Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9031
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 August 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Slaviša Radović
BY:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT I:
Slaviša Radović, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Represented by Tarik Trbić
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FK Liepāja, Latvia
Represented by Olga Polozova
COUNTER-RESPONDENT II:
FK Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Represented by Ivan Ostojic
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9031
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 June 2022, the player from Bosnia & Herzegovina, Slaviša Radović (hereinafter:
player) and the Latvian club, FK Liepāja (hereinafter: club) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 28 June 2022 until 30 November 2023.
2.
According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the following amounts:
- EUR 6,000 as monthly salary, payable until the 15th day of the following month;
- EUR 250 as accommodation costs.
3.
Art. 5.1.1 of the contract states: “The total amount of remuneration is 6000 Euro net. It consists
of a basic fixed salary and a personal allowance. The basic salary is 4200 Euro net. Additionally
the player can be paid a personal allowance not exceeding 30% of the amount of the basic fixed
salary after taxes. The amount of this additional payment is set monthly by the club’s
management and can be paid in order to stimulate the improvement of the quality of work and
increase the responsibility of the player for the performance of their duties under the contract
and annex 1”.
4.
Art. 3.2.8 of the contract establishes that the club: “provide with flight tickets for player and
his wife to the Republic of Latvia and back to the country of permanent residence (once a year)”.
5.
The contract further reads as follows:
- Art. 9.4: “If the football player terminates this contract with the club on his own
initiative (of his own free will) without justified reasons, then the football player shall
pay the club a monetary compensation in the amount equivalent to 350,000 Euro net
(the Termination clause). The cash payment to the club specified in this clause is made
by the football player (or by a third party as directed by the football player) not later
than the day of dismissal.”
- Art. 9.4.1: “If during the term of this contract the club receives an official written offer
from any third club to acquire transfer rights to the player in the amount of at least
350,000 EURO net, the club undertakes to accept this offer and provide the player with
the opportunity to transfer to this club”.
- Art. 9.5: “If the football player terminates this contract, stating a justified reason, and
such a justified reason is not recognized or confirmed by the competent judicial
(arbitration) authorities, the parties shall establish that the football player is obliged
to pay the club an amount of 350,000 Euro net as compensation for losses (liquidated
damages).”
- Art. 9.5.1: “In case of termination of the contract by the club for a justified reason
(including on grounds related to disciplinary sanctions, other punishment), as well as
the presence of guilty actions (inaction) of the football player), and such a justified
reason is recognized or confirmed by the competent judicial (arbitration) authorities,
the parties establish that the football player is obliged to pay the club an amount of
350,000 Euro net as liquidated damages”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9031
6.
On 1 August 2022, the club issued a “warranty letter” to the player, acknowledging a debt of
EUR 1,181, corresponding to the salary between 28 June 2022 and 3 July 2023. In this letter,
the club “guarantees payment” within the next 6 months.
7.
On 12 September 2022, the club imposed a fine of 25% of his “personal allowance” of August
2022 since he failed to take part in “preventive and rehabilitation measures (sauna and
massage)” without permission.
8.
On 31 October 2022, the club imposed a fine of 30% of his “personal allowance” of October
2022 as well as 20% of his “personal allowance” of November 2022 due to two
disagreements with the head coach.
9.
On 1 December 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of EUR
10,481, corresponding to the partial salaries of June until October 2022 as well as the salary
of November 2022. He requested payment within 15 days.
10. On 16 December 2022, the player put the club in default again and requested payment of
EUR 10,481, corresponding to the partial salaries of June until October 2022 as well as the
salary of November 2022. He requested payment within 15 days.
11. On 20 December 2022, the club replied to the player rejecting having received the first
default notice and that there is any debt outstanding. The club requested the player to
return for training with the reserve team on 28 December 2022.
12. On 23 December 2022, the player sent a letter to the club insisting on his outstanding
remuneration and requesting to be reintegrated in the first team as of 3 January 2022, the
day the training with the first team starts.
13. On 27 December 2022, the club sent a letter to the player reiterating its position and
upholding its decision to let him train with the reserve team.
14. On 29 December 2022, the club sent a letter to the player inter alia requesting him to
resume work.
15. On 2 January 2023, the player terminated the contract with the club due to the following
outstanding remuneration:
16. On 16 January 2023, the player signed an employment contract with FK Sarajevo, valid as
from 1 February 2023 until 30 June 2023, including a monthly salary of Bosnian Mark (BAM)
1,000 (approx. EUR 511).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9031
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 25 January 2023, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player
18. In his claim, the player requested the following monies:
- EUR 600 salary for June 2022 pro-rata for 3 days) plus 5% interest as from the 1 July 2022.
- EUR 581 remaining salary for July 2022 plus 5% interest as from 1 August 2022.
- EUR 1500 remaining salary for August 2022 plus 5% interest as from 1 September 2022.
- EUR 1800 remaining salary for October 2022 plus 5% interest as from 1 November 2022.
- EUR 1500 remaining salary for November 2022 plus 5% interest as from 1 December 2022.
- EUR 6000 December salary 2022 plus 5% interest as from 1 January 2023.
- EUR 654 as flight tickets reimbursement plus 5% interest as from 11 October 2022.
- EUR 475 as outstanding housing allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2022.
- EUR 66,000 as compensation for breach of contract (residual value), plus 5% interest as
from 2 January 2023.
- “The value of two flight tickets (return) for the route Latvia – Bosnia and Herzegovina + 5%
interest as from 2 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.”
19. In this context, the player argued that he had just cause to terminate the contract due to
the club’s non-compliance with paying the full salaries for several months.
20. Moreover, he held that he was “forced to train alone as of 1 December 2022” and that he was
requested to re-join the club’s reserve team on 28 December 2022.
b. Position of the club / counterclaim
21. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against the player
and his new club, FK Sarajevo, requesting the following:
- EUR 350,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of 3
January 2023;
- “Establish that the Player’s new club, FK Sarajevo, induced the Player to commit the Contract
termination without just cause;
- Establish that the Player’s new club, FK Sarajevo, shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of
the compensation to FK Liepaja;
- Impose sporting sanctions on the Player in forms of six-month restriction on playing in official
matches;
- Impose sporting sanctions on the Player’s new club, FK Sarajevo, in form of ban from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, for three entire and consecutive registration
periods”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9031
22. The club argued that the player had no just cause to terminate the contract as there is no
outstanding remuneration due to the player.
23. In this context, the club held that the player “never requested execution of the warranty letter”.
24. As to the alleged outstanding remuneration, the club held that the player’s salary consisted
of a basic salary and a personal allowance (cf. point 3 above). In this context, the club held
that it fined the player for parts of his personal allowance during the months August,
October and November 2022.
25. Therefore, the club held that it does not have any debt to the player as it remitted EUR
30,013.71 as well as EUR 1,250 for the months of July until November 2022. Further, the
club held having remitted the salary for December 2022 with two payments on 12 and 16
January 2023.
26. It maintained that the club had big expectations in the player and that he, after recovering
from an injury in August 2022, failed to take part in “preventive and rehabilitation measures
(sauna and massage)” without permission, while having issues with his weight.
27. In October 2022, the player returned overweight after a break and after not being chosen
by the coach for the starting eleven, the player had disagreements with the head coach,
which resulted in further fines.
28. Moreover, the club argued that after a good training camp in the beginning of December
2022, the club gave the player off until 28 December 2022, in order to start training with
the reserve team. This decision was taken by the head coach due to the recent history of
the player coming back overweight.
29. The club further maintained that it subsequently received the player’s default notice dated
16 December 2022. It also held that it did not receive the notice dated 1 December 2022.
30. The club rejected that the player was forced to train alone during the training camp in
Turkey and reiterated that its decision to let him train with the reserve team was based on
his weight issues and would have resulted in his reintegration in the first team as soon as
the fitness would have allowed it.
31. Moreover, the club held that the player acted in bad faith when terminating the contract
as he would have had other options to collect his alleged outstanding monies before
terminating.
32. According to the club, the player’s intention was to find a new club and to avoid the
payment of the buyout established in art. 9.4. of the contract.
33. Shortly after his termination, he signed with FK Sarajevo.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9031
c. Reply of the player to the counterclaim
34. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player reiterated his position and rejected the club’s
counterclaim.
35. The player pointed out that the club acknowledged the debt of June and July 2022 in its
“warranty letter”.
36. Furthermore, the player argued that the club focused in its argumentation that art. 14bis
RSTP was not complied with, but failed to recognize that the he terminated the contract
with just cause in accordance with art. 14 RSTP.
37. Moreover, the player rejected the club’s argumentation that his “fixed salary” was only EUR
4,200 as the contract clearly stipulates EUR 6,000 net. Further, he pointed out that the
calculation of 30% “personal allowance” and EUR 4,200 does not add up and should be
disregarded.
38. The player rejected the documentation about his weight and that he was overweight.
39. As to the deductions imposed on his salaries, the player held that due process was not
followed and that there is no contractual basis to deduct money from this “personal
allowance” as it was done by the club.
40. Taking into account of the above, the player argued that there was no basis to issue partial
payments and therefore he held that more than two monthly salaries remained
outstanding and therefore he had just cause to terminate the contract.
41. The player stated: “Some of the payments were made after initiation of the FIFA proceedings.
Even with those additional payments made after the termination of the contract, the debt
towards the Counter Respondent is not fulfilled.”
42. The player also rejected that he in bad faith tried to “force” a contract termination. He held
that he earns less money under his new contract and that he finding new employment was
the result of the actions of the club.
43. Additionally, the player reiterated that demoting him to the reserve team was “illegal”.
44. Alternatively, in case the DRC decides that the player has to pay compensation, he argued
that art. 9.4. of the contract shall not be applied as it is not reciprocal and proportionate.
d. Reply of FK Sarajevo to the counterclaim
45. FK Sarajevo rejected the club’s counterclaim in its reply and held that the player terminated
the contract with just cause.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9031
46. In this framework, FK Sarajevo pointed out that the alleged payment confirmations
submitted by the club are not translated and therefore do not proof any payments to the
player.
47. Further, FK Sarajevo argued that the fines imposed on the player appear to be “fabricated”
in order to cover the outstanding remuneration.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
48. 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 25 January 2023 and submitted
for decision on 2 August 2023. 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.
49. 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 (May 2023 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 player and a club.
50. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 January 2023, the October 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
51. 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).
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9031
c. Merits of the dispute
52. 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
53. 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 that the player had just
cause to terminate the contract on 2 January 2023.
54. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to decide if the player indeed
had just cause to terminate the contract or not, and to decide on the consequences
thereof.
55. On account of the above, the DRC noted that the matter at hand concerns a claim of a
player against a club for breach of contract, including a counterclaim of the club against
the player and his new club.
56. In this framework, the members of the Chamber took notice that according to the player,
he terminated the contract with just cause due to outstanding remuneration and since he
was demoted to the reserve team.
57. On the other hand, the DRC noted that the club argued that no amounts remained
outstanding, since
- the amounts corresponding to June and July 2022 were acknowledged in the
warranty letter;
- The basic salary of the player amounted to only EUR 4,200 (rest was personal
allowance)
- Fines were imposed on personal allowances
- The December 2022 salary (plus housing allowance) was paid in January 2023.
58. In this framework, taking into account the parties’ arguments, the DRC started to establish
what the player’s monthly salary was, since the club argued that only the basic salary of
EUR 4,200 was guaranteed, whereby the player held that the contract stipulates the
amount of EUR 6,000 net.
59. Taking into account the wording of the relevant clause (art. 5.1.1. of the contract), the DRC
concluded that a salary of EUR 6,000 was agreed between the parties. The members of the
Chamber wished to emphasize that the wording is not clear enough in order to establish a
“basic salary” of EUR 4,200 with bonuses up to EUR 6,000.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9031
60. On account of the above, the Chamber further noted that the player acknowledged receipt
of the following payments:
61. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the club indeed acknowledged the debt of EUR 1,161 in
its warranty letter dated 1 August 2022, corresponding to salaries resulting from June and
July 2022.
62. Moreover, the Chamber took note of the club’s argumentation that it validly imposed
deductions on from the personal allowances due the player’s behaviour. However, the DRC
wished to emphasize that there is no proof on file that those deductions or fines were
indeed imposed while following due process and granting the player the right to be heard.
63. Furthermore, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the DRC wished to point out
that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not
be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players.
Consequently, as those monies constitute a part of the player’s salary, the DRC decided to
reject the club’s argument in this connection.
64. Subsequently, the Chamber pointed out that the player was entitled to housing allowance
and flight tickets according to the contract. Since he provided the relevant receipts, the DRC
decided to take into account the outstanding amounts in this regard.
65. However, the members of the Chamber maintained that the salary for December 2022 was
not due yet when the player terminated the contract.
66. On account of the above, the DRC established that the total amount of EUR 7,110 remained
outstanding at the time of the termination, as follows:
- EUR 600 salary for June 2022
- EUR 581 remaining salary for July 2022
- EUR 1500 remaining salary for August 2022
- EUR 1800 remaining salary for October 2022
- EUR 1500 remaining salary for November 2022.
- EUR 654 as amounts resulting for the reimbursement of flight tickets
- EUR 475 as housing allowance
67. Furthermore, the player has provided written evidence of having put the club in default on
1 December 2022 and 16 December 2022 before unilaterally terminating the contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9031
68. It has to be noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the club, i.e. the untranslated bank receipts, do not
prove beyond doubt the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the player.
69. What is more, the allegation that the player had to train alone as of 1 December 2022 and
that he was requested to join earlier from holidays in order to train with the reserve team,
could not be discharged by the club. This fact in combination with the total outstanding
remuneration of more than one month occurring repeatedly within the last six months of
the contract, establish different breaches by the club.
70. Consequently, on account of the above, considering the specific situation of the case at
hand, the club had thus repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of
its contractual obligations towards the player, the DRC decided that the player had just
cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 2 January 2023 and that, as a
result, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with
just cause by the player.
71. On account of the above, the DRC rejected the club’s counterclaim.
ii. Consequences
72. 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 club.
73. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration as established above amounts
to EUR 7,110.
74. Moreover, the player acknowledged certain payments after the initiation of the
proceedings. Therefore, we propose to take into account the alleged payments of the club
in the amount of EUR 5,569 (12 and 16 January 2023).
75. The salary of December 2022 shall be awarded as outstanding remuneration. Taking into
account the payments after the initiation of the proceedings, an additional debt of EUR 331
(EUR 6,000-EUR 5,669) for the salary of December 2022 is added.
76. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination in the amount of EUR
7,441.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9031
77. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the due dates until the date of effective
payment.
78. Having stated the above, the Chamber 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
Chamber 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.
79. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber 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. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
80. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
81. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 66,000 (i.e. 11x EUR 6,000, January 2023 until November
2023) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
82. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9031
83. Indeed, the player found employment with FK Sarajevo. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 511 per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 2,555, that is, 5 times 511 (February 2023 until June 2023).
84. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 63,445 to the player (i.e. EUR 66,000 minus EUR 2,555), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
85. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 2 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
86. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
87. 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.
88. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
89. 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.
90. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9031
d. Costs
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9031
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, Slaviša Radović, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, FK Liepāja, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 600 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 July 2022 until the date of
effective payment;
- EUR 581 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
- EUR 1,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 November 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,460 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 January 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 63,445 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 2 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I 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.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
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 / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the
event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant-Counter-Respondent
I in accordance with art. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9031
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 16