Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-1936
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC Judge)
passed on 11 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Derrick Sasraku
COMPOSITION:
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Derrick Sasraku, Ghana
Represented by Yussif Chibsah
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FK Tirana, Albania
Page 2
REF FPSD-1936
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 1 August 2020, the Ghanaian player, Derrick Sasraku (hereinafter: Claimant / CounterRespondent or player), and the Albanian club, FK Tirana (hereinafter: Respondent / CounterClaimant or club) signed an employment contract valid from the date of signature until 31
May 2022.
2. In accordance with article 8.1 (a) of the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the
Claimant a monthly salary of EUR 3,000.
3. Article 8.2 stated as follows:
“The Club may deduct from compensation of the Player:
a) Player’s fines imposed under the provisions of this agreement and the Regulations of the
Club, UEFA and FIFA;
b) All amounts paid by the Club in favour of the Player with the prior consent of the player
(e.g. fees, fines imposed by the Government);
c) Any other amount, which should be clearly defined that the Player owes to the Club;
d) Amounts to compensate the damages caused by the Player to the Club’s estate, including
damages to the image/name of the Club;
e) In case of non-fulfilment of seasonal objectives such as qualifying for the European cup,
the Club can deduct 15% of the seasonal reward of the Player. Therefore, the monthly
salaries will be calculated previously 15% less that it is;
f) For June and July, the Player does not receive a salary.
4. According to article 15.3 of the contract: “Based on the fiscal legislation in force of the
Republic of Albania on salaries as well as any other remuneration will be expressed in gross
value”.
5. On 2 February 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, stating that the Respondent
had failed to pay four salaries in the amount of EUR 12,000, and granted the Respondent 10
days to comply with its financial obligations, however to no avail.
6. On 15 February 2021, the Claimant sent a second default notice to the Respondent reminding
it to comply with its financial obligations or he would terminate the contract.
7. On 23 February 2021, the Claimant sent another default notice to the Respondent reminding
it to comply with its financial obligations and also to immediately start on his medical care.
8. On 2 March 2021, the Claimant unilaterally terminated his contract with the Respondent
invoking just cause.
Page 3
REF FPSD-1936
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
9. On 4 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.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
10. According to the Claimant, in November 2020, he sustained an injury during a match and the
Respondent failed to properly provide him with medical care and that by mid-January 2021,
the President of the Club told him that he would need to leave the team as he was 'always
injured'. As a result, the Claimant submitted that he asked about his salaries, which were
outstanding since October 2020 and the residual value of the contract, however that the
President simply repeated that he had to leave.
11. The Claimant submitted that on 2 February 2021, he put the Respondent in default of payment
for his four outstanding salaries, related to the period between October 2020 and January
2021 and granted it 10 days to remedy its default.
12. In the same letter, the Claimant also complained about the manner in which the Respondent
treated his injury and stated that he had only been sent to the hospital for an X-ray and been
given a report in the Albanian language, which he did not understand and that no treatment
plan was being made to cure the injury. In this regard, the Claimant requested the Respondent
to immediately start with the proper medical treatment and care and to be provided with a
translation of this medical report, however to no avail.
13. The Claimant submitted that after several default notices to the Respondent went
unanswered, on 2 March 2021, he unilaterally terminated the contract with just cause.
14. As a result, the Claimant submitted that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract as indicated above.
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
-
EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to salaries for October
2020 to February 2021(EUR 3,000 x 5), plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due dates;
EUR 45,000 (15 months x EUR 3,000) as compensation for breach of contract plus
5% interest p.a. as of the due date;
The Claimant reserves the right to additional compensation of 6 months, should he
find new employment;
EUR 3,000 as legal costs;
Impose sanctions for breach of contract.
Page 4
REF FPSD-1936
b.
Position of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
16. The Respondent in its reply stated that the Claim of the Claimant is groundless and filed a
counterclaim against the Claimant, claiming the payment of compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 14,400, as ‘the amounts already paid to the Claimant’.
17. According to the Respondent, on 29 July 2020, 2 days before this contract entered into force,
it transferred the amount of EUR 4,000 to the Claimant via Western Union.
18. The Respondent also added that it secured the entry visa and the plane ticket for the Claimant,
but that he unreasonably delayed his arrival and only arrived in Albania on 9 September 2020.
19. Despite all the above, the Respondent submitted that the parties maintained a good working
relationship based on their binding employment contract until 23 January 2021, when the
Claimant left without any prior notice.
20. According to the Respondent, during the same timeline and period, the Claimant’s
representative “began open threats emphasizing ultimatums repeatedly while threatening to
terminate the contract”.
21. According to the Respondent, it is clear that the current dispute is made up by the Claimant,
who seeks to profit to the detriment of the Respondent.
22. In regards to the alleged outstanding salaries, the Respondent submitted that based on articles
8 and 15 of the contract, the Claimant’s monthly salary is a gross amount of EUR 3,000.
However, it added that according to article 8.2(e) “the month salary will be calculated
previously 15% less than it is” and that after the deduction of 15%, the Claimant’s salary
amounts to EUR 2,550 gross.
23. Additionally, according to the Respondent, based on the contract and on the fiscal legislations
in force in Albania, the Claimant’s monthly salary amounts to EUR 1,955 net.
24. The Respondent added that it paid the Claimant a total of EUR 10,000 as follows:
-
EUR 4,000 sent via Wester Union on 29 July 2020;
EUR 3,000 on 13 November 2020;
EUR 2,000 on 17 December 2020;
EUR 1,000 on 30 December 2020.
25. In continuation, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant left the Respondent on 23
January 2021 without any notice, and on 16 March 2021, he left Albania. As a result of this,
the Respondent added that the Claimant was fined EUR 3,000.
Page 5
REF FPSD-1936
26. As a result of the above, the Respondent submitted that based on the RSTP, the contract
cannot be terminated unilaterally during the season. For this reason, the Respondent
submitted that the unilateral termination of the contract on 3 March 2021 is illegal.
27. The Respondent added that in the notification dated 15 February 2021, the Claimant did not
guarantee, nor fulfil the 15 days’ deadline and for this reason, this notification does not have
the legal force specified in article 14bis. According to the Respondent, the lack of a regular
notice also leads to the invalidity of the notice especially, because the termination of the
contract is as a result of inaccurate amounts and months of unpaid salaries.
28. In regards to the Claimant’s medical situation, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant’s
allegation that he was injured in November 2020 is untrue, as during this period he participated
in all matches including trainings. The Respondent also denied the allegation that it did not
take care of the Claimant’s medical needs.
29. According to the Respondent, given the fact that the Claimant left in the middle of the season,
which constitutes a serious breach of contract as well as the termination of the contract
without legal grounds, it has the right to claim compensation for breach of contract.
30. In this regard, the Respondent added that compensation in the amount of EUR 14,400 is
sought, only for the expenses that the club has made so far as follows:
-
EUR 4,000 Western Union payment;
EUR 6,000 paid through the bank;
EUR 2,800 house rent;
EUR 1,600 round-trip plane tickets.
c. Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s reply to the counterclaim
31. The Claimant in its response to the counterclaim stated that the Respondent indeed tried to
send EUR 4,000 via Western Union, but that the instruction never came through, because the
Respondent did not fill out the right details and/or upload the correct documentation.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent was asked by Western Union to "contact Western
Union at the Agent locations phone number within 5 days of submitting the transfer", but
that it failed to do so and as a result, the payment was not successful.
32. According to the Claimant, the Respondent should have submitted evidence that this money
was received and picked up and not a document, initiating the alleged transaction. Therefore,
according to the Claimant, the amount of EUR 4,000 cannot be considered to be paid and
therefore cannot be reimbursed or deducted from the salaries.
33. The Claimant confirmed that he indeed arrived in Albania on 9 September 2020, but that this
was as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown in Ghana, which led to unavailability of flights and
that the Respondent was award of this issue.
Page 6
REF FPSD-1936
34. In regards to the alleged flight costs in the amount of EUR 1,600, the Claimant stated that the
Respondent submitted no proof of this and that if it happened, it was an offer on the part of
the Respondent, as there was no agreement in this regard.
35. The Claimant denied that the parties had a good relationship, since he had not been paid and
been treated poorly by the Respondent. The Claimant added that he only left in March 2021,
after he terminated the contract.
36. The Claimant also rejected the Respondent’s submission that the amount due was gross and
submitted that in accordance with the jurisprudence of FIFA DRC, if it is not specified whether
an amount is net or gross, said amount is considered to be net. The Claimant further added
that art. 8 par. 2 of the contract indicated the circumstances under which the Respondent was
allowed to deduct money, and tax was not specified.
37. Additionally, from the payments to his bank account, the Claimant noted that the Respondent
paid the amount of EUR 6,000 in total. In other words, it paid two salaries in full without any
deductions. Therefore, this proves that the Respondent did not pay any tax and has not
provided any objective document that they did pay tax or provided the tax law of Albania. The
Claimant stated that the Respondent could not deduct tax payments it has not effectively paid.
38. Furthermore, the Claimant added that art. 8 par. 2 e) of the contract cannot be invoked as it
is abusive and the objectives were not specified clearly. It is also the jurisprudence of FIFA that
a club cannot put a negative bonus in the contract. The club is allowed to grant extra money
for good performance, but cannot deduct from the salary in case the player does not reach
certain goals, which is per se abusive. According to the Claimant, a bonus payment should be
to incentivize players.
39. In regards to the alleged wrongful termination, the Claimant submitted that the termination
was not only based on the notice of 15 February 2021, as he had already sent several notices
before this. Regardless of this, the Claimant added that there were more than two outstanding
salaries at the date of termination (2 March 2021) and he therefore had a just cause to
terminate the contract.
40. In regards to his medical situation, the Claimant submitted that the Respondent contradicted
its statement that he was never injured by submitting medical reports that confirm that he was
injured. Additionally, the Claimant invited the FIFA DRC to note that the documents are in
Albanian, as he stated in his claim.
41. The Claimant confirmed the payment of EUR 6,000 to his account by the Respondent but
added that these payments made in November and December 2020 were set off against the
oldest debt, which was the salary of August and September 2020. Those were paid and the
Claimant clarified that he has never claimed them.
42. In regards to the Respondent’s request to be reimbursed EUR 2,800 for rent, the Claimant
submitted that he was provided with a flat by the Respondent but that no agreement was
Page 7
REF FPSD-1936
made that any rent would be deducted from salaries. In addition, the Claimant noted that no
proof of payment is submitted by the Respondent.
43. In regards to the alleged fine imposed on the Claimant by the Respondent, the Claimant
submitted that it appears that this notice was sent to the wrong email address, as he never
received it. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, the information contained in the
document is incorrect, as he only terminated the contract on 2 March 2021. Regardless of
this, the Claimant noted that the Respondent was already in default of its payment obligations
at this point.
44. In conclusion, the Claimant requested the DRC to reject the allegations and counterclaim of
the Respondent.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC)
JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
45. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) (hereinafter also referred to as DRC Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 March 2021 and submitted for
decision on 11 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2021 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 at hand.
46. Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 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 Ghanaian player and
an Albanian club.
47. Subsequently, the DRC Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (February 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 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
48. The DRC Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of
the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
Page 8
REF FPSD-1936
fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC Judge stressed the wording
of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed
by the parties.
49. In this respect, the DRC Judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining
to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained
in TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
50. The competence of the DRC Judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC Judge started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations, he 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
51. The foregoing having been established, the DRC Judge moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note that according to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to fulfil its contractual
obligations by not paying his contractually agreed salaries. As a result, the Claimant is of the
opinion that he terminated the contract with just cause and is entitled to outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
52. On the other hand, the DRC Judge noted the Respondent’s submission that it had paid all of
the Claimant’s salaries on time and that based on article 15.3 of the contract, the Claimant’s
salary in the amount of EUR 3,000 is to be considered gross and that in accordance with article
8.2 (e) of the contract, after the 15% deduction, the Claimant’s salary amounts to EUR 2,550
gross. Additionally the DRC Judge noted the Respondent submission that in accordance with
the fiscal legislations of Albania in force, the Claimant’s salary is EUR 1,955 net.
53. The DRC Judge further took note of the Respondent’s counterclaim against the Claimant for
expenses incurred in the execution of the contract in the amount of EUR 14,400.
54. In this context, the DRC Judge acknowledged that it was his task was to determine whether
the contract was terminated with just cause and if as a result, the Claimant was entitled to
compensation for breach of contract.
55. Taking into account the documentation on file, the DRC Judge first of all noted that the
Respondent did not submit corroborating documentary evidence of the alleged fiscal
legislation, or decisive proof that it made any fiscal payments on behalf of the Claimant.
Additionally, since based on the elements on file, the DRC judge was not able to determine
what the exact net amount the Claimant would entitled to would be, as well as the fact that
Page 9
REF FPSD-1936
the Respondent appears to have made two payments of around EUR 3,000, the DRC Judge
decided to reject the argumentation submitted by the Respondent. In conclusion, the DRC
deemed that – for this particular case – the amounts mentioned in the contract would in
principle have to be considered net.
56. In continuation, the DRC Judge noted that both parties confirmed the fact that the Respondent
made a payment of EUR 6,000 to the Claimant’s bank in November and December 2020.
However, the DRC Judge noted that according to the Respondent, these were partial payments
made to the Claimant.
57. In this regard, the DRC Judge however noted that nowhere in the contract a reference is
made to ‘partial payments’ to be made to the Claimant and that the Respondent did not
submit evidence of communication, informing the Claimant that these were indeed partial
payments. The DRC Judge therefore deemed that based on article 8.1 (a), it would be
reasonable for the Claimant to assume that the Respondent was making payment of two
already outstanding salaries for August and September in the amount of EUR 6,000.
58. As a result, the DRC Judge decided to reject this part of the Respondent’s submission and
concluded that the Claimant’s monthly salary amounted to EUR 3,000 net.
59. Taking into account the documentation on file and the submissions of the parties, the DRC
Judge noted that at the date of contract termination (2 March 2021), more than 5 salaries
were outstanding, namely the salaries for the period between October 2020 and February
2021. Therefore, according to the DRC Judge, the Respondent seriously neglected its
obligations towards the Claimant.
60. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the DRC Judge concluded that the Claimant – based
on the outstanding salaries – had terminated his contract with just cause on 2 March 2021
and is therefore entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract. What is more, based on the foregoing, the DRC judge decided to reject the
Respondent’s counterclaim, as it was the Respondent, which was effectively in breach of its
financial obligations.
ii. Consequences
61. Having stated the above, the members of the DRC Judge turned his attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
62. Taking into account the documentation on file and the submissions of the parties, the DRC
Judge decided to award the amount of EUR 15,000 as outstanding salaries, corresponding to
the outstanding payments for the months of October 2020 to February 2021 (EUR 3,000 per
month).
Page 10
REF FPSD-1936
63. What is more, in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC and PSC in this
respect, as well as taken into account the request of the Claimant, the DRC Judge decided to
award 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 15,000 as of the due dates until the effective
date of payment as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 November 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 December 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 January 2021;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 February 2021;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 March 2021.
64. In continuation, the DRC Judge decided that, taking into consideration the Claimant’s
respective claim and art. 17. par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from
the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries
on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
65. In this context, the DRC Judge outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 Claimant 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.
66. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract and concluded that this was not the case.
67. In this regard, the DRC Judge noted that the residual value of the contract in the period
between March 2021 and 31 May 2022 amounts to EUR 45,000 (EUR 3,000 x 15 months).
Consequently, the DRC Judge concluded the amount of EUR 45,000 shall serve as the basis
for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
68. In continuation, the DRC Judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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, 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 Claimant’s
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
69. In this regard, the DRC Judge noted that the Claimant remained unemployed and that
therefore, no further mitigation shall be applied to the amount of EUR 45,000.
Page 11
REF FPSD-1936
70. In view of all the above, the DRC Judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to EUR 45,000
as compensation for breach of contract, which the DRC judge considered to be a fair and
proportionate amount in the matter at hand.
71. What is more, in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC and PSC in this
respect, as well as taken into account the request of the Claimant, the DRC Judge decided to
award 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 45,000 as of 4 March 2021, the date of claim,
until the effective date of payment.
72. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of
the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in
accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the
Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses in the amount of EUR 3,000.
73. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. Finally, taking into account the above, the DRC Judge referred to par. 1 lit. and 2 of art. 24bis
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.
75. In this regard, the DRC Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum
duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent must pay
the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
77. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
Page 12
REF FPSD-1936
78. The DRC Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to
its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
79. The DRC Judge referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of
contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and
a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the DRC Judge decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
80. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the DRC Judge recalled the contents of art. 18 par.
4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in
these proceedings.
81. Lastly, the DRC Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC) JUDGE
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Derrick Sasraku, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, FK Tirana, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, EUR 15,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. until the date
of effective payment as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 November 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 December 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 January 2021;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 February 2021;
- on the amount of EUR 3,000 as of 1 March 2021.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
amount of EUR 45,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of
4 March 2021 until the effective date of payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
Page 13
REF FPSD-1936
7.
Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid 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 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
paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Office
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 14