Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-6815
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 March 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player BRUNO VIANA WILLEMEM SILVA
BY:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre dos Santos Megale (Brazil), member
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Bruno Viana Willemem Silva, Brazil
Represented by Emanuel Corceiro Calçada
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
FC Khimki, Russia
INTERVENING PARTY:
SC Braga, Portugal
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-6815
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 February 2022, the Portuguese club SC Braga (hereinafter: the Intervening party) and
the Russian club FC Khimki (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant),
concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement) for the temporary transfer of
the Brazilian player Bruno Viana Willemem Silva (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent) from the Intervening party to the Club, namely until 30 June
2022.
2.
Accordingly, on 7 February 2022, the Player and the Club concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from said date until 30 June 2022.
3.
Pursuant to the contract, the Club undertook to remunerate the Player as follows:
“6.2
During the period of the Football player’s work in the Club, the Monthly earnings of the
Football player shall be calculated on the basis of Annual earnings amounting to 704 520
(Seven hundred four thousand five hundred twenty) Euro. As such, subject to proper fulfilment
of this contract, the Football player will receive EUR 58 710 gross per month, which is
approximately EUR 50 000 net of Russian taxes.”
6.3
The Football player's Monthly earnings are calculated on the basis of the Annual earnings
and include the following:
a) monthly salary (paragraph 6.4 of present contract);
b) monthly bonus for the proper performance of his duties by the Football player (paragraph
6.5 of present contract);
c) c) Payments calculated in accordance with current Russian labour legislation on the basis
of average earnings: for the period of leave, business trips and in other cases, when the
to... (illegible)... as the average earnings payments).
6.4
The Football player's monthly salary is 300 000 (Three hundred thousand) rubles. The salary
is paid twice a month - up to the 25th day of the current month for the first half of that month,
and up to the 10th day of the following month for the second half of that month. The monthly
salary for a partially worked month is calculated in proportion to the days actually worked.
6.5
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-6815
The monthly bonus for the full calculated month shall be calculated as the difference between
(i) the 1/12 part of the Annual earnings, (ii) the monthly salary and (iii) the average earnings
payments for the calculated month. For the first and last calculated months, the 1/12 part of
the Annual earnings (i) shall be calculated in proportion to the time actually worked.
In the event that the amount of the monthly salary and the average earnings payments for
the calculated month is higher than the 1/12 part of the Annual earnings, then such excess
will be accounted for when calculating the amount of the monthly bonus in the next
calculation periods (months).
The monthly bonus is conditional and must be paid to the Football player only under the
condition that he has duly executed his contractual obligations and that he has got no
disciplinary punishments during respective month.
6.6
The Club has the right to establish various systems of awarding (for example: single and
regular awards), stimulating surcharges, extra charges, etc., the sizes, and which order of
payments are regulated by the corresponding documents of Club confirmed by the General
director. Thus any payments to the Football player from the Club, besides an official salary,
are encouragements for work and are paid according to article 191 of the Labor code of the
Russian Federation.
6.7
The Club has the right to independently, without the coordination with the Football player,
increase the size of a salary, including the amounts of awards, stimulating surcharges, extra
charges and other similar payments.
6.8
The Club is not obliged to pay for the Football player's accommodation, transport and
translation services, but, in this regard, the Club pays the Football player an additional
monthly bonus in the amount of 235 295 (Two hundred thirty-five thousand two hundred
ninety-five) rubles”.
4.
Furthermore, art. 10 par. 5 of the contract states that “any amounts payable to the Football
player under this Contract are stated prior to the withholding of personal income tax. The Club
shall not be responsible for changes of tax rates.”
5.
On 7 February 2022, the Club sent a letter (hereinafter: the guarantee letter) to the Player,
declaring the following:
“Football club Khimki hereby guarantees that, if we enter into an employment agreement with
you starting from 7 February 2022, your salary of February 2022 will be paid in full, i.e. for
the whole month, starting from 1 February and ending on 28 February 2022”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-6815
6.
On 17 March 2022, the Player sent a letter to the Club, notifying the suspension of the
contract until its formal expiry based on the temporary amendments made by FIFA to its
regulations in response to the exceptional situation deriving from the war in Ukraine.
7.
By means of correspondence dated 2 June 2022, the Player put the Club in default of EUR
72,774.62 as outstanding remuneration and granted 5 days to the latter in order to remedy
the alleged breach.
8.
Similarly, on 8 July 2022, the Player put the Club in default amending its request for
outstanding remuneration to EUR 84,059.13, and contextually granting 10 days to remedy
the breach.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 25 July 2022, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
10. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club failed to comply with its financial obligations
related to the salaries due for the entire month of February 2022 and part of March 2022,
namely until the suspension of the contract on 17 March 2022.
11. Furthermore, the Player stated that the Club should have paid also the bonus stipulated
under art. 6.8 of the contract (also referred to as allowance), namely for the months of
February 2022 and March 2022 (pro-rata).
12. Accordingly, the Player demanded the payment of EUR 84,059.13 as outstanding
remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant due dates.
b. Position of the Club and counterclaim
13. In its submission, the Club set as a premise that pursuant to the Russian labour law, it is
not possible to make any payment to players in the absence of a proper working permit.
14. In this context, the Club argued that since the Player had arrived in Russia on 24 February
2022 only, it would have been necessary more time in order to obtain the relevant working
permit so as to pay the relevant salary, whereas the Player left the country earlier than
obtaining the mentioned document, namely on 17 March 2022.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-6815
15. Nevertheless, the Club acknowledged the existence of outstanding sums in favour of the
Player but objected to the calculation presented by the latter, stating that, pursuant to the
contract, the outstanding amounts are to be decreased in function of the relevant taxation
regime.
16. In this respect, the Club premised that the total monthly earning of the Player was
composed of a salary (corresponding, under clause 6.4, to RUB 300,000 – approx. EUR
4,660) and a monthly bonus (i.e., clause 6.5) which maximum amount, in case of whole
worked month, would correspond to EUR 54,050.
17. In this context, the Club first argued that the part of monthly earning payable as monthly
bonus to the Player would depend on the time of work effectively performed by the Player
during each month, hence since the latter failed to work during part of the employment
relationship, no bonus should be paid in full by the Club.
18. Secondly, the Respondent held that in relation to the month of February 2022, even
acknowledging the validity of the guarantee letter dated 7 February, this would guarantee
the payment in full by the Club of the sum defined as “salary” only, while the monthly bonus
indicated under art. 6.5 of the contract would remain based on the number of effective
working days.
19. Accordingly, the Club held that the monthly earning to which the Player would be entitled
based on the contract (i.e. EUR 58,710 gross) shall be diminished to EUR 47,067.85 gross
for February 2022 (i.e. EUR 4,660 as full salary plus EUR 42 467,85 as monthly bonus but
only 22 days of effective working from 7 to 28 February), and to EUR 2 555,48 gross for the
month of March 2022 (no bonus as the player never worked + 17 days salary).
20. Subsidiarily, the Club stated that in case a bonus had to be recognized to the Player in
relation to the month of March 2022, this would amount to EUR 29,640.32, so as to
correspond to the effective number of working days, i.e., 17.
21. In addition to the above, the Club objected to the Player’s request for additional bonuses
under clause 6.8 of the contract (i.e., the allowance), stating that the Player could have
effectively incurred in expenses for housing, transportation or translation services only in
the period between 24 February and 17 March 2022, namely because before said time the
Player was attending the training camp of the Club in Turkey, so no further costs would
have occurred.
22. Accordingly, the Club recognized an outstanding allowance of EUR 2,593.71 gross only,
precisely from 24 February 2022 to 17 March 2022.
23. In conclusion, in the Club’s view, the correct gross outstanding amount to be payable to the
Player would be EUR 52,217.04 or EUR 81,857.36, depending on whether the bonus for
March 2022 is to be acknowledged as outstanding or not by FIFA.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-6815
24. Thirdly, in the perspective of a correct calculation, the Club argued that by virtue of the fact
that the Player did not become tax resident in Russia as he did not receive any working
permit, a different taxation rate than the one stipulated under the contract (13-15%) shall
be applied (30% instead) to the Player’s monthly earning.
25. As a consequence, the Club estimated the net outstanding remuneration payable to the
Player in the amounts of EUR 30,439.93 or EUR 51,188.15, still depending on whether the
aforementioned bonus of March 2022 is going to be awarded or not by FIFA.
26. Furthermore, the Club referred that on 9 and 15 March 2022 some money were handed to
the Player by the Head of the Club’s First Team, Mr. Sergey Yakunchikov, amounting to a
total of RUB 400,000, which therefore shall be equally deducted from the claimed
outstanding remuneration.
27. Finally, the Club contested also the Player’s demand for interest on the outstanding
amounts, allegedly because the Club was not in a position to realize any payment due to
the absence of the Player’s working permit.
28. Notwithstanding the above, the Club argued that the Player was not entitled to suspend
the contract on 17 March 2022, namely because, pursuant to the Club’s interpretation of
the relevant FIFA provisions addressing the War in Ukraine, the Player should have first
sought for a mutual agreement with the Club within 10 March 2022, whereas his conduct
allegedly showed his will to continue working for the Club so as that the latter spotted a
series of facta concludentia.
29. In particular, the Club argued that the Player kept training and playing matches for the
Club, to the extent that, after having been selected to participate in an official away game
scheduled on 19 March 2022 and after having been provided with the relevant flight tickets
by the Club, he did not even inform the latter of his absence.
30. Moreover, the Club stated that if he had really wanted to leave the Club he should have not
accepted the monies handed to him by the Club’s representative on 9 and 15 March 2022.
31. Accordingly, in the Club’s opinion, the Player acted in bad faith while he had tacitly
manifested to waive his right to suspend the contract, thus rendering the suspension
occurred on 17 March 2022 unlawful.
32. As a consequence, the Club decided to lodge a counterclaim against the Player, arguing
that the suspension until the end of the contract would correspond de facto to the
unilateral termination of the contract without just cause, and for this reason the player
shall pay compensation to the Club.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-6815
33. In this respect, the Club stated that said compensation shall correspond to the residual
value of the Player’ salary under the contract (i.e., from 18 March to 30 June 2022), thus
amounting to EUR 205,485 (i.e. Annual salary EUR 704,520 / 12 months = EUR 58 710 * 3,5
months = EUR 205,485).
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
34. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player denied having ever received any sum from any
representative of the Club, hence no deductions shall operate in that regard from the
Player’s outstanding remuneration.
35. Secondly, the Player declared to ignore completely the status of his working permit when
he left the country in March 2022, namely as the Club never provided any information in
that respect.
36. Thirdly, the Player held that the contract represents per se a valid and binding source of
obligations for the Club until its suspension, which in the Player’s view occurred in line with
the relevant provisions issued by FIFA, hence it is not possible to define such suspension
as unlawful.
d. Position of the Intervening party
37. In its submission, the Intervening party referred that on 28 March 2022, the Club sent a
termination agreement to the Player requesting the latter to waive any potential claim
against the Club, but the parties did not sign it.
38. Nevertheless, in the Intervening party’s opinion, it appeared evident from this initiative of
the Club that the latter had nothing to claim from the Player and that conversely it had
acknowledged the validity of the suspension of the contract on 17 March 2022.
39. In conclusion, the Intervening party argued that it had no alternative but to register the
Player being his parent club and because the Player was registered with the Club on a
temporary basis only.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 25 July 2022 and submitted for
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-6815
decision on 8 March 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022
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.
41. 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 (October 2022 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 player from Brazil
and a club from Russia, with the involvement of a club from Portugal.
42. 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 Players (October 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 July 2022, the July 2022 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
43. 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
44. 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
45. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the Player’s entitlement
to suspend the relevant employment agreement on 17 March 2022.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-6815
46. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Club objected to the Player’s decision to suspend
the contract until the original expiry of the loan agreement stipulated with the Intervening
Party, namely as in the Club’s view this would correspond to a unilateral termination
without just cause by the Player, hence the decision of the Club to lodge a counterclaim
against the Player.
47. In this respect, the Chamber wished to remark that on 7 March 2022, in response to the
exceptional situation deriving from the war in Ukraine and after consultation with various
global stakeholders, the Bureau of the FIFA Council approved temporary amendments to
the Regulations in order to provide legal certainty and clarity on a number of elements, in
primis the stability of the employment relationships having an international dimension
which were concluded between players or coaches and clubs affiliated to the Ukrainian
Association of Football (UAF) or the Football Union of Russia (FUR), namely because these
subjects had been considered majorly affected by the mentioned extraordinary
circumstances.
48. In this context, the Chamber wished to recall and summarize the content of the abovementioned amendments which were reflected on the relevant Annexe 7 to the Regulations,
focusing in particular on art. 3 par. 1 and art. 4:
“3. Employment contracts of an international dimension with clubs affiliated to the FUR
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of these regulations and unless otherwise agreed
between the parties, a contract of an international dimension between a player or a coach
and a club affiliated to the FUR can be unilaterally suspended until 30 June 2022 by the
player or the coach, provided that a mutual agreement with the club could not be reached
before or on 10 March 2022.
4. Consequences of the suspension
A player or coach whose contract has been suspended as per article 2 paragraph 1 or article
3 paragraph 1 above does not commit a breach of contract by signing and registering with
a new club. Article 18 paragraph 5 of these regulations does not apply to a professional
whose contract has been suspended as per article 2 paragraph 1 or article 3 paragraph 1
above”.
49. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that scope of the mentioned provision was
indeed to guarantee players and coaches the right to move abroad from the Russian
territory without being penalized for such decision and at the same time to avoid rendering
the mentioned suspension of the contracts as an automatic effect of the relevant
provisions, but rather just as an alternative to different possible agreements between the
concerned parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-6815
50. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to remark that the said interpretation appears in line
with the FIFA Circular no. 1787 dated 9 March 2022 as this provided clarifications
contextually to the entry into force of the new Regulations and reads as follows:
“The regulations clearly state that any time a contract is suspended, a player or coach in both
the UAF and FUR will not commit a breach of contract by signing and registering with a new
club”.
51. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the suspension by the Player of the contract does
not constitute a breach of the same, hence the counterclaim of the Club shall be rejected.
52. In continuation the Chamber focused on the dispute between the parties concerning the
outstanding remuneration in favour of the Player and noted that according to the Club the
amount payable to the Player would be inferior to the sum claimed by the latter.
53. In particular, the Chamber noted that according to the Club, part of the Player’s
remuneration would be based on the number of working days effectively performed by the
Player, while the calculation presented by the Player did not take this factor into account,
at least for what concerns the month of February 2022.
54. In this context, the Chamber wished to recall the content of the guarantee letter sent to
the Player by the Club on 7 February 2022, and observed that the Player’s claim in this
regard appears consistent with the express promise made by the Club of remunerating the
latter’s salary in full for the month of February 2022, i.e., calculating it as from the 1st day
until the 28th.
55. In this respect, the Chamber noted that although the contract adopts the term “earnings”
to refer collectively to the Player’ salary and monthly bonus, thus intending them as
separate concepts, conversely the guarantee letter signed by the Respondent on 7
February 2022 seems to predate the said contract, hence, considering the common sense
adopted in contractual negotiations within the industry of football and the true intention
of the parties, it appears plausible, according to the Chamber, that the term “salary” under
the mentioned document would instead refer to the whole remuneration of the Player and
not only to one of the concepts composing the latter’s overall monthly earning under the
contract.
56. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that in regard to the month of February 2022 the
Player would be entitled to the full remuneration stipulated under the contract, regardless
of the number of working days effectively performed.
57. Conversely, in respect to the month of March 2022, the Chamber welcomed the
interpretation of the contract according to which the Player’s remuneration shall be paid
based on the number of working days, however, since the Club failed to prove that the
Player did not work during any of the 17 days prior to the suspension of the contract, said
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-6815
date shall be the relevant one for the purpose of calculating the respective remuneration,
hence the Chamber decided to award the Player’s remuneration for this month pro-rata
until 17 March 2022.
58. Similarly, the Chamber observed that the Club failed to prove having paid a total of EUR
6,212 to the Player, allegedly by hand of one of his representatives, whereas the Player
completely denied the fact, hence the concerned amount shall not be deducted from the
latter’s outstanding remuneration.
59. Moreover, with respect to the additional bonuses indicated under clause 6.8 of the contract
as “allowances”, the Chamber noted that their payment appear as agreed in full and not
expressly subject to any specific condition, thus regardless of the number of working days
effectively performed by the Player.
60. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Club’s objections regarding the alleged
miscalculation by the Player of his outstanding remuneration ascribable to the mandatory
application by the Club of a different tax regiment.
61. In particular, the Chamber recalled the Club’s argumentation as based on the relevant
domestic regulations which refer to a different taxation of player’s incomes in case of nonresident status. The Chamber also noted that due to the short stay of the Player in Russia,
allegedly it was not possible for the Club to provide the Player with the relevant working
permit.
62. In this context, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, regardless of the effective status
of the Player in the country, the taxation regime to be applied in the case at stake shall be
the sole one adopted under the contract, namely as this document, which represents the
parties’ source of obligations, says nothing with regard to any potential different fiscal
criteria applicable in case of specific circumstances such as the non-resident status of the
Player.
63. Accordingly, the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s objections concerning the alleged
deductions from the Player’s remuneration and established that this shall be award in full
and based on the amounts indicated under the contract.
ii. Consequences
64. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Club is held liable to pay the Player the outstanding sums deriving from the contract
concluded between the parties, namely EUR 50,000 plus RUB 235,295 for February 2022
and EUR 28,333.33 plus RUB 133,333 for March 2022, respectively as remuneration and
allowances.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-6815
65. In addition, taking into consideration the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard,
the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding
amounts as from the relevant due dates until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
66. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 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.
67. 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.
68. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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 duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
69. 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.
70. 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
71. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-6815
72. 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.
73. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-6815
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Bruno Viana Willemem Silva, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, FC Khimki, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
EUR 50,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March
2022 until the date of effective payment;
RUB 235,295 as outstanding allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022
until the date of effective payment;
EUR 28,333.33 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18
March 2022 until the date of effective payment;
RUB 133,333 as outstanding allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 March 2022
until the date of effective payment;
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, FC Khimki, is 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. 24 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 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-6815
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 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
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-6815
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 Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 17