Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 February 2020,
in the following composition:
Clifford J: Hendel (USA), Deputy Chairman
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands ), member
Daan De Jong (Netherlands ), member
on the claim presented by the club,
S porting Clube de Portugal, Portugal,
represented by Messrs Juan de Dios Crespo, José Carlos Oliveira & Alfonso
León Lleó
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the player,
Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal,
represented by Messrs Rebelo and Macedo
as Respondent I / Counter-Claimant
and against the club,
Al Ain FC, UAE,
represented by Mr Nezar Ahmed
as Respondent II
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 27 December 2017, the Portuguese player, Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro
(hereinafter: the player or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant) and the Portuguese club,
Sporting Clube de Portugal (hereinafter: Sporting CP or the Claimant / CounterRespondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from
11 January 2018 until 30 June 2020.
2.
According to the contract, the player was entitled to the following fixed remuneration:
(a) Signing-on fee of EUR 250,000 payable in 2 instalments of EUR 125,000 each, on 28
February 2018 and 11 September 2018 respectively;
(b) For season 2017/18: EUR 504,000 payable in 6 instalments of EUR 84,000 each, as from
11 February 2018 for the month of January 2018;
(c) For seasons 2018/19 and 2019/20: EUR 1,008,000 per season, payable in 12 instalments
of EUR 84,000 each, as from 11 August of 2018 and 2019, respectively, for the
preceding month.
3.
According to art. 10 of the contract, he player has the right to terminate the contract
unilaterally under the following conditions:
(a) The termination occurs during the period from 1 June and 1 July of each sports
season, with Sporting CP to be notified 15 days in advance ofthe date when the
termination shall become effective;
(b) Together with such notification an immediate payment of EUR 60,000,000 is made
to the club;
(c) Once the conditions under a. and b. are fulfilled, Sporting CP undertakes to release
the player and authorise the Portuguese FA to forward the ITC upon request.
4.
Art. 11 of the contract stipulates that “The Parties agree to confer exclusive and final
competence to settle any dispute arising out of this Contract or related with same to the
Tribunal Arbitral do Desporto (TAD)”.
5.
In addition, according to art. 12 of the contract, in the event that a party terminates the
contract without just cause, the counterparty shall be compensated for damages caused
as follows:
(a) If Sporting CP terminates the contract without just cause, it undertakes to pay to the
player a compensation amounting to the residual value of the contract, from which
it can deduct remuneration to be received by the player under a new contract
corresponding to the duration of the breached contract.
(b) If the player terminates the contract without just cause, “notably by violation of
clause ten of this contract, his transfer to a third club shall depend on the payment
to [the club] of the amount of € 60,000,0000 …, without prejudice to the right
assisting [Sporting CP] to require the player to pay the compensation set out in the
labour legislation.”
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 2 of 12
6.
On 15 May 2018, a group of i around 50 individuals, members of an association of
supporters following Sporting CP, illegally entered Sporting CP’s facilities and proceeded
to break in the building where the first team, including the player, was hosted. Some of
Sporting CP’s employees and players were physically threatened and/or attacked.
7.
On 13 June 2018, the player terminated the contract invoking just cause. In this respect,
the player held that Sporting CP had breached its legal and contractual obligations and
had caused harm to his personal and professional dignity as well as has his physical safety
and integrity, which led him to fear for his life and impaired the minimum conditions
required to exercise his activity as professional player. Making also reference to
Portuguese labour law and the “collective employment contract” entered into between
the Portuguese league and the union of professional players, the player stated that
those conditions had been breached, making the employment relationship no longer
sustainable.
8.
On 30 July 2018, the “Comissao Arbitral Paritari (CAP)” (hereinafter: CAP) in Portugal
ruled that the player had unilaterally terminated his contract, and issued a confirmation
on 15 October 2018 which confirmed that its decision passed on 30 July 2018 became
final and binding, a decision which validated the player’s termination for “sports
purposes”. The decision stipulated that “he can proceed to the celebration of sports
employment contract with third parties”.
9.
On 17 October 2018, the player subsequently signed with the Emirati club, Al Ain FC
(hereinafter: Al Ain) valid as from 1 October 2018 until 30 June 2019, and according to
which the player would earn a total fixed remuneration of EUR 825,000 payable as
follows:
(a) Signing on fee of EUR 105,000 within 30 days of signature;
(b) Monthly salary of EUR 80,000 payable in 9 instalments as from 31 October 2018 until
30 June 2019.
10.
In this respect, Al Ain entered a transfer instruction in the Transfer Matching System
(hereinafter: TMS) and requested the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC)
to Sporting CP on 4 January 2019, which was sent by the Federação Portuguesa de
Futebol (hereinafter: FPF) on the same day. The United Arab Emirates Football
Association (hereinafter: UAEFA) confirmed receipt of the ITC on 30 January 2019.
11.
On 30 October 2018, Sporting CP lodged a claim against the player, requesting the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber to rule that the player had no just cause to terminate the
contract, and that as a consequence he and Al Ain must be held jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation of an amount of EUR 62,188,600 + 5% interest p.a. as from
14 June 2018, corresponding to :
(a) EUR 2,188,600 as the residual value of the contract prematurely terminated;
(b) EUR 60,000,000 as per art. 12 of the contract;
(c) CHF 40,000 as legal costs;
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 3 of 12
(d) and a 6 month playing ban on the player and two consecutive registration period
ban against Al Ain should be imposed.
12.
On 13 December 2018, the player replied to the claim of Sporting CP and first argued
that the claim is not admissible. Alternatively, the player deemed that he had just cause
to terminate the contract and lodged a counterclaim, requesting the following amounts:
(a) EUR 2,188,600 as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest p.a. as from 14
June 2018;
(b) CHF 40,000 of legal expenses;
(c) and that a transfer ban of two entire consecutive registration periods be imposed
on Sporting CP.
13.
In its reply to the claim of Sporting CP, Al Ain rejected the claim of Sporting CP.
Alternatively, Al Ain requested that the amount of compensation (if any) due to
Sporting CP should be EUR 599,946 and that such amount shall be reduced to nil
pursuant to art. 44 par 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
Adm is sibility :
14.
The player rejected Sporting CP’s position as to the jurisdiction of FIFA. In fact, the player
contested the international dimension of the dispute, as it concerns a Portuguese club
and a Portuguese player. The player first made reference to the exclusive arbitration
clause in art. 11 of the contract which clearly stipulates that any dispute arising from the
contract should be heard by the “Tribunal Arbitral do Desporto (TAD)” (hereinafter:
TAD), the Portuguese court of arbitration for sport.
15.
Further, the player made reference to ongoing criminal proceedings involving the player
and Sporting CP and which are at the basis of the unilateral termination. The player
consequently emphasised that it was not within FIFA’s powers to decide upon criminal
matters and that in view of all the above the claim should be deemed not admissible.
16.
Al Ain also argued that the competent body to assess the dispute between the player
and Sporting CP was the relevant Portuguese court in line with the relevant national law
of the country.
17.
Sporting CP was of the opinion that the dispute should be heard by FIFA in view of the
fact that the claim is of an international dimension since an ITC was requested and the
player signed a contract with a non-Portuguese club.
S ubs tance:
18.
The player emphasized that since January 2018, the then-president of Sporting CP at the
time started to put pressure on all the players via the media and via social media
channels, allegedly bullying them during team meetings and creating a threatening
environment around the team. He stated that such toxic atmosphere culminated in the
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 4 of 12
training ground attack on 15 May 2018, and insinuated that the then-president of
Sporting CP may have played a role in organizing this attack against the players.
19.
The player stated that on that day, the attackers forced their way inside the club’s
facilities and attacked the players in the changing room where they had retreated. He
further alleged that the safety and security measures put in place by Sporting CP could
not guarantee the safety of the players, that he did not receive any support afterwards,
and as such highlighted that he could not continue the working relationship. In fact, the
player made reference to ongoing criminal proceedings in which the player is involved
as the claimant and two of Sporting CP’s club officials at the time (including its president
at the time of the attack) are accused of having organized said attack.
20.
The player indicated that in August 2018 he tried to discuss an amicable solution with
Sporting CP at his own initiative, and presented an offer from a French club, which was
rejected by Sporting CP. The player emphasized that he had not been contacted to
return after his termination by Sporting CP. What is more, the player stated that after
the election of the new president of Sporting CP, he once again tried to discuss an
amicable solution in September 2018, to no avail.
21.
Sporting CP for its part vehemently denied the accusations of the player regarding the
negative atmosphere around the team. In particular, Sporting CP explained that the
different messages published and/or sent by its former president to the press or to the
team captains were (a) not directly addressed to him, (b) more rallying cries with
constructive criticism in order to bring better results rather than personal threats, (c) and
that in any case those critics after results and performances below the level of
performance expected were part and parcel of the job of a professional footballer. In
fact, Sporting CP referred to the “specificity of sport”, an industry with “strong public
exposure” and higher level of scrutiny and consequently criticism.
22.
Regarding the training ground attack on 15 May 2018, Sporting CP stipulated that it
could not in any way condone these criminal actions, and emphasized that it took all
possible measures to guarantee the safety of its employees (i.e. acting in respect of UEFA
and the Portuguese FA safety and security regulations, club officials tried to refrain the
attackers from entering the facilities), and that such extraordinary event was out of its
control. Sporting CP underlined that “[it] as an employer cannot be held liable against
every incident which potentially might happen”, and, pointing out to several incidents
that had occurred between fans and players of other Portuguese teams, declared that
those confrontations were quite common in Portugal.
23.
As a consequence, Sporting CP stated that the player did not have just cause to terminate
the contract. Sporting CP emphasized that:
(a) The severity of the incident on 15 May 2018 did not amount to a violation of the
player’s personality rights and that he was not exposed to mobbing of any kind
throughout their contractual relationship;
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 5 of 12
(b) The player did not send any complaint and/or warning and/or attempted to discuss
his situation with Sporting CP and what is more the termination took place a month
after the allegedly disturbing events, suggesting a possible opportunism in the
player’s conduct;
24.
In this respect, Sporting CP indicated that after the aforementioned events, it had
appointed a new president with whom the player had discussed a transfer on 19
September 2018, a sign that the player’s allegations about the unsustainability of the
contractual relationship since the events of May 2018 were contrived.
25.
In fact, Sporting CP stated that the player rather appeared unwilling to continue the
contractual relationship and sought to become a free agent in order to obtain a more
lucrative contract elsewhere.
26.
On the other hand, the player insisted on the fact that he was in his own right to have
terminated the contract and signed with a new club. The player provided with a
correspondence issued on 15 October 2018 by the CAP which confirmed that its decision
passed on 30 July 2018 became final and binding, a decision which validated the player’s
termination for “sports purposes”. The decision stipulated that “he can proceed to the
celebration of sports employment contract with third parties”. What is more, the player
pointed out that Sporting CP did not oppose the issuance of the ITC to Al Ain.
27.
Al Ain argued that the player presented himself at the beginning of October 2018 as a
free agent, and referred back to the decision of the CAP which confirmed that the player
was free to register with a new club.
28.
In this respect, Sporting CP highlighted that the CAP only took a decision as to the
administrative correctness of the procedure of the termination, i.e. if the player
respected the provisions sets out in art. 10 lit. (a) of the contract, but clearly stipulated
that it was not in a position to take a decision as to the existence (or absence) of just
cause.
29.
Finally, with reference to clause 12 of the contract, Sporting CP indicated that said clause
constituted a liquidated damages clause, which was mutually agreed by the parties upon
signing and which was proportional. In fact, Sporting CP pointed out the reciprocity of
the clause (i.e. the party unilaterally terminating the contract without just cause owes
the residual value of the terminated contract to the other party), and explained that the
EUR 60,000,000 additional compensation due in case of the player unilaterally
terminating represented the mutually agreed sporting value of the player.
30.
The player deemed that such compensation was totally disproportionate, bearing in
mind that Sporting CP paid a transfer fee of EUR 400,000 when he recruited him in
December 2017, and should be therefore deemed invalid.
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 6 of 12
31.
Al Ain stated that this clause was “unfair” and in any case not due as the player
terminated with just cause, and that in any case was invalid due to its lack of
proportionality and reciprocity. Al Ain then proceeded to calculate the amount of
compensation that would be in principle due to Sporting CP, and determined that such
compensation should correspond to EUR 599,946. Al Ain based its calculation on Court
of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter: CAS) jurisprudence, and, inter alia, took into
account the loss of a transfer fee, the cost of replacement, the value of the new contract
etc.
32.
Al Ain however argued that such compensation should be reduced to nil, in view of the
fact that Sporting CP “laid the ground for damages” by causing the unilateral
termination in line with art. 44 par. 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
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 submitted to FIFA on 17 October 2018 and
decided on 20 February 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019
edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter.
2.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese
club, a Portuguese player and an Emirati club.
3.
The DRC however acknowledged that the player and Al Ain contested the competence
of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 25 of the contract, alleging that the
competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment
contract is the TAD.
4.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that Sporting CP insisted on the competence of
the FIFA DRC to adjudicate on the claim it lodged against the player and Al Ain, in view
of the international dimension of the dispute given by the issuance of the ITC.
5.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art.
22 lit. a) of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear ”disputes between clubs and
players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability (articles 13-18) where
there has been an ITC request and a claim from an interested party in relation to said
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 7 of 12
ITC request, in particular regarding the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or
compensation for breach of contract.”
6.
In this respect, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties that art. 22 a)
applies to disputes between players and clubs of the same nationality, where the
international dimension is given by the issuance of an ITC, provided also that an
interested party disputes such request and/or claims sporting sanctions or compensation
for breach of contract.
7.
At this point, the DRC deemed it necessary to remind the parties that differently from
art. 22 b) of the Regulations, art. 22 a) does not foresee the possibility for the parties to
“explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be decided by an independent arbitration
tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement”.
8.
Having said that, the Chamber observed that the player and Sporting CP are both from
Portugal and that the issuance of his ITC by the FPF in favour of the UAEFA is at the basis
of the present claim for breach of contract. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber
confirmed that all pre-requisites of art. 22 a) of the Regulations are fulfilled and
therefore the DRC is competent to decide on the present dispute.
9.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC pointed out that neither Sporting CP nor the
player had lodged an employment-related claim in front of the TAD, and that the
decision of 30 July 2018 issued by the “Comissao Arbitral Paritari (CAP)” in Portugal
merely established that the player’s contract was unilaterally terminated, but did not
analyse the justice (or injustice) of such termination.
10.
Having established that it is competent to decide on the merits of the present dispute
on the basis of art. 22 lit. a) of the Regulations, the Chamber analysed which edition of
regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the
Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020), and considering that the claim
was lodged on 30 October 2018, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
11.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the
Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 6 par.
3 of Annex 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 8 of 12
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence
generated or contained in the TMS.
12.
First of all, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 27 December 2017, the player and
Sporting CP had concluded an employment contract valid as 11 January 2018 until 30
June 2020, pursuant to which the club undertook to pay to the player the remuneration,
as established in point I./2. above.
13.
Furthermore, the DRC took note of the fact that on 13 June 2018 the player unilaterally
terminated the contract, after having been subject to an attack at the training ground
of Sporting CP on 15 May 2018.
14.
Then, the DRC acknowledged that on 17 October 2018, Sporting CP lodged a claim
against the player for having terminated the contract without just cause on 15 May 2018,
and, inter alia, claimed compensation in the amount of the residual value of the contract
along with what Sporting CP argues to be a liquidated damages clause contractually
agreed by the parties. In particular, the Chamber observed that Sporting CP declared
that the player had used the events that took place at its training ground on 15 May
2018 as an excuse to terminate the contract and seek a better deal elsewhere. What is
more, the Chamber noted that Sporting CP requested for Al Ain to be held jointly and
severally liable for the payment of compensation.
15.
Subsequently, the DRC observed that the player rejected the claim of Sporting CP and
lodged a counterclaim against the Portuguese club, requesting, inter alia, the residual
value of the terminated contract. In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that the player
held that he had just cause to terminate the contract in view of the fact that the
president of Sporting CP had created a toxic atmosphere around the team and had
organised an attack perpetrated by followers of the club on 15 May 2018. As such the
DRC observed that the player was of the opinion that Sporting CP failed to provide its
duty of care and that the contractual relationship had become unsustainable.
16.
Lastly, the Chamber remarked that Al Ain rejected the claim of Sporting CP, and argued
that the compensation requested by Sporting CP should be reduced to nil.
17.
In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this dispute,
considering the parties’ position, was to determine whether the player had just cause to
terminate the employment contract and to determine the consequences thereof.
18.
First and foremost, the Chamber emphasised that the events that occurred at the
training ground of Sporting CP on 15 May 2018 were appalling. In this respect, and
despite Sporting CP stating that such events were part and parcel of the profession of a
footballer, the DRC insisted that it could not condone the actions of the individuals that
perpetrated the attack on that day as something to be normally expected in the sporting
life.
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 9 of 12
19.
Without entering the analysis of the alleged toxic atmosphere within the Portuguese
club during the second part of season 2017/2018, the Chamber highlighted that in
principle, the player would have just cause to terminate the contract after those
individuals physically threatened the players of Sporting CP in the changing room of the
training ground where they retreated. In particular, the DRC emphasised that such
experience in one’s workplace is undoubtedly traumatising, and understood that it
cannot be expected from any player to normally resume the contractual relationship
after such traumatic experience. What is more, the DRC pointed out that Sporting CP
blatantly failed to provide its duty of care towards its players at this particular moment
in time.
20.
The Chamber, however, highlighted that the player terminated the contract on 13 June
2018, that is to say 1 month after the aforementioned events took place, and went on
to determine whether the player still had just cause to terminate the contract on 13 June
2018.
21.
After a thorough analysis of all the circumstances of the present case, the Chamber
concluded –by majority, the Chairman exercising his casting vote -- that the player still
had just cause to terminate the contract on 13 June 2018 based on the traumatic events
he had been through on 15 May 2018, and that the contractual relationship with the
club had been definitely broken at that point, Sporting CP having failed to provide its
duty of care to the player..
22.
The Chamber however considered that, while the point in time of the termination by
the player may not have deprived him of having had a just cause to terminate the
contract, even 1 month after the incident took place, it would certainly have an
influence on the financial and sporting consequences of such termination.
23.
In this respect, the DRC highlighted that from the information on file, Sporting CP in
fact undertook some measures to improve a situation which was proven to be
unsustainable for the continuation of the club’s and its players’ activities, the most
relevant of which being the dismissal of the club’s then-president, which significantly
improved the working conditions for the players. Thus, even though the player was still
considered to have had just cause to terminate the contract on 13 June 2018, mainly
based on the traumatising violence experience at his workplace, the Chamber deemed
that the unilateral termination at a point in time where the club had already taken
effective measures to transform the previous situation would deprive the player of
receiving any amount of compensation from the club.
24.
Therefore, without entering the analysis of the elements of art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the DRC established that the player in spite of having had just cause to
terminate his contract with Sporting CP on 13 June 2018, lost his right to receive any
amount of compensation due to the point in time in which the decision to unilaterally
terminate the employment contract was made.
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 10 of 12
25.
Noting that no outstanding remuneration was claimed by the player, the DRC concluded
its deliberations by rejecting the claim of Sporting CP and partially accepting the claim
of the player.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Sporting Clube de Portugal, is
admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
3. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, is
partially accepted.
4. It is established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has terminated the employment
relationship with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with just cause.
5. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for compensation for breach of contract
is rejected.
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 11 of 12
6. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note related to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS
directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the
elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant
shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS.
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Sporting Clube de Portugal, Portugal / Player Ruben Tiago Rodrigues Ribeiro, Portugal / Al Ain FC, United Arab
Emirates
Page 12 of 12