Player only returned to Romania on 19 July 2022 to attend the disciplinary
meeting as there is no evidence on file that he would be rendering his services to
the Club nor that he requested it.
-
Furthermore, there is also no evidence on file that the Club requested the Player
to attend the training sessions / training camp during this period.
-
On 19 July 2022, the Player put the Club in default for “outstanding salaries”, yet
it remained unclear which salaries he claimed. The Player granted the Club a
deadline of 15 days to comply with its contractual obligations.
-
On 1 August 2022, the Clubs made a payment of RON 1,485 (“rent”), which was
received by the Player on 2 August 2022.
-
On 3 August 2022, the deadline of 15-days foreseen in the default notice,
elapsed.
-
On 4 August 2022, the Player sent a notice to the Club, terminating the contract.
-
On the same day, the Clubs made a payment of RON 18,545 (partial “June 2022
salary”) and RON 37,090 (“May 2022 salary”), which was received by the Player on
5 August 2022.
-
In totality, the Player received RON 57,120 (approx. EUR 11,584).
54. In view of the above-mentioned facts, the Chamber arrived at the conclusion that both
parties lost interest in execution of the employment contract and declared the date of the
Player’s letter of 4 August 2022 being a point of no return.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-7231
55. Notwithstanding the fact that the Player had outstanding salaries (May 2022 and
June 2022), the Chamber pointed to the circumstances of this matter – i.e. Player’s absence
as well as not rendering of services in June 2022 after the international duty – and
established that the non-payment of the salaries cannot be considered a persistent and
material non-fulfilment of the club’s contractual obligations.
56. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that there is no entitlement to any potential
compensation in the present matter.
57. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber observed that based on the
evidence on file, a partial payment of June 2022 remained outstanding.
58. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amount of EUR 4,016
as outstanding amount, i.e. the Player received EUR 11,584 for the period of May and
June 2022, whereas he was entitled to EUR 15,600, i.e. (EUR 7,500 x 2) plus (EUR 300 x 2).
59. 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 Claimant 5% interest per
annum as from 30 August 2022 (i.e. the date of claim) until the date of the effective
payment.
60. As to the request of the Player concerning the salaries of July 2022, the Chamber pointed
out that the Player was not rendering his services to the Club during this period and that,
consequently, the latter is not entitled to this amount.
61. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by partially accepting the claim of the Player and
rejecting the counterclaim of the Club.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. 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.
63. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-7231
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-7231
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Torell Ondaan.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, U Craiova 1948 SA, has to pay to the Claimant, the
following amount(s):
- EUR 4,016 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 August 2022
until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Respondent / CounterClaimant.
6.
The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-7231
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. 15