Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3619
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 January 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Jong-oh
Park
BY:
Iñigo Riestra (Mexico)
CLAIMANT:
Jong-oh Park, Korea Republic
Represented by Mr Thomas Riera
RESPONDENT:
Trat FC, Thailand
Page 2
REF FPSD-3619
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 13 June 2021, the player Jong-oh Park (hereinafter: “the player” or “the Claimant”) and
the club Trat FC (hereinafter: “the club” or “the Respondent”) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid until 30 April 2022, i.e. end of the 2021-2022 Thai
League 2 season.
2.
Article 3.1.1 of the contract stated that the club agreed to pay a monthly salary amounting
to Thai Baht (THB) 120,000 to the player on the following month.
3.
Article 3.1.2 of the contract stated that the club should pay the statutory taxes for
remuneration agreed upon in article 3.1.1 of the contract pursuant to the law. The amount
and type of taxes and payments by the club and payable for the player might change if
relevant laws change.
4.
Article 3.2 of the contract stated that the club agreed to pay a signing-on fee of THB 120,000
to the player.
5.
Article 3.3 of the contract stated that the player would be entitled to receive from the club
the following non-monetary benefits:
o 3.4.1. Accommodation and car while the player stayed in Thailand;
o 3.4.2. One-way flight ticket (Economic Class, Max. 1 seat);
o 3.4.3. Visa and work permit for player;
o 3.4.4. Other compensations that should be regulated in accordance with the club´s
regulations and rules or according to the current and future resolutions of the Football
Board and
o 3.4.5. Welfare benefits of the club would be on the standard of the FA Thailand or the
Thai League Company Limited.
6.
Article 7.3 of the contract stated, “Player must participate in training and match preparation
according to the instructions of the superior (e.g. head coaches, club official trainers or club
managers)”.
7.
Article 14.2 of the contract stated that the player and the club might both agree to terminate
the contract at any time.
8.
Article 14.4 of the contract stated that the club should be entitled to terminate the contract
earlier by written consent sent to the player within 30 days before its effective. Moreover, the
termination should be effective upon the date specified in the notice. The club should
terminate the contract due to the following reasons:
a) If the player had less working hours than the specific period as set out in article 5 and
caused severe damages to the club.
b) If the player was guilty of gross misconduct.
c) If the player did not have any progressivity.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3619
d) If the player was not capable of carrying out his duties being prohibited to compete for
more than 3 months.
e) If the club reasonably considered to terminate the player´s employment contract.
Also, this article stated that in the event of such termination, the club should pay to the
player as liquidated damages, and the player agreed to accept this, an amount equal to the
monthly wage on the last day of the immediately following month in which the termination
date occurs and an amount equal to twice the number of the monthly wage. This amount
would constitute full settlement of all claims that the player might otherwise assert against
the club and any of their agents or employees.
9.
Article 14.5 of the contract stated that the player should be entitled to terminate the
contract by written consent sent to the club with 30 days prior. The player should terminate
the contract because of the following reasons:
a) If the club was found to have delayed a due payment for 3 months consecutively.
b) If the player had been selected in less than the 10% of the official matches.
10.
On 26 June 2021, the club sent a communication via chat to the player informing that the
club wanted to terminate the contract in accordance with article 14.2 of the contract. In the
same communication, the club offered the player to pay the amounts of THB 60,000 as half
of June salary and THB 120,000 as liquidate damages in accordance with article 14.4 of the
contract.
11.
On 26 June 2021, the player returned the car keys to the club and went to the Trat provincial
police to make a report of the situation.
12.
On 1 July 2021, the club transferred to the player´s account the amount of THB 45,600 as
June salary.
13.
On 5 July 2021, the club´s legal representative, Miss. Mitsara Suwannawin, sent a mail to
the player stating that he had taken leave for 7 days (26 to 30 June and 1 to 3 July) without
informing the concerned officials. In the same email, the player was requested to return to
training in the following two days.
14.
On 8 July 2021, the player responded that he never asked the team for any special leave
and claiming that he had full evidence of being told never to return to the training facility
as the management voided his contract since the new coach did not want his services.
15.
On 9 July 2021, the club sent an email to the player stating that they only offered a mutual
termination agreement, highlighting that they never obliged the player to sign or committed
any abuse to force him to revoke the contract. In addition, the club stated that the player
rejected the payment offer and did not sign any document. The club further stated that they
sent to the player a notice stipulating that he was violating contractual obligations since he
did not go back to training while he was still under an employment relationship.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3619
16.
On 12 July 2021, the player sent an email to the club demanding that Mr. Manus Chalalai
(manager of the club) should report to The Royal Thai Police headquarters in Bangkok before
Park’s local lawyer, The Royal Thai police commissioner, and a representative from Park’s
embassy, just to guarantee that no negativity would befall him if he returned to Trat province
to commence the contractual agreement between them.
17.
On 12 July 2021, the club´s manager (Mr. Manus Chalalai) responded the player via email,
explaining that he could not go to the Royal Thai Police headquarters as the player
demanded because of the Covid-19 restrictions in the country. In addition, he insisted that
the player should have returned to training.
18.
On 12 July 2021, the player answered the email from the manager accepting his reason but
he requested once again for the presence of club´s manager to show up at the Royal Thai
Police Headquarters.
19.
On 14 July 2021, the club sent a mail to the player standing the position of the manager of
not traveling as the player demanded and explaining that in an attempt to control the
COVID-19 situation of Trat province by the provincial governor, he requested for
cooperation from all citizens to refrain from or delayed their travels and avoid traveling into
the maximum. Furthermore, the club manifested that the Royal Thai Police headquarter
located in Bangkok was one of the most controlled areas.
20.
On 20 July 2021, the player sent a note to the club requesting to find an amicable solution
to the dispute, granting 15 days to the club to establish a settlement dialogue.
21.
On 24 July 2021, the club responded that they believed the compromise was the best
solution for everyone and that it would be grateful if the player arranged the meeting
appointment about the matter as soon as possible and notified them in advance.
22.
On 31 July 2021, the club transferred to the player´s account the amount of THB 14,709 as
July salary payment.
23.
On 5 August 2021, the club sent another mail to the player requesting him to return to Trat
province on 7 August 2021 and warning him that in case he will not return, the contract
would automatically be terminated as from 3 September 2021, which was the league
resumption day.
24.
On 6 September 2021, the player sent an email to the club communicating that due to the
deficiency of both parties on reaching an agreement and noticing that the club on 27 August
2021 declared the player as a non-member of its squad on its official Facebook page and
before the Thai Football Association, the player decided to terminate the contract as from
that date due to just cause in accordance with the FIFA regulations and the RSTP.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3619
25. On 6 September 2021, the club sent an email to the player referring to its final warning letter
sent to the latter on 5 August 2021 and stating that due to the player´s abandonment of
work, the club decided to terminate the contract effective from 3 September 2021. In
addition, the club stated that the player was entitled to receive the amount of THB 18,387.10
corresponding to August 2021 salary and that the club will make such payment.
26. On 20 November 2021, the player concluded an employment contract with the Indian club,
Real Kashmir Football Club valid from 23 November 2021 until 31 May 2022. The player
would be entitled to receive the following remuneration:
1) Indian Rupees (INR) 115,200 total from 23 to 30 November 2021;
2) INR 1,728,000 total from 1st December 2021 to 31 March 2022 which shall be paid in
equal monthly instalments of INR 432,000;
3) INR 5,000 total from 1st April 2022 to 31 May 2022, which shall be paid in equal
monthly instalments of INR 2,500.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
27. On 9 September 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
28. According to the Claimant, he was hired before the new coach started and after that
moment, the coach was not interested in having him in his squad. The player further argued
that in July 2021 the club hired a Japanese player covering his quota for Asian players in
accordance with domestic law.
29. Moreover, the player stated that on 26 June 2021, the club informed him its wish to terminate
the contract proposing him to pay him one monthly salary compensation and he rejected said
proposal. After the club informed him its wish to terminate the contract, the player gave back
the car keys to the club´s official.
30. Furthermore, the player stated that after many attempts to get a peaceful resolution, the club
decided to stick to its wish to cancelling and forcing the player to accept the one-month
payoff. As a result of his findings, the player concluded that premature contract termination
has been a standard practice of the club towards foreign players (DRC file cases ref. 20-01164
MR. Durosinmi and ref. FPSD-1920 Mr.Kang).
31. The Claimant requests the total amount of THB 1,231,304 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates. Said amount is composed as follows:
THB 1,260,000 (THB 120,000 x 10,5) as outstanding salaries from June 2021 until April
2022 (the duration of the contract was of 10 months and a half) but taking in account
Page 6
REF FPSD-3619
that THB 78,696 (THB 45,600 as June salary + THB 14,709 as July salary + THB 18,387
as August salary) had already been paid to the player by the club, the total amount
ascends to THB 1,181,304;
THB 27,000 (THB 13,500 x 2) as the amount that the player has paid in July and August
2021 for the accommodation and car that was taken back from him (article 3.4.1 of
the contract);
THB 10,000 as the cost to extend the visa with a travel agent which was an obligation
of the club regarding the article 3.4.3 of the contract and
THB 13,000 as the cost of the one-way flight ticket to Korea.
b. Position of the Respondent
32. According to the Respondent, on 26 June 2021, they explained to the player the reason of
pursuing the termination of the contract according to article 14.2 offering him to pay one
monthly salary as compensation.
33. Moreover, the club stated having invited the player to sign the termination, but they never
obliged him to sign or committed any abusive conduct aiming to force him to do something
the player did not want to. The club added that they had never asked him to leave the training
facility with immediate effect. The club indicated that the player rejected the offer.
34. The club stated that the player did not comply with his contractual obligations because he did
not go back to training, and he never again returned to Trat provincial stadium. For that
reason, the club considered that they might prematurely terminate the contract with just
cause.
35. The club stated that on 17 July 2021, the player flew out with flight KE652 to South Korea.
In support of these assertions, it enclosed a letter from Trat Immigration´s office.
36. The club said that finally on 3 September 2021, after 70 days of unjustified player´s absence
from training, they decided to terminate the contract since the player disappeared without a
valid reason and without the express permission of the club.
37. Furthermore, the club held that the contract stipulated the purchase of a ticket but not the
value of it. The club argued that the player’s request of the value of the tickets seemed
premature.
38. In addition, the club stated that, as it was stipulated in the contract, both parties terminated
the contract with just cause.
Page 7
REF FPSD-3619
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as “the Single
Judge”) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 09 September 2021 and
submitted for decision on 26 January 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
October 2021 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.
40. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (August 2021 edition), he is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute
with an international dimension between an Korean player and a Thai club.
41. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 09 September 2021, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
42. 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 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
43. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
Page 8
REF FPSD-3619
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
44. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute which party breach the
contract.
45. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine which party
terminated the contract and if such termination was made with or without cause.
46. To start with, the Single Judge underlined that it remains undisputed by the parties that on
26 June 2021 (i.e. 13 days after the conclusion of the contract), the Respondent offered via
WhatsApp chat to the Claimant to put an end to their employment relationship and to pay
him a compensation and that the Claimant did not accept said offer.
47. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that as from 26 June 2021 the parties tried to
settle this matter in an amicable way, without success.
48. On the one hand, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant maintained that the
coach did not want to have him on the team and that after the club hired a new Asian player
and published its squad for the new season (i.e. on 27 August 2021), he realized that he
would not be able to play for the Respondent due to the quota. Consequently, the player
decided on 6 September 2021 to terminate the contract allegedly with just cause.
49. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that on 6 September 2021 the Respondent also
terminated the contract, which was allegedly effective from 3 September 2021 (i.e. date of
resumption of the league) arguing that the player was absent from training without its
authorization.
50. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that even if on 6 September 2021 the employment
relationship was formally terminated by both parties, the Respondent was, in fact, the first
party to express its intention to put an end to the contract (i.e. on 26 June 2021).
51. As a result, the Single Judge decided that on 6 September 2021, the Respondent terminated
the contract.
52. Having established the above, the Single Judge went on to analyse the allegation of the club
– disputed by the player – that the absence of the latter for 70 days, without authorisation or
justification, consisted of a breach of contract on his part.
53. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it, and went on to
analyse the documentation provided by the parties in support of their allegations.
Page 9
REF FPSD-3619
54. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent in its message dated 26 June 2021
clearly expressed that its reason for terminating the contract was the fact that the new coach
did not count on the player´s services.
55. What is more, the Single Judge noted that after the player´s rejection to the club proposal
made on 26 June 2021 via chat, the club started to request the player´s presence in training
even though the club was clearly no longer interested in the player’s services.
56. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that it remained undisputed that in July 2021
following the coach´s request, the Respondent hired a Japanese player covering its quota for
Asian players based on domestic regulations.
57. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the main objective in an employment
relationship between a player and a club is that the player renders his/her services as football
player to the club, i.e. playing matches for it.
58. The Single Judge held that the fact that the club hired in July 2021 a new Asian player covering
its quota, prevented the Claimant for playing matches for the Respondent and he was
therefore not allowed to duly perform the employment contract.
59. In this context, the Single Judge referred to the obligation of the parties to maintain
contractual stability, the Single Judge underlined that a club willing to engage a specific player
should act with due diligence and make any preliminary consultations prior to concluding any
employment contract with the player.
60. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that it was not the first time that the club
encounter this type of conflicts with foreign players, and consequently he reiterated that both
parties and in particular the club, as employer, should always preserve the contractual stability.
61. In this scenario, the Single Judge recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures
which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his
contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract.
A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio.
62. With the above in mind and after having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the Single
Judge concluded that even if the Claimant was absent, the Respondent did not submit
enough evidence to prove that the player was not prevented to play under the applicable
quota for Asian players. In other words, the Respondent failed to prove that in fact it was
truly interested in the player´s services.
Page 10
REF FPSD-3619
63. On account of the aforementioned, the Single Judge decided that the club had unlawfully
terminated the contract with the player and should be held liable for such breach.
ii. Consequences
64. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
65. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination are
equivalent to three monthly salaries corresponding to June, July and August 2021 under the
contract, amounting to THB 360,000. In this regard, the Single Judge underlined that the
Claimant recognized having received partial payments for a total amount of THB 78,696
breakdown as follows:
THB 45,600 related to June 2021´s salary;
THB 14,709 related to July 2021´s salary and
THB 18,387 related to August 2021´s salary.
66. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. THB
281,304 (i.e. 3 times THB 120,000 minus THB 78,696 [payments recognised by the player]).
67. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding salaries as from the relevant due dates until the date of
effective payment.
68. With regard to the Claimant´s request for reimbursement of the total amount of THB 37,000
as accommodation, car and visa expenses, the Single Judge decided to reject it since the contract
does not defined specific amounts for such allowances and also because the player failed to meet
his burden of proof by not submitting documentary evidence to sustain his allegations.
69. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single
Judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for
in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
Page 11
REF FPSD-3619
70. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract.
71. In this regard, the Single Judge took note of the wording of article 14.4 of the contract, which
established that in case of termination of the contract by the club, the latter should pay to
the player as compensation “… an amount equal to the monthly wage on the last day of the
immediately following month in which the termination date occurs and an amount equal to
twice the number of the monthly wage …”.
72. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Single Judge concluded that
taking into account the particularities of this case, a compensation amounting to three
monthly salaries is reasonable and proportional, and therefore was to be applied in the case
at hand to determine the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the
Claimant.
73. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the amount of THB 360,000 (3* THB 120,000)
as per the compensation clause agreed between the parties in the contract, is due to the
player by the club.
74. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note of the Claimant request for THB 13,000 as the cost
of the one-way flight ticket to Korea. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that while the
relevant contractual clause states that the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant
“One-way flight ticket (Economic Class, Max. 1 seat)”, without specifying any amount.
75. Based on the above, the Single Judge acknowledge that according to FIFA Travel an average
flight ticket between Thailand and Korea amounts to CHF 325 which is equivalent to THB
11,675. Hence, the Single Judge decided to award this amount as compensation.
76. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, Single Judge decided that the club must pay the amount of THB 371,675
to the player (i.e. THB 360,000 plus THB 11,675), which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
77. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 9 September 2021 (i.e. date of claim) until the
date of effective payment.
Page 12
REF FPSD-3619
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-3619
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jong-oh Park, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Trat FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of THB 281,304 as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- on the amount of THB 74,400 from 1 July 2021 until the date of effective payment;
- on the amount of THB 105,291 from 1 August 2021 until the date of effective payment and
- on the amount of THB 101,613 from 1 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of THB 371,675 as compensation
plus 5% interest p.a. from 9 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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 shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban shall
be of 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 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
Page 14
REF FPSD-3619
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 15