Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14287
Decision of the
Players’ Status Chamber
passed on 27 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the coach Zeljko Petrovic
BY:
Jesús ARROYO (Spain), Single Judge
CLAIMANT:
Zeljko Petrovic, the Netherlands
Represented by Lorin Burba
RESPONDENT:
Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Umur Varat
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14287
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 July 2023, the Dutch coach, Zeljko Petrovic (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Coach),
and the Turkish club, Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S. (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club)
signed an employment contract titled “Trainer Agreement” (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from the date of the signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
Clause 1 of the Contract included the relevant information about the parties. Regarding the
Claimant, it stated that his position was “Professional Team Assistant Trainer” and that he
held a UEFA PRO License.
3.
In clauses 2.3., 2.4. and 2.5. the parties specified the Claimant’s duties as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“2.3. Trainer, accepts, undertakes and agrees to provide all kind of services mentioned
on Turkish Football Federation Regulations and FIFA Regulations as a Trainer, this
regulations are applicable. Trainer shall train A football team.
2.4. Trainer shall attend all friendly matches and all kind of competition matches as a
Trainer. Trainer shall attend all sportive and social activities, prepare team meetings.
2.5. Trainer shall be responsible for all matters related to team against President. Trainer
shall prepare report on any subject requested.”
4.
Additionally, clauses 2.6. and 2.7. mentioned the following regarding the necessary
documents to be held by the Coach:
“2.6. After the signing of this contract, the Trainer has to submit to the Club the
documents required for registration with the Turkish Football Federation, within the
periods determined by the Club. Otherwise, the Club has the right to terminate the
contract unilaterally.
2.7. The Trainer undertakes, accepts, declares and undertakes to deliver the
document/diploma and certificate to the Club. Trainer also accepts and declares that he
has all necessary qualifications within the framework of the TFF instructions and the UEFA
and FIFA instructions, in particular the UEFA Club License Instruction, in order for him to
be registered as Trainer with the TFF, and for this purpose, he may submit all kinds of
documents/documents proving this competence if needed.”
5.
In clause 2.15., the following was stipulated (quoted verbatim):
“2.15. The Club contributes every months 1000 Euro ( Monthly ) " 10 months per year for
the duration of the contract " facilitating Assistant Coach in housing. Furthermore,
Assistant Coach is entitled to two (2) Business Class trip tickets from and/or to European
destinations.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14287
6.
At the end of clause 2, the parties established the Claimant’s remuneration (quoted
verbatim):
“Payments;
For the 2023/2024 football season;
- Club shall pay totally EUR 40,000 Euro (fortythousand Euro) as a yearly salary. This
payment shall be divided into 10 equal instalments, Assistant Trainer’s monthly salary
shall be EUR 4,000 (fourthousand Euro]. Monthly salaries shall be paid on the last day of
the relevant month and monthly salaries shall be paid starting from 30 September 2023
until 30 June 2024.
For the 2024/2025 football season;
- Club shall pay totally EUR 40,000 Euro (fortythousand euro) as a yearly salary. This
payment shall be divided into 10 equal instalments. Assistant Trainer's monthly salary
shall be EUR
4,000 (fourthousand Euro). Monthly salaries shall be paid on the last day of the relevant
month and monthly salaries shall be paid starting from 30 September 2024 until 30 June
2025.”
7.
On 4 December 2023, the parties concluded a document titled “Mutual Termination
Agreement” (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement).
8.
In clause 2 of the Termination Agreement, the following was established (quoted verbatim):
“2. SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT
Adana Demirspor Kulübü and Trainer have concluded Trainer Agreement between
04.07.2023 and 30.06.2025 and parties signed another Protocol dated 11.07.2023. All
parties signed between the parties shall be mentioned as “Contracts”. Parties herein with
signing of this “Mutual Termination Agreement” terminates all the contracts according to
request of the Trainer.
By virtue of this Mutual Termination Agreement the Parties declare that all financial
relations between them with regarding to the Contracts and any kind of protocols (i.e.,
as compensation, as remuneration, monthly salary, bonus payments, guarantee
bonuses, additional payments, accommodation or in any other name) are finally and
completely resolved.
On the signing date of this Mutual Termination Agreement, 04 December 2023, Parties
accepts, declares and undertakes that Club owed the Trainer a total of EUR 15.733 (fifteen
thousand seven hundred thirty three Euros) form all the Contracts. The Club accepts,
declares and undertakes to pay EUR 15.733 (fifteen thousand seven hundred thirty three
Euros) to the Trainer on 08.12.2023.
In addition to this payment, the Club also accepts, declares and undertakes to pay
additional EUR 26.000 (twenty six thousand Euros) to the Trainer as an early termination
compensation. The payment shall be made in the following terms and amounts;
• EUR 13.000 (thirteen thousand Euros) on 30.01.2024
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14287
• EUR 13.000 (thirteen thousand Euros) on 28.02.2024
The Trainer accepts, declares and undertakes that he does not have any receivables from
the Club under any name beside the amounts that written in this mutual termination
agreement. With signing of this Agreement, Trainer also waive from monthly salaries,
accommodation, car expenses, bonus payments, any kind of payments and/or expenses
written on the Contracts. To be clear in case of conditions written on the Contracts shall
happen after the termination Trainer shall not demand anything from the Club, Trainer
waived all the rights written in the Contracts and/or Protocols such as monthly salaries,
guarantee payments, bonus payments, additional payments, accommodation and car
expenses, any kind of expenses or in any other name. Both parties accept and declare to
not demand anything from each other.”
9.
By correspondence dated 12 January 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of EUR 15,773 setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
10. On 9 February 2024, the Claimant sent a new notice of default, requesting payment of EUR
28,773 and granting again 10 days to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 3 April 2024, 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
12. According to the Claimant, the Club failed to comply with the payments outlined in the
Termination Agreement.
13. In this regard, the Claimant argued that he was hired by the Club as a “trainer”, serving as
an assistant coach to the Club’s head coach, and that, following the head coach’s dismissal,
the parties negotiated an amicable settlement. Therefore, the Claimant stated that the
parties concluded the Termination Agreement, by which the Club was obliged to pay him
EUR 15,733 on 8 December 2023, EUR 13,000 on 30 January 2024 and EUR 13,000 on 28
February 2024.
14. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“1. The Claim of the Claimant, Coach Zeljko Petrovic is fully accepted.
2. The obligation of the Respondent, Club Adanademirspor Sportif Yatirimlar ve tic. A.S.
to pay to the Claimant, Coach Zeljko Petovic the overdue payables amounting to a total
of EUR 41,733 (forty-one thousand seven hundred thirty-three euros) plus interest as
follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14287
-5 % p.a. over the amount of EUR 15,733 as from the date 09.12.2023 until the effective
payment by the Respondent;
-5 % p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,000 as from the date 31.01.2024 until the effective
payment by the Respondent;
-5 % p.a. over the amount of EUR 13,000 as from the date 29.02.2024 until the effective
payment by the Respondent.
3.The obligation of the of the Respondent, Club Adanademirspor Sportif Yatirimlar ve tic.
A.S. to pay any or all procedural costs related to the present dispute (if any).”
b. Position of the Respondent
15. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was hired as a trainer. The Club stated that,
during the period of the Contract, it had another head coach and that it was not possible
to have two head coaches at the same time.
16. Additionally, the Club disputed FIFA’s jurisdiction, stating that the Claimant was a trainer
and not a coach according to the definition provided by the RSTP. The Club argued that the
definition specifically refers to disputes involving head coaches, and the Football Tribunal
is not competent to decide on disputes related to athletic performance trainers, goalkeeper
trainers or assistant trainers. In this regard, the Club assured that none of the activities
listed under item no. 28 of the definitions in the RSTP were found in the Contract. The Club
also asserted that, during the relevant period, the Club had only one “coach agreement”
and it was with the head coach.
17. Notwithstanding the above, and if FIFA had jurisdiction, the Respondent argued that the
Club was facing financial difficulties since the earthquake occurred on 6 February 2023, in
that the Turkish Lira has depreciated more than 50% against the Euro. Additionally, the
Respondent argued that Türkiye’s inflation problem should be also taken into account.
18. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following (quoted verbatim):
“1-The Respondent requests from Tribunal to decide that the Football Tribunal does not
have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Zeljka Petrovic.
2-To REJECT all the claims of Claimant.
3-If the Football Tribunal accepts the case, the Respondent requests that taking into
consideration the payment difficulties created by the extraordinary depreciation of the
Turkish Lira against the Euro.
4-To order to pay Claimant to pay legal expenses, judicial cost and attorney fee to the
Respondent.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14287
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
19. In his rejoinder, the Claimant first argued that the word trainer was used as a synonym of
coach. Additionally, the Claimant stated that the Club’s argument was completely
contradictory with the provisions of the Contract, which stipulated that the Claimant was
hired as a professional team assistant trainer, holding a UEFA Pro License.
20. Furthermore, the Claimant indicated that the Club did not provide any clarification or
evidence regarding the alleged Claimant’s real function within the first professional team,
other than stating that he was a “trainer”. According to the Claimant, the Club failed to
demonstrate that the role of “trainer” was not or could not be assimilated with that of a
coach, nor did it specify the meaning of “trainer” within the context of the Contract.
21. The Claimant clarified that he never stated that he was the head coach, but that he was
hired to serve as an assistant coach of the Respondent’s head coach. In this regard, the
Claimant mentioned that assistant coaches are considered coaches in the sense of Annexe
2, and that the duties specified in the Contract were those of a normal assistant coach.
22. The Claimant also argued that he was obliged to provide his diplomas, certificates or
licenses to the Club. In this respect, since the Contract referred to UEFA Club Licensing
Regulations, it is a clear indication that the intention of the Parties was to establish an
employment relationship between a club and a coach, considering that art. 47, 48 and 49
of the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations stipulate the Club’s obligations for providing the
adequate licenses only for head coaches, assistant coaches and goalkeeper coaches.
Therefore, the Claimant argued that not only the hired contractual services were those of
a coach, but also the Claimant was required to possess the mandatory licenses.
23. For the sake of completeness, the Claimant asserted that he has been working as either a
head coach or an assistant coach of football teams for almost three decades. In this respect,
he provided four recent contracts. What is more, the Claimant argued that both the
Contract and the Termination Agreement were drafted by the Respondent and, in any case,
the legal principle in dubio contra stipulatorem should apply.
24. Finally, regarding the earthquake, the Claimant highlighted that the Contract was signed
five months after said event, and that the Club did not prove that it had direct incidence on
the Club’s finances and its activities. In connection with the depreciation of the Turkish Lira,
the Claimant argued that financial difficulties are not considered as reasons for parties to
avoid the performance of obligations.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
25. In its final comments, the Respondent reaffirmed its previous arguments. Additionally, the
Club stated that the Claimant did not have the authority to select players for matches or
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14287
competitions or to make tactical decisions, and that the responsibilities and duties defined
in the RSTP for the coaches were carried out solely by the head coach.
26. Finally, the Club submitted the head coach’s contract and argued that it had a provision
that stated that all payments established in said contract were for the head coach and for
his staff. According to the Club, as payments to the staff members were included in the
head coach’s contract, and such mechanisms have been outlawed since 1 January 2021, the
claim should be dismissed.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14287
III. Considerations of the Players’ Status Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter: 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 3 April 2024 and submitted for decision on 27 August
2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural
Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
28. 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. c) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the Players’ Status
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 Coach and
a Turkish club.
29. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge noted that the Club objected to FIFA’s
competence, stating that the Claimant was not hired as a coach but as a trainer. Thus,
according to the Respondent, the claim is not within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit c) of the
Regulations.
30. With the foregoing on mind, the Single Judge turned his attention to the issue of the
competence of FIFA, a task he shall conduct ex officio. In particular, the Single Judge pointed
out that, before entering the substance of the present matter, he would first have to
determine whether the Claimant’s employment with the Club could in fact be defined as
that of a coach.
31. In this respect, the Single Judge deemed it appropriate to refer to number 28 of
the Definitions of the Regulations , which stipulates that a coach is “an individual employed
in a football-specific occupation by a professional club or association whose: i. employment
duties consist of one or more of the following: training and coaching players, selecting
players for matches and competitions, making tactical choices during matches and
competitions; and/or ii. employment requires the holding of a coaching licence in accordance
with a domestic or continental licensing regulation”.
32. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge first referred to the Contract and noted that
it was titled “Trainer Agreement”. Additionally, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant
was hired for the position of “Professional Team Assistant Trainer” and the Contract did not
define what “trainer” meant. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that the Contract
specified that the Coach held a UEFA PRO License, and that in clause 2.15. the Claimant
was referred to as an “assistant coach”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14287
33. Then, the Single Judge moved to verify whether the Claimant’s duties, as described in the
Contract, indeed correspond to those of a coach, in the sense of the Regulations as well of
this Chamber’s jurisprudence. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that, although one
of the Claimant’s duties was to train the team, the generality of his duties was not clearly
specified. The Single Judge pointed out that, for example, clause 2.4. stipulated that the
Claimant should attend matches “as a trainer”, without any explanation within the Contract
of what that entailed.
34. Despite this lack of clarity, the Single Judge therefore found that there was no indication
under the Contract that the Claimant had performed any tasks other than those falling
within the definition adopted by FIFA. In any case, the Single Judge highlighted that the
principle interpretatio contra stipulatorem shall apply, as it was undisputed that the Club
drafted the Contract.
35. Moreover, the Single Judge highlighted that the Club was unable to provide any evidence
to contradict the Coach’s allegations, as it did not submit proof demonstrating that the
Claimant performed any tasks that were not football related. Furthermore, the Club failed
to explain what the Claimant’s duties as a “trainer” were and the differences between being
a “trainer” and a coach. Neither in the response to the claim nor in its final comments was
the Club able to clarify the tasks of the Claimant, apart from referring to the Contract.
36. Conversely, the Single Judge noted that the Coach submitted his UEFA PRO License, which
proves that he is indeed a coach and holds the highest coaching certification available in
Europe. The Single Judge emphasised that the Contract specified that the Coach held this
license and established that he was obliged to submit all the necessary documents, or the
Club could terminate the employment relationship. Furthermore, clause 2.6. stated that
the Claimant had all the necessary qualifications within the framework of the UEFA License
Regulations to be considered as a “trainer”. The Single Judge found that the Coach provided
a copy of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations, which
demonstrates that holding a license is a requirement to be a head coach, an assistant coach
and a goalkeeper coach. In contrast, the word “trainer” is not even mentioned in those
regulations.
37. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that he had enough elements to determine
that the Claimant was hired by the Club as an assistant coach, regardless of the language
used in the Contract.
38. Thus, the Single Judge ascertained that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the
claim of the Claimant.
39. 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 (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 April 2024, the February 2024 edition
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14287
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
40. 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 he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
41. 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
42. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a coach against a club for overdue payables.
43. The Single Judge recalled that, according to the Claimant, the Club did not comply with the
payments outlined in the Termination Agreement.
44. Conversely, the Respondent argued that it was facing financial difficulties due to the
earthquake in Türkiye on 6 February 2023, which caused significant economic losses. In
this respect, the Turkish Lira depreciated by more than 50% against the Euro, and there is
an inflation problem. Additionally, the Club alleged that since the head coach’s contract
contained a clause stipulating that all payments made under that contract were for both
the head coach and his staff, this case should be dismissed.
45. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Club failed to comply with the payments outlined in the Termination Agreement and, if so,
whether the financial difficulties were valid and could be taken into consideration.
46. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, in the case at hand, the Respondent bore
the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Termination
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14287
Agreement. Nonetheless, the Single Judge highlighted that the Club did not provide any
evidence along with its response.
47. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Club indeed failed to comply with the
payments outlined in the Termination Agreement.
48. Then, the Single Judge noted that the Club provided some evidence regarding the
depreciation of its national currency to justify its alleged financial difficulties. Nevertheless,
the Club failed to prove that, because of such depreciation, it was unable to meet its
obligations. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal, that on many occasions has determined that financial difficulties are not
a valid justification for non-payment of contractually agreed amounts.
49. In addition, and despite being mindful of the argumentation of the Club, the Single Judge
observed that the mentioned earthquake took place in February 2023, whereas the parties
concluded the Contract on 4 July 2023 and the Termination Agreement on 4 December
2023. Thus, the Respondent was fully aware of its financial capabilities when it signed both
agreements. In this regard, the longstanding jurisprudence has also affirmed that parties
should observe the necessary financial diligence before committing to make payments.
50. Finally, the Single Judge referred to the argument raised by the Club regarding the clause
stipulated in the head coach’s contract. Notwithstanding this clause, the Single Judge
mentioned that the Claimant and the Club were bound by an individual contract that did
not refer to any other contract. Furthermore, this claim is based on the Termination
Agreement and not on the Contract, as the parties novated their obligations when they
concluded said agreement. Without prejudice to that, the Single Judge recalled that the
Contract was drafted by the Club, and it cannot now attempt to invoke its own turpitude to
obtain a benefit.
51. In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from
the Termination Agreement. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided to award the
Coach EUR 41,733, with 5% interest p.a. from the date after each due date.
ii. Application of art. 7 Annexe 2 of the Regulations
52. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 7 par. 2 of Annexe 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. 7 par. 4
of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
53. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Coach put the club in default of payment
of the amounts sought twice and granted the club a 10-day deadline to cure such breach
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14287
of contract. The Single Judge noted that, when the Coach sent both notices, the first
instalment had fallen due more than 30 days before.
54. Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 7 of Annexe 2
of the Regulations was met in the case at hand.
55. The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 7 par. 4 of Annexe 2 of the
Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above
and bearing in mind that this is the seventh offence by the Club within the last two years,
the Single Judge decided to impose a fine of USD 6,000 on the Club in accordance with art.
7 par. 4 lit. c) of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
56. In this connection, the Single Judge highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
7 par. 6 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 8
par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 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.
58. 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.
59. 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. 8 par. 2, 4, and 7 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
60. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14287
61. 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. 8 par. 8
of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14287
IV. Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Zeljko Petrovic.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Zeljko Petrovic, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Yukatel Adana Demirspor A.S., must pay to the Claimant the following
amount:
- EUR 41,733 as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 15,733 of as from 9 December 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 13,000 of as from 31 January 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount EUR 13,000 of as from 29 February 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
A fine in the amount of USD 6,000 is imposed on the Respondent, which must be paid to
FIFA within 30 days of notification of this decision. Such fine must be paid to the
following bank account with a clear reference to the case FPSD-14287:
UBS Zurich
Account number 230-366677.61N (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH12 0023 0230 3666 7761 N
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
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. 8 of Annexe 2 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14287
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 in accordance
with art. 8 par. 7 and 8 of Annexe 2 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. 16
REF. FPSD-14287
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 – 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