Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-1988
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player António
Pimparel
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA) / (France), Deputy Chairperson
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
António Pimparel, Portugal
Represented by José Gomes Mendes
RESPONDENT:
Club Goztepe AS, Turkey
Page 3
REF FPSD-1988
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 31 July 2017, the Portuguese player, António Pimparel (hereinafter: the Claimant), and
the Turkish club, Goztepe AS (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the first contract), valid as from 31 July 2017 until 31 May 2018.
2.
In accordance with clause 3 of the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay
to the Claimant the following remuneration:
-
net EUR 60,000 – monthly salary - August 2017 until May 2018
net EUR 60,000 – monthly salary - August 2018 until May 2019
net EUR 3,500 - appearance fee per each official league match - season 2017-2018
net EUR 3,500 - appearance fee per each official league match - season 2018-2019
net EUR 30,000 - allowance - season 2017-2018
net EUR 30,000 -allowance- Season 2018-2019
3.
On 4 April 2018, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a second contract (hereinafter:
the second contract) valid from 1 June 2018 until 31 May 2020.
4.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the second contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following
remuneration:
-
5.
net EUR 65,000 – monthly salary - August 2018 until May 2019
net EUR 60,000 – monthly salary - August 2019 until May 2020
net EUR 3,500 - appearance fee per each official league match - season 2018-2019
net EUR 3,500 - appearance fee per each official league match - season 2019-202020
net EUR 3,000 - allowance- August 2018 until May 2019
net EUR 3,000 - allowance- August 2019 until May 2020
By correspondence dated 5 January 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
requesting payment of the following amounts, granting it a deadline of 10 days to remedy
the default, however to no avail:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
“EUR 13,234.94 net, which corresponds to appearance fees bonus of the Championship
in the season 2018/2019 [only received EUR 184. 765,06 instead of EUR 198.000,00 (
calculated on a pro rat a basis as follows: EUR 6.000,00 x 33 matches in the first eleven=
EUR 198.000,00);
EUR 65,000 net for the salary of March 2020;
EUR 65,000 net for the salary of April 2020 ;
EUR 65,000 net for the salary of May 2020;
EUR 65,000 net for the salary of June 2020;
EUR 52,419.35 net, for the salary of July 2020 ( calculated on a pro rata basis, based on
the 25 working days provided);
EUR 3,000 net, for the allowance of May 2020;
Page 4
REF FPSD-1988
h)
i)
j)
EUR 3,000 net, for the allowance of June 2020;
EUR 2,419.35 net, for the allowance of July 2020 (calculated on a pro rata basis, based
on the 25 working days provided);
EUR 140,000 net, for appearance fees bonus of 14 matches in the starting 11 eleven in
the season 2019/2020 [Matchday 18 and 19;Matchday 20 and 23 (due since 31-032020); Matchday 24, 25, 26 and 21 (due since 30-04-2020); Matchday 27, 28, and 29
(due since 1-07-2020) and for the Matchday 30, 31 and 33 (due since 31-08-2020)]”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 10 March 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
7.
According to the Claimant, on 17 March 2020, due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Turkish
League were suspended. The Respondent then restricted the Claimant and other foreign
players from travelling to their home countries during the period between 18 March and 23
April 2020.
8.
On 12 June 2020, the Turkish League resumed and on 29 July 2020, the Turkish football
season 2019/2020 ended.
9.
On 23 May 2020, the Claimant received an email from the Respondent in terms of which it
extended the contract of the Claimant for an additional period, by, inter alia, stipulating the
following:
“Please take this as a further clarification that any contracts expiring by May 31, 2020 will be
automatically extended until the current football season is completed as per instructions of
FIFA and TFF.”
10. The Claimant therefore stipulated the following:
(a) “it’s indisputable that the employment contract was extended by mutual agreement until
the end of the football season 2019/2020: i.e. from 31st May, 2020 until July 25th 2020;
and
(b) between March 17th 2020 (date where Turkish League was suspended) until July 25 th,
2020 (last official match of Goztepe in season 2019/2020) the Employment Contract was
never suspended, being uninterruptedly in force, despite the suspension of the
competition and despite what was mentioned on all the communications sent by the
respondent.”
11. Furthermore, it is clear the Claimant was under the authority and instructions of the
Respondent during the said period i.e. between 18 March and 25 July 2020. The Claimant
Page 5
REF FPSD-1988
stipulated that he has rendered his services to the Respondent for an additional period of 55
days.
12. The Claimant indicated on 21 April 2020, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant,
“seeking to inform the Player about the negative impact caused by the Covid-19 outbreak
and the intention of the Club to initiate negotiations proceedings in order alter the existing
terms of the Employment Contract for the season 2019/2020.”
13. However, despite the above correspondence, the Claimant confirmed that he never reached
an agreement with the Respondent, “since the Club never granted the players the opportunity
to discuss and negotiate the terms of the intended reduction of their employment conditions.”
14. On 9 August 2020, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it would apply a discount rate
of 20% to his salary, as a number of players accepted it.
15. On 17 August 2020, the Claimant replied to the Respondent refusing to accept the discount
to his salary as detailed in the above email.
16. The Claimant argued that the “unilateral decision of the Club in applying a reduction was
NOT reasonable, proportional and was definitely not made in good faith and, therefore,
cannot be applicable or accepted.”
17. On 20 January 2021, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, informing the Claimant that:
“We therefore believe to have complied with our obligations by paying all your annual
remuneration for the 2019-2020 football season, after the 20% reduction as suggested in
accordance with the abovementioned explanations”.
18. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were that the Respondent pay to the Claimant:
(a) the overdue payables in full, in the amount of EUR 474,073.64 net, plus 5% interest p.a.
from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment , which corresponds to
(detailed in par.15 above):
-
EUR 13,234.94, regarding the seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, corresponding to
appearance fees bonus of the Championship in the season 2018/2019;
EUR 312,419.35 - salaries of March, April, May June and July 2020;
EUR 8,419.35 - allowances of May, June and July 2020;
EUR 140,000 - appearance Fees (regarding the season 2019/2020) for 14 Matches in the
starting 11 eleven of the Turkish League in the season 2019/2020 [match-day 18 and 19
(due since 28-02-2020); match-day 20 and 23 (due since 31-03-2020); match day 24,
25, 26 and 21 (due since 30-04-2020); match-day 27, 28, and 29 (due since 31-07-2020)
and for the match-day 30, 31 and 33 (due since 31-08-2020]
(b) any and all costs related to the present proceedings, if any.
Page 6
REF FPSD-1988
b. Position of the Respondent
19. According to the Respondent, it always complied with its contractual obligations towards the
Claimant throughout the contractual relationship.
20. In this regard the Respondent stated that “a total amount of EUR 600,000 net was paid for
the 2017-2018 season, the sum of EUR 650,000 net for the 2018-2019 and the amount of
EUR 520,000 for the last season 2019-2020 (i.e. EUR 650,000 net less 20% reduction due to
COVID-19 pandemic). “
21. The Respondent referred to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and indicated that it
suffered financially, in support of this allegation; the Respondent filed a financial report
showing its losses during the pandemic.
22. Moreover, the Respondent indicated that on 19 March 2020, the Turkish Football Federation
(TFF) “suspended the football activities and thus the Turkish Süper Lig until further notice.”
23. Furthermore, following the above decision and in light of the uncertainty regarding the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent alleges that it tried to find an adequate solution with
all the players of the team.
24. On 21 April 2020, the Club sent an official letter to all its players, to inform it regarding to
COVID-19 effects on Turkey, football and the club and suspension of the payments.
25. According to the Respondent, on 16 May 2020, it met with the Claimant to discuss in detail
the proposed reduction of the wages. Hereafter on 28 May 2020, the Respondent “sent a
proposed amendment to the contract, whereas it was recommended to reduce the total yearly
salary of the football season 2019-2020 to 20% of the total value”
26. The Respondent mentioned it proactively tried to find a “good and fair compromise with the
Player following the COVID-19 outbreak in accordance with the FIFA COVID-19 guidelines.”
27. In application of the unilateral variation of the Claimant’s contract, the Respondent argued
that it followed the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and applied the following principles:
(a) Attempt to reach a mutual agreement with the player: the Respondent held that
since the beginning of the pandemic, it took a positive action towards its employees to
maintain the contractual relationships. Thus, the Respondent alleged that it tried to find
a mutual agreement with all its employees, including the Claimant.
(b) Application of the decision to the entire squad or only to specific employees: the
Respondent argued that it was able to reach agreements with almost all employees,
treating them equally. As such, the club pointed out that “the Respondent applied such
Page 7
REF FPSD-1988
fair and proportionate reduction to all employees in compliance with the COVID-19 FIFA
guidelines.”
(c) Economic situation of the club: the Respondent stated that it had to deal with a big
loss of revenues following the COVID-19 pandemic. In support of its allegations, the
Respondent filed a financial report showing that the reduction of all player’s salaries was
mandatory in order for the club to continue its activities and avoid bankruptcy.
(d) Proportionality of the contract amendment: on its part, the Respondent established
that the reduction of 20% of the Claimant’s remuneration is “totally fair and
proportionate considering the big financial impact of the club’s finances”;
(e) Net income of the employee after any contractual adjustment: the Respondent
mentioned that “applying a 20% reduction on the 2019-2020 remuneration of the
Claimant leads to a total amount of EUR 520,000 (instead of EUR 650,000) annual wage.
If you consider the effective loss of the Club, one could clearly note that such reduction,
although being significant to help the Club to maintain its activities, does not affect the
well-being of the Player. “
28. The Respondent furthermore held that art. 12bis of the RSTP is not applicable in the present
matter as it paid all the remuneration to the Claimant at the time his contract expired,
specifically in that:
“it paid the Player’s remuneration for both 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 football season in full
as well as the remuneration for the 2019/2020 football season after duly taking into account
the guidance and instructions of the FIFA COVID 19 guidelines as well as the principles of
non-discrimination and equal treatment. From the payment slips and the general list of
payment made by the Club to the Player, one can notice that the total remuneration less 20%
reduction was paid to the Player for the last football season.”
29. The requests for relief of the Respondent, were that the FIFA DRC reject the Claimant’s claim
in its entirety.
c. Amended Claim
30. On 21 April 2021, we requested the Claimant to provide his comments on the payment
documents and general list of payments submitted by the Respondent.
31. In his reply the Claimant indicated that in addition to his salary, the Respondent undertook
the obligation to pay him, appearance fees, housing allowance and bonus, which the
Respondent, ”in an incomprehensible way, decides to completely ignore, throughout the full
extent of the reply to the claim.”
Page 8
REF FPSD-1988
32. The Claimant further stipulated that after analysing the bank transfer receipts, he can only
confirm the payment of the amount of EUR 2,370,633. Consequently, “we have a negative
differential of € 3.485,00 between the global amount confirmed to be received by the Player
on point 51 and 52 of the Claim (€2.374.188,00) and the global amount proven to be paid
through bank transfer receipts (€2 370 633,00) that must be rectified.”
33. On account of the above, the Claimant amended his request for relief as follows:
(a) to pay the Claimant the overdue payables in amount of EUR 477,558,64 net, plus 5%
interest p.a. from the respective due dates until effective payment; and
(b) to pay any and all costs related to the present proceedings, if any.
d. Final Comments of Respondent
34. In reply to the Claimant’s amended claim, the Respondent merely reiterated the points as
listed in its position above and requested for the following relief:
(a) the claim of the Claimant, to be rejected; and
(b) that the Claimant shall bear all procedural costs of the proceedings.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. 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 10 March 2021 and submitted for decision
on 8 October 2021. 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.
36. 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 (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese player
and a Turkish club.
37. Notwithstanding the above, bearing in mind that the first contract at the basis of the present
matter was concluded on 31 July 2017 with a duration until 31 May 2018, that also amounts
for the season 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 are claimed and that the Claimant lodged his claim
against the Respondent in front of FIFA on 10 March 2021, the members of the DRC
considered that they should examine if the present claim, or any part of it, is barred by the
statute of limitations.
Page 9
REF FPSD-1988
38. Indeed, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), which, in completion to the general
procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the
event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be
examined ex officio in each individual case.
39. In view of the above, the DRC deemed it fundamental to underline that in order to determine
whether the Chamber could hear the present matter, it should, first and foremost, establish
which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time
period of two years as set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.
40. In continuation, while recalling that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 10 March
2021, the Chamber established that as “the event giving rise to the dispute”, the due dates
on which the respective amounts claimed had fallen due, had to be considered.
41. Along those lines, the members of the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR
13,234.94, connected with bonuses for the seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, had fallen
due more than two years prior to the date on which the Claimant lodged his claim in front
of FIFA.
42. As a consequence, referring to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the DRC concluded that the time limit of two years for the Claimant to claim bonuses
for the seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 on the basis of the contract had elapsed at the
time he lodged his claim in front of FIFA.
43. Therefore, the Chamber decided that this part of the claim of the Claimant is barred by the
statute of limitations and, consequently, inadmissible.
44. Having established the foregoing, 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 Player (August 2021
edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 March 2021, the February
2021 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
45. 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).
Page 10
REF FPSD-1988
c. Merits of the dispute
46. 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
47. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the Respondent’s entitlement to
reduce the salary of the Claimant.
48. In this context, the DRC Judge acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Respondent could validly apply a 20% reduction to the Claimant’s salary, i.e. a so-called
unilateral variation of the contract as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
49. Having stated the above, the DRC went on analysing the outstanding remuneration due to
the Claimant. Moreover, the Chamber observed the Respondent’s arguments regarding the
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on its club, as well as the alleged application of the FIFA
COVID-19 Guidelines, when it reduced the Claimant’s remuneration.
50. The DRC wished to highlight that, in light of the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak, FIFA issued
a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance
and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the
consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is
harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an
additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarification about
the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matter.
51. According to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines, unilateral decisions to vary the terms of an
agreement are allowed if they are made in line with national law or permissible within the
CBA structures. Thus, if the parties involved cannot reach an amicable settlement, or the issue
is not addressed in national law and CBA’s with a players’ union are not an option, a variation
to the contract can only be allowed if it is made in good faith, are reasonable and
proportionate
52. To this end and in line with the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines, the DRC confirmed that the
Respondent’s decision to unilaterally reduce the Claimant’s salaries up to 20% has to be
considered as a unilateral variation of the employment contract between the parties.
Page 11
REF FPSD-1988
53. Nevertheless, turning to the evidence on file as well as the submissions of the parties, the
DRC observed that the Respondent did not adduce sufficient evidence demonstrating that
the unilateral variation of the Claimant’s salary was made on the basis of national law, or a
collective agreement.
54. In addition, the DRC wished to highlight that the pieces of evidence filed by the Respondent
did only demonstrate the financial impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the Respondent’s
finances, but were not sufficient to prove a situation entitling the club to unilaterally vary the
terms of the contract.
55. What is more, the members of the Chamber deemed it relevant to point out that the Turkish
league was suspended for two months only, while the club reduced the Claimant’s salary for
the entire 2019/2020 season, which reduction as such could not be deemed neither
reasonable nor proportionate.
56. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber remarked that the payment receipts submitted
by the Respondent, and in particular the amounts paid in Turkish Lira, seem to have been
exclusively for team bonuses, and can therefore not be considered as salary payments.
57. As a consequence and in light with the DRC’s jurisprudence, the DRC decided that the club
failed to demonstrate that the unilateral variation of the contract, i.e. a reduction of the
Claimant’s salary with 20%, was validly made, in line with eh COVID-19 Guidelines. Based
on the foregoing, the Chamber decided that based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Respondent should have paid the Claimant’s contractually agreed remuneration.
ii. Consequences
58. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
59. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to the following
amounts:
a)
b)
c)
EUR 312,419.35, connected to the salaries for the months of of March, April, May
June and July 2020;
EUR 8,419.35, as allowances for the months of May, June and July 2020; and
EUR 140,000, as appearance fees for the Claimsnt having started in 14 matches in
the starting 11 eleven of the Respondent, during the Turkish League in the season
2019/2020.
60. 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 Claimant the cited amounts, which
were outstanding under the contract.
Page 12
REF FPSD-1988
61. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates
until the date of effective payment.
62. As regards to the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural
Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which
no procedural cost shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to cost in the
proceedings.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
64. 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.
65. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
66. 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.
67. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
Page 13
REF FPSD-1988
d. Costs
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-1988
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, António Pimparel, is partially accepted insofar it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Goztepe AS, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
(a) EUR 320,838.70 net as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. , until the date
of effective payment, as follows:
-
on the amount of EUR 65,000 net as from 1 April 2020;
on the amount of EUR 65,000 net as from 1 May 2020 ;
on the amount of EUR 68,000 net as from 1 June 2020;
on the amount of EUR 68,000 net as from 1 July 2020; and
on the amount of EUR 54,838.70 net as from 26 July 2020
(b) EUR 140,000 net as appearance fees, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective
payment, as follows:
-
on the amount of EUR 20,000 net as from 1 March 2020;
on the amount of EUR 20,000 net as from 1 April 2020;
on the amount of EUR 40,000 net as from 1 May 2020;
on the amount of EUR 30,000 net as from 1 August 2020; and
on the amount of EUR 30,000 net as from 1 September 2020
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24bis 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.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
Page 15
REF FPSD-1988
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-1988
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 17