Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4515
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 February 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Caio
Henrique da Silva Dantas
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid Awad Al-Thebity (Saudi Arabia), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Caio Henrique da Silva Dantas, Brazil
Represented by CSMV Advogados
RESPONDENT:
Guangzhou City FC, China PR
Represented by Salvatore Civale
INTERVENING PARTY:
EC Agua Santa, Brazil
Page 2
REF FPSD-4515
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2020, the Brazilian player Caio Henrique da Silva Dantas (hereinafter: the player)
and the Brazilian cub EC Agua Santa (hereinafter: Agua) concluded an employment
agreement, valid between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2021.
2.
On 9 January 2021, the Chinese club Guangzhou City FC (hereinafter: Guangzhou) sent a
signed and stamped letter of offer to the player, in which several conditions for a future
transfer of the player as well as his employment were described, as follows:
•
•
•
Contract duration: three years, between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2023;
Annual basic income: USD 1,200,000 net;
Personal and team bonus shall be structured according to the bonus scheme.
3.
In addition, the letter of offer to the player contained the following sentence: ‘This monetary
offer shall be only valid until 15 January 2021 under the following circumstances: our club
has reached a permanent transfer agreement with a Sport Clube Agua Santa of Brazil; the
player has successfully passed the medical examination designated by us; the player has
signed an employment contract with us; and the player has successfully obtained the Chinese
visa to enter China’.
4.
Also on 9 January 2021, Guangzhou sent a letter of offer to Agua, holding the following
condition in regard to the player’s transfer:
•
transfer fee: USD 1,500,000
5.
What is more, the letter of offer to Agua contained the following sentence: ‘The above
monetary offer shall be felt until 15 January 2021 under the following conditions an official
transfer agreement is signed by the two involved clubs our club has reached an agreement
on the employment contract with set player the player has successfully obtained the Chinese
visa to enter China’.
6.
The draft of the transfer agreement, as concluded between the parties, inter alia contained
the following clauses:
Art. 1.1.1.: ‘Party A shall take all necessary steps and provide all the requested documents,
for the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate of the Player in favor of Party B by
the CBF. Until 26 February 2021, all the necessary documents shall be duly singed and
uploaded at FIFA’s TMS to enable the Player’s International Transfer Certificate’.
7.
On 10 January 2021, the player and Agua accepted the letters of offer of Guangzhou, by
signing said offers and confirming its acceptance in a letter to Guangzhou. Also, the player
and Agua agreed to the draft of the employment contract and the transfer agreement, which
were drafted by Guangzhou.
Page 3
REF FPSD-4515
8.
On 4 February 2021, the signed transfer agreement was sent by Agua to Guangzhou (and
the original on 18 February 2021).
9.
On 17 February 2021, the signed employment agreement was sent by the player to
Guangzhou (and the original on 22 February 2021).
10. On 26 February 2021, Guangzhou informed the player that it was aware of the difficulties
regarding the visa, and informed him as follows: ‘Since the TMS is closed today all of our
agreements shall remain in effect in the mid-season transfer window one July 2021 with the
same terms we look forward to the arrival of Mr Dantas at Guangzhou’.
11. On 24 March 2021, Guangzhou informed the player that it was looking forward to his arrival
in China and the completion of the registration in the summer transfer window.
12. On 20 May 2021, the player travelled from Brazil to Mexico and stayed there for a month,
only to be able to enter in China and join Guangzhou at a later point in time, however was
forced to return to Brazil on 27 June 2021, as Guangzhou did not made any attempts to
obtain the visa.
13. On 2 July 2021, Agua took the initiative the complete the transfer of the player in TMS; by
sending new TPO-declarations to Guangzhou and starting the TMS instructions.
14. On 15 July and 20 July 2021, the player put Guangzhou in default and asked to be integrated
in its first team.
15. On 20 July 2021, Guangzhou confirmed that agreed on an employment contract and transfer
agreement, however also indicated that it was willing to renegotiate the terms of the
employment contract.
16. On 26 July 2021, the player again put Guangzhou in default and expressed his desire to join
the first team, proving it a 24 hours’ deadline to remedy said default, however to no avail.
17. On 26 July 2021, Agua also reminded Guangzhou that the transfer of the player in TMS
should be closed as soon as possible, as the transfer window was about to close on 29 July
2021.
18. On 28 July 2021, the player again put Guangzhou in default and asked for the conclusion of
the transfer, indicating that it no transfer was concluded by 29 July 2021 the latest, this would
be considered a breach of contract by Guangzhou and he would have a just cause to
terminate the contract.
19. On 17 August 2021, Guangzhou allegedly changed its position and communicated to the
player that the presence of the player in China ‘was agreed as the final step before complete
Page 4
REF FPSD-4515
the transfer not only in order to have a proper medical examination but also in order to finalize
and further discuss the details of the employment relationship’.
20. On 1 July 2020, the player signed a contract with Agua, valid between 1 July 2020 and 31
December 2021, based on which contract he was entitled to receive a total amount of BRL
1,500 per month (approximately USD 275). For the corresponding period between 1 February
2021 and 1 August 2021, this corresponds to the total amount of USD 1,925.
21. On 5 August 2021, the player signed a new contract for a transfer on loan basis to the
Brazilian club Clube Nautico Capibaribe, valid between 5 August and 30 November 2021,
based on which he is entitled to a monthly salary of BRL 39,000 (approximately USD 7,503
on 5 August 2021). For the corresponding period between 5 August 2021 and 30 November
2021, this amounts to a total amount of BRL 156,000 or USD 30,012.
22. What is more, the player informs that currently, he is employed again by Agua, based on an
extended contract which is valid until 31 December 2023, based on which contract he is
entitled to receive a total amount of BRL 1,500 per month (approximately USD 275). For the
corresponding period between 1 December 2021 and 31 December 2023, this amounts to a
total amount of BRL 34,500 or USD 6,340.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 9 December 2021, 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
24. In his claim, the player explains that he undertook his best efforts to enter China and to join
Guangzhou’s team, as on 12 January 2021, he tested negative for COVID-19, on 15 January
2021, he signed a document referred to as ‘Commitment letter of Physical Examination’, as
well as a document referred to as ‘Foreigners in China must abide by the following laws
and regulations’, which documents were all needed for obtaining a visa. What is more, on
16 January 2021, the player again tested negative on COVID-19 and went through the
medical examinations, the results of which were communicated to the club on 26 January
2021.
25. In addition, the player explains that the club only provided him with an Invitation Letter for
Visa application on 23 February 2021, i.e. 3 days before the end of the registration period for
international transfers in China. The player explains that it was almost impossible for him to
travel in 3 days to China, to join the team of Guangzhou, and that this was also understood
by Guangzhou, based on its letters dated 26 February and 24 March 2021, in which he was
given permission to join the team later that year, as from 1 July 2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4515
26. In addition, the player is of the opinion that the parties have concluded a valid employment
contract, containing all essentialia negotii and which was duly accepted by both parties. What
is more, Guangzhou also clearly expressed – on several occasions - its will that the player
would join its team.
27. In addition, the player explains that the validity of his employment contract cannot be subject
to administrative formalities (in the TMS), a medical examination or the granting of a visa.
28. Further, the player that the behaviour of Guangzhou in the period between February and July
2021 can only be qualified as a breach of contract, as it was apparently possible for
Guangzhou to register several other foreign players. The player also explains that as a result,
he currently earns a salary of only 7% of the salary he should have earned at Guangzhou and
that he could not play for almost 6 months, until August 2021.
29. In conclusion, the player is of the opinion that the contract was terminated by him with just
cause, due to the severe and continues breaches by the Respondent. The player explains that
he was prevented from making the transfer to China and did not receive any salaries as per
the contract concluded with the Respondent.
30. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
•
•
•
•
USD 3,397,235.77 as compensation for breach of contract, as follows:
USD 3,600,000 as residual value of the contract with Guangzhou;
Minus USD 202,764.23 as ‘current remuneration projected until December
2023’.
USD 2,707 as reimbursement for the costs of flight tickets Brazil – Mexico;
USD 1,275.46 as reimbursement of hotel costs in Mexico;
Imposition of sanctions based on 12bis and legal costs to be imposed on the Respondent.
b. Position of Guangzhou
31. Despite having been invited to do so, Guangzhou failed to answer to the player’s claim. Only
after the deadline expired, Guangzhou sent a (short) reply, indicating that it never concluded
an employment agreement with the player and that in the meantime, the player always
continued to play with Agua.
c. Additional comments of the player and Agua
32. In additional comments, which were asked by the FIFA Administration, both the player and
Agua explained that in the period between 1 February and 1 August 2021, he did not
participate in any match.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4515
33. What is more, the player confirmed that he remained formally registered with Agua in the
abovementioned period. Additionally, the player and Agua confirmed that no other
employment agreements were concluded between him and Agua, apart from the documents
that were already provided.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. 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 9 December 2021 and submitted for
decision on . Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
35. 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
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player and
a Chinese club.
36. 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 (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 9 December 2021, the August 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
37. 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
38. 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
Page 7
REF FPSD-4515
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
39. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the player lodged a claim against Guangzhou, claiming that
Guangzhou had breached its contractual obligations as per the contract concluded between
the parties in January 2021, by not effectively registering him and integrating him in its team
for two consecutive transfer windows.
40. Guangzhou, for its part, failed to timely present its response to the claim of the player, in
spite of having been invited to do so. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the
Guangzhou had renounced to its right of defence.
41. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber
concurred that, in accordance with art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be
taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements
and documents presented by the player.
42. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it was its task was to determine whether the
parties had indeed validly concluded an employment agreement, and if so, when said contract
was concluded and which conditions would apply. Furthermore, the Chamber deemed that
it should be determined whether such contract was terminated by one of the parties and if
so, what the consequences of such termination would be.
43. First of all, the Chamber noted that the parties had negotiated in the month of January 2021
on the conclusion of a possible transfer of the player from Agua to Guangzhou, and had
exchanged several documents, i.e. an offer made by Guangzhou on 9 January 2021 and a
draft of a transfer agreement. From the information on file it appeared to the members of
the Chamber that said offer was allegedly accepted by the player and Agua in January 2021,
and that the respective employment contract and the definitive version of the transfer
agreement were effectively signed in February 2021.
44. In view of the foregoing, and in order to establish whether or not the parties had indeed
entered into a valid employment relationship, the members of the Chamber first turned their
attention to the contents of the document signed by the player on 17 February 2021, which
is referred to as “Employment contract for foreign football player”.
45. In this respect, the Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence which
dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding,
apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the
Page 8
REF FPSD-4515
essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their
role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the
employer to the employee.
46. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber concluded that
all such elements were included in the document filed by the player. In other words, the
Chamber understood that the legal document concluded by the parties (i.e. the document
signed by the player on 17 February 2021, referred to as “Employment contract for foreign
football player”) indeed included all the relevant information at the basis of an employment
relationship between contractual parties. Specifically, the document contains the signature of
both parties, provides for the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable to the player. Moreover, it clearly stipulates that the player is employed as a footballer
with the club. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the document signed by the player on 17
February 2021, referred to as “Employment contract for foreign football player” is in fact a
valid and binding employment contract and shall be considered in the case at stake, as the
contractual basis of the present dispute.
47. In continuation, the Chamber analysed the circumstances occurred between the January and
July 2021. First of all, the members of the Chamber noted that the parties, after the exchange
of the signed contract and transfer agreement, did not manage the administrative procedures
to finalize the transfer of the player to Guangzhou in the TMS before of the end of the (first)
registration window in China PR in 2021, which closed on 26 February 2021.
48. In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed it relevant to point out that the parties
remained in contract and apparently agreed between them that they would postpone their
contractual obligations until the summer registration period, which according to the
information contained in the TMS started on 1 July 2021 and would run until 30 July 2021.
In this respect, the members referred to the confirmation sent by Guangzhou to the player
on 26 February and 24 March 2021, in which it informed the player that it was looking
forward to his arrival in China and the completion of the registration in the summer transfer
window. Said stance appears to not have been contested by the player, who in May 2021,
even did an attempt to enter China by travelling from Brazil to Mexico and staying there for
a month, however to no avail, as Guangzhou did not make any attempts to obtain the
entrance visa.
49. Additionally, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the events which had
allegedly occurred in the month of July 2021, and noted that Guangzhou – after Agua and
the player had requested to finalize the transfer of the player in TMS and to integrate him in
its team in the month of July 2021 - tried to change its position that it had concluded a valid
contract with the player, by arguing that the transfer of the player was effectively conditional
upon his medical examination and the granting of a visa for entering China PR. Eventually,
again, the parties failed to formalize the transfer of the player to Guangzhou before of the
end of the (second) registration window in China PR in 2021, which closed on 30 July 2021.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4515
50. In this context, the Chamber first reminded the parties that, in line with the contents of art.
18 par. 4 of the Regulations, as well as the jurisprudence of FIFA, the validity of an
employment contract cannot be made conditional upon a successful medical examination
and/or the grant of a work permit and/or the execution of (administrative) formalities, such
as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the international transfer
of a player, which are of the sole responsibility of a club and upon which a player has no
influence. As the club is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights of the player and in
benefiting from his services, it is also expected to act accordingly and execute the
administrative formalities in view of obtaining, for instance, the player’s ITC and his
subsequent registration with the engaging FA.
51. What us more, and additionally referring to the obligation of the parties to maintain
contractual stability, the Chamber underlined that a club willing to engage a specific player
should perform any medical examination prior to concluding any employment contract with
the player. Any contractual provision contrary to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations shall be
considered as invalid.
52. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection to the validity of
the employment contract and determined that the latter is valid and biding for the parties.
53. As such, and by failing to register the player in two consecutive transfer windows, despite
having concluded a valid contract, the members of Chamber had no other option but to
conclude that Guangzhou - by not finalizing the (administrative) registration of the player and
by concluding the transfer in TMS, as well as by no integrating the player in its team – it had
effectively terminated the contract without just cause on 30 July 2021.
54. In conclusion, the members of the Chamber concluded that Guangzhou should bear the
consequences of such unilateral termination without just cause and is therefore obliged to
pay the player outstanding remuneration, if any, as well as compensation for breach of
contract.
ii. Consequences
55. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
56. The Chamber observed that at the time of termination of the contract, i.e. on 29 July 2021,
there did not appear to be any outstanding remuneration, as the Chamber established that
the parties had mutually agreed that the starting date of the contract would be postponed
until the summer of 2021.
57. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber decided to not award any outstanding
remuneration to the player.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4515
58. What is more, as to the claimed reimbursement of the costs of flight tickets, as well as the
reimbursement of hotel costs in Mexico, the members of the Chamber decided to reject said
claims, in view of the lack of a contractual basis.
59. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
60. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
61. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
62. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of USD 2,900,000 (i.e. the salaries in the period between 1 August 2021
and 31 December 2023) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
63. In continuation, the Chamber 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.
64. Indeed, the player found employment with two Brazilian clubs, namely Agua and Clube
Nautico Capibaribe. In accordance with the pertinent employment contracts, made available
Page 11
REF FPSD-4515
by the player. Based on the contents of said contracts, the Chamber concluded that the player
mitigated his damages with an amount of BRL 156,000 (or USD 30,012) by signing a contract
with the Brazilian club Clube Nautico Capibaribe, and with an amount of BRL 34,500 (or USD
6,340) by extending his contract with Agua until 31 December 2023. In conclusion, the
Chamber deemed that the player had mitigated his damages with the total amount of USD
30,012 + USD 6,340 = USD 36,352.
65. Subsequently, the Chamber 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 Chamber however concluded that the contract was
terminated by the club and that therefore the player shall not receive additional
compensation.
66. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD
2,863,648 to the player (i.e. USD 2,900,000 minus USD 36,352), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
67. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 9 December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
Page 12
REF FPSD-4515
71. 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.
72. 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
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-4515
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Caio Henrique da Silva Dantas, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Guangzhou City FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
-
USD 2,863,648 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 9 December 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. 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 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 article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 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 14
REF FPSD-4515
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 15