Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2352
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Thato Sefoli
BY:
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewood (Uruguay & the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Thato Sefoli, South Africa
Represented by South African Football Players Union
RESPONDENT:
Lioli FC, Lesotho
Page 2
REF FPSD-2352
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 18 March 2020, the Government of Lesotho declared the state of emergency due to the
outbreak of Covid-19.
2.
Accordingly, by means of circular dated 26 March 2020, the Lesotho Football Association
(LeFA) proceeded with the suspension of every football related activity, originally until 22 April
2020.
3.
On 13 July 2020, the South African player, Thato Sefoli (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
Lesotho club, Lioli FC (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as
from the same date until 30 June 2021.
4.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia a fixed monthly salary of M 10,000 (Lothi).
5.
Furthermore, the contractual chapter titled as “Termination” established as follows:
“This contract may be terminated by:
(..) 2. The Player if Lioli is in breach of any obligations hereunder and the breach
continues for a period of 14 days after notice in writing by the Player to Lioli requiring
the breach to be remedied”.
6.
Moreover, the chapter denominated “Dispute” stated that:
In the event of a dispute arising between the parties during the term of this Contract
or following the termination hereof, the matter will be referred for determination to
the club's internal structures.
In the case that internal structures fail to resolve matter in 30 days, the parties will
refer the matter to the Arbitrator appointed by the club after advising the player of its
intention to do so. A request for determination by an aggrieved party should be made
in writing to the other party, shall contain a precise statement of the issue in dispute
and all relevant facts giving rise to the dispute. The Arbitrator's decision is final. The
matter may only be referred to external structures if it is not resolved after 90 days
sitting with the Arbitrator.
7.
On 5 January 2021, LeFA suspended once again every football-related activities until 27
January 2021.
8.
On 16 February 2021, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the termination of the
employment contract due to the latter having delayed part of the Claimant’s salary due for 5
months, namely as of the end of September 2020 until January 2021.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2352
9.
By letter dated 17 February 2021, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s notice of
termination, arguing that in accordance with the employment contract the latter should have
firstly put in default the Respondent and granted a deadline of 14 days in order to comply
with its financial obligations.
10. Contextually, the Respondent argued that as the Claimant had not rendered any service to
the Respondent during the period in which the league had been suspended for the Covid-19
outbreak, then the Respondent would have not been compelled to pay the Clamant’ salary.
11. After having acknowledged the lack of previous default notices pursuant to the relevant
contractual provision aforementioned, the Claimant decided to disavow the termination of
the employment agreement dated 16 February 2021.
12. On 4 March 2021, the Claimant informed the Respondent to be finally entitled to terminate
the employment contract as 15 days had elapsed since his last notice dated 16 February 2021.
13. By letter dated 10 March 2021, the Respondent reiterated its position by denying to hold any
debts towards the Claimant because of the above mentioned league suspension and
contextually objected to the validity of the Claimant’s notice letter as the latter did not
specifically grant any deadline to the Respondent.
14. Subsequently, the Claimant remained unemployed until the end of the employment contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 23 April 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
16. According to the Claimant, the Respondent shall be liable for outstanding remuneration and
breach of contract due to overdue payables.
17. In particular, the Claimant argued that the Respondent has never denied having failed with
the payment his salary for the period referred in the notice letter and instead simply invoked
- in bad faith - the Covid-19 outbreak as force majeure in order to justify the noncompliance
with its financial obligations towards the Claimant.
18. As a consequence, in the Claimant’s view, all the amounts claimed remained uncontested by
the Respondent.
19. Accordingly, the Claimant submitted the following request for relief:
Page 4
REF FPSD-2352
Outstanding Salary for September 2020 – M 5,000.00;
Outstanding Salary for October 2020 – M 5,000.00;
Outstanding Salary for November 2020 – M 3,000.00;
Outstanding Salary for December 2020 – M 5,000.00;
Outstanding Salary for January 2021 – M 5,000.00;
Outstanding Salary for February 2021 – M 10,000.00
Compensation for breach of contract by the club: M 40,000
5% interest on the outstanding amounts as of the relevant due dates
5% interest on the compensation as of the date of the claim
b. Position of the Respondent
20. In a preliminary plea, the Respondent objected to FIFA’s jurisdiction over the present matter,
arguing that pursuant to Lesotho Football Association Statutes (LeFA Statutes) and
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, the domestic Players’ Status Committee
shall be the only judicial body competent for solving the dispute.
21. In this respect, the Respondent submitted copy of the abovementioned Statutes and
Regulations, which are reported here below for the sake of clarity:
“Article 33 of the Lesotho Football Association Statutes (2020 edition)
“(..) LeFA shall have jurisdiction on all internal national disputes, that is disputes between
parties belonging to LeFA. FIFA shall have jurisdiction on international disputes, that is,
between parties belonging to different Associations and/ or Confederations.”
Article 24 of Lesotho Football Association Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
“Lesotho Football Association is competent for:
• 1) Disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual
stability
•
2) Employment related disputes between a club or an academy and a player that
have a local dimension, through an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and
club or academies that shall be established by LESOTHO FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
and/ or collective bargaining agreement. A copy thereof is annexed hereto and
marked "LFC1"
22. In this context, the Respondent stated that the relevant domestic judicial body shall be
recognized as an independent and fair tribunal according to the standards requested by the
FIFA Regulations and FIFA Circular n. 1010.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2352
23. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant shall be recognized as a player from
Lesotho because he got affiliated to the LeFA by accepting the terms and conditions of the
employment contract which referred directly to the LeFA Statutes and Regulations.
24. Concerning the substance, and in a subsidiary way, the Respondent argued that as the
Claimant had not rendered any service to the club during the period in which the league had
been suspended because of the Covid-19 pandemic, accordingly the Respondent’s financial
obligations towards the Claimant had ceased for the entire period of suspension.
25. In this respect, the Respondent individuated in the Covid-19 outbreak a case of force majeure
which would entitle a club to deny its duties against every player who could not perform any
professional activity.
26. Lastly, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant undertook to respect the residual duration
of the contract after the unsuccessful termination notice dated 16 February 2021 and to
apologise for all the mistakes he had committed, as for example “by inciting an internal
rebellion against the club’s management”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to
as Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this
respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 April 2021 and
submitted for decision on 6 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
October 2021 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), said edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
28. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is,
in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a South African player and a club
from Lesotho.
29. However, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s objection according to which the
LeFA Players’ Status Committee shall be recognized as the competent judicial body in casu.
30. Taking into account all the above, the Single Judge emphasised that in accordance with art.
22 lit b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is, in principle, competent
to deal with employment-related disputes of an international dimension; the parties may,
Page 6
REF FPSD-2352
however, explicitly opt in writing for any disputes arisen between them to be decided by an
independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle
of equal representation of players and clubs that has been established at national level within
the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such
arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining
agreement applicable on the parties. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an
independent arbitration tribunal existing at national level, the Single Judge referred to the
FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the Single Judge referred to the
principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard
Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
31. In relation to the above, the Single Judge also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic
conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is
competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or
national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract.
32. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Single
Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost,
analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a
clear, specific and exclusive arbitration clause.
33. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the employment contract expressly foresees the
referral of any dispute arising from the same agreement to the internal club’s structures and,
eventually, to an arbitrator appointed by the same club, without - however – any right for the
players to appeal the relevant decision.
34. Nevertheless, it appeared evident to the Single Judge that such provision would clearly fail in
guaranteeing the players a fair and independent proceeding, either at a national and
international level, being the entire proceeding inter alia conducted under the influence of
the same club.
35. Besides the above, the Single Judge observed that no further provisions in the employment
agreement would discipline the arbitration of potential disputes arising from the same
contract.
36. Lastly, the Single Judge wished to remark that even in the case of referral by the employment
agreement to the Lesotho Football Association Statutes and Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, said provisions would have not excluded FIFA’s jurisdiction over the
present matter.
37. In fact, the same regulations above mentioned expressly confine their scope of application to
the potential disputes having a local dimension, and this would appear particularly evident by
reading art. 24 par. 2 and 3, which states the following:
Page 7
REF FPSD-2352
“Article 24 – LESOTHO FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION Competence
LESOTHO FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION is competent for:
2. Employment-related disputes between a club or an academy and a player that have a local
dimension, through an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and
respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs or academies that shall
be established by LESOTHO FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION and/or a collective bargaining
agreement;
3. Employment-related disputes between a club or an Academy and a coach that have a local
dimension through an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings”
38. In view of all the above, the Single Judge established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected and that the Single
Judge is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
39. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (August 2021 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 April 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
40. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge stressed the
wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
41. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2352
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
42. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the Respondent contested the Claimant’s demand for
outstanding remuneration on the basis of the latter’s inability to provide any service because
of the state of emergency declared after Covid-19 outbreak.
43. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, in view of the above, the Respondent contested
also the Claimant’s decision to terminate the employment contract on 4 March 2021 as said
termination would have occurred in violation of the contractual provisions.
44. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to assess whether by the
date of termination the Claimant was entitled to any outstanding remuneration from the
Respondent and to subsequently verify whether the conditions which might justify the
unilateral termination of the employment relationship by the Claimant would subsist.
45. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that the employment contract was initially
terminated by the Claimant on 16 February 2021.
46. Nonetheless, the Single Judge recalled that upon the Respondent’s objection to the first
termination letter, the Claimant had instead decided to consider said letter as sole default
notice and to subsequently communicate the effective termination as of 4 March 2021.
47. Therefore, the Single Judge established that such date shall be taken into consideration as
the only relevant with regard to the termination of the employment contract.
48. In this context, the Single Judge observed that at the abovementioned date, the Respondent
had failed to pay the Claimant a total of M 33,000, namely because the latter had received
only M 5,000 out of M 10,000 for the months of September, October, December 2020 and
January 2021, M 7,000 out of M 10,000 for the month of November 2020 and no salary for
the month of February 2021.
49. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent justified such partial suspension
of the salary payment due to the Covid-19 outbreak and connected suspension by the LeFA
of the football related activities in January 2021.
50. Having said that, the Single Judge wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide
COVID-19 outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at
providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their
stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and
ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020,
FIFA has issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides
clarification about the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory
consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
Page 9
REF FPSD-2352
51. The Single Judge highlighted that based on the COVID-19 Guidelines, as well as the FIFA
COVID-19 FAQ, the COVID-19 outbreak is not a force majeure situation in any specific
country or territory. What is more, the COVID-19 Guidelines do not exempt an employer from
paying a player’s salary. Additionally, analysing the concept of a situation of force majeure,
the Single Judge noted that, based on the contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the
FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, FIFA did not declare that the COVID-19 outbreak was a force majeure
situation in any specific country or territory, or that any specific employment or transfer
agreement was impacted by the concept of force majeure. In other words, in any given
dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to establish the existence of said event under
the applicable law/rules as well as the consequences that derive in connection thereto. The
analysis of whether a situation of force majeure existed has to be considered on a case-bycase basis, taking into account all the relevant circumstances.
52. Furthermore, in the Single Judge’s view, the Respondent failed to demonstrate the real impact
of Covid19 on its financial resources, hence no exception to the aforementioned principle can
be granted in casu.
53. In view of the above, the Single Judge is of the opinion that the (partial) salary suspension
applied by the Respondent for the months of September, October, November, December
2020 and January and February 2021 was not justified and that consequently the
remuneration outstanding at the time of termination of the employment contract amounts
to M 33,000, which are the equivalent of more than 3 salaries.
54. With the above in mind, and considering the position taken by the Respondent, the Single
Judge concluded that, by the date in which the contract was terminated by the Claimant,
there was no apparent reason for the latter to believe that the Respondent would have been
willing to restore the contractual status quo, hence the termination of the employment
agreement represented de facto the only valid solution.
55. In fact, although the first letter of “termination” dated 16 February 2021 cannot be
technically defined as a default notice, it shall be observed that at that moment the
Respondent had already accumulated 2 months and a half of delay with the payment of the
Claimant’ salary, hence the latter would have certainly had the right to put in default the
Respondent.
56. In the Single Judge’s view, the Respondent’s position as manifested inter alia by means of
letter dated 17 February 2021, clearly indicated the lack of any will to remedy its default,
while it appears evident that the same Respondent had tried to force the Claimant to accept
an unlawful situation, namely by preventing the latter from moving to other clubs without
however be willing to pay the salary contractually agreed.
57. Therefore, considering that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of
time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, without any valid
Page 10
REF FPSD-2352
justification, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the employment contract on 4 March 2021. As a result, the Respondent is to be
held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the
Claimant.
ii. Consequences
58. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
59. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, amounts to M 33,000.
60. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided on the basis of the principle pacta sunt
servanda to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts
as from the relevant due dates until effective payment.
61. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so,
the Single Judge 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.
62. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
63. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters
set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Single Judge recalled that said provision
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
64. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract
Page 11
REF FPSD-2352
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of M 40,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
65. In continuation, the Single 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 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.
66. However, in casu, the Claimant remained unemployed until the end of the contract
prematurely terminated, i.e. 30 June 2021.
67. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
M 40,000 to the Claimant (i.e. M 10,000 * 4 months), which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
68. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 April 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24bis
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned
party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due
time.
70. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
71. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of
Page 12
REF FPSD-2352
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.
72. 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.
73. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
74. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.
75. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
76. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2352
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Thato Sefoli, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Lioli FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
Loti 5,000.00 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October
2020 until the date of effective payment.
Loti 5,000.00 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November
2020 until the date of effective payment.
Loti 3,000.00 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December
2020 until the date of effective payment.
Loti 5,000.00 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2021 until the date of effective payment.
Loti 5,000.00 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2021 until the date of effective payment.
Loti 10,000.00 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March
2021 until the date of effective payment.
Loti 40,000.00 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 23 April 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban shall
be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2352
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-2352
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16