F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player Player A, from country N as Claimant against the club Club S, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player Player A, from country N as Claimant against the club Club S, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 January 2012, Player A, from country N (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club S, from country U (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) as well as an annex to it, both valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2016. 2. According to art. 1 and 3 of the annex, the Respondent undertakes to pay the Claimant, inter alia, the following amounts: - USD 10,000 net as monthly salary; - USD 500 per month as housing expenses; - one economy ticket to country N per season. 3. Furthermore, art. 5.7 of the contract stipulates that “Any disputes between the Parties arising out of or in connection with the Contract will be submitted to FIFA”. 4. In addition, a letter of the club, dated 30 January 2012, signed by the Respondent’s general director and containing the Respondent’s letterhead, states that “the player Player A, currently registered with our Club, is entitled to leave our Club at any moment without any compensation being due”. 5. On 13 July 2012, after having allegedly reminded the Respondent of its arrears several times, both orally and in writing, and not having received any payments, the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent, in writing, on the basis of the Respondent’s letter of 30 January 2012. 6. On 21 August 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the total amount of USD 600,000, made up of: - USD 70,000 net corresponding to outstanding monthly salaries for January to July 2012 (7 x USD 10,000), plus interests of 5% p.a., as from the maturity date of each obligation until the date of effective payment; - USD 470,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract; - USD 60,000 as supplementary compensation, as established in art. 337 par. 3 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, corresponding to 6 months of salary; - legal fees. 7. In addition, the Claimant requests that the Respondent should be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next two registration periods. 8. In his arguments, the Claimant states never having received any monthly salaries for the entire duration of the contract, in spite of having always complied with his contractual obligations towards the club. Therefore, he terminated the contract on 13 July 2012. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant states having recently become aware via the media of a decision issued against him by the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, dated 9 August 2012, according to which, inter alia, the Claimant was “disqualified […] from the official competitions of the term of 6 months”, held liable to ”pay compensation to the Club S according to point 4.1, part 4, article 10 of the Football Federation of country U Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players” in the amount of USD 540,000, and obligated to “hand over the original letter of Club S No 34 dated 30.01.2012 [cf. point I.4] to the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional League”. In spite of having been registered with his new club in Club K, from country R, the Claimant states that, as a result of his suspension, he has not been receiving his salaries. 10. The Claimant claims never having taken part or having been informed of the existence of such procedures. In addition, the Claimant rejects the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League to deal with the contractual relationship at hand, points out its lack of equal representation and its non-observation of the due process of law. Therefore, the Claimant also requests the intervention of FIFA to ”immediately intervene into the current situation providing the instructions to the relevant country U football authorities in order to cease their illicit manner of administering the justice and declare the decision as null and void from the date of its issuance”. On 29 August 2012, the administration of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee responded to such request, stating in its letter that it “is not an appeal instance against decisions taken at national level. Bearing in mind the foregoing, we regret to inform you that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee does not appear to be in a position to intervene in the present matter”. 11. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not provide FIFA with its comments on the substance of the Claimant’s claim. The Respondent only forwarded copies of the aforementioned decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, dated 9 August 2012, as well as of a letter dated 6 August 2012, addressed to the Committee on the Status and Transfer of Football Players of the Football Federation of country U, informing them of the existence of a claim of the Respondent against the Claimant before the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, by means of which it accuses the Claimant of having counterfeited the Respondent’s letter dated 30 January 2012, “leaving the club location without permission and groundlessly attempting to unilaterally terminate the contract concluded with the club” and requests that he should be prohibited “to participate in official matches for the period of 6 months” and obliged to “pay compensation for training in the amount of USD 540,000”. 12. On 1 August 2012 the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Club K, from country U, valid as of 24 August 2012 until 30 June 2016, and according to which the he is entitled to the following amounts: - EUR 17,242 as monthly salary, as of 24 August 2012 until 23 August 2013; - EUR 22,989 as monthly salary, as of 24 August 2013 until 23 August 2014; - EUR 28,736 as monthly salary, as of 24 August 2014 until 23 August 2015; - EUR 38,315 as monthly salary, as of 24 August 2015 until 30 June 2016; - EUR 1,000 per month as housing expenses. According to art. 5.5 and 5.6 of the contract, the aforementioned amounts are to be paid in currency of country R and are taxable at a rate of 13%. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 August 2012, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010; hereinafter: the Regulations). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country N player and a country U club. 3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties have provided a copy of the decision of 9 August 2012 of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, according to which the said deciding body decided, inter alia, that the player was “disqualified […] from the official competitions of the term of 6 months”, held liable to ”pay compensation to the Club S according to point 4.1, part 4, article 10 of the country U Football Federation Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players” in the amount of USD 540,000, and obligated to “hand over the original letter of Club S No 34 dated 30.01.2012 [cf. point I.4] to the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional League”. 4. The Claimant, for his part, rejects the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League to deal with the contractual relationship at hand, as he points out its lack of equal representation and its non-observance of the due process of law. Thus, he insisted that the DRC should be competent to deal with the present matter, emphasizing that he was never notified of any legal proceedings allegedly lodged against him by the Respondent in front of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League and that he only became aware of such decision via the media. 5. Prior to proceeding to a closer examination of the statements made by the Claimant and the documentation presented by the parties in support of their position regarding the competence issue, the Chamber deemed it essential to make some preliminary remarks. 6. Indeed, the members of the Chamber wished to highlight that if a club or a player decides to participate in organised football, they accept certain particularities of such system, including the circumstance that disputes should, in principle, be dealt with by means of arbitration. In this respect, FIFA puts a lot of effort in providing for a structured and elaborate dispute resolution system, which has proven to be efficient and working well. Recourse to arbitration is considered a basic principle despite the exception contained in art. 22 of the Regulations, which allows players and clubs to seek redress before a national deciding body. It is in the light of this context that any reference of an employment-related dispute by a player or a club to a national deciding body should be considered. 7. In addition, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the Association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005 (hereinafter: the Circular no. 1010). 8. Having said this, in continuation, the Chamber thoroughly examined the entire documentation at its disposal as well as the statements made by the parties involved in the present dispute with regard to the competence issue and came to the conclusion that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake on the basis of the following considerations. 9. First of all, the Chamber took due note of the fact that the Respondent only forwarded copies of its letter of 6 August 2012, informing the Committee on the Status and Transfer of Football Players of the Football Federation of country U of the existence of a claim of the Respondent against the Claimant before the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, as well as of the decision of the latter, dated 9 August 2012. However, the Respondent did not provide any kind of evidence regarding the competence or constitution of said Disciplinary Committee, i.e. any kind of regulations regarding the composition and jurisdiction of said body. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber paid due consideration to the clear wording of art. 5.7 of the contract, according to which “Any disputes between the Parties arising out of or in connection with the Contract will be submitted to FIFA”. In this respect, the Chamber deemed that the employment contract at the basis of the dispute, the terms of which were agreed between the parties, contained a clear expression of the parties’ intention to submit any disputes between them to FIFA. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the employment contract signed between the parties did not make any kind of reference to a national deciding body, but clearly expresses that FIFA shall be competent to deal with such disputes. 11. In addition, the members of the Chamber took note of the fact that the Claimant states to have been unaware of the existence of a claim lodged by the Respondent against him before the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League and, consequently, never having taking part in them. In this respect, the Chamber also noticed that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence that the Claimant was duly summoned or informed of any pending proceedings in front of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League. Therefore, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant does not appear to have been summoned at all or at least properly, prior to the passing of the relevant decision by the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, configuring a clear non-observance of the basic legal principle of the due process of law. 12. Moreover, the Chamber pointed out that, since the said decision was taken by a Disciplinary Committee, the principle of equal representation was most likely not respected and no evidence of the contrary has been presented by the Respondent. Thus, the Chamber deemed that the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League does not appear to be in accordance with the prerequisites stipulated in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations. 13. Finally, the members of the DRC noted that the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League has taken a decision on a contractual matter. In this regard, and in absence of any documental evidence provided to proof the contrary, the Chamber pointed out that the said Disciplinary Committee appears not to have been competent, since the present matter is an employment related dispute of an international dimension. 14. Notwithstanding the above, examining the contents of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, the DRC recalled that the decision at stake condemned the player to pay a sum of money as damages – USD 540,000 – and imposed a sanction on the player of suspension from official competitions for 6 months. Bearing in mind that the suspension of the player is of disciplinary nature and is usually the consequence of a severe breach of contract, the DRC emphasized the obligation of a deciding body to analyse and describe the grounds of such a decision, after having granted both parties the right to be heard. However, after having thoroughly analysed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, the Chamber pointed out that the decision determining payment of compensation, and above all, the suspension of the player for 6 months were based exclusively on the allegations presented by the Respondent. 15. On account of all the foregoing, the DRC unanimously decided that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League and its effects could not be recognized, since said decision was passed by an incompetent deciding body as well as recalling that the Claimant contested its competence and that the parties agreed in art. 5.7 of the contract for an arbitration in favour of FIFA. Therefore, the DRC declared itself competent to decide on the matter at hand between a player and a club in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations. In light of the aforementioned facts the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that the DRC could start to thoroughly analyse the matter at hand. 16. Subsequently, the Chamber 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, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2009) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 21 August 2012. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2010 version of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 17. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the members of the Chamber were eager to emphasize that the matter had been submitted urgently for consideration and decision, due to the fact that the Claimant had been suspended from playing at the time of the decision. 18. In doing so, the Chamber recalled that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 1 January 2012, they had signed an employment contract as well as an annex to it, both valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2016 and according to which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, USD 10,000 net as monthly salary, USD 500 per month as housing expenses and one economy ticket to country N per season. 19. In continuation, the Chamber paid due consideration to the fact that the Claimant claimed that, since the beginning of the contract, he never received any payments from the Respondent. Therefore, on 13 July 2012, after having allegedly reminded the club of its arrears several times both orally and in writing, the Claimant terminated the contract in writing with the Respondent. In view of the above, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant requests the Respondent to pay the total amount of USD 600,000, made up of USD 70,000 net corresponding to outstanding monthly salaries for January to July 2012 (7 x USD 10,000), plus interests of 5% p.a., as from the maturity date of each obligation until the date of effective payment; USD 470,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract; USD 60,000 as supplementary compensation, as established in art. 337 par. 3 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, corresponding to 6 months of salary and legal fees. The Claimant equally requests that the Respondent should be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next two registration periods. 20. In this respect, the DRC noted that, in spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not submit any comments as to the substance of the claim, but only forwarded copies of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, dated 9 August 2012, as well as of a letter dated 6 August 2012, addressed to the Committee on the Status and Transfer of Football Players of the Football Federation of country U, informing them of the existence of a claim of the Respondent against the Claimant before said Disciplinary Committee. 21. In that respect, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the general principle contained in art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which if no statement of reply is received before the established time-limit expires, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file. 22. Bearing in mind the aforementioned legal principle and the wording of art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC pointed out that the Respondent, by not submitting any position as to the substance of the claim of the Claimant, tacitly renounced to its right of defence and, as a consequence, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. Consequently, and in the absence of any contrary allegations made by the Respondent, the employment contract is to be considered as unilaterally terminated by the Claimant in July 2012. 23. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had been breached by the one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the financial and/or sporting consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 24. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and before examining the question of the termination of the contract by the Claimant, the Dispute Resolution Chamber held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per the contract and the annex entered into with the Claimant and, consequently, pay the outstanding remuneration which is due to the latter. 25. In this respect, the Chamber noted that according to the allegations of the Claimant, he had not received his remuneration, for the months of January to July 2012, in the total amount of USD 70,000. 26. Based on the foregoing, and taking into account the fact the Claimant terminated the contract on 13 July 2012, as well as the fact that according to common practice wage payments are due at the end of the month, and no other pay date having been stipulated in the contract or in its annex, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber determined that, by the time the player terminated the contract, his salaries for the months of January until June 2012, in the the total amount of USD 60,000, were outstanding. Therefore, the Respondent shall be held liable to pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 60,000, as outstanding salaries, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the maturity date of each obligation. 27. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, in line with its well-established jurisprudence, concluded that by failing to pay the Claimant six consecutive monthly salaries, the Respondent breached the contract and its annex without just cause and the Claimant, consequently, had a just cause to unilaterally terminate their contractual relationship on 13 July 2012. 28. In particular, the Respondent is liable to pay USD 60,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the effective payment, as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000. 29. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the Respondent’s breach of contract without just cause. 30. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that, as a result of the Respondent’s breach of the contract without just cause, the Claimant is entitled to receive compensation from it, in addition to the aforementioned amount of USD 60,000, as outstanding salaries, on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 31. In this regard, the members of the Chamber firstly recalled that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be determined 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 Claimant 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. 32. Furthermore, 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter. 33. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 34. In accordance with the contract signed by the Claimant and the Respondent, which was to run for four more years, i.e. until 30 June 2012, after the breach of contract occurred, the Claimant was to receive the total amount of USD 480,000, made up of 48 monthly salaries in the amount of USD 10,000 each. 35. The Chamber then took due note of the employment situation of the Claimant after the termination of the contract with the Respondent and of the relevant new employment contract that he had entered into. In this respect, it was duly noted that, on 1 August 2012, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Club K, from country R, valid as of 24 August 2012 until 30 June 2016, and according to which he is entitled to approximately EUR 1,249,069, for the entire duration of the contract. 36. Notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant was entitled to a considerably higher salary with Club K than with the Respondent, the DRC observed that the Claimant held that, as per the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League, he was suspended from official competitions for a period of 6 months, i.e. as from August 2012 until February 2013. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that, since the entry into force of the said decision, he has not been paid by Club K. 37. Thus, in view of the original duration of the contract, the Claimant’s contractual entitlements, his financial claim, the general obligation of the Claimant to mitigate his damages, as well as the behaviour of the Respondent, which did not submit any kind of comments as to the substance of the claim, and in particular in view of the fact that the Chamber unanimously considered that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country U Premier League and its effects could not be recognized, since said decision was passed by an incompetent deciding body, the Chamber decided that the amount of USD 40,000 was to be considered reasonable and justified as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the player’s remuneration as per the contract with the Respondent, as from the date of termination of the contract with the Respondent until the date of the present decision, i.e. from July to October 2012. 38. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded by deciding that the Respondent has to pay the total amount of USD 100,000 to the Claimant, consisting of USD 60,000, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of the maturity date of each obligation, concerning outstanding salaries, and of USD 40,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the date of the present decision. 39. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the further consequences of the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, addressed the question of sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates inter alia 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. 40. Subsequently, the members of 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”. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Claimant terminated the contract with just cause on 13 July 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that such breach of contract by the Respondent had occurred approximately during the seven months following the entry into force of the contract, hence, in any case, within the protected period. 41. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the breach of contract by the Respondent had occurred during the protected period. Therefore, the Respondent had to be sanctioned with a ban 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. 42. Finally, and for the sake of good order, the DRC held that the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence. 43. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club S, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, Player A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 60,000, plus interest of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2012 over the amount of USD 10,000. 4. The Respondent, Club S, has to pay to the Claimant, Player A, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 40,000, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of the date of this decision until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 5. If the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player A, are rejected. 7. The Respondent, Club S, 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. 8. The Claimant, Player A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club S, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives