Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12297
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 February 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Lauder Cesar Perez Da Silva
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), member
Tarek BRAUER (Germany), member
CLAIMANT:
Lauder Cesar Perez Da Silva, Brazil
Represented by Cleiton Bernardes
RESPONDENT:
Karbala Club, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12297
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to the present case are:
-
The Brazilian player, Lauder Cesar Perez Da Silva (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant);
-
The Iraqi club, Karbala (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
On 6 August 2023, Mr. Ahmed, a club’s representative (hereinafter: the club’s agent) and Mr
Edivam, the Claimant’s representative (hereinafter: the player’s agent) held the following
discussions via the application WhatsApp:
-
The club’s agent requested the passport of the player and sent a non-signed copy
of the employment contract to be concluded between the player and the club
(hereinafter: the contract) and requested the signature of the player.
-
The player’s agent sent the passport, a signed copy of the contract and picture of
the player signing the contract.
3.
The contract was valid as from 1 September 2023 until 30 June 2024, including a monthly
salary of USD 3,500.
4.
Clause 13 of the contract reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
“this contract activated based on medical reports after medical test in 15 days from
the arrival of the player and if the player inured this contract will not be activat”
5.
The club’s agent and the player’s agent continued with the discussions via the application
WhatsApp and indicated the following:
-
On 10 August 2023:
The club’s agent: “the club president says we cannot [sign] the contract unless we
bring the dismissal letter from the club in which the player play[s]”
The player’s agent sent a release letter in response.
-
On 14 August 2023:
The player’s agent enquired about the pre-contract signed by the president of the
club and the club’s agent responded that the president would go to certify the
contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12297
-
On 23 August 2023: The club’s agent informed that the club “submitted his name to
reserve a visa (allowing flights)”.
-
Between 31 August 2023 and 2 September, the club’s agent confirmed that a visa
was granted and sent the flight ticket details for the player with a departure date
from Sao Paulo on 15 September 2023 arriving in Bagdad on 16 September 2023.
6.
On 16 September 2023, the player complained to the club’s agent, via the application
WhatsApp that the club was not respecting the contract by not providing him with food and
proper accommodation.
7.
On the same date, 16 September 2023, via its official Facebook account, the club welcomed
the player upon his arrival to Iraq.
8.
On 20 September 2023, via the application WhatsApp, the club’s agent informed the player
that he would pass medical examinations. The parties also held discussions regarding the
trainings of the player.
9.
On 22 September 2023, via the application WhatsApp, the club’s agent informed the player
of the conversation held with the president of the club and indicated that he would get 5%
commission of his first salary, i.e., USD 1,750.
10. Between 23 September 2023 and 25 September 2023, the club’s agent and the player’s
agent continued with the discussions via the application WhatsApp:
“[23 September 2023]
[Club’s agent]: The agreement was canceled by the club. Tell me that a striker
has been signed
[Player’s agent] See some Iraqi club for him
[Club’s agent]: Unfortunately, we did not get him a club
[24 September 2023]
[Club’s agent] He told Lauder it was difficult to continue with the club
The club told me that he did not adapt to the team and they needed him as a
No. 9 player
He couldn’t make himself stand out
[Player’s agent] Friend, he was being the best player now that the club asks
for another player
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12297
The club can only be joking with you. You have to talk to the club about this
How do they want to dismiss wanting a number 9 shirt
[Club’s agent] The club wanted it. I'm not in the club
The club told me that he did not adapt to the team and they needed him as a
No. 9 player
He couldn't make himself stand out
[Player’s agent] Friend, he was being the best player now that the club asks
for another player
The club can only be joking with you. You have to talk to the club about this
How do they want to dismiss wanting a number 9 shirt The club wanted it.
I'm not in the club
[Club’s agent] Brother, this is what the club wanted
[Player’s agent] He was being the best player, everyone said that, there's just
no other club to put him in before he leaves.
[…]
[25 September 2023]
[Club’s agent] Tell Lauder to go and travel
[Player’s agent] Hello When
Club will pay your salaries
[Club’s agent] Booked a return ticket
They went to take him to the airport, but he did not agree to go
The flight will take 3 hours, and it takes 2 hours to reach the airport
If he does not go, he wi ll get tired because they will not book him again, and
they will take him out of the hotel and cut off his food
They told him to go with the team supervisor to the airport before the ticket
runs out
Or he will destroy himself
[Player’s agent] Club paid him
[Club’s agent] Pay what bro? You understand that the club reserved a ticket
for him for $1,900
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12297
If the ticket runs out and he does not travel, he will be punished by the Iraqi
state and the Iraqi Federation
[Player’s agent] The club dismisses like this
[club’s agent] Lauder told him to go to the airport quickly because the club
might file a complaint against him and the player could get hurt
Call Lowder and tell him to go with the supervisor to the ai rport so that he can
be on time to fly
[Player’s agent] Do you think the club is being correct
[Club’s agent] Brother, no one is righ I want to help Lauder because he will get
himself into trouble
If he doesn't come out he will be punished
Because the club has terminated the player's residency, and if he stays, he will
be punished Let him leave his room and go with the team supervisor to the
airport because the trip to the airport takes 3 hours and he has 3 and a half
hours left of his time.
What. did you tell him that he would get into a problem that had no solution?
[…]
[Club’s agent] I told him when he gets to Brazil I will send it to him if there is a
letter
Brother, you don't want to solve the problem. I'm going to sleep and let him
get into a problem that no one can solve
[…]
[Club’s agent] The club called the police and if he did not come out for 5
minutes, the police would come and detain him for 6 months
Because his residency in the country has been terminated and they will
consider him a violator of the state's sovereignty
Tell him to go quickly or he wil l be punished and detained for 6 months
The club called in the international police
[Player’s agent] Why police what did he do to call the police Since he has a
visa
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12297
[Club’s agent] The club has completed the visa and residence permit
If he stays for 5 minutes, the police will arrive, take him out, and detain him
Let him go quickly with the team supervisor and the matter is over
[Player’s agent] Every foreigner has the right to stay outside their country for
30 days when leaving the country.
11. On an unspecified date, seems to be the same date (between 23 September 2023 and 25
September 2023), the club's agent and the player had the same type of communication as
above. The club’s agent told the player that he had to leave the country and that if he would
not leave, he would be "punished by the Iraqi government". In particular, club’s agent sent
the following messages:
“club’s agent: Don’t want to travel?
[a picture of 3 armed police officers and a police car was sent]
They will arrive at the hotel
Trus me, I want to solve your problem (sic)
The police have given time and their countdown has begun and they will raid
the room
Will you go out or tell the club to report the raid to the police?”
12. On 25 September 2023, the player sent a formal notice to the Respondent to advise about
the breach of contract committed without just cause towards him and also, provided the
Respondent two options to solve the situation. Furthermore, the Claimant offered the
Respondent ten days to comply with the options he provided, intending to settle the matter
amicably.
13. The same notice was sent to the club’s agent, who indicated that he was no longer working
in the field and that he was neither a member of the club nor the player’s agent.
14. On 26 September 2023, the player left the country. The player in this respect provided a
video recording which registered the moment when he was invited to leave the hotel and
had his passport returned to him.
15. On 6 October 2023, the player requested to the Iraq Football Association (IFA) to provide
him with a copy of the contract.
16. On 8 October 2023, the IFA confirmed that the player was not registered by the club and
did not have a copy of the contract.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12297
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 18 October 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
18. The Claimant filed a claim for breach of contract. In his claim, the player first stressed that
despite the fact the contract did not contain the signature of the club on it, the Claimant
and the Respondent concluded an employment contract, considering that:
“if the terms of the agreement specifically say that it is only valid when all parties sign
or that it isn’t valid until all parties sign, then the signature of all parties must appear
on the agreement. In the Claimant’s employment contract, no clauses say the
contract's validity is only valid when signed by both parties; for that reason, the
employment contract the Claimant had signed is valid and enforceable, even if not
signed by the Respondent club.”
19. Moreover, the Claimant mentioned that the Respondent:
“1. Assured the Claimant had signed the employment agreement to secure the
Respondent's rights over the Claimant;
2. Confirmed it was the Claimant that had signed the agreement by requesting a photo
of the Claimant signing the contract;
3. Ordered the Claimant to fingerprint the contract;
4. Asked for the picture of the Claimant signing the agreement;
5. Requested image where the Claimant arrived at Sao Paulo Airport to travel to Iraq
to certify he was at the airport;
6. Requested photo when the Claimant arrived at Istanbul - Turkey Airport;
7. Promised that the president would sign the contract and would provide a copy to
the Claimant;
8. Asked if the Claimant had met the other Respondent player in Istanbul – Turkey;
9. Pickup the Claimant at the airport and provide all necessary needs just as another
employee of the Respondent;
10. The Claimant started work for the Respondent as an employee based on the signed
employment contract.”
20. The Claimant argued that the Respondent breached the contract without just cause
considering that (i) upon the default notice, the Respondent did not comply with its
obligations; (ii) the Respondent “forced the Claimant to leave the country by threatening to
leave the Claimant without food and accommodation in Iraq besides threatening to leave the
Claimant without a Visa”; and (iii) the Respondent did not register the Claimant with the IFA.
The Claimant also mentioned that the club retained his passport until his departure.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12297
21. In view of the above, the Claimant deems he is entitled to compensation for breach of
contract calculated as follow:
-
USD 35,000 corresponding to the total value of the contract, as the Respondent did
not pay any salary; and
-
USD 7,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
22. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the following relief:
“1. Sentence the payment of USD 42,000 (Forty-Two Thousand US Dollars) according
to Item 3 – Compensatory Requirements;
2. Apply an additional 5% interest p.a. over the amounts from September 26, 2023.
3. APPLY to the Respondent club, in addition to financial conviction, disciplinary
sanction for not pay a single cent to the Claimant and committing unlawful activity as
retaining the Claimant’s passport and not providing a copy of the agreement the
Respondent had signed to the Claimant;
4. Releases only a private copy of this claim for jurisprudence purposes.”
b. Position of the Respondent
23. In its reply, the Respondent indicated the following (quoted verbatim):
“ We would like to inform you that the above club visited our club and offered its sports
services for a trial (technical test), and that the training and administrative staff
rejected this and apologized to the above player.
Accordingly, in accordance with what was stipulated in the new FIFA international
regulations issued on 5/21/2023
The player's contract must be in writing
Our club did not sign the player mentioned above
- We did not ask for his international card
We did not record it in the TMS system
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12297
We respectfully request that you cancel the complaint against our club for the reasons
stated above”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 18 October 2023 and submitted
for decision on 22 February 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March
2023 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.
25. 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 par. lit. b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 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 an Iraqi club.
26. 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 (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 October 2023, the May 2023 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. 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
28. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12297
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
29. 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 validity of the contract
and its consequences.
30. In brief, while the Claimant claims that both parties had a valid contract and that the club
terminated the contract without just cause by not fulfilling its obligations, using an abusive
behaviour as the club retained his passport and threatened him in order to make him leave
the country. The Respondent challenged the validity of the contract and indicated that the
player was only in Iraq for trial purposes and was not registered in TMS.
31. In view of the foregoing, the DRC confirmed that the main issue in the present claim is to
determine whether the contract can be considered as a valid and binding employment
contract. In doing so, the Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence
which dictates that, for the contract to be considered as valid and binding, it should contain
the 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, as well as the mutual consent of both parties.
32. To this effect, the Chamber recalled that the signature of a contract by both parties is an
important element in order to establish an employment relationship, essentially because
this is the easiest way to demonstrate mutual consent. However, having an unsigned
specimen of the contract does not automatically mean that there is no employment
relationship between the parties, because this shall be established on a case-by-case basis
and considering the entirety of the facts of the case and the elements at the disposal of the
deciding authority.
33. On the basis of the above, the Chamber considered that there was a contract between the
parties considering that:
-
the Respondent did not provide any evidence that the player was in Iraq “for trial
purposes”. In particular, TMS did not register any trial form in line with article 19ter
of the Regulations;
-
the non-registration of the player in TMS or (lack of) delivery of his International
Transfer Certificate, cannot determine the validity of the contract in accordance with
art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, especially considering that this action is executed by
the club itself alone;
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12297
-
the club did not contest that the club’s agent was acting on its behalf;
-
the Respondent did not contest the contents of the contract sent to the player via
the club’s agent, which in fact contain the essentialia negotii;
-
the club sent the flight tickets and provided accommodation to the player, which
indicates that the contract started to be executed;
-
the club welcomed the player and he was already in the club’s premises as per the
evidence provided, which leads to the conclusion that the club cannot therefore later
(and suddenly) withdraw its consent.
34. Having stated the above, the Chamber passed to analyse the justice of the early
termination of the contract. On this note, the Chamber concluded that the contract was
terminated by the club without just cause on 26 September 2023, date on which the
Respondent decided to send back the player to his country, without providing a valid
reason. The Chamber also highlighted the abusive behaviour of the club by sending him
back home and retaining his passport, facts that were not contested by the club.
ii. Consequences
35. 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.
36. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounted to USD 3,500.
37. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD
3,500.
38. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 26 September 2023 until the date of
effective payment.
39. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12297
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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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 31,500 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
43. 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.
44. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
45. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
46. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 31,500 as the residual value of the contract.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12297
47. 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 26 September 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Sanction under art. 17 of the Regulations
48. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
49. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
50. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the player was born on 7 August 1996 and the
relevant contract with the club was concluded on 6 August 2023. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the club terminated the contract without just cause on 26 September
2023. The breach of contract by the club had therefore occurred within the protected
period.
51. At the same time, the DRC recalled that the club terminated the contract without just cause.
As such, and by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that
the behaviour adopted by the club by retaining the player’s passport, by cancelling the visa
and causing the player’s eviction from his accommodation, as well as the communications
sent by the club’s agent, sets an unacceptable and concerning precedent. This action not
only disregards the player's rights but also undermines the very essence of fair and ethical
contractual agreements, and it also constitutes a blatant disregard to the Regulations. The
DRC was of the unanimous opinion that such disregard and neglect of a club towards its
players has no place in professional football and shall be penalised accordingly.
52. On this note, the DRC remarked that the wording of the Regulations allows it a significant
degree of discretion to apply sporting sanctions on every case where the conditions of art.
17 par. 4 of the Regulations are met, that is, even if the Respondent is not deemed as a
repeated offender, which is only a factor taken into account by the DRC when deciding
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12297
whether to impose sporting sanctions on a club – a faculty the Chamber is prepared to use
given the serious circumstances of the matter at hand.
53. Indeed, the DRC wished to underline that, as confirmed by the CAS on various occasions
(e.g. CAS 2014/A/3754 and CAS 2017/A/5056, 5069), the DRC’s policy to not impose sporting
sanctions in every single case where it has the power to do so, does not mean that it cannot
impose them in other situations where the prerequisites of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
are fulfilled and the circumstances so warrant, such as in casu. Said rule 4 is sufficiently
clear to fully respect the principles of legality and predictability, which require that the
connection between the incriminated behaviour and the sanction must be clearly and
previously defined by law. Put differently, players and clubs must be aware – and are
indeed put in a position to be aware – that to breach a contract within the protected period
may lead to sporting sanctions being imposed by the DRC, especially when the relevant
breach is so blatant and unjustified as in the matter at hand.
54. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with article 24 par.
3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due
time may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction on the
basis of article 17 in the same case. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the
consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due time envisaged by art. 24 of the
Regulations were excluded in the present matter, and that should the Respondent fail to
timely comply with this decision, it would be for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to adopt
the necessary measures in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
d. Costs
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-12297
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lauder Cesar Perez Da Silva, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Karbala Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 3,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 September
2023 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 31,500 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 26 September 2023 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
6.
If full payment is not made within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-12297
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