Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3484
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Saphir Sliti
Taider
BY:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
Saphir Sliti Taider, France
Represented by Mr Guy San Bartolome Sarrey
RESPONDENT:
Al Ain FC, Saudi Arabia
Page 2
REF FPSD-3484
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 6 February 2021, the French player, Saphir Sliti Taider (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Saudi club Al Ain FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of its signature
until 30 June 2023.
2.
In accordance with clause 4 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player, inter
alia, the following remuneration:
For the season 2021/2022:
- EUR 690,000 net as advanced payment, payable by 1 August 2021;
- EUR 134,166 net as monthly salary, payable as from July 2021until June 2022, i.e. 12
monthly salaries.
For the season 2022/2023:
- EUR 750,000 net as advanced payment, payable by 1 August 2922;
- EUR 145,833 net as monthly salary, payable as from July 2022 until June 2023, i.e. 12
monthly salaries.
3.
Clause 4 of the contract further states that the total fixed remuneration to which the player
is entitled as per the contract amounts to EUR 4,805,998.
4.
Clause 4.1 of the contract reads as follows: “During the season 2020/2021, in all
assumptions, the Club warrants irrevocably to take in charge all medical costs of any kind for
the revalidation of the Player including a Net sum amounting to 53,500 AED (cf. invoice full
physiotherapy & Rehabilitation Sessions)”.
5.
Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of the contract read as follows: “4.2 In all assumptions, [the club]
warrants to register officially [the player] at the latest on 1st July 2021 until 30 June 2023 to
play any official competition with the first team of the Club during the season 2021/2022
and 2022/2023. 4.3 The Club has the obligation to proof the official registration in KSA
Football Federation to the Player within the time limit. In case to fail the obligation abovementioned, for any reason, the contract shall be terminated without just cause by the Club
and the Player shall receive the total residual value of the contract without to apply any
mitigation of any kind”.
6.
In accordance with clause 4.6 of the contract, the club undertook to provide the player with
3 “Round-Trip Business Air Tickets for The Rout Lyon-Riyadh-Lyon for 4 adults and 4 kids”.
7.
Clauses 10.4 and 10.5 of the contract read as follows: “10.4 The parties have expressly and
irrevocably agreed that subject to a 15 days default notice, the player has the right to cancel
(terminate) this contract with a just cause if it is well established that the Club failed to pay
any of his monthly salaries, any advanced payments, signing on fee or an aggregate amount
Page 3
REF FPSD-3484
of benefit in kind which equals to a value of two (2) months salaries. 10.5 The Club has the
right to terminate this contract for valid reason for which the player intentionally fails and
cure the pertaining fundamental /material breach within the given 15 days’ notice”.
8.
Clause 10.6 of the contract reads as follows: “If the Club cancels (terminates) [the contract]
prematurely without just cause, or if the Player terminates this contract prematurely but with
just cause (as mentioned above item 10.4), the Club is obliged to pay all the net amounts
pending (here all salaries, advance payments and bonuses) at the moment of termination
until 30.06.2023, without applying any mitigation”.
9.
After having sent several letters to the Respondent -letters sent on 12 May, 15 June and 28
June 2021-, the player sent a new correspondence to the club, dated 9 July 2021 (note:
document on file), where the player pointed out, inter alia, the following:
-
That the club failed to reply to his previous notices;
-
That the club failed to reimburse to the player the amount of AED 58,060 for the
medical costs in which the player incurred (AED 53,500 as expenses corresponding to
“FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence” and AED 4,560 as “dental costs” – invoice issued on
2 February 2021, cf. Annexe 4a of the contract);
-
That the club had not summoned him to join the team, nor had provided him and his
family with the corresponding flight tickets to travel to Saudi Arabia;
-
That, despite being contractually obliged to do so by 1 July 2021, the club failed to
provide evidence to the player as to his registration as a professional player of the club
within the Saudi FA;
-
Regarding all the above-mentioned breaches, the player granted the club a 15 days’
deadline to cure them.
10. Also on 9 July 2021, the player sent a correspondence to the Saudi FA, requesting the latter
to confirm to him if he had been registered with the club for the seasons 2021/2022 and
2022/2023, as agreed in art. 4.2 of the contract.
11. By means of its Whatsapp message of 17 July 2021, the club informed the players of the
team -amongst which the Claimant was included- that the training sessions would start on
23 July 2021.
12. Thereto, the player replied by means of his email dated 19 July 2021, whereby the player
referred to his previous correspondence and requested the club to remedy the breaches
committed by the latter by no later than 25 July 2021. Furthermore, as to the announcement
made by the club concerning the beginning of the training sessions on 23 July 2021, the
player requested the club to provide him with the following: 2 flight tickets Paris – Saudi
Page 4
REF FPSD-3484
Arabia, 2 visa documents in order to enter Saudi Arabia, any necessary documentation
pertaining to Covid-19 and any “administrative documents” necessary to work with the club.
13. On 19 July 2021, the player sent a new e-mail to the Saudi FA, requesting the latter -againto confirm if he has been registered with the club for the relevant seasons.
14. By means of its Whatsapp message of 21 July 2021, the club informed the players in general,
and the player in particular, that the training sessions would finally start on 28 July 2021 and
not on 23 July 2021.
15. By means of its e-mail dated 22 July 2021, the Saudi FA replied to the player’s request, stating
that it had forwarded the player’s request to the club in order for the latter to “review” it
and take “further action”.
16. On 26 July 2021, the player sent a new letter to the club, urging the latter to provide him
with the flight tickets, visa and necessary documentation for him and his wife and also urging
the club the breaches committed by it, as stated in its previous correspondence.
17. On the same date, the player sent a new correspondence to the Saudi FA, requesting the
latter to answer to his question, i.e. whether he was affiliated to it. In this respect, the player
stated that it was the duty of the Saudi FA to reply thereto.
18. By means of its Whatsapp message of 27 July 2021, the club informed the players that the
start of the training sessions would be postponed sine die.
19. By means of his correspondence dated 2 August 2021, the player referred to the Whatsapp
message sent by the club on 27 July 2021 and stated that the postponement of the start of
trainings is not reasonable. Moreover, the player -again- requested the club to provide him
with the flight tickets and further documentation in order for the player to travel to Saudi
Arabia and start performing his contractual obligations. What is more, the player -therebyput the club in default of payment in the total amount of EUR 824,166, corresponding to the
advanced payment of the 2021/2022 season (EUR 690,000) and the monthly salary of July
2021 (EUR 134,166), granting the club a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default, i.e. until
17 August 2021.
20. On the same date, the player forwarded the said correspondence to the Saudi FA and
requested the latter, again, to confirm his registration status at the Saudi FA.
21. On 3 August 2021, the club replied to the player, stating that it would register the player
with the Saudi FA before the closure of the relevant transfer window after the election of the
new Board of Directors of the club.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3484
22. Thereto, the player replied on 4 August 2021 and referred to his previous correspondence,
the content of which the player highlighted and reminded the club that it had a deadline until
17 August 2021 to proceed with the payment of the amount of EUR 824,166.
23. On 12 August 2021, the player sent a new correspondence to the club, informing the latter
that he had been informed that a new president of the club had been appointed and that a
training session had been scheduled for 12 August 2021. In this respect, the player
highlighted that it would be impossible for the player to be present at the said training
session, insofar as the club had not provided him with the necessary flight ticket. In this
context, the player urged the club to do so and referred to the content of his previous
correspondence.
24. Subsequently, by means of his letter dated 20 August 2021, in view of the lack of reply of
the club and the non-payment of the amounts due to him, the player unilaterally terminated
the contract and requested the club to proceed with the payment of the whole value of the
contract, i.e. EUR 4,805,998, within the following 5 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. On 30 August 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
26. On 30 August 2021, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA, requesting to be
awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the total
amount of EUR 4,805,998 and AED 58,060, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due
dates regarding the amounts requested as outstanding remuneration and as from 20 August
2021 (the date of termination) regarding the amount requested as compensation for breach
of contract, broken down by the Claimant as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 824,166
- EUR 690,000 as advanced payment of the season 2021/2022;
- EUR 134,166 as salary of July 2021;
- AED 58,060 corresponding to as expenses corresponding to “FIFA Medical Centre of
Excellence” and AED 4,560 as “dental costs”.
Compensation for breach of contract: EUR 3,981,832
- EUR 3,981,832 corresponding to the residual value of the contract, which was
calculated by the Claimant considering the full fixed amount payable as per the
contract ex. clause 4 thereof, i.e. EUR 4,805,998, minus the advanced payment of the
season 2021/2022 and the salary of July 2021, that are requested as outstanding
remuneration (4,805,998 – (690,000 + 134,166) = 3,981,832).
Page 6
REF FPSD-3484
27. In his claim, the Claimant argued that not only did the club fail to pay the advanced payment
of the season 2020/2021 and the salary of July 2021, which -if summed up- reach an amount
higher than the value of 2 monthly salaries, but also failed to register the player within the
Saudi FA, despite the club being obliged to do so and inform the player accordingly ex. clauses
4.2 and 4.3 of the contract.
28. The player further agued that it put the Respondent in default of payment on several
occasions, requesting the club to register him within the Saudi FA, pay the outstanding
moneys due to him and provide him with the necessary flight tickets and travel
documentation in order for the player to move to Saudi Arabia to start performing his
contractual obligations; however, to no avail.
29. The above being said, the player argued that he terminated the contract with just cause on
20 August 2021 ex. art. 14bis of the RSTP and ex. clauses 10.4 and 10.5 of the contract,
which also provide that the player would be deemed as having terminated the contract with
just cause, should he have put the club in default of payment of amounts which value is
higher than 2 monthly salaries and granted the club a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default
without the club remedying the default.
30. Thus, the player requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract, the latter of which the player requests not to be mitigated with any new
income earned by the player during the overlapping period in view of the content of clause
10.6 of the contract.
b. Position of the Respondent
31. Despite having been invited to reply to the claim, the club failed to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 30 August 2021 and submitted for decision
on . 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.
33. 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
Page 7
REF FPSD-3484
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 French player and a
Saudi club.
34. 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 30 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and briefly recalled that the Claimant is requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration
and compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 4,805,998 and AED
58,060, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due dates regarding the amounts
requested as outstanding remuneration and as from 20 August 2021 (the date of termination
of the contract) regarding the amount requested as compensation for breach of contract.
38. In his claim, noted the DRC, the player argued that -despite having sent several default notices
to the Respondent- the club failed to, inter alia: pay the salary of July 2021 (due on 31 July
2021), pay the advanced payment for the season 2021/2022 (due on 1 August 2021), provide
him with the flight tickets to travel to Saudi Arabia and start performing his contractual
obligations, register him within the Saudi FA.
Page 8
REF FPSD-3484
39. On its part, observed the Chamber, the club failed to reply to the claim.
40. Given that the Respondent failed to reply to the claim, continued the Chamber, the
allegations of the Claimant -if supported with the necessary documentary evidence- will be
considered as uncontested facts.
41. In this point, the DRC observed that it remained uncontested that, despite the Respondent
was obliged to provide the player with the corresponding flight tickets to travel to Saudi
Arabia (cf. clause 4.6 of the contract), the club failed to do so. In addition, as per the
correspondence exchanged between the parties, the club kept on postponing the start of the
training sessions and failed to provide the player with the concrete date on which he should
join the team and start rendering his services.
42. During the said time, without having provided any reason as to the postponement of the start
of training sessions nor as to the lack of issuance of the corresponding flight tickets, the club
failed to pay to the player the advanced payment of the season 2021/2022 and the salary of
July 2021, which fell due on 1 August and 31 July 2021, respectively.
43. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player put the club in default of payment on
several occasions. In particular, the default notice dated 2 August 2021 is of relevance,
underscored the DRC, insofar -thereby- the player put the club in default regarding the abovementioned outstanding amounts and granted the club a deadline of 15 days, i.e. until 17
August 2021, to remedy the default. However, in view of the lack of payment of the
requested outstanding moneys, the player unilaterally terminated the contract on 20 August
2021.
Did the player terminate the contract with just cause on 20 August 2021 ex. clause 10.4 of
the contract (identical content of art. 14bis of the RSTP) or did the club terminate the contract
without just cause ex. clause. 4.3 of the contract?
44. In accordance with clause 4.6 of the contract, it was the obligation of the club to provide the
player with the corresponding flight tickets to travel to Saudi Arabia and start rendering his
services as from 1 July 2021. However, it remained undisputed that the club failed to do so.
The above is relevant because the absence of the player in Saudi Arabia and the subsequent
non-performance of his contractual obligations was the club´s fault and, therefore, in spite of
the fact that the player did not de facto provide his services for the club, the latter was
contractually obliged to pay his remuneration in accordance with the contract during the said
timeframe.
45. What is more, continued the Chamber, at the date of termination of the contract, the total
fixed amount of EUR 824,166 (advanced payment of the 2021/2022 season and salary of July
2021) was outstanding.
Page 9
REF FPSD-3484
46. In this context, considering that the player had granted the club -by means of his letter of 2
August 2021- a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default, without the club doing so within
the granted deadline and that the amount requested, EUR 825,166, is of a higher value than
2 monthly salaries, the Chamber concluded that the player, in principle, would have
terminated the contract with just cause on 20 August 2021. Furthermore, the Chamber noted
that the content of art. 14bis of the RSTP is expressly contained in the contract, in its clause
10.4, which only demonstrates that the liability of the Respondent is even more blatant.
47. Notwithstanding the above, continued the DRC, it must be noted that not only failed the club
to pay the player’s remuneration, but also failed to respect clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of the contract,
which state that the club had the obligation to register the player within the Saudi FA by 1
July 2021 and provide the player with proof thereof.
48. In this regard, the Chamber observed that it remained uncontested that not only failed the
club to prove that it registered the player, but it even acknowledged, by means of its
correspondence dated 3 August 2021, not having done so. Thus, in accordance with the
wording of clause 4.3 of the contract, the said breach constituted the automatic termination
of the contract without just cause by the club.
49. Thu, and considering that a contractual relationship cannot be terminated twice, the DRC
concluded that the termination that occurred prior in time is to be considered the actual
termination of the contract. Taking into account that the termination of the contract ex.
clause 4.3 occurred automatically upon the failure to register the player, i.e. on 2 July 2021,
and that the termination intended by the player occurred on 20 August 2021 (date on which
he sent his termination letter to the Respondent), the DRC decided that the contract shall be
deemed as automatically terminated without just cause by the club on 2 July 2021 (ex. clause
4.3 of the contract).
50. At this point, for ease of reference, a transcription of art. 4.3 of the contract is displayed here
below: “4.3 The Club has the obligation to proof the official registration in KSA Football
Federation to the Player within the time limit. In case to fail the obligation above-mentioned,
for any reason, the contract shall be terminated without just cause by the Club and the Player
shall receive the total residual value of the contract without to apply any mitigation of any
kind”.
51. In this context, by virtue of application of clause 4.3 of the contract, the DRC determined that
the player shall be entitled, on top of any eventual outstanding remuneration to be awarded
to the player, to the residual value of the contract, which shall not be subject to any sort of
mitigation, in accordance with the wording of clause the aforesaid clause and the general
principle of law: pacta sunt servanda.
Page 10
REF FPSD-3484
ii. Consequences
52. 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 Respondent.
53. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to AED 4,560,
corresponding to “dental costs” incurred by the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber
emphasized that the entitlement of the player to the said expense finds a contractual basis in
art. 4.1 of the contract and, since the player provided evidence of having incurred in the said
expense, it shall be awarded.
54. However, concerning the amount of AED 53,500 requested by the Claimant as expenses
corresponding to “FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence”, since the Claimant failed to provide
sufficient evidence in support of having effectively incurred in the said expense, the DRC
determined that the Claimant cannot be entitled to the claimed amount ex. art. 13.5 of the
Procedural Rules.
55. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which
were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. AED 4,560.
56. In addition, 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 at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 30 August 2021, i.e. as form the date on
which the claim was lodged (in view of the lack of any due date in the contract concerning
the payment of an amount of such nature), until the date of effective payment.
57. 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.
58. 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 clause
4.3 of the contract is a compensation clause, insofar as it states that, should the club
demonstrate to the player that it registered him within the Saudi FA by 1 July 2021, which
Page 11
REF FPSD-3484
occurred, “the contract shall be terminated without just cause by the club and the player shall
receive the total residual value of the contract without to apply any mitigation of any kind”.
59. In view of the clear wording of clause 4.3 of the contract, which provides the entitlement of
the player to the residual value of the contract without it being possibly mitigated with any
new income received by the player following the termination of the contract, the Chamber
unanimously concluded that the player shall be entitled to the residual value of the contract
as compensation for breach of contract, in the amount of EUR 4,805,998, which equals the
whole value of the contract, since the Respondent failed to pay any of the remuneration due
to the player as per the contract.
60. 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% interest p.a. as from the date on which the claim was lodged (interest
cannot be granted as from the date of termination -as requested by the Claimant- but as
from the date of claim, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC).
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
64. 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.
Page 12
REF FPSD-3484
65. 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
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Saphir Sliti Taider, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ain FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
-
AED 4,560 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 August 2021
until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 4,805,998 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30
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 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.
Page 13
REF FPSD-3484
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
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 14