F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 March 2014, in the following composition: Sunil Gulati (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Luis Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the claim presented by the coach Coach M, from country R as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country K as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 March 2014, in the following composition: Sunil Gulati (USA), Deputy Chairman Geoff Thompson (England), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Luis Bedoya (Colombia), member Pare Salmon (Tahiti), member on the claim presented by the coach Coach M, from country R as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country K as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 January 2012, Coach M, from country R (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club A, from country K (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a two-year employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 13 January 2012 until 13 January 2014. 2. In accordance with par. 3.1. of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly remuneration of currency of country K 2,621,400, payable “no later than the first decade of each month” and article 3 of “Annex No. 1” of the contract (hereinafter: the annex) provided that “for victory in the Championship and Cup of the Republic of country K the reward in the amount of nine hundred thousand (900,000) tenge shall be paid, for the draw – 50% of this amount based on the results of the matches”. 3. Additionally, the annex provided that the Claimant was entitled to “air ticket to and from his place of residence five (5) times a year” as well as to a “2-room apartment”. 4. Furthermore, article 4 of the annex stipulated the following: “In the event of termination of this Employment Contract by the Employer [i.e. the Respondent] before the expiration of its term in the absence of the Employee’s [i.e. the Claimant’s] breach of the Contract or the law of the Republic of country K, the Employer shall pay to the Employee the compensation in the amount determined by the total income of the Employee under this Employment Contract for the period from the date of termination of the Employment Contract till its expiration”. 5. On 28 January 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that the latter had unilaterally and without just cause terminated the contract. 6. In this respect, the Claimant claimed that he had been dismissed by the Respondent on 15 December 2012 and the latter had handed him over a termination order (hereinafter: the termination order) by means of which the Respondent terminated the contract following a statement made by the Claimant in September 2012. 7. In this regard, the Claimant confirmed having stated at a press conference held on 26 September 2012 that following “an important defeat of the team” he would “apply to the management for resignation”. However, the Claimant further alleged that such statement had been “revoked by public statement of the club management” since the parties had subsequently agreed that “the contract continued to be in force”, and that said statement of the Respondent had been published on its website. The Claimant also stated that he had “continued to lead the team in football matches and trainings, and the club continued to regard him as its coach and never filed oral or written claim as to the coach was to leave the club”. In support of his allegations, the Claimant provided a press release of said press conference confirming his resignation statement as well as another release confirming that the Respondent had refused his resignation. 8. Moreover, the Claimant emphasised that he had never accepted the termination order and in this context, added that he had made several attempts to contact the Respondent to solve the present matter in an amicable way but that the latter had refused to pay the compensation due under article 4 of the annex. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that on 16 December 2012 the Respondent had “posted information on its website that the Claimant was dismissed due to poor sports results of the club [i.e. the Respondent]” and that the Respondent had “began negotiations with Mr N, who was soon appointed as the new head coach of the club”. In support of his allegations, the Claimant provided a press release of 16 December 2012 confirming his dismissal as well as a press release apparently confirming that the Respondent had negotiated with Mr N. 10. On account of the above, the Claimant alleged that according to the termination clause stipulated in article 4 of the annex, he should in fact be entitled to receive from the Respondent “the compensation in the amount determined by the total income of the Employee under this Employment Contract for the period from the date of termination of the Employment Contract till its expiration”. 11. Therefore, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the following amounts: USD 226,200 as compensation for breach of contract and representing his remuneration for the period from December 2012 until December 2013 (13 x USD 17,400), USD 137,402 as “bonuses” for match results, USD 3,925 for five flight tickets from country K to country R (5 x USD 785) as well as USD 6,066.66 as costs for a two-room apartment for the period from December 2012 until December 2013 (13 x USD 466.66). 12. Consequently, the Claimant claimed that the Respondent should therefore compensate him for the alleged breach and requested from the latter the total amount of USD 373,593.66 (i.e. USD 226,200 as compensation for breach of contract + USD 137,402 as bonuses + USD 3,925 as costs for the flight tickets + USD 6,066.66 as costs for the apartment), “increased with interest of 5% p.a. accrued since 14 December 2012 until the effective date of payment”. 13. On 21 February 2013, the Respondent presented its response to the Claimant’s claim and first of all stated that the Claimant “wrote application of his dismissal from his position by own desire in connection with unsuccessful participation of team from the 28.10.2012”. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided an undated written statement in country R, signed by the Claimant, as well as its translation into English apparently confirming the abovementioned. The translation stated as follows: “I kindly ask you to dismiss me from my position by my own desire in connection with unsuccessful participation of team from the 28.10.2012”. 14. In continuation, the Respondent argued that on 15 November 2012, “when the team has been in paid vacation”, it had sent a letter to the Claimant requesting him “to come back to the job for resolve of the matter essentially”. The Respondent provided a letter addressed to the Claimant dated 15 November 2012 written in country R as well as its translation into English which states as follows: “You submitted an application the matter of termination labor contract by your own desire. We kindly ask you to come back to the job at the 15 December 2012 at 10.00 o’clock. Address: X, Y avenue Z for resolve of the matter essentially”. 15. Concerning the press releases provided by the Claimant, the Respondent argued that “Fan’s website and club website of Club A has no juridical force and doesn’t have reliable information”. 16. In view of all of the above, the Respondent was of the opinion that it had not breached the contract since the contract had been terminated by the Claimant himself and therefore the latter should not be entitled to receive any compensation based on article 4 of the annex. 17. On 26 March 2013, the Claimant presented his comments to the Respondent’s response and reiterated his previous statements. In this respect, the Claimant insisted that it had been demonstrated that the Respondent had unilaterally and without just cause terminated the contract. 18. Furthermore, and in response to the allegations of the Respondent that it was him who had wanted to terminate the contract, the Claimant reiterated that after his statement of resignation he had “changed his mind” which “is evidenced by the fact that after writing a statement coach spent seven games, including several outside of the period stated in his letter of resignation” and that the Respondent “with its tacit actions agreed that the coach will continue to work with the club”. 19. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that said resignation letter had already been written on 26 September 2012 and that such a fact had not been denied by the Respondent in its position. 20. With regard to the Respondent’s allegations concerning the information on its own website, the Claimant deemed that “the practice of FIFA bodies and CAS is that the data contained in the official website of the club is widely used in cases” and therefore stated that “under the principle of burden proof obligation to prove the unreliability of such information is at the club [i.e. the Respondent]”. 21. On account of all of the above, the Claimant argued that “the termination of the Claimant’s contract by the Club [i.e. the Respondent], which was made by the club 78 days and 7 official matches after the coach wrote the resignation letter, cannot be anything else other than the termination of the employment contract by Club without just cause”. 22. On 26 April 2013, the Respondent reacted to the Claimant’s last submission and reiterated its previous statements, emphasising, in particular, that the Claimant “wrote his letter about his dismiss of the coach on his own wish at 28.10.2012”. 23. Furthermore, with regard to the allegations of the Claimant that he had coached the team in seven matches after sending his letter of resignation, the Respondent explained that only two matches had been played after said letter and that the “letter of application was checked and discussed during 7 (seven) working days and not after 78 days as it was written in his [i.e. the Claimant’s] letter of application”. In this respect, the Respondent provided a copy of the calendar for the season 2012 which appears to indicate that there were only two matches left after 28 October 2012. The Respondent further explained that “during the paid vacation time the management of FC “Club A” club had no right to issue the order of dismiss of Coach M [i.e. the Claimant]”. 24. In view of all of the above, the Respondent reiterated that the contract “was broken by the Employee [i.e. the Claimant] initiative and not by the Employer [i.e. the Respondent], and on this base till its expiration of labor contract shouldn’t be paid any compensation to Coach M [i.e. the Claimant]”. 25. Asked about his labour situation between December 2012 and December 2013, the Claimant informed FIFA on 12 February 2014 that he had signed a contract with Club F, from country R on 6 June 2013, valid from the date of its signature until 10 June 2014 and according to which he “will have a monthly salary of 290,000 (…) rubles”. II. Considerations of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Bureau of the Players´ Status Committee (hereinafter also simply referred to as: the Bureau) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Bureau confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 lit. c) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as art. 34 par. 6 of the FIFA Statutes, it was competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country R coach and a club affiliated to the Football Federation of country K. 2. Furthermore, the Bureau analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 January 2013, thus after the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012), the Bureau concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter at hand. 3. Subsequently, the Bureau analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 28 January 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Bureau concluded that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Bureau started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties throughout the proceedings. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Bureau noted that, on 13 January 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a two-year employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) which was valid from the date of its signature until 13 January 2014 and which provided that the Claimant would receive a monthly salary of currency of country K 2,621,400, payable “no later than the first decade of each month”. 6. In addition, the Bureau underlined that the contract contained a specific termination clause which read as follows: “In the event of termination of this Employment Contract by the Employer [i.e. the Respondent] before the expiration of its term in the absence of the Employee’s [i.e. the Claimant’s] breach of the Contract or the law of the Republic of country K, the Employer shall pay to the Employee the compensation in the amount determined by the total income of the Employee under this Employment Contract for the period from the date of termination of the Employment Contract till its expiration”. 7. Furthermore, the Bureau recalled that no termination agreement was ever concluded between the parties to the dispute but that the Respondent seemed to have handed over a termination order to the Claimant in order to prematurely put an end to their contractual relationship. 8. Having established the above, the Bureau acknowledged that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had inter alia accused the Respondent of having prematurely terminated their contractual relationship without just cause on 15 December 2012 and had consequently requested from the latter, as compensation, the payment of his outstanding remuneration in accordance with the contract. Furthermore and in the same context, the Bureau observed that, for its part, the Respondent had denied having terminated the contract without just cause and had insisted that it had been the Claimant himself who, by having submitted an “application of his dismissal from his position by own desire in connection with unsuccessful participation of team from the 28.10.2012”, had terminated their contractual relationship. Consequently, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant should not be entitled to receive any compensation. 9. In light of the above, the Bureau deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the agreement had been terminated by the Respondent and whether such termination had occurred with or without just cause. 10. At this point, the Bureau was keen to underline the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the deciding body. 11. Based on the above, the Bureau went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations and analysed if, based on that, it could be established which of the parties had terminated the contract. 12. As to that, the Bureau, first of all, observed that the Claimant had provided evidence that the Respondent had posted information on its website stating that the Claimant had been “relieved of his duties due to poor results” and that the Respondent had started “negotiations with Mr N”, who was soon after apparently appointed as the new head coach of the Respondent. 13. The Bureau then reverted to the allegations of the Respondent according to which the contract had been terminated by the Claimant as a result of a written notification sent by the latter to the former, in which he had requested to be dismissed “from his position by own desire in connection with unsuccessful participation of team from the 28.10.2012“. According to the Respondent, said notification was sent following a press conference held on 26 September 2012 by the Claimant during which he had stated that he would step down from his position as coach of the Respondent. 14. In this regard, the Bureau noted that while the Claimant had not denied having made such a statement on 26 September 2012 and having sent said notification soon after, he had provided evidence confirming that the Respondent had refused his resignation as well as that the parties had subsequently agreed that “the contract continued to be in force”. Furthermore, the Bureau was keen to underline that the Claimant had continued working for at least 47 days after the alleged resignation. In view of the aforementioned, the Bureau expressed the view that the Claimant had clearly demonstrated that the parties, shortly after the said press conference, had tacitly agreed to continue their contractual relationship. 15. Based on the aforementioned, the Bureau remarked that the Claimant had provided several press releases confirming his allegations, while the Respondent had simply contested the Claimant’s allegations, arguing that the “Fan’s website and club website of Club A has no juridical force and doesn’t have reliable information”. 16. In this context, the Bureau deemed that it was undisputed by the parties that some of the press articles provided by the Claimant had been published on the Respondent’s own website, a fact that had never been questioned by any of the parties involved. Therefore, the Bureau deemed appropriate to conclude that the information published on the Respondent’s own website could therefore be taken into account. 17. In view of the above, the Bureau formed the view that, although the Claimant had notified the Respondent of his resignation soon after the press conference of 26 September 2012, the documentary evidence contained in the file clearly demonstrated that said statement and written notification had been revoked. As a result, the Bureau concluded that the Respondent had therefore no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on the basis of the statement and the ensuing notification. 18. As a consequence, and taking into account the above-mentioned considerations as well as the documentation at its disposal and considering, in particular, that the Respondent had not provided any evidence that could have justified its decision to terminate the contract, the Bureau concluded that the unilateral termination of the contractual relationship between the parties by the Respondent on 15 December 2012 had been without just cause. Therefore, the Bureau held that the Respondent had breached its contractual obligations and should, as a consequence, compensate the Claimant accordingly. 19. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Bureau proceeded to the calculation of the compensation and turned its attention to the submissions made by the Claimant and the Respondent and, in particular, noted that the Claimant inter alia was claiming from the Respondent the amount of USD 226,200 as compensation for breach of contract, representing his remuneration for the period from December 2012 until December 2013 (13 x USD 17,400). 20. Before establishing the amount of compensation and for the sake of good order, the Bureau was eager to underline that although the Claimant in his claim requests compensation in US Dollars, the monthly salary stipulated in the contract was in fact agreed in the currency of country K 2,621,400. Consequently and while referring to the common practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Bureau held that any amount to be awarded to the Claimant should be calculated in the currency agreed upon between the parties in the contract, i.e. currency of country K. 21. Turning its attention to the amount of compensation requested by the Claimant, the Bureau first and foremost noted that according to the contract concluded between the parties, the Claimant was inter alia entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of currency of country K 2,621,400, payable “no later than the first decade of each month” (i.e. within the first ten days of each month). Furthermore, the Bureau recalled that according to the Claimant’s submission the termination order had been handed over to him on 15 December 2012 and that such a fact had never been questioned by any of the parties during the course of the present proceedings. 22. On that basis, the Bureau underlined that part of the Claimant’s requested compensation, in particular the monthly salary corresponding to the month of December 2012, was already due on the day of the alleged termination of the contract and has therefore to be considered as outstanding remuneration. 23. In view of all of the above, bearing in mind the statements of the parties and, in particular, considering that the Respondent had not denied not having paid the salary which was due on 10 December 2012 at the latest, the Bureau concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of currency of country K 2,621,400 as outstanding salary. 24. After having established the aforementioned, the Bureau went on to deal with the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of compensation for the alleged unilateral termination in accordance with article 4 of the annex. 25. In view of the above and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Bureau decided that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the contract signed between the parties. 26. In this context, the Bureau, first of all, focussed its attention on the content of the contract, in particular article 4 of the annex, and after a careful examination of it, came to the conclusion that the wording of the aforementioned article clearly meant that in case of a premature termination of the contract, the Respondent would become liable to pay the Claimant a certain amount “determined by the total income of the Employee [i.e. the Claimant] under this Employment Contract”. 27. Hence, and additionally taking into consideration that the Claimant had requested compensation for the period from January 2013 until December 2013, the Bureau decided that since the Claimant, as a result of the premature termination of his contractual relationship with the Respondent, had found himself unexpectedly without any employment, he should therefore be entitled to receive from the Respondent the remaining amount due in accordance with the contract, i.e. the sum of currency of country K 31,456,800, corresponding to his salary for the period from January 2013 to December 2013 (i.e. currency of country K 2,621,400 x 12 months), as compensation for the unilateral termination. 28. In this respect and in view of the fact that the Claimant should have received the aforementioned amount if the Respondent had not terminated his contract, the Bureau held that the Claimant is, in principle, entitled to this amount. 29. At this point, the Bureau emphasised that the Claimant was also under the obligation to mitigate the loss he suffered as a result of said termination by the Respondent. In this regard, the Bureau noted that the Claimant had signed another employment contract with Club F, from country R on 6 June 2013, under the terms of which he had apparently received an amount of currency of country R 2,030,000 (i.e. 7 x currency of country R 290,000) for the period from June to December 2013 and that such amount represented currency of country K 9,440,000 on the day the employment contract was concluded. 30. Consequently, the Bureau held that the amount of currency of country K 9,440,000 earned with Club F should be deducted from the amount of compensation established above, i.e. currency of country K 31,456,800, and therefore concluded that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant the amount of currency of country K 22,016,800 as compensation for breach of contract (i.e. currency of country K 31,456,800 – currency of country K 9,440,000). 31. Having established the above, the Bureau went on to assess whether the Claimant should also be entitled to the claimed “bonuses” for match results amounting to USD 137,402. 32. Before doing so, the Bureau was keen to recall the content of article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee. 33. In this respect, the Bureau was keen to stress that the Claimant had not provided any evidence confirming the alleged achieved results and establishing how such amount had been calculated. 34. In light of the above, and while noting that the Claimant had not provided any evidence in support of his allegations, the Bureau expressed the view that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate that he should be entitled to the claimed bonuses and therefore decided to reject this part of the claim. 35. With regard to the claimed amount of USD 3,925 for five flight tickets from country K to country R as well as to the amount of USD 6,066.66 requested by the Claimant as costs for a two-room apartment for the period from December 2012 until December 2013, the Bureau ruled that, considering that the contract did not specify any amounts in relation to these expenses as well as in view of the fact that said expenses appear to have been requested in relation to the period after the alleged termination of the contract, the Bureau also concluded that said amounts should not be granted. 36. Additionally and with respect to the claimed default “interest of 5% p.a. accrued since 14 December 2012 until the effective date of payment”, the Bureau recalled that no interest appears to have been contractually agreed between the parties. Therefore and also taking into account the Claimant’s request in this regard, the Bureau decided, in accordance with the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee concerning the payment of interest, that the Claimant should receive from the Respondent an interest rate of 5% per year on the amount of currency of country K 2,621,400, as from 14 December 2012 (i.e. the date requested by the Claimant) and on the amount of currency of country K 22,016,800, as from 28 January 2013 i.e. the date when the claim was lodged. 37. In view of all of the above, the Bureau concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is partially accepted and that, consequently, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of currency of country K 24,638,200 (i.e. currency of country K 22,016,800 as compensation for breach of contract and currency of country K 2,621,400 as outstanding salary), together with an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the respective amounts as established above. 38. The Bureau concluded its deliberations by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 39. Finally, the Bureau referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 40. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Bureau concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Bureau held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Bureau concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 41. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter and taking into account that the matter did not pose any particular factual difficulty, the Bureau determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 12,000. Consequently and since the claim has been partially accepted, the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 6,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach M, the amount of currency of country K 2,621,400 as outstanding salary as well as the amount of currency of country K 22,016,800 as compensation for breach of contract, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Within the same time limit, the Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach M, default interest at a rate of 5% per year on the following partial amounts, as follows: - On currency of country K 2,621,400 from 14 December 2012 until the effective date of payment; - On currency of country K 22,016,800 from 28 January 2013 until the effective date of payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach M, are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned amounts of currency of country K 2,621,400 and currency of country K 22,016,800, plus interest as established above, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The Claimant, Coach M, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 3 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 12,000 are to be paid to FIFA by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 7.1 The amount of currency of country H 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Coach M. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Coach M, has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 1,000 to FIFA. 7.2 The amount of currency of country H 6,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, to FIFA. 7.3 The abovementioned two payments have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Players’ Status Committee: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives