Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3283
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Adam
Mieczyslaw Stachowiak
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
FLORES CHEMOR, Mario (Mexico), Member
SARTORI, Stefano (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak, Poland
Represented by Bora İmadoglu
RESPONDENT:
Altay SK, Turkey
Represented by Ercan Sevdimbas
Page 2
REF FPSD-3283
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 February 2021, the Polish player, Mr Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant), and the Turkish club, Altay SK (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31
May 2021, with a two seasons’ extension option (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
In accordance with clause 3 of the employment contract, for the remaining part of the
2020/2021 season the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia, the following
remuneration:
a. EUR 15,000 net as advanced payment, due with the signature of the employment
contract;
b. EUR 50,000 net in four monthly and equal instalments of EUR 12,500 net each, payable
in February, March, April and May 2021;
c. EUR 50,000 net as a collective bonus in case the club was promoted to the Turkish
Super League at the end of the 2020/2021 season.
3.
In addition, clause 3 of the employment contract also read as follows:
“If [the player] plays in 10 Turkish Football Federation 1st league matches and above in the
top eleven in the 2020-2021 football season, additional payment of EUR 10,000 (ten
thousand euros) shall we made to [the player].
If [the club’s] team rises to the Super League at the end of the 2020-2021 football season,
[the player] shall be paid EUR 50,000 (fifty thousand euros) Super League promotion bonus.
This contract between the parties shall be extended in the following financial and special
conditions to cover the 2020-2021 football season if [the club’s team] is promoted to the
Super League at the end of the 2020-2021 season. Any of the club or [the player] can notify
in writing the Turkish Football Federation Directorate of Professional Football Players
Registration, as of the end of the 2020/2021 football season of the Turkish Football
Federation 1st League and within a maximum 10 days after registration by the Turkish Football
Federation, for the extension option of the contract to be transferred to the registrations of
the Turkish Football Federation. If [the club] does not rise to the Super league in the 20202021 season, the contract shall terminate automatically.
The conditions of the contract extended due to the option if [the club’s team] is in the Super
league in the 2021-2022 football season.
In the 2021-2022 football season, a warranty fee of EUR 428,000 (four hundred twenty eight
thousand euros) shall be paid to [the player] in the following conditions.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3283
-
The total of EUR 428,000 (four hundred wight thousand euros) shall be paid to [the player]
he starting from August 2021 and including May 2022, for a total of 10 months as EUR
68,000 in the first month and EUR 40,000 (forty thousand euros) the next 9 months.
-
If [the player] plays in 25 Turkish Football Federation 1 league matches and above in the
top 11 in the 2021-2022 football season, additional payment of EUR 50,000 (fifty
thousand euros) shall be made to [the player]”.
4.
On 21 April 2021, the club’s Board of Directors issued a decision by means of which the
player was fined on EUR 12,500 (i.e. one monthly salary) due to his aggressive attitude during
a training session.
5.
On 29 April 2021, the club’s Board of Directors issued a second decision by means of which
the player was fined on EUR 25,000 (i.e. two monthly salaries) due to his aggressive attitude
while requesting a letter of permission to be dismissed of a training session.
6.
On 9 June 2021, the club sent a letter to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) stressing that
the extension option included in the employment contract was not exercised by the parties
during the relevant time period.
7.
On 11 June 2021, the player put the club in default and granted it with a 15 days’ deadline
in order to proceed the payment of EUR 100,000 (i.e. his salaries from February, April and
May and the bonus for the promotion to the Super League), under penalty of terminating the
employment contract with just cause.
8.
On 15 June 2021, the player wrote to the TFF and recalled that the club was promoted to the
Turkish Super League, hence that the employment contract was automatically extended. The
player requested the TFF to take the “necessary action”.
9.
On 18 June 2021, the TFF replied to the player’s notice and, inter alia, stressed that the
extension option was not exercised within the specified period, therefore was not processed.
A letter with the same content was sent to the club on 3 September 2021.
10. On 22 June 2021, the club replied to the player’s notification and informed that the
employment contract had already expired on 31 May 2021 “because the parties have not
used its extension option on the defined period”. In addition, the club recalled that a fine of
EUR 37,500 was imposed on the player, so that the outstanding remuneration amounted to
EUR 60,540.
11. On 29 June 2021, the player notified the club the termination of the employment contract
due to overdue payables.
12. In accordance with the information available in the Transfer Match System (TMS), the Turkish
2020/2021 season ended on 30 June 2021.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3283
13. On 20 August 2021, the player and the Turkish club, Denizlspor Kulubu Dernegi (hereinafter:
DK Dernegi) entered into a new employment agreement valid as from the date of signature
until 31 May 2023. Accordingly, the player is entitled to receive a total remuneration of EUR
30,000 net for the 2021/2022 season.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 10 August 2021, 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
15. In his claim, the player alleged that he performed all his obligations under the employment
contract, however that the club failed to honour its financial duties. In this respect, the player
referred to the default notice sent to the club on 11 June 2021 and remarked that: (i) he had
never been informed of any disciplinary fine imposed by the club, hence that they should be
disregarded; and (ii) the payments indicated by the club in its counter notice were already
considered in his calculation.
16. In addition, the player highlighted that the club was indeed promoted to the Super League,
entailing that the employment contract was automatically extended for the 2021/2022
season. As such, the player deemed that he terminated the relationship with just cause.
17. Consequently, according to the player, the club shall be liable to pay the following amounts:
a. EUR 98,051 net as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
(i)
EUR 12,500 net as the salary of February 2021, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28
February 2021;
(ii) EUR 12,500 net as the salary of March 2021, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31
March 2021;
(iii) EUR 12,500 net as the salary of April 2021, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April
2021;
(iv) EUR 12,500 net as the salary of May 2021, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May
2021; and
(v) EUR 48,051 net as the balance of the bonus for promotion, plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 26 May 2021.
b. EUR 428,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the full
remuneration for the 2021/2022 season, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 June 2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3283
b. Reply of the club
18. In its reply, the club stated that the employment contract expired on 31 May 2021 and was
not extended for the following season. In particular, the club pointed out that the extension
would be subject to the player sending a notice to the TFF within the relevant period, what
was not done. Likewise, the club pointed out that the player’s request for extension was
rejected.
19. In continuation, the club claimed that the disciplinary fines should be taken into consideration
for the calculation, amounting to EUR 37,500. In this respect, it clarified that the player had
“an aggressive and hostile behaviour” and was legitimately sanctioned by the Board of
Directors.
20. Alternatively, the club informed that the player signed a new contract with DK Dernegi that
should be taken into consideration for the sake of mitigation in case the extension of the
employment contract was deemed valid.
21. Finally, the club requested the player’s claim to be dismissed.
c. Rejoinder of the player
22. In his rejoinder, the player reiterated his argumentation as to the extension of the employment
contract. Specifically, the player alleged that “the fundamental and sole condition that is
necessary for the extension of the employment agreement dated 1 February 2021 is the
Respondent to promote to Super League”. Likewise, the player claimed that the notification
to the TFF was a formal requirement, for information purposes only, hence that the
employment contract was still in force at the time of the termination for overdue payables.
23. As to the disciplinary fines, the player remarked that he was not notified of the decisions.
Moreover, he stated that said fines “are unlawful and a clear attempt of the Respondent to
mitigate its duties towards the Player on that date”.
24. The player confirmed the signature of a new employment agreement with DK Dernegi, and
amended his requests for relief in order to request mitigated compensation amounting to
EUR 398,000 net (i.e. EUR 428,000 minus EUR 30,000).
d. Final comments of the club
25. In spite of being invited to do so, the club failed to timely submit its final comments.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
Page 6
REF FPSD-3283
26. 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 10 August 2021 and submitted for decision
on 25 November 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), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
27. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 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 Polish player and a
Turkish club.
28. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 August 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
29. 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
30. 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
31. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the case at hand pertains to a claim for outstanding
Page 7
REF FPSD-3283
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract. The parties strongly dispute whether
the extension option included in the employment contract was exercised for the 2021/2022
season and the consequences that follow.
32. In this context, the DRC considered that it was its task to determine the following:
a. Was the employment contract extended to the 2021/2022 season?
b. If so, did the player have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
c. What are the consequences that follow?
33. The members of the Chamber proceeded then to analyse each matter.
a. Was the employment contract automatically extended to the 2021/2022?
34. First and foremost, the DRC acknowledged that the centre of the dispute between the parties
stands on the assessment of whether the employment contract was extended to the
2021/2022 season.
35. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player, on his part, claimed that such renewal
was automatic and only depended on the club’s promotion to the Super League. Moreover,
the player pointed out that the delivery of a proper notification to the TFF was not a
mandatory requirement, but an administrative task for information purposes only. On the
other hand, the members of the DRC were also mindful of the club’s position according to
which, as the player failed to timely inform the TFF of the extension, the option was not
exercised and the employment contract expired on its original date (i.e. 31 May 2021).
36. In view of this dissent between the parties, the DRC turned its attention to the documentation
on file and especially to the wording of clause 3 of the employment contract.
37. In doing so, the Chamber considered that the first sentence of said provision (i.e. “this
contract between the parties shall be extended in the following financial and special
conditions to cover the 2021/2022 football season if [the club] is promoted to the Super
League at the end of 2020-2021 season”) is clear and unequivocal, thus it does not need
interpretation (in claris non fit interpretatio). In particular, the members of the Chamber were
of the opinion that:
(i)
the wording of the clause expressly establishes that the employment contract “shall” be
extended in case the club was promoted to the Turkish Super League;
(ii) the parties did not dispute that said condition was met;
Page 8
REF FPSD-3283
(iii) the second part of the clause reads that the club or the player “could” notify the TFF
within a specified time period, but did not establish that said task was mandatory nor a
condition sine qua non to the exercise of the extension; and
(iv) on the contrary, the final sentence of the clause stipulates that the employment contract
would be automatically terminated in case the club was not promoted to the Super
League, suggesting that it would remain valid if the condition (i.e. the promotion) was
met.
38. In connection with the above, the DRC also deemed important to recall its wellestablished
jurisprudence in accordance with which the validity of an employment contract cannot be
made conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited
to, the registration procedure related to the international transfer of a player, which are of
the sole responsibility of a club and on which a player has no influence.
39. As regards the case at stake, the DRC considered that the duty to inform the TFF could not
be exclusively imposed on the player – especially when considered that any potential burden
was not clearly addressed in the employment contract.
40. Taking into account all the abovementioned considerations as well as the legitimate
expectative of the player in accordance with the clear wording of the contract at stake, the
Chamber was satisfied with the conclusion that the club’s position in this regard could not
be upheld.
41. Therefore, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided that the club’s promotion to
the Super League triggered the extension of the employment contract to the 2021/2022
season.
b. If so, did the player have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
42. The foregoing having been established, the DRC turned to the evidence on file and noted
that it was clear that upon the termination of the employment contract, not only the club
had been warned and granted a deadline of 15 days to cure its breach, but also the payments
defaulted amounted to more than two monthly salaries – and almost to the entire
remuneration due to the player during the relevant season.
43. In light of the above, the Chamber once again referred to its solid jurisprudence according to
which such persistent and substantial non-compliance of the contractual obligations by the
club can justify the unilateral termination of the agreement as well as it can hold the club
liable for breach of contract.
44. Based on the foregoing and having in mind the contents of art. 14bis of the Regulations, the
DRC unanimously decided that the player had just cause to terminate the employment
contract.
Page 9
REF FPSD-3283
c. What are the consequences that follow?
45. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
46. Initially, the DRC turned to the analysis of the outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination. In doing so, the Chamber noted that the club did not dispute that the player’s
salaries from February to May 2021, as well as the balance for the bonus for the club’s
promotion, remained outstanding. On the contrary, the club alleged that the total in default
should be reduced by the two disciplinary fines imposed on the player due to aggressive
behaviour.
47. In view of this dissent between the parties, the Chamber went on analysing the
documentation on file and highlighted that: (i) the club submitted a copy of the decisions of
its Board of Directors; (ii) the player challenged the notification of said decisions; (iii) the club
did only provide untranslated proof of deliveries, as well as did not provide further information
on the player’s participation and right to defence during the disciplinary proceedings; and (iv)
the penalties amounted to three salaries (i.e. EUR 37,500) out of the four salaries (i.e. EUR
50,000) due to the player for the 2020/2021 season.
48. In light of the foregoing and based on the wording of art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
the DRC was firm to determine that the club could not establish to a comfortable satisfaction
degree neither that the pertinent decisions were properly notified to the player nor that the
disciplinary proceedings were held in compliance with the player’s procedural rights.
Furthermore, the Chamber also found it noteworthy to stress that the quantum of the fines
vis-à-vis the player’s remuneration due under the employment contract could not be deemed
as reasonable or proportionate in line with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
49. Therefore, the DRC decided that the disciplinary decisions issued by the club’s Board of
Directors should be disregarded. Consequently, the player shall be awarded the outstanding
remuneration sought, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the dates in which each instalment fell
due until the date of effective payment, as follows:
a. EUR 12,500 net as the salary of February 2021, plus 5% interest as from 1 March 2021;
b. EUR 12,500 net as the salary of March 2021, plus 5% interest as from 1 April 2021;
c. EUR 12,500 net as the salary of April 2021, plus 5% interest as from 1 May 2021; and
d. EUR 12,500 net as the salary of May 2021, plus 5% interest as from 1 June 2021.
50. As to the bonus for the club’s promotion to the Super League, the DRC stressed that the
interest should arise as from the subsequent day to the official end of the Turkish 2020/2021
season (i.e. 1 July 2021).
Page 10
REF FPSD-3283
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of 428,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract, corresponding to the full
remuneration due to the player for the 2021/2022 season) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
55. 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.
56. Indeed, the player found employment with DK Dernegi. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of EUR 30,000 net for the overlapping period.
Page 11
REF FPSD-3283
57. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the
player shall receive additional compensation.
58. In this respect, the DRC highlighted that theoretically the player would be entitled to EUR
120,000 net as additional compensation (i.e. three monthly salaries). However, the Chamber
recalled that as per the clear wording of article 17 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation (including any additional compensation) cannot exceed the residual value of
the contract.
59. As a consequence, it was decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
30,000 net to the player.
60. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at
hand, the Chamber decided that the club, in principle, should pay the amount of EUR
428,000 to the player (i.e. EUR 428,000 minus EUR 30,000 plus EUR 30,000), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
61. However, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber duly observed that the player’s request is
limited to EUR 398,000. Hence, in accordance with the principle of non ultra petita, the DRC
confirmed that the amount of EUR 398,000 is to be awarded to the player
62. Finally, the Chamber also decided to award the player interest on said compensation at the
rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
63. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
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.
Page 12
REF FPSD-3283
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 Claimant 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.
24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
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. 24bis 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 13
REF FPSD-3283
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Adam Mieczyslaw Stachowiak, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Altay SK, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 12,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 12,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 12,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 12,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 48,051 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2021
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 398,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11
August 2021 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. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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 14
REF FPSD-3283
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. 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-3283
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