Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5281
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 09 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Seydouba
Soumah
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
COLUCCI, Michele (Italy), Member
RIESTRA, Iñigo (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Seydouba Soumah, Guinea
Represented by Lyrique Du Plessis
RESPONDENT:
Kuwait SC, Kuwait
Page 2
REF FPSD-5281
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 28 September 2021, the player from Guinea, Mr Seydouba Soumah (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant), and the club from Kuwait, Kuwait SC (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from 2 October 2021 until 30
June 2022 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
In accordance with article 3 of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the
player a total remuneration of EUR 1,000,000, payable in Kuwaiti Dinars (KWD) as follows:
a. EUR 250,000 as “an advance payment to be paid after the player passes medical and
physical test and delivery of the international card”;
b. EUR 750,000 “divided on the period of the contract as monthly salaries”;
c. EUR 30,000 “in case the player joined the team and participates during the final match
of the Amir Cup season 2020 and the club won’s the title”;
d. EUR 70,000 “in case the club wins the national league season 2021/2022”;
e. EUR 50,000 “in case the club wins the Amir Cup season 2021/2022”; and
f.
3.
EUR 50,000 “in case the club wins the Crown Prince Cup season 2021/2022”.
Article 17 of the employment contract read as follows:
“If the player convicted with misconduct or violating the club system or the Board of
Directors decisions or Kuwait Football Federation rules, regulations and decisions or this
contract instructions or provisions, the club may impose the penalties corresponding to
the nature of violations, misconduct or breaches especially in the following events:
1) Violating the instructions issued by the club management, the Federation or his
failure to execute them.
2) Violating the provisions of the contract concluded between the club and the player.
3) Violating the instructions of the team coach or the manager.
4) The player is punished by refereed through warnings and dismissal from the match
or suspension from the Federation.
5) Failure to attend training or delay beyond its designated time or non-series
participation.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5281
6) Failure to attend the matches he is instructed to participate in or he participated but
he showed no faithful efforts or seriousness in the play.
7) Misconduct or behaviour unfits for the reputation or the sportsman in the country.
8) Failure to attend the treatment program in cases of the injury or sickness.
[The club] may terminate the contract unilaterally in case the player continued wrong
behaviour which leads to harms the interest of the club and [the club] shall reserve his
rights to claim a compensation equivalent all the money paid and to the contract
advance payment and his due salaries for the period from the contract date of
termination until the end of this term. The aforesaid penalties shall be issued upon
decisions taken by the club Board of Directors”.
4.
Article 19 of the employment contract read as follows (quoted verbatim): “[the player] is
entitled for (4) Business class tickets for him, and his family during the contract period from
his home to Kuwait and return”.
5.
On 27 October 2021, the player signed an acknowledgement of receipt of KWD 87,304
(cheque no. 004737), corresponding to his advance payment.
6.
On 16 December 2021, the player sent the club a notice acknowledging inter alia that he
was prevented to join the club’s training sessions and to play in official matches since 1
December 2021. Consequently, he requested the club: “to provide [him] with the necessary
conditions for sports participation, as well as effective participation in training, and in official
matches, as well as other preparatory or instrumental activities of sports competition, ensuring
the right to effective occupation, in the limit of 15 days, under penalty of appeal to the
competent regulatory, legal and judicial procedures applicable and the player hall be entitled
to terminate the contract with just cause with the right to compensation and to be imposed
sportive sanctions on the club”.
7.
On 19 February 2022, the player sent the club a second notice. In this opportunity, he
acknowledged that the club had supposedly terminated the employment contract during
the month of January 2022 “without his knowledge and without [the club] providing him with
any notice”. Consequently, he requested the club, until the following day, to “(i) cancel the
unilateral termination […]; (ii) accept [the player] to return to the club and assume his duties
with the first team; (iii) permit [the player] to train for the first team; and (iv) comply with all
contractual conditions of [the player’s] employment”.
8.
The player remained unemployed after the termination of the employment contract.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5281
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 25 February 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
10. In his claim, the player explained that ”in or during November 2021, the Claimant was
involved in some verbal altercations with the Respondent’s first team coach (Coach). After the
aforesaid altercations, the management of the Respondent informed the Claimant that he was
to stay home and not train with the Respondent, and to do so until further notice. The
Respondent, in person, advised the Claimant that these measures were taken in order to avoid
any possible future and further conflict”.
11. Nevertheless, the player stated that he lodged several “follow-up requests” with the club;
however was merely told to wait for further advice. What is more, he referred to his notice
dated 16 December 2021 and maintained that “in or during December 2021, the Respondent
instructed the Claimant to report for training once more. This training, however, was not with
the Respondent’s first team, as it had been before. Rather, the Claimant was subjected only to
training with the Respondent’s under-17 team’s coach”.
12. In continuation, the player mentioned that he travelled to Kuwait in January 2022 to
participate in the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) and was subsequently informed that the
club wanted to sign a new foreigner player and terminate his employment contract. In
this context, the player confirmed having participated in two meetings with the club to
settle the financial consequences of a termination, however alleged that it promised him
to perform payments that were never completed.
13. Notwithstanding the above, the player claimed that by the end of February 2022, the local
media reported his dismissal, prompting him to serve the club with a second notice, to
no avail.
14. As to his remuneration, the player acknowledged having received two payments of EUR
83,200 each “in or during January 2022” and filed a copy of his banking statement.
Moreover, the player informed that: (i) the advance payment of EUR 250,000 was not paid
by the club and the cheque previously assigned to him could not be deposited and was
returned; and (ii) he was only provided with one out of the four business flight tickets
from Guinea to Kuwait.
15. Based on the above, the player claimed that the employment contract was prematurely
terminated by the club without just cause. He referred to the jurisprudence of FIFA and
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the matter and pointed out, inter alia, that (i)
the club wanted to register a new foreigner player hence terminating his contract; and (ii)
Page 5
REF FPSD-5281
he was prevented from training, constituting a breach of contract by the club in line with
the jurisprudence.
16. As a consequence, the player requested to be awarded compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 833,600 (i.e. EUR 1,000,000 minus EUR 166,400 already
received) plus EUR 29,397.77 corresponding to the price of the flight tickets, and interest
as from the due dates.
17. Finally, the player requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club.
b. Reply of the club
18. On 21 March 2022, the club filed its reply to the claim. Accordingly, it initially stressed that
the player had never returned the advance payment, moreover that it has also delivered
the salaries from November to February 2022.
19. In continuation, the club referred to article 17 of the employment contract and claimed
that the player breached his obligations by fighting with the coach. Furthermore, it argued
that the flight tickets mentioned in the employment contract “are to be used during the
period of the contract in case the player continued his contract, but as from the beginning he
created problems with the team coach, refusing to follow instructions, creating negative
atmosphere in the training of course he didn’t leave any choice for us to preserve the team,
except trying to convince the coach that the claimant will adjust his behaviour in future, that
is why we tried our best to maintain the player in form by asking him to train during this period
under the supervision of one of our best coaches (holder of professional training diploma) until
reaching an agreement with the coach, who agrees to receive the player”.
20. Likewise, the club mentioned that “the behaviour of the claimant enforced the club to replace
him by another player, at the same time continue paying him his dues”.
21. Based on the above, the club concluded that its obligations had been already fulfilled.
c. Rejoinder of the player
22. On 28 March 2022, the player submitted comments on the club’s reply. Initially, he
highlighted that the club did not provide any proof of the alleged “fight” with the coach
moreover suggested that the video was not conclusive about “any particulars as to this
altercation”.
23. In continuation, the player insisted that the cheque of EUR 250,000 was returned to the
club “so that the Respondent could electronically transfer such amount to the Claimant” and
filed audio messages in support of his allegations.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5281
24. Furthermore, the player underlined that the proof of payment of his salaries filed by the
club confirmed that the payments were delayed. Specifically, he acknowledged receipt of
the following amounts:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The salary of November 2021 on 18 January 2022;
The salary of December 2021 on 18 January 2022;
The salary of January 2022 on 7 February 2022; and
The salary of February 2021 on 9 March 2022.
25. As to the termination of the employment contract, the player is of the opinion that the
club accepted his allegations. Accordingly, he argued that the club decided to hire a new
foreigner, hence was forced to terminate its employment relationship with the player
without just cause. The player also reiterated his argumentation as to his right to render
services and to play with the first team of the club.
26. In light of the foregoing, the player amended his claim and requested to be awarded:
a. EUR 11,238.71 as interest over the delayed salaries; and
b. EUR 667,200 as the residual value of the employment contract (EUR 1,000,000
minus 4 salaries) plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date.
d. Final comments of the club
27. On 5 April 2022, the club filed its final comments on the matter. In doing so, it once again
opposed the player’s argumentation and insisted that the advance payment was properly
delivered.
28. Furthermore, the club highlighted its coach’s experience and curriculum and condemned
the player’s behaviour towards him. In this respect, the club argued that it was forced to
find a replacement to the player outlining, however, that all the financial obligations had
been settled.
29. Together with its submission, the club submitted a proof of payment of the player’s salary
of March 2022.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 25 February 2022 and
Page 7
REF FPSD-5281
submitted for decision on 9 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
October 2021 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
31. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22, par.
1, lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 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
Guinean player and a Kuwaiti club.
32. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 February 2022, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
33. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by
or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
34. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note that it pertains to the termination of the employment contract and
the consequences that follow.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5281
36. In this context, the Chamber was mindful of the player’s argumentation that the club
prematurely terminated the employment contract in February 2022 and shall be liable to
pay him interest over the delayed salaries and compensation for breach of contract. On
the other hand, the DRC noted that the club confirmed that the contractual relationship
was terminated, however argued that it was only due to the player’s behaviour and the
club’s need to hire a new foreign player. Furthermore, the club stressed that all the
financial obligations towards the player were complied with.
37. In light of the above, the DRC considered that its task was to determine the following:
a. Was the employment contract terminated? When and by whom?
b. Was the employment contract terminated with or without just cause?
c. What are the consequences that follow?
38. The members of the Chamber proceeded then to analyse each matter.
A. Was the employment contract terminated? When and by
whom?
39. After a thorough analysis of the documentation brought forward by the parties, the DRC
outlined that there was no formal proof of termination on file. Nevertheless, the Chamber
acknowledged that it remained undisputed that in November 2021 the player and the
club’s head coach incurred in a “verbal altercation” following which the player was
requested to stop rendering services. Additionally, the club confirmed that due to this
situation, it was forced to substitute the player for a new foreigner, hence their
employment relationship was prematurely terminated.
40. Against this background, the DRC noted that on 19 February 2022 the player wrote to the
club and inter alia requested confirmation within the following day of the club’s intention
to terminate the employment contract. Moreover, the members of the Chamber were
also observant that the club failed to provide any reply to said correspondence and –
according to the player and to the documentation on file – ceased to contact his
representatives.
41. In view of the foregoing, the DRC was of the opinion that, by failing to respond to the
player’s letter within the deadline granted, the club confirmed its intention to terminate
their contractual relationship in that it demonstrated tacitly that it was no longer
interested in the player’s services. As such, the Chamber decided that the employment
contract was de facto terminated by the club on this date (i.e. 20 February 2022).
Page 9
REF FPSD-5281
B. Was the employment contract terminated with or without
just cause?
42. Having established the above, the Chamber moved to the analysis of the just cause. In
doing so, the DRC recalled its well-established jurisprudence according to which only a
breach or misconduct that is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract.
In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit the
expectation that the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties
can continue, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s
fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an
employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever
be an ultima ratio measure.
43. With the above in mind, the DRC observed that the parties concurred that the termination
of the employment contract took place due to the “verbal altercation” occurred between
the player and the head coach. What is more, the Chamber found it noteworthy that the
club: (i) confirmed the player’s position according to which he was prevented from joining
the club’s training sessions and official matches; (ii) did not submit any evidence that it
put the player in default for breach of contract, nor that the player‘s conduct was
somehow discussed in a disciplinary sphere; and (iii) apart from inviting the player to join
the U-17 team, did not advance any proof that it tried to remedy the situation before
ending the employment relationship.
44. Accordingly, the DRC was satisfied with the conclusion that the club could have taken
more lenient measures before terminating the employment contract. What is more, the
members of the Chamber wished to outline that the videos submitted by the club in
support of its allegations were not sufficient per se to justify the termination of the
contract – especially when considered that the club did not advance any evidence that the
player had already incurred in another breach, and because the videos simply do not
corroborate the club’s position regarding the player’s behaviour.
45. In followed, in accordance with the DRC, that the termination was abrupt and,
consequently, not an ultima ratio measure.
46. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also wished to highlight that – conversely to
the club’s argumentation – the content of article 17 of the employment contract did not
impact the abovementioned conclusion because: (i) it only grants the club the right to
terminate the employment contract in case of “continued” breach and by decision of the
Board of Directors, which does not appear to have happened in the case at stake; and (ii)
in any event, the provision has a clear potestative nature in light of the solid jurisprudence
of the DRC, and thus cannot be upheld.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5281
47. Therefore, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided that the employment
contract was terminated by the club without just cause.
C. What are the consequences that follow?
48. At this point, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
49. Initially, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the club should be liable to pay to the player the amounts which
were outstanding under the employment contract at the moment of the termination.
50. In this respect, the DRC underlined that the player acknowledged receipt of his salaries
from November until February 2022, however with a delay. Taking into consideration his
requests for relief and the standard approach of the DRC, the latter decided that he
should be awarded 5% interest p.a. over such payments as from the respective due dates
until the date of effective payment, as follows:
a. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 December 2021 until 18 January 2022;
b. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 January 2022 until 18 January 2022;
c. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 February 2021 until 7 February 2022; and
d. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 March 2021 until 9 March 2022.
51. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the parties’ position regarding the
advance payment of EUR 250,000. In particular, the DRC noted that the player
acknowledged having received a cheque from the club but informed that it could not be
deposited due to banking difficulties. On the other hand, the Chamber was also mindful
of the club’s position according to which the amount was properly delivered to the player.
52. In view of this dissent between the parties, the DRC found it crucial that: (i) the club
provided convincing evidence that it delivered the cheque to the player; (ii) the player
signed an acknowledgement of receipt in October 2021; (iii) the player did not put the
club in default nor requested payment of such advance payment until the date of the
claim; and (iv) the player did not file any evidence of having returned the cheque to the
club (e.g. receipt, confirmation in writing, default notices). On the contrary, the player only
submitted WhatsApp audios that, in the Chamber’s view, did not make explicit reference
to the advance payment nor to the quantum due.
53. Consequently, the DRC decided that the player did not meet his burden of proof (cf. art.
13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules), hence that this specific part of his claim should be
rejected.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5281
54. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law
of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including
in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
55. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by
the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
56. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
57. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the
employment contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 334,000 (i.e. EUR
1,000,000 minus EUR 250,000 as advance payment minus EUR 416,000 as the salaries paid)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
58. For the sake of completeness, the DRC wished to clarify at this point that:
•
the club filed proof of payment of the salary of March 2022 (i.e. EUR 83,200) during
the course of the proceedings and the player did not advance any counterproof
whatsoever. Therefore, the DRC considered that such amount should also be
considered paid and deducted from the calculation of the residual value of the
employment contract; and
•
Nevertheless, as the player did not continue rendering his services to the club, the
flight tickets should not be included in the calculation.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5281
59. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
60. Indeed, the player remained unemployed after the termination of the employment
contract, hence was not able to mitigate his damages.
61. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 334,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
62. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim (i.e. 25 February 2022) until
the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
64. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
65. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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 club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5281
66. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
67. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
68. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.
69. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
70. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5281
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Seydouba Soumah, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kuwait SC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- 5% interest p.a. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 December 2021 until 18 January 2022;
- 5% interest p.a. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 January 2022 until 18 January 2022;
- 5% interest p.a. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 February 2022 until 7 February 2022;
- 5% interest p.a. on EUR 83,200 as from 1 March 2022 until 9 March 2022; and
- EUR 334,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25
February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5281
2.
The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 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 16
REF FPSD-5281
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 17