Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01038
Decision of the
Single Judge of the PSC
passed on 20 November 2020
regarding a dispute concerning the transfer of the player Rai Vloet
BY:
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), Single Judge of the PSC
CLAIMANT:
FC Chiasso, Switzerland
Represented by Mr Luca Tettamanti
RESPONDENT:
Frosinone Calcio, Italy
Page 2 of 12
REF 20-01038
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
In August 2018, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter:
“the agreement”) in connection with the transfer of the player Rai Vloet (hereinafter: “the
player”).
2.
In accordance with article 2.1 of the agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant the net amount of EUR 500,000 “as a compensation for the premature termination of
the employment contract between the player and FC Chiasso and the transfer of the Player from
FC Chiasso to Frosinone”.
3.
Article 2.2 of the agreement provided: “The payment of the transfer fee will be made, as
essential condition, only if the Player will be deemed able to permanently play professional
football and he will obtain the sport medical suitability with validity until 30 June 2019, at the
following instalments:
a. EUR 200,000 within 31 January 2019;
b. EUR 150,000 within 30 April 2019 and
c. EUR 150,000 within 30 June 2019”.
4.
Article 2.3 of the agreement stated: “If the essential condition sub point 2.2 is not triggered,
and thus the Player won´t get a permanent certification allowing him to play professional football
(i.e. the sport medical suitability with validity within 30 June 2018) the transfer fee won´t be due
to FC Chiasso and this Agreement will automatically terminate as specified under clause n.7”.
5.
According to article 6 of the agreement: “6.1 This Agreement is valid from its signature and the
execution of the transfer is subject to the condition that (i) FC Chiasso shall reach full agreement
with the Player on the mutual termination of his current employment contract (ii) Frosinone
subsequently entering into a contract of employment with the Player; 6.2 If the transfer of the
Player does not take place because the aforementioned conditions are not fulfilled, this
Agreement shall automatically terminate and shall have no further force or effect and the Parties
shall have no claim for damages or any form of compensation against each other”.
6.
Article 7.1 of the agreement provided: “If within 4 (four) months from the signature of this
Agreement the Player won´t obtain the permanent certificate of eligibility to play professional
football (i.e. sport medical suitability with validity until 30 June 2019) issued by Public Medical
Body or other entitled similar facility, this Agreement would immediately and mutually terminate
and no transfer fee will be due from Frosinone to FC Chiasso that won´t be entitled to any
compensation whatsoever, irrevocably waiving to raise any kind of pretence against Frosinone”.
7.
Article 7.2 of the agreement stated: “FC Chiasso and the Player recognize that the permanent
certificate of eligibility to play professional football, to be obtained by the Player within 4 (four)
months from the signature of this Agreement, is an essential condition in relation to the
execution of the Agreement”.
Page 3 of 12
REF 20-01038
8.
Article 7.3 of the agreement stated: “The Player recognizes and accepts, as also agreed in the
contract of employment with Frosinone, that if within 4 (four) months from the signature of this
Agreement he do not obtain the permanent certificate of eligibility to play professional football
(i.e. sport medical suitability with validity within 30 June 2019) the employment relation between
the Player and Frosinone will inmediately terminate and the Player won´t be entitled to any
compensation whatsoever, irrevocably waiving to raise any kind of pretence against Frosinone”.
9.
On 29 May 2018, i.e. approximately two months before the transfer of the player from the
Claimant to the Respondent, the player undertook routine medicals upon the request of the
Claimant at “Policlinico di Monza”, Italy and was provided with a medical certificate with a 1year validity establishing his full ability to play professional football (the “FC Chiasso Medical
Certificate”).
10.
Between 18 and 20 July 2018, the Claimand and the Respondent exhanched various versions of
a transfer agreement.
11.
On 24 July 2018, upon the Respondent’s request and apparently without the Claimant knowing
it, the player undertook medicals at the “Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli” in
Rome, Italy, to obtain the relevant certificate to play professional football. During these medicals,
doctors detected a heart disease, and the player therefore undertook further examinations from
25 July until 4 August 2018.
12.
On 4 August 2018, the “Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli” issued a medical
certificate (hereinafter: “the 1st medical certificate”) confirming the player´s ability to play
professional football, but limiting it to four months validity, i.e. until 3 December 2018.
13.
On 11 August 2018, the Respondent informed the Claimant that it wished to amend the final
version of the transfer agreement since the Player had allegedly failed his medical. The final
version of the transfer agreement was apparently ‘non-negotiable’ and ultimately the Claimant
signed said agreeement.
14.
According to TMS, on 13 August 2018, the Respondent and the player signed an employment
contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid from 14 August 2018 until 30 June 2022. Moreover,
according to TMS, on 14 August 2018, the player was registered by the Respondent and thus
the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent was executed.
15.
On 27 November 2018, the Claimant sent the Respondent a letter asking the latter: (i) again, to
be provided with the 1st Medical Examinations on which the 1st Medical Certificate was based;
and (ii) to be in contact to jointly appoint an independent recognized medical centre to carry out
the new medical examinations on the Player for the latter to get a definitive clearance to play
competitive professional football (until 30 June 2019).
16.
On 29 November 2018, the Respondent sent the Claimant the results of the 1st Medical
Examinations.
Page 4 of 12
REF 20-01038
17.
On 5 December 2018, the “Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli” issued a new
medical certificate (hereinafter: “the 2nd medical certificate”) upon the Respondent´s request,
granting a limited further 3 months player´s ability to play professional football, i.e. until 4 March
2019.
18.
On 27 December 2018, the Claimant sent an invoice to the Respondent related to the first
instalment agreed by the parties, which was due on 31 January 2019.
19.
On 28 December 2018, the Respondent replied to the Claimant stating that as the player was
granted the 2nd medical certificate valid only until 4 March 2019 –instead of a permanent
certificate of eligibility to play professional football -, the transfer agreement had to be
considered terminated with no obligation by the Respondent to pay to the Claimant any transfer
fee.
20.
On 7 January 2019, the Respondent sent another letter to the Claimant informing the
Respondent that in addition to the termination of the agreement, “the contract [i.e. with the
player] was dissolved by the player´s lack of a medical clearance until 30 June 2019”.
21.
On 14 January 2019, the Claimant sent to the Respondent another letter requesting the
complete documentation of all the medical exams undertaken by the player to obtain the 2 nd
medical certificate, to no avail.
22.
According to TMS, on 7 February 2019 the player was transferred from the Respondent to the
Belgian club, ST Truidense VV under the transfer instruction: “engage out of contract free of
payment”.
23.
On 21 July 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the
Respondent to pay EUR 500,000 as the outstanding transfer fee plus interest at 5% per year
from 1 February 2019 on the amount of EUR 200,000, from 1 May 2019 on the amount of EUR
150,000 and from 1 July 2019 on the amount of EUR 150,000 until the date of its entire
payment.
24.
In its claim, the Claimant explained that between 18 and 20 July 2018 the parties exchanged
four versions of the transfer agreement and, when the parties reached an agreement, the
Claimant sent the Respondent the fourth version duly signed to execute the Player’s transfer.
25.
The Claimant further explained that ultimately the Respondent forced the Claimant to sign a
unilaterally amended definitive version of the transfer agreement, with the implementation of
newly integrated clauses 2.2, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.
26.
According to the Claimant, the clauses subjecting the validity of the transfer agreement to a
medical clearance until 30 June 2019 imposed by the Respondent to FC Chiasso and the Player,
even then through his Employment Contract, are null and void. The Respondent made clear to
the Claimant that such latest modifications where non-amendable, and the Claimant held that
Page 5 of 12
REF 20-01038
it was forced to accept them considering the player had already signed the contract with the
Respondent. The Claimant at that time relied upon a good faith approach and behaviour by the
Respondent to implement such condition.
27.
Furthermore, the Claimant held that the interpretation, by a layman, of the inserted clause 7. of
the transfer agreement can be limited to a case where the player before the ending of the 1st
medical certificate underwent new medicals which resulted in him being prevented on a
definitive basis to play football due to the alleged heart problems detected. On the other hand,
a good faith interpretation of the same provision cannot guarantee the Respondent to decide,
by its own free will and without consulting the creditor, i.e. the Claimant, to request a very
unusual short-term medical clearance, i.e. not even covering the period until 30 June 2019, to
just arrive at the next transfer window without having triggered the condition and – by so doing
– then clear out the player.
28.
The Claimant further underlined that the contractual clauses at stake do not state that the
medicals need to be passed by the player to the sole satisfaction of the Respondent. The
Claimant held that the second medicals had to be executed in full cooperation between the two
clubs, and this in particular after FC Chiasso had specifically and timely requested it.
29.
In addition, the Claimant held that:
according to the media, on 4 February 2019, the player was registered by the Belgian club,
VV-Sint Truiden.
on 13 July 2019, VV Sint-Truiden transferred the Player to S.B.V. Excelsior Rotterdam, a club
playing in the Jupiter League, the second tier of Dutch football. During the season 2019/2020,
the Player made 31 appearances, scoring 14 goals and 6 assists.
on 1 July 2020, S.B.V. Excelsior Rotterdam transferred the Player to Heracles Almelo, a
professional Dutch football club playing in the Eredivisie, the first tier of Dutch football.
30.
The Claimant stated that the Respondent acted with bad faith based on the following reasons:
1) The issuance of a “permanent certificate of eligibility to play professional football” within
4 months and until 30 June 2019 exclusively depended on the will of the Respondent to
request and get it. The Claimant had no right / power / possibility to do it as the player was
an employee of the Respondent. However, despite all the detailed and on-time requests
sent from FC Chiasso to Frosinone even before the expiration of the 1st medical certificate,
there is no proof that the Respondent ever requested to the clinic in charge to issue a
medical clearance until 30 June 2019.
2) Frosinone never intended and always refuted to involve FC Chiasso in the medicals or to
keep the Claimant duly updated: it sent to the Claimant the 1st medical certificate only after
FC Chiasso signed the transfer agreement; it passed the medical examinations leading to
the 1st medical certificate with a four-months delay; it did not even bother to reply to the
written invitation by FC Chiasso on 27 November 2018 to arrange together the new
medicals upon which the condition had to be triggered; on the other hand, it autonomously
conducted both the 1st and the 2nd medical examinations on the player without even
informing FC Chiasso; on 28 December 2018, rather than organising together with FC
Chiasso definitive medical examinations for the player to be granted a clearance until 30
Page 6 of 12
REF 20-01038
June 2019, it immediately communicated the termination of the transfer agreement;
despite written requests by FC Chiasso, it never provided the Claimant with the second
medical examinations at the basis of the 2nd medical certificate; finally, before terminating
the Player’s Employment Contract, it never tried to facilitate the player’s return to FC
Chiasso, which would have limited the economic damages suffered by the Claimant.
3) By the 2nd medical certificate, the player strangely got a mere clearance of just 3 additional
months (until 4 March 2019), enough to not trigger the condition imposing Frosinone to
pay the transfer fee.
4) The 1st and 2nd short-term medical clearances obtained by Frosinone are in full contrast with
the FC Chiasso Medical Certificate which, by chance, was issued by a renowned Italian clinic
and thus valid in Italy. Again, considering that the second medicals did not have to be
passed to Frosinone’s satisfaction, the FC Chiasso Medical Certificate is a cogent evidence
that the Respondent’s behaviour is illegitimate and must be sanctioned. Even more, both
the 2nd medical certificate and the FC Chiasso Medical Certificate granted clearance to the
Player, with the only difference of its duration.
5) It is also noteworthy that the player could always play for the Respondent during his whole
stay, although under short-term clearances, and was eventually never detected with a heart
disease preventing him to permanently – or even just until 30 June 2019 - play professional
football. In fact, he successfully continued his career elsewhere after having left Frosinone.
6) After having signed the transfer agreement, FC Chiasso tried to liaise on time with
Frosinone to jointly appoint an independent medical centre to carry out the new “essential”
medicals, making clear that it would accept medicals carried out by the same clinic chosen
by Frosinone (“Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli”) upon condition to receive
all the relevant correspondence and that its healthcare supervisor could attend the medical
activities.
7) It is totally implausible that the player was fit to play professional football right before
Frosinone showed its interest in the player, as certified by the FC Chiasso Medical Certificate
on 29 May 2018, that all of a sudden a heart problem was detected to the extent that he
could not even get a 12-month clearance – but which nonetheless did not prevent him to
play five months with the Respondent - and afterwards such problem magically
disappeared, allowing the Player to keep playing European professional football at top level.
31.
The Claimant concluded that the Respondent abusively prevented the condition under the
Transfer Agreement to occur and must therefore be liable to pay FC Chiasso the agreed Transfer
Fee under its clause 2.1.
32.
The Respondent did not provide its position within the given deadline (after an extension
request).
II.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE PSC
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: “the Single
Judge”) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect,
he referred to the wording of art. 21 of the 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures
Page 7 of 12
REF 20-01038
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the
Procedural Rules”) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 21 July 2020 and decided on 20 November 2020. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded
that the June 2020 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players is applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on
the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the October 2020 edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in
front of FIFA on 21 July 2020. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the
June 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the
Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.
3.
Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of the
Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 4 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the
Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute
between two clubs affiliated to two different associations.
4.
The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the
parties. The Single Judge emphasized, however, 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.
5.
In this respect, the Single Judge first observed that the Respondent did not submit its position
(within the given deadline) to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant, despite having been
asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in this way, the Respondent
had renounced to its right of defense and, thus, it had not formally contested the allegations
and arguments of the Claimant.
6.
In fact, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and pointed out that in
the present matter a decision shall be taken upon the arguments and documents submitted by
the Claimant. Indeed, art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules is clear that if no reply is received
before the expiry of the deadline, a submission cannot be taken into account: “If there is no
reason not to deal with a petition, it shall be sent to the opposing party or the person affected
by the petition with a time limit for a statement or reply. If no statement or reply is received
before the time limit expires, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents
already on file. Submissions received outside the time limit shall not be taken into
account. There will only be a second exchange of correspondence in special cases.” (emphasis
added)
7.
In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that the parties concluded a transfer agreement
related to the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that according to
said agreement the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a transfer fee amounting
Page 8 of 12
REF 20-01038
to EUR 500,000, payable in three instalments, subject to the player being granted a medical
certificate to play professional football until June 2019.
8.
Likewise, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant lodged the present claim against the
Respondent since the latter failed to pay the aforementioned transfer fee.
9.
In this respect, the Single Judge observed that on 28 December 2018 (i.e. almost 5 months after
the signature of the agreement) and one day after the Claimant sent an invoice to the
Respondent for the first installment, the Respondent informed the Claimant that the agreement
had to be considered terminated since the 2nd medical certificate was valid until 4 March 2019
only and therefore the condition established in article 2.2 and 7.1 of the agreement was not
fulfilled.
10.
In this regard, the Single Judge focused his attention on the wording of article 2.2 of the
agreement, which states that: “The payment of the transfer fee will be made, as essential
condition, only if the Player will be deemed able to permanently play professional football and
he will obtain the sport medical suitability with validity until 30 June 2019 (…)”.
11.
Equally, the Single Judge observed that pursuant to article 7.1 of the agreement the parties
agreed that “If within 4 (four) months from the signature of this Agreement the Player won´t
obtain the permanent certificate of eligibility to play professional football (i.e. sport medical
suitability with validity until 30 June 2019) issued by Public Medical Body or other entitled similar
facility, this Agreement would immediately and mutually terminate and no transfer fee will be
due from Frosinone to FC Chiasso that won´t be entitled to any compensation whatsoever,
irrevocably waiving to raise any kind of pretence against Frosinone”.
12.
Considering the aforementioned provisions as well as the facts of the case, the Single Judge is
faced with the question whether the Respondent legitimately terminated the transfer agreement
and, as a result, is not obliged to pay the transfer fee to the Claimant.
13.
Whereas at first sight the literal wording of art. 7.1 of the transfer agreement indeed seems to
support the actions of the Respondent, the Single Judge finds that, as rightly stressed by the
Claimant, parties to a transfer agreement are also expected to act in accordance with the
principle of good faith.
14.
In this regard, the Single Judge finds that it can be established that the intention of the parties
was that the Respondent would not have to pay any transfer fee to the Claimant if it would
surface that the player was not able to play professional football for the Respondent. In the
Single Judge’s view, this is the only reasonable interpretation that can be given to the
requirement that the transfer fee was conditioned to the issuance of a certificate of eligibility
with validity until 30 June 2019. However, and at this point emphasizing that the Respondent
had not contested the argumentation provided by the Claimant, the Single Judge finds that
nothing suggested that the player was not able to play professional football for the Respondent
at any given moment. In fact, the Single Judge highlighted that the player duly rendered his
services to the Respondent for 6 months and that the player – after having left the Respondent
Page 9 of 12
REF 20-01038
- continued his career in Belgium and the Netherlands, playing for 3 different clubs, the first one
already since February 2019. The Single Judge stressed that the Respondent – in good faith should have opted for another medical exam around 4 March 2019 to establish whether the
player was able to continue to play for the Respondent after this date. However, this was made
impossible due to the fact that the Respondent had ‘dissolved’ the player’s contract already. The
Single Judge finds that given the overall circumstances of this case, the termination by the
Respondent was premature and that it acted without diligence by not doing more to continue
the player’s employment with the Respondent, in particular considering the various requests of
the Claimant.
15.
Therefore, taking into account the arguments and documents submitted by the Claimant as well
as the lack of reply by the Respondent, the Single Judge finds that by terminating the contract
already on 28 December 2018, the Respondent did not act in good faith.
16.
For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge also remarked that the specifics of the player’s
transfer from the Claimant to the Respondent were at odds with the principle of the
maintenance of contractual stability between professionals and clubs, which is a cornerstone of
the Regulations. Indeed, by establishing a condition precedent that would render both the
transfer agreement as well as the employment contract null and void 6 months into the
execution of the agreement on the basis of the medical situation of the player, the Respondent
in fact made the player’s employment contract subject to a successful medical examination.
Whereas art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations in principle only applies to contracts between players
and clubs, the Single Judge does find the provision of relevance in the present matter, especially
since the transfer had already been executed. In fact, the relevant clauses of the transfer
agreement did not merely indicate that no transfer fees were to be paid, but went as far to state
that the transfer agreement as well as the employment contract (and thus the transfer as a
whole) would be terminated. In this sense, the Single Judge wished to recall that the transfer
had taken place 6 months earlier and that both the transfer agreement and the employment
contract had come into force and were executed. Allowing one club to effectively terminate the
transfer as a whole 6 months after it occurred, would, in the Single Judge’s view, in this specific
case contravene an important pillar of the Regulations.
17.
In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the termination of the agreement by
the Respondent on 28 December 2018 on the basis that a medical certificate was only granted
until March 2019 (i.e. not permanent) was done in bad faith and was incompatible with the
principle of contractual stability under the Regulations.
18.
As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the transfer fee is due by the Respondent to the
Claimant.
19.
Therefore, the Single Judge underlined that in accordance with the basic legal principle
of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the
parties in good faith, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR
500,000, relating to the outstanding transfer fee pursuant to the agreement.
Page 10 of 12
REF 20-01038
20.
In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant requested an annual
interest of 5% over the outstanding amount.
21.
In conclusion, the Single Judge decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and determined that
the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant an amount of EUR 500,000 plus a 5%
interest p.a. as from the respective due dates until the day of the effective payment.
22.
What is more, taking into account the consideration under number II./2. above, the Single Judge
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his 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.
23.
In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out 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 and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
24.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment
in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods
shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
25.
Finally, 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. 3 of the Regulations.
III. DECISION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE PSC
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Chiasso, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Frosinone Calcio, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 500,000,
plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-on the amount of EUR 200,000 from 1 February 2019 until the date of effective payment;
-on the amount of EUR 150,000 from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective payment and
-on the amount of EUR 150,000 from 1 July 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amounts.
Page 11 of 12
REF 20-01038
4.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA
languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
5.
In the event that the amounts due, plus the applicable interest, are not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Single Judge of the PSC:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 12 of 12