Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2783
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Anane
Tidjani
BY:
Phillipe Diallo (France)
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Player Anane Tidjani, Benin
Represented by Bora Imadoglu
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Menemenspor, Turkey
Represented by Ali Topuz
INTERVENING PARTY:
Doxa Katokopias, Cyprus
Page 2
REF FPSD-2783
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the player Anane Tidjani from Benin (hereinafter: the player)
and the Turkish club, Menemenspor (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment
contract valid as from 24 August 2020 until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter: the first
contract).
2.
According to the first contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration:
a. EUR 40,000 as salary, payable in 10 equal monthly instalments;
b. EUR 1,400 payable on 24 August 2020;
c. a 10% “addition” for season 2021-2022.
3.
On 24 August 2020, the parties signed a second contract (hereinafter: the second
contract), valid as from its date of execution until the end of season 2021/2022.
4.
According to clause 6.1 of the second contract, the player was entitled to the following
(quoted verbatim):
“- Per match payment; 500-EURO will be paid for each official league match.
- If the player takes place in the first 11 squad in 25 or more official league match, he
is entitled to receive 5.000,- EURO bonus.
- If the club qualifies for the play off competitions in the 2020/2021 football season the
player is entitled to receive four 5000 EURO bonus;
- If the club goes on the Super League in 2021/2022 football season 3th article will be
cancelled and footballer is entitled to receive 10,000 EURO bonus if the player plays in
25 match in the first 11 the salary will be paid as 10,000 EURO if not the salary will be
paid 5,000 EURO.
- The club shall provide a furnished flat, a car and flight ticket (only one ticket two way)
Izmir-Cotonou BENIN) For use of the player during the continuation of this contract.
- for 2021/2022 football season at the fees will be added %10 increase, if the club
plays in TFF 1st league”.
5.
According to clause 6.2 of the second contract (quoted verbatim):
“The per match fee is to be paid for both seasons to the player will be paid as full if the
player is included in the first eleven person squad, 75% of the players included in the
first 18 person squad and joins later to the match, and 50% if he is included in the first
18 person squad and does not join to the match. If the player is not included in the first
18 person squad no per match fee will be paid. unless otherwise agreed by the board
of directors the per match fees is to be paid to the player will be paid until the end of
the season”.
6.
According to clause 6.3 of the second contract (quoted verbatim):
Page 3
REF FPSD-2783
“In the event that league competitions are suspended due to force measures such as
COVID-19 virus and similar epidemic diseases, earthquakes, natural disasters in
accordance with the recommendations of FIFA the payments due within the period of
force measure cannot be requested by the player and Debts related to the
aforementioned terms will be paid 1 month after the disappearance of the force
measure and resumption of the competitions. Again, if it is decided not to play the
league competitions and to register the league in its current situation due to the
existence of force measure conditions such as the epidemic mentioned above, the
football player will be paid in terms of guarantee fees in proportion to the match he
played on the basis of pro rata principles. According to pro rata-account, if the
payments made before the force majeure situation exceeds the progress payment of
the player the amount exceeding the progress payment will be returned to the club
within 10 days after it's confirmed that the league will not be played due to force
majeure”.
7.
According to clause 6.4 of the second contract (quoted verbatim):
“The payment charge will be due and payable to the player on the dates determined
above. In case the club falls into a default for any payment for more than 60 (sixty) days
then the player shall have the option to terminate the contract. In order to exercise this
option, the player shall first send a written notification via a notary public to the club
and if the club fails to pay the amount due to the player within 30 (thirty) days after
the receipt by the club of their respective notification, the player shall be free to
terminate the contract. In this case the player shall be entitled to take action before
FIFA bodies to settle the dispute. The gainings of the player arising from the new club(s)
between the termination date and expiration date shall be deducted from the
indemnification to be decided by the judicial committees”.
8.
On 26 April 2021, via fax, the player attempted to put the club in default of payment
of EUR 28,000 (i.e. EUR 18,000 as salaries as from November 2020 and EUR 10,000 as
game bonus), granting the club with a deadline of 15 days to cure its default. The
Turkish Football Federation (TFF) was put in copy of this correspondence and received
it. The player admits that the fax did no go through to the club.
9.
On 27 April 2021, via fax, with a letter dated 26 April 2021, the player put the club in
default of payment of EUR 28,000 (i.e. EUR 18,000 as salaries as from November 2020
and EUR 10,000 as game bonus), granting the club with a deadline of 15 days to cure
its default. Such letter was also sent to the club by the TFF on the same date. The club
confirms having received it from both the player and the TFF.
10.
On 12 May 2021, the player wrote to the club and while acknowledging a payment of
EUR 11,000 (i.e. TRL 110,440) on 11 May 2021, he terminated the contractual
relationship.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2783
11.
Subsequently, the player and the Cypriot club, Doxa Katokopias, signed a contract valid
as from 3 August 2021 until 31 May 2023, according to which the player shall be
entitled to inter alia EUR 1,123 net as monthly salary between 31 August 2021 and 31
May 2022.
II.
Proceedings before FIFA
12.
On 11 June 2021, the player filed the claim at hand against the club. A brief summary
of the parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the player
13.
The player lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding remuneration and compensation
for breach of contract. The player explained he was owed the following:
a. EUR 12,000 for unpaid salaries (i.e. half of November 2020 plus December 2020
to March 2021);
b. EUR 10,750 as appearance fees, corresponding to 14 games in the starting
eleven and 10 as substitute.
14.
The player proceeded to explain that after having put the club in default, the latter paid
TRL 110,440, corresponding to EUR 10,000.
15.
As such, the player seeks payment of EUR 22,750, corresponding to his salaries of
February to April 2021 plus EUR 10,750 as game bonuses. The player also deems that
he had just cause to terminate the contract and requested as “damages” EUR 4,000 as
salary of May 2021 plus EUR 45,400 regarding the 2021/2022 season.
16.
The player furthermore claimed TRL 11,000 “equal to EUR 1,100” as flight ticket.
17.
The player finally asked for 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
18.
The club rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim.
19.
The club replied that the default notice was served to the club on 27 April 2021 only,
and that the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract, on account of the
following:
a. The 15-day deadline envisaged by art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) was not met, since under art. 16 par. 6 of
the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Page 5
REF FPSD-2783
Dispute Resolution Chamber “the day on which a time limit is set shall not be
counted when calculating the time limit”;
b. Art. 6.4 of the second contract established that “the Player must serve the notice
via a notary public and grant a minimum of 30 days’ deadline to the Club for
the payment of outstanding payments. Article 14bis of FIFA RSTP envisages a
15-day deadline at least. The explicit wording of the art. 14bis of FIFA RSTP
allows parties to extend the 15-days deadline. Similarly, Article 28(1) of TFF
RSTPF determines this period as 30 days”;
c. Art. 6.2 of the second contract establishes that all match bonuses are payable
at the end of the season;
d. “Under Article 6.4 of the Supplementary Contract, the Player may claim his
salary receivables 60 days after the due date. At the time of the notice, the
Player could only request salaries for November (half-sum), December and
January, all of which had been paid in full to the Player on 11 May 2021. In
other words, the Player no longer has an outstanding salary receivable at the
time of the notice and termination. Therefore, the outstanding receivables never
reached a considerable amount”.
20.
The player acknowledged receipt of EUR 11,000 with his letter of 12 May, but now
claim this amount is in fact EUR 10,000.
21.
The club also rejected the player’s petition for flight ticket costs and compensation for
breach of contract. It claimed that the player was entitled to only one flight ticket which
had been paid but filed on evidence if this.
22.
As to the compensation, the club claimed that the player has duty to mitigate his
damages and that the miscalculated the amounts due under the season 2021/2022,
being EUR 4,400 x 10 = EUR 44,000.
23.
The club lodged a counterclaim and asked for EUR 44,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
the date of the termination as compensation. It further asked that sporting sanctions
were imposed on the player and his new club.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player
24.
The player confirmed he did not successfully serve the default notice on 26 April 2021
to the club but that this was due to the club changing its fax number without previous
notice.
25.
The player further addressed the issues of the maturity dates of his game bonuses and
claimed that clause 6.4 of the second contract states that these amounts were due
Page 6
REF FPSD-2783
“until the end of the season”, therefore claiming that these amounts should have been
paid at “anytime during the season which cannot be before“ its end date.
26.
The player also acknowledged that he indeed received EUR 11,000 by the club on 11
May 2021 but maintained that the club still owed him EUR 11,000 as salaries and EUR
10,750 by the date of termination, which are more than 2 salaries. He further referred
to art. 18, par. 6 of the FIFA RSTP and confirmed that the additional contractual grace
period cannot be recognized by FIFA.
27.
The player made additional submissions as to match bonuses irrespective that the
amount that these refer to were not challenged by the club.
d. Position of Doxa Katokopias
28.
Doxa Katokopias claimed it was unaware of the existence of any conflict between the
player and his old club. It claimed the player was a free agent and that it bears no
responsibility over the dispute, being an “illegitimate” party to it. It requested as
follows: “DOXA KATOKOPIAS respectfully request that the Chamber waive its jointly
liability in the terms of article 17/2 of RSTP as the Club does not have any responsibility
for the omission of the truth regarding the termination of the employment contract
between player Anane Tidjani and club Menemenspor, Turkey.”
III.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also
referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case
at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on
11 June 2021 and submitted for decision on 9 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.
30.
Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), he is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a player from Benin and a club from
Turkey, with the involvement of a Cypriot club.
31.
Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (August 2021
Page 7
REF FPSD-2783
edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 June 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
32.
The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis
of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, he stressed the
wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
33.
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single
Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, he started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, he emphasised that in the following considerations
he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34.
The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of
the matter, and took note of the fact that the case at hand pertains to a claim and
counterclaim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
As such, he concluded that the issues to be tackled in order to arrive at a conclusion
are:
a. What amounts were due to the player by the time of the default notice and
termination letter?
b. Did the player have just cause to terminate the contract?
c. What are the consequences of the above?
35.
The Single Judge examined these matters in turn.
What amounts were due to the player by the time of the default notice and
termination letter?
36.
The Single Judge firstly observed that the parties diverge on the amounts due and their
payment/maturity dates.
37.
In accordance with the first contract, the player salary of EUR 4,000 was payable on a
monthly basis, but without a specific amount. The second contract makes no reference
Page 8
REF FPSD-2783
to these concepts. From the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Single Judge
recalled that were no specific maturity date is expressed in a given contract, it is
understood that the amounts are payable by the last day of the corresponding month.
38.
As such, the Single Judge concluded that the player’s salaries were payable at the end
of the month since no specific date was agreed upon in the second contract.
39.
With regards to the match fees, the Single Judge turned to the contents of clause 6.2
of the second contract and confirmed that they are clear pertaining to their maturity
dates insofar as it states “until the end of the season”. At the same time, the Single
Judge was mindful that in accordance with Transfer Match System (TMS) the season in
Turkey runs until 31 May each year.
40.
Hence, the Single Judge concluded that the match bonuses were not yet collectable by
the player on 27 April 2021 in line with the principles pacta sunt servanda and in claris
non fit interpretatio.
41.
For completeness, the Single Judge emphasized that the contractual stipulation
granting additional grace periods cannot be upheld in light of art. 18, par. 6 of the
Regulations, as the player correctly indicated. The Single Judge confirmed that the
wording of the cited rule leaves no room for question: “Contractual clauses granting
the club additional time to pay to the professional amounts that have fallen due under
the terms of the contract (so-called “grace periods”) shall not be recognised. Grace
periods contained in collective bargaining agreements validly negotiated by employers’
and employees’ representatives at domestic level in accordance with national law shall,
however, be legally binding and recognised. Contracts existing at the time of this
provision coming into force shall not be affected by this prohibition”.
42.
It followed from the above that by 27 April 2021, the following salaries were
outstanding per the player’s notice:
a. ½ salary of November amounting to EUR 2,000; and
b. Salaries from December 2020 to March 2021 equivalent to EUR 4,000 each,
amounting to EUR 16,000.
43.
At the same time, the Single Judge noted that the player confirms to have received EUR
11,000 on 12 May 2021. By this date, it shall be highlighted that that the salary of April
had already fallen due. Hence, the amount outstanding was EUR 22,000 (i.e. EUR
18,000 plus EUR 4,000) minus EUR 11,000, arriving thus at EUR 11,000.
Did the player have just cause to terminate the contract?
44.
The Single Judge then moved to the matter of the termination and was observant of
the fact that that the parties also dispute if the requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations
Page 9
REF FPSD-2783
are met taking into consideration the date of the default notice sent by the player and
the date of termination.
45.
Indeed, the player confirms that the default notice was only delivered to the club on 27
April, meaning that he terminated the contract on the 15th day after the default notice.
Based on the narrow criteria of art. 14bis of the Regulations, the Single Judge confirmed
that the requisites enshrined therein have not been met. However, the Single Judge
noted that the club does not dispute owing the amounts sought by the player, and that
in spite of being in default, it only cured partially its breach.
46.
The Single Judge was satisfied that the player could not reasonably expect the
continuation of the employment relationship based on the overall developments of the
case, even more so since the amount he was owed amounted to almost 3 salaries and
he had given advanced warning to the club.
47.
Hence, the Single Judge confirmed that the player had just cause to terminate the
contract under art. 14 of the Regulations. The club therefore shall bear the
consequences that follow.
What are the consequences of the above?
48.
The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration unpaid to the player is
the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Balance salary of February: EUR 3,000;
Full Salary of March: EUR 4,000;
Full Salary of April: EUR 4,000;
Match fees: EUR 10,750;
Flight ticket: TRL 11,000.
49.
The Single Judge highlighted that by the time of termination the flight ticket and
matches fees were not collectible but confirmed that it stood undisputed that these
have never been paid to the player. As such, they are to be awarded.
50.
As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the
amounts which were outstanding under the contract, as explained before.
51.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the
player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their due
dates until the date of effective payment.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2783
52.
Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, he
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.
53.
In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment
contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
54.
As a consequence, the single Judge 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. He recalled that said provision
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
55.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of
the second contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, he concluded that the amount of EUR 48,000 (i.e. the residual value of
the second contract including the salary of May 2021 and the entire season 2021/2022)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
56.
In continuation, the Single Judge 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.
57.
Indeed, the player found employment with Doxa Katokopias. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to EUR 1,123 per month.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of EUR 10,107, that is, 9 times EUR 1,123.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2783
58.
Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
59.
In this respect, the Single Judge decided that the player would be in principle entitled
to EUR 12,000 as additional compensation, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration
of the player. However, because the total amount of compensation must be capped at
the total residual value of the contract in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations,
the Single Judge decided that the maximum amount of compensation that can be
awarded is EUR 48,000, which already comprises the additional compensation.
60.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the
amount of EUR 48,000 to the player (i.e. EUR 48,000 minus EUR 10,107 plus EUR
10,107), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
61.
Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the player’s claim until the date
of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62.
Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art.
24bis par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the
pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the
failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
63.
In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid.
The overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
64.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-2783
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.
65.
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.
66.
The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
67.
The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach,
football agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no
procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
68.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of
art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation
shall be awarded in these proceedings.
69.
Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2783
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Anane Tidjani, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Menemenspor, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- EUR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
- EUR 4,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
- EUR 4,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
- EUR 10,750 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
- TRL 11,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
- EUR 48,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 11 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2783
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-2783
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