Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3332
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Radoslav
Vasilev
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
Radoslav Vasilev, Bulgaria
Represented by Georgi Gradev & Márton Kiss
RESPONDENT:
Xanthi FC, Greece
Page 2
REF FPSD-3332
I.
Facts of the case
1. On an unspecified date, the Respondent made an offer (hereinafter: “the offer”) to the
Claimant, which offer stipulated the following:
“3 years contract:
Season 1
Sign-on fee: €10,000 net
Salary: €9,000 net per month (1/10 -30/06-20) -Salary total €90,000 net [TOTAL WITH SIGNON
€100,000]
€3,600 Accommodation allowances
Car
Bonus for Super League promotion: €10,000 net
20 goals/assist combined €10,000
Internal match bonuses
2 return flight tickets
Cup final: €10, 000
Europa League: €10,000
Season 2
Up-front fee: €10,000 net on July 1, 2021
If in SL2: Salary: €90,000 net per month (10 months) -Salary total €90,000 net [TOTAL WITH
UP-FRONT FEE -€100,000]
Apartment
Car
Bonus for Super League promotion: €10,000 net
20 goals/assist combined €10,000
Internal match Bonuses
2 return flight tickets
Cup final: €10,000
Europa League: €10,000
If in SL 1: Salary: €10,000 net per month (10 months) -total €100,000 net [TOTAL WITH
UP-FRONT
FEE -€110,000]
Internal match bonuses
If we finish in top six: €10,000
Agency Commission: 5%”
2.
On 29 September the Claimant and Respondent concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: “the first contract”) valid from 29 September 2020 until 30 June 2021.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3332
3.
Pursuant to clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4. of the first contract, the Respondent, inter alia, undertook
to pay to the Claimant:
“4.1. a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 1,055, a Christmas gift in the amount of EUR
1,055, an Easter gift in the amount of EUR 527,50 and leave allowance in the amount of
EUR 527,50.
4.2. Bonuses:
-
If the team promotes to Super League 1 the player will receive a bonus of EUR 10,000
net
If the team qualifies to the final of the Greek Cup, the player will receive a bonus of EUR
10,000 net
If the team qualifies to Europa League, the player will received a bonus of EUR 10,000
net
4.4. The player shall receive the total amount of EUR 95,100 net in 6 instalments, as follows:
-
EUR 10,000 payable on 30 September 2020 – first instalment
EUR 20,375 payable on 31 October 2020 – second instalment
EUR 13,600 payable on 31 January 2021 – third instalment
EUR 10,375 payable on 31 March 2021 – fourth instalment
EUR 20,375 payable on 31 May 2021 – fifth instalment
EUR 20,375 payable on 30 June 2021 – sixth instalment”
4. Moreover, on 29 September the Claimant and Respondent concluded two additional contracts
as follows:
(a) a second contract (hereinafter: the “second contract”), valid from 1 July 2021 until 30
June 2022, entitling the Claimant to the following remuneration as detailed in clauses
4.1,4.2 and 4.4. of the second contract:
“4.1. a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 1,055, a Christmas gift in the amount of EUR
1,055, an Easter gift in the amount of EUR 527,50 and leave allowance in the amount of
EUR 527,50.
4.2. Bonuses:
-
If the team finished to positions 1-6 Super League 1 the player will receive a bonus of
EUR 10,000 net
4.4. The player shall receive the total amount of EUR 101,700 net in 6 instalments, as follows:
-
EUR 10,000 payable on 31 July 2021 – first instalment
Page 4
REF FPSD-3332
-
EUR 1,800 payable on 31 August 2021 – second instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 30 September 2021 – third instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 31 October 2021- fourth instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 31 January 2022 – fifth instalment
EUR 1,800 payable on 31 March 2022 – sixth instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 31 May 2022 – seventh instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 30 June 2022 -eight instalment”
(b) a third contract (hereinafter: the “third contract”), valid from 1 July 2022 until 30 June
2023, entitling the Claimant to the following remuneration:
“4.1. a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 1,055, a Christmas gift in the amount of EUR
1,055, an Easter gift in the amount of EUR 527,50 and leave allowance in the amount of
EUR 527,50.
4.2. Bonuses:
-
If the team finished to positions 1-6 Super League 1 the player will receive a bonus of
EUR 10,000 net
4.4. The player shall receive the total amount of EUR 101,700 net in 6 instalments, as follows:
5.
EUR 10,000 payable on 31 July 2022 – first instalment
EUR 1,800 payable on 31 August 2022 – second instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 30 September 2022 – third instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 31 October 2022- fourth instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 31 January 2023 – fifth instalment
EUR 1,800 payable on 31 March 2023 – sixth instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 31 May 2023 – seventh instalment
EUR 17,620 payable on 30 June 2023 -eight instalment”
In addition to the above, on 29 September 2020, the parties also signed a private agreement
which confirmed that the Claimant and Respondent signed a 3-year contract from 29
September to 30 June 2023, which inter alia stipulates the following:
“PERSONAL BONUS
During the period of his contract XANTHI FC will provide to the player :
Car;
Two (2) Air tickets,
The contractual parties consent that all possible disputes that might arise from this contract
will be settled upon FIFA DRC (Dispute Resolution Chamber)”
Page 5
REF FPSD-3332
6. Moreover, article 10 of the first contract stipulated the following:
"Any dispute between the parties is resolved by the First Instance Committee for the
Settlement of Financial Disputes and in the second instance by the Arbitration Court of
the HFF".
7.
On 19 July 2021, the Claimant was denied access to the Respondent’s training facilities on the
basis that he “has no valid contract for the 2021/2022 season because the agreements signed
in September 2020 for the 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 seasons – i.e., Contracts 2 and 3 –are
not registered with HFF and are thus invalid.”
8.
The Claimant then sent a letter to the Respondent, inter alia, stipulating that it disagreed with
the Respondent’s approach and requested to be reintegrated into the team.
9.
On 20 and 21 July 2021, the Respondent again denied the Claimant access to the training
facilities, upon which the team manager of the Respondent informed the Claimant that he
will be provided with a formal letter, which would confirm the position of the Respondent.
10. On 21 July 2021, the Claimant sent a second letter to the Respondent objecting to the
“Respondent’s position and requested his instant reintegration into training with the first
team.”
11. On 23 July 2021, the Respondent gave the Claimant a termination letter dated 19 July 2021,
in which the Respondent stated, “as per article 8 of the HFF Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, the application of registration or transfer of a professional footballer shall
be submitted along with a copy of the contract. Furthermore, in order a contract to be
considered valid, shall be submitted according to article 9 within 7 days from the day the
contract was signed, to the relevant Association which is competent to review its legality.
According to the Respondent, Contract 1 “is the only valid contract that is signed between us
the parties as it is (sic) has also been submitted to the competent bodies as it is prescribed by
the regulations. Finally, the Respondent concluded that according to the contract from
29/09/2020 between us, our cooperation is terminated.”
12. On 2 August 2021, the Claimant informed the Respondent that it is his understanding that
the Respondent is no longer interested in his services and the future performance of the
contracts, however, should he not be reintegrated into the team on the said day, he would
proceed to file a claim for damages, however to no avail.
13. After the unilateral termination of the contract, the Claimant has remained unemployed.
Page 6
REF FPSD-3332
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 16 August 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
a. Position of the Claimant
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant, as amended, were that the DRC decide that the
Respondent:
(a) terminated the employment relationship with the Claimant without just cause on 23 July
2021;
(b) has to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR
232,940 net, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 23 July 2021, until the date of effective
payment;
(c) be sanctioned, as per article 17.4 or article 24bis RSTP.
b. Position of the Respondent
16. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent firstly argued that the FIFA DRC is not competent to
examine the matter at hand and that the competent body to do so is the First Instance
Committee for the Settlement of Financial Disputes of Hellenic Football Federation (HFF).
17. The Respondent referred to article 10 of the first contract, which stipulates that:
"Any dispute between the parties is resolved by the First Instance Committee for the
Settlement of Financial Disputes and in the second instance by the Arbitration Court of the
HFF".
18. According to the Respondent, “this clause of the contract is in compliance with the regulations
of the Hellenic Football Federation (in particular the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players) and it is clear that the Committee is the competent body to resolve any dispute that
may arise between Clubs and football players that concerns the contract stability, as it concerns
the present case according to the allegations of the claimant.”
19. The Respondent indicated that the only valid contract concluded between the parties was the
first contract.
20. The Respondent further mentions that in article 2 par. 4 of the first contract it ”is highlighted
that any other agreement that exists or will be signed at a later time, will enclose the
document, refer to the agreement and in any case to be valid will be sent to the competent
bodies within 7 days. No other additional contract regulates the legal relationship between
the parties. Such condition applies also to the Private Agreement that was signed on
29/09/2020 and so this document shall be considered unenforceable based on the
aforementioned clauses of the contract.”
Page 7
REF FPSD-3332
21. Moreover, the Respondent mentioned that the private agreement allegedly signed between
Mr. Atanasov (the manager of the Claimant) and the Respondent “cannot prove the existence
of a 3 year contract with the Claimant.”
22. In addition, the Respondent stipulated “that the offer that Respondent sent to Mr. Atanasov
is a simple expression of interest of the team towards the claimant. Through this document
expresses what may offer to the football player in the case when he decides to sign a contract.
The content of such an offer is in no way binding regarding the contract that may be signed
afterwards.”
23. Furthermore, the Respondent indicated that the validity of the contracts for the season
2021/2022 (second contract) and 2022/2023 (third contract) is conditional on the
Respondent’s promotion to the Superleague 1.
24. According to the Respondent, the condition precedent of the Respondent’s qualification to
Superleague 1 were never met, and therefore the contract for the season 2021/2022 cannot
be activated.
25. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that it did not breach the contract, as it was terminated
with mutual consent.
26. In this context, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant on 31 May 2021, declared the
following:
“With the beginning of my summer vacation and in view of the termination of my contract
on 30/06/2021 which I have signed with AO XANTHI F.C I declare that 1) Upon my departure
I have no other financial or other contractual claim towards XANTHI F.C, if the team deposits
to my bank account according to labor law the payroll of JUNE (850.17 Euros) proportion of
the Christmas bonus (243.99 Euros) and Leave allowance (495.23 Euros) and installment of
June (20,375 Euros) TOTAL (21964.39 Euros). Also, I declare that with my consent, there was
a withholding from my January salary of the amount of 100 Euros to pay my obligation to
the Panhellenic Association of Remunerated Football players. (PSAP).
(After these I have no other financial or contractual claim towards XANTHI F.C)”
27. The Respondent mentioned that it complied with its financial obligations as detailed in the
declaration and deposited the amount of EUR 21,964.39 to the Claimant’s bank account.
28. In conclusion the Respondent indicated that:
(a) it stands to its position that the only valid contract is the first contract;
(b) the said contract was terminated based on the declaration of the Claimant dated 31 May
2021;
(c) it reject the Claimant's claim; and
(d) monetary or sporting sanctions should not be imposed on the Respondent.
Page 8
REF FPSD-3332
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 16 August 2021 and submitted for decision
on 28 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition
of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
30. 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 employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Bulgarian player and a Greek club.
31. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies based on article 10 of the employment contract, which refers to the
First Instance Committee for the Settlement of Financial Disputes within the Hellenic Football
Federation (hereinafter: “Greek NDRC”).
32. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle, competent
to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international
dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided
by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the
framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration
clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement
applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally,
the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
33. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber considered that it should, analyse whether the employment contract at
the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction clause.
34. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that article 10 of the employment contract stipulated the
following:
"Any dispute between the parties is resolved by the First Instance Committee for the
Settlement of Financial Disputes and in the second instance by the Arbitration Court of
the HFF".
Page 9
REF FPSD-3332
35. However, the Chamber noted that as per the private agreement concluded between the
Claimant and Respondent, the parties agreed to the following jurisdiction clause:
“The contractual parties consent that all possible disputes that might arise from this contract
will be settled upon FIFA-DRC (Dispute Resolution Chamber)”.
36. Having analysed the relevant provisions, the Chamber concluded that the provisions in the
respective agreements specify different deciding bodies and therefore it seem to contradict
each other, thus, an exclusive and unambiguous jurisdiction clause in favour of the Greek
NDRC cannot be established.
37. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide any documentary
evidence which could prove that the national arbitration bodies of the Hellenic Football
Federation meet the requirements established in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players, detailed in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the
NDRC Regulations.
38. In view of all the above, the DRC established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
39. Subsequently, the 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 16 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
40. 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).
Page 10
REF FPSD-3332
c. Merits of the dispute
41. 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
42. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the Claimant claims that the Respondent terminated the
contract without just cause and is therefore entitled to compensation for breach of contract
in the total amount of EUR 232,940 net.
43. The Chamber took note that the Respondent deems that in accordance with the declaration
agreement concluded between the parties on 31 May 2021, the Claimant declared to not
have any financial or contractual claim towards the Respondent in view of the “termination
of his contract on 30 June 2021.”
44. In this context, the DRC firstly addressed the content of the declaration agreement and
referred to the decisions and jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
concerning waivers and highlighted that in CAS awards, amongst others CAS 2020/A/6727
and CAS 2016/A/4582, it was concluded that in principle an employee cannot waive his right
to outstanding remuneration nor his right to receive compensation for breach of contract,
except for the latter where, in very specific circumstances, mutual or reciprocal concessions
are made between the parties.
45. In the case at hand, the DRC determined that no such mutual or reciprocal concessions were
present in the document signed on 31 May 2021, as the Claimant in fact enjoyed no benefits
and it does not seem to be balanced between the parties. Moreover, the DRC made reference
to the fact that the declaration agreement was signed between the parties, when the contract
was still valid, which – according to the Chamber – is also to be considered an indication that
the document might not contain a balanced agreement between the parties.
46. As a result of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the declaration agreement concluded
between the Claimant and the Respondent on 31 May 2021, cannot be considered as validly
made and will therefore not be taken into account.
47. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Respondent on 23 July 2021 issued a termination
notice to the Claimant, in which the Respondent confirmed that the employment relationship
was terminated, due to the expiry of the first contract and that the second and third contract
were not validly registered with the Hellenic Football Federation.
Page 11
REF FPSD-3332
48. In this regard, the Chamber considered it relevant to recall its 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 of the
contract with a national football association, in this case, the Hellenic Football Federation,
which are of the sole responsibility of a club and on which a player has no influence. In this
regard, the DRC pointed out that it is the responsibility of the engaging club to ensure that
the player is properly registered with his new club in order to be able to provide it with his
services.
49. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber agreed that the second and third
contracts were properly concluded and executed between the parties and are therefore to be
considered valid.
50. Moreover, the DRC remarked that it would seem that Respondent had refused to accept the
Claimant’s services without any valid reason, by denying it access to training facilities. In this
regard, the Chamber considered important to point out, that among a player’s fundamental
rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a timely payment of his
remuneration, but also, inter alia, his right to access training. As a result, the Chamber came
to the conclusion that the Respondent had breached its contractual obligations to the
Claimant, by not allowing him to access the training.
51. In view of all the foregoing circumstances, the DRC decided that in the matter at hand, the
Respondent, on 23 July 2021, had terminated the employment relationship with the Claimant
without just cause, and that therefore, the Claimant is entitled to outstanding remuneration,
if any, and compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
52. Having stated the above, the DRC sought to establish whether any salaries had remained
outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. 23 July 2021 and noted that the Claimant
asserted that at the time of the termination, there was no outstanding salaries due to the
Claimant, hence no outstanding remuneration shall be awarded to the Claimant.
53. The DRC therefore concluded that the Claimant shall be entitled to compensation for breach
of contract based on art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
54. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent, the
DRC took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the
employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the
professional situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the
Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment contract, the
contract would have run for the period between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2023.
Page 12
REF FPSD-3332
55. Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber
concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the
Respondent until the regular expiry of the contract shall serve as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract which amounts to EUR
231,885 net, corresponding to:
monthly remuneration - EUR 1,055 x 24 months (second and third contract)
Christmas, Easter and leave allowance – EUR 3,165 (award for each year at EUR 527,50
each x 6 – second and third contract)
annual amount of EUR 101,700 x 2 (second and third contract)
56. In continuation, the DRC remarked that following the early termination of the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute, the Claimant did not sign a new employment
agreement with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been able to reduce his loss of income. Therefore, no further mitigation of the amount
of compensation shall take place.
57. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the total amount of EUR
231,885 net to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
58. Moreover, and in line with well-established jurisprudence, the DRC decided to award 5%
interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 231,885 net as from 16 August 2021, i.e. the date of
claim.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
Page 13
REF FPSD-3332
62. 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.
63. 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
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-3332
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Radoslav Vasilev, is admissible and partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Xanthi FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 231,885 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5%interest p.a. as from 16 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.
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-3332
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