F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), President Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamakazi (Japan), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), President Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamakazi (Japan), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 July 2009, Player B, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club C, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2010. 2. According to the contract, “in case that the Club declares and notify the continue of the contract of the player to himself before the termin 30.12.2009 or before the termin 30.06.2010 the contract of the player will be extended until 30.06.2013 with the conditions contained in clause V of this agreement. In other case the contract expires 30.06.2010.” 3. The contract established inter alia the remuneration for the period between 20 July 2009 and 30 June 2010 in the amount of EUR 144,000, to be paid in twelve monthly instalments, each one amounting to EUR 12,000. 4. The Claimant was also entitled to the following bonuses: - “A net amount of Euro 1,000 game bonus if gain a victory on own ground and EUR 2,000 if gain a victory in change of place, depending on played minutes; - A net amount of Euro 50,000 for first position of Club in Liga 1, for all season depending on played minutes; - A net amount of Euro 10,000 in case of win country R Football Cup depending on played minutes.” 5. Moreover, according to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following benefits: - “Accommodation and two meals a day; - Medical services, medical treatments and medicines, for any accident suffered during the training and playing period; - Car and 6 flight tickets go and return country R – country P – country R by year.” 6. Finally, article 12.1 of the contract stated the following: “Unless the Parties shall reach an amicable resolution then any such dispute shall be submitted to the competent bodies of the country R Football Association and the Professional Football League.” 7. On 23 August 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, claiming outstanding remuneration and bonuses specified as follows: - EUR 48,000 concerning four monthly salaries, each one amounting to EUR 12,000, for the months July 2009, April, May and June 2010; - EUR 1,500 concerning three monthly accommodation expenses, each one amounting to EUR 500, for the months of April, May and June 2010; - EUR 5,000 as bonus because the club won the country R Football; - EUR 7,352.94 as bonus because the club achieved the first position in the country R league; - EUR 1,200 as bonus because the club won the dispute against; - EUR 4,000 for flight tickets. Additionally, the Claimant required disciplinary sanctions to be applied to the Respondent. 8. According to the Claimant, in the middle of May 2010, as the country R championship finished, the Respondent gave holidays to the players until 21 June 2010. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent promised him to cancel his outstanding salaries at the latest on 21 June 2010. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant affirmed that at the end of the holidays, the Respondent did neither inform him about an extension of the contract nor about a definitive transfer, considering that he was lent from Club Q, from country K, to the Respondent. On the contrary, he held having received a phone call from the Respondent, by means of which it authorized him not having to show for the last nine remaining days until the expiry of the contract. Anyhow, the Claimant emphasized that, by that time, the Respondent already failed to fulfil its obligations stipulated in the contract. 10. The Respondent remitted us its position, by means of which it preliminarily challenged FIFA’s competence, stating that in country R there is the National Resolution Chamber of the country R Football Federation as well as the Dispute Resolution Committee of the country R Professional Football League. Moreover, the Respondent held that according to article 12.1 of the contract, the parties agreed that, in case that a dispute could not be solved amicably, the claim should be lodged in front of the country R Football Federation and country R Professional Football League tribunals. 11. Upon request, the Respondent provided a copy of the country R Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players (hereinafter: the country R Regulations), which came into force on 22 June 2009. Additionally, the Respondent enclosed a notification from the country R Professional Football League, stating that “Starting with the season 2010/2011 the panels are composed on a parity basis by two members appointed by the clubs and two members appointed by the country R Footballers Union (The Association of Amateur and Non Amateur Footballers – recognised by FifPro).” as well as “Before 2010/2011 season foreign player participating in the first competitive level in country R could lodge a claim regarding an employment related dispute before Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country R Football Federation.” 12. With regards to the country R Regulations, in particular, art. 25 par. 5 stated the following “According to the provisions of the country R Football Federation Statutes, any dispute arising from or in connection with the football activity in country R, in which clubs and club officials, country R Football Federation / country R Professional Football League/CFA/BMFA officials, players, players’ agents or match agents are involved, shall be solved exclusively by the country R Football Federation competent bodies.” 13. The country R Football Federation Regulations establish the following: a. With regard to the existing deciding bodies: Art. 26.1 lit. a) of the country R Football Federation Regulations indicates that the first instance deciding bodies are the NDRC of the country R Football Federation, the DRC of the country R Professional Football League and the Commission for the Players’ Status of the County Football Association (CFA). b. With regard to the jurisdiction of the deciding bodies: According to art. 26.2 lit. a) of the country R Football Federation Regulations, the NDRC of the country R Football Federation is competent to decide on disputes concerning “the conclusion, interpretation and execution of contracts concluded between clubs and players, and maintaining contractual stability”. As per art. 26.8 of the country R Football Federation Regulations, the DRC of the country R Professional Football League is “exclusively” competent to solve disputes involving “Clubs participating in the 1st League National Championship, officials, players and their coaches (…) according to the country R Football Federation and the country R Professional Football League annual convention”. c. With regard to the composition of the deciding bodies: Art. 26.5 of the country R Football Federation Regulations provides that the NDRC of the country R Football Federation is composed of a chairman and a vice-chairman “elected by consensus by the players and clubs’ representatives from a list containing the names of at least five people, drawn by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation”, three players’ representatives nominated by the Association of Amateur and Non-Amateur Footballers, and three clubs’ representatives nominated by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation. Art. 26.8 in fine of the country R Football Federation Regulations stipulates that the DRC of the country R Professional Football League – and its appeal body – is composed of five members, among which one president and one vice-president, their names and functions being approved by the Executive Committee of the R Professional Football League for a one-year mandate. d. With regard to the possibility of an appeal: Art. 26.1 lit. b) of the country R Football Federation Regulations establishes that the decisions of the NDRC of the country R Football Federation may be appealed before the “Appeal Committee of the country R Football Federation” and that the decisions of the DRC of the country R Professional Football League may be appealed before the “Appeal Commission of the country R Professional Football League”. Art. 26.1 lit. c) of the country R Football Federation Regulations provides that the decisions of the aforementioned appeal bodies may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 14. Regarding the substance of the matter, the Respondent rejected the claim for accommodation amounting to EUR 1,500, for the months of April, May and June 2010, emphasizing that the contract established that the Respondent provides accommodation at the club’s permanent training camp. However, according to the Respondent, the Claimant refused to live at the club’s camp and preferred to rent an apartment on his own, and thus the Respondent is not liable for it. In this respect, the Respondent also mentioned that the Claimant himself admitted having left the club in mid-May, after the alleged telephone call, and not having returned. In this context, the Respondent questioned the reason why it should pay for the accommodation of May and June if the Claimant was no longer with the club. Moreover, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not provide any document or receipt which proves the payment of the amount of EUR 500 to any third party. 15. Referring to the claimed bonuses, the Respondent argued that according to the contract said bonuses would be awarded depending on the effective minutes played by the Claimant. Therefore, the Respondent declared that it would ask the official extracts from the country R Football Federation, to determine the games attended and the minutes played by the concerned player. 16. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the regulations in force at the moment of the contract were the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players adopted by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation on 22 June 2009. In this context, the Respondent affirmed that article 25 par. 3 of the aforementioned regulation stipulates that “The right of the clubs, coaches, players and of the players’ agents to claim the execution of any obligation resulting from the contractual provisions concluded with the players, from the transfer agreements or other conventions concluded between clubs, subsist only if there passed less than one year from the date they became due.” In this context, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant is not entitled to claim for the salary of July 2009, since, according to the Respondent, said debt is prescribed since 1 August 2010 and the Claimant lodged his claim only on 23 August 2010. 17. Concerning the requested flight tickets, the Respondent pointed out that the contract established that it would provide the Claimant with said tickets in case he requested them. However, it does not mean that the Respondent must pay for the tickets acquired by the Claimant himself. The Respondent affirmed that only if the Claimant would have requested the tickets and the Respondent would not have provided them, it could have been considered that the Respondent did not observe and fulfill its obligations. Additionally, the Respondent held that the Claimant did not enclose any evidence, which demonstrates the acquisition of any flight ticket or its price. 18. Moreover, the Respondent referred to the financial rights claimed by the Claimant and alleged that it has to be considered that the Claimant has been sanctioned by the club’s Managing Board with a sportive penalty of 25% of the contractual rights for the competition season 2009/2010. In this regard, the Respondent enclosed to its position the “Decision no. 315” taken by the Professional Football League, which confirmed the above-mentioned sanction imposed to the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent declared that it will proceed as soon as possible with the calculation of the contractual rights due to the Claimant for the competition year 2009/2010 in order to deduct. 19. Finally, the Respondent declared that the Claimant has no right to ask for the application of disciplinary sanctions to the Respondent for the unilateral termination of the contract, if at the moment of lodging the claim, i.e. 23 August 2010, the duration of the contract was already terminated, namely on 30 June 2010. Furthermore the Respondent referred to article 18.10 of the Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Players adopted by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation in May 2010 which stated the following: “The player and the clubs can invoke the just cause and the just sportive cause for the unilateral denunciation of the contracts for the following reasons: a) The players:…- weren’t paid the contractual rights for a period longer than 60 days from the due date. In the causes regarding the unilateral denunciation of the contract, from the player’s initiative, for the non-payment of the contractual rights within 60 days from the due date, if, from the proof administered, it turns out that the player received at least 75% from the contractual rights due, afferent to the respective competitional year, the commission will pronounce a decision through which it will bind the club to the payments of the outstanding amounts, within 5 days from the communication of the decision. In case of lack of payment in the term of 5 days shown above, the contractual relations between the club and the player end on the pronunciation date of the decision through which it is ascertained the non-execution of the payments obligation.” On account of the above-mentioned article, the Respondent held that at the end of the contract, the salary for the month of June was not due yet, since it would have been due only on 1 July 2010 as well as that there had not passed more than 60 days from the due dates of the salaries of May and April 2010, being respectively due on 1 June 2010 and 1 May 2010. 20. In his replica, regarding the competence, the Claimant stated that the national deciding bodies are not independent and highlighted that the information given by the country R Professional Football League is referred to the season 2010/2011 and not to the season in which the contractual dispute appear (2009/2010). Therefore, in the season 2009/2010, the above-mentioned Chamber did not seem to fulfil the requirements imposed by the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of FIFA. Finally, the Claimant insisted in his claim and arguments previously submitted. 21. The Respondent maintained his position and stated that the DRC must take into consideration the sporting penalty of 25% applied by the Respondent as this sanction was reviewed by the Professional Football League Disciplinary Committee, which has become irrevocable since the Claimant failed to appeal. Regarding the amount claimed by the Claimant as bonuses, the Respondent pointed that the Claimant played 360 minutes in the Championship and therefore, he is entitled to EUR 5,882. As for the country R Cup, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant played 270 minutes and therefore he is entitled to EUR 4,737. Consequently, the Respondent calculated the disciplinary sanction of 25 % based on what he is entitled to according to the contract, i.e. EUR 154,619 corresponding to salaries and bonuses, which amounts EUR 38,655. Consequently, the Respondent held that the Claimant was entitled to a total amount of EUR 103,964 and that it paid a total amount of EUR 110,764 As a consequence, the Respondent asked to reject the claim II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 August 2010. Consequently, the 2008 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 (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation involving a country P player and a country R club regarding an alleged breach of the employment contract concluded between the aforementioned parties. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 12.1 of the contract, which, according to the Respondent, in case that a dispute could not be solved amicably, the claim should be lodged in front of the competent bodies of the country R Football Federation and the Professional Football League therefore, this clause would clearly exclude the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to adjudicate on the present matter. 5. The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted on the fact that FIFA had jurisdiction to deal with the present matter, because the deciding bodies of the country R Football Federation and the Professional Football League are not independent tribunal as well as that, for the season 2009/2010, the deciding body of the Professional Football League did not seem to fulfil the requirements imposed by the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 6. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it 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 the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 7. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC can settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant arbitration tribunal derives from a clear reference in the employment contract. 8. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute actually contained a clear jurisdiction clause. 9. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to clause 12.1 of the employment contract, on the basis of which the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. Said article stipulates that “Unless the parties shall reach an amicably resolution then any such dispute shall be submitted to the competent bodies of the country R Football Association and the Professional Football League”. 10. In view of the aforementioned clause, the members of the DRC were of the opinion that clause 12.1 of the employment contract does not make clear reference to one specific national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the Chamber deem that said clause can by no means be considered as a clear arbitration clause in favour either of the national deciding bodies, i.e. of the country R Football Federation or the Professional Football League, and, therefore, cannot be applicable. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that this lack of clarity is also reflected in the Respondent’s argumentation since it refers to the alleged competence of the deciding bodies of both the country R Football Federation and Professional Football League, without further precision. 11. Having established that the first criteria for the recognition of the competence of a national decision-making body is not fulfilled in the present matter, the Chamber deemed unnecessary to examine any further points which would need to be assessed before concluding to the competence of a national deciding body. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected and that the DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 13. In continuation, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2012, 2010 and 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 August 2010, the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 14. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the 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. 15. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 20 July 2009 the parties entered into an employment contract in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant EUR 144,000 net for the period between 20 July 2009 and 30 June 2010, to be paid in twelve instalments, each one amounting to EUR 12,000. Moreover, the Claimant was also entitled to the following bonuses and benefits: - “A net amount of Euro 1,000 game bonus if gain a victory on own ground and EUR 2,000 if gain a victory in change of place, depending on played minutes; - A net amount of Euro 50,000 for first position of Club in Liga 1, for all season depending on played minutes; - A net amount of Euro 10,000 in case of win country R Football Cup depending on played minutes.” - “Accommodation and two meals a day; - Medical services, medical treatments and medicines, for any accident suffered during the training and playing period; - Car and 6 flight tickets go and return country R – country P – country R by year.” The DRC further observed that on 23 August 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting, inter alia, (i) EUR 48,000 concerning four monthly salaries each one amounting EUR 12,000 for the months of July 2009, April, May and June 2010; (ii) EUR 1,500 concerning three monthly accommodation expenses, each one amounting EUR 500 for the months of April, May and June 2010; (iii) EUR 5,000 as bonus for winning the country R Football Cup; (iv) EUR 7,352.94 as bonus because the Respondent achieved the first position in the country R league; (v) EUR 1,200 as bonus because the Respondent won the dispute again Cheabul, and (vi) EUR 4,000 for flight tickets. 16. Likewise, the members of the Chamber noted that according to the Claimant, when the country R Championship finished, the Respondent promised him to cancel his outstanding salaries at the latest on 21 June 2010, however after the expiry of the contract the Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations. 17. On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejects the claim of the Claimant. 18. First and foremost, the members of the DRC considered that the claim concerns outstanding remuneration only. Therefore, the DRC proceeded to analyze the different amounts requested. 19. The DRC considered the request for outstanding monthly salaries in the aggregate amount of EUR 48,000, regarding the months of July 2009, April, May and June 2010. In this respect, the DRC took into account the financial conditions established in the contract as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant. 20. First, the DRC took into account the argument of the Respondent that the claim for unpaid salary for July 2009 would be time-barred and could not be admitted. In this respect, the members of the DRC referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations and considered that the claim was lodged on 23 August 2010, clearly within the two-year period since the events given rise to the dispute, i.e. the due date of the monthly salary of July 2009, and therefore the request for the salary of July 2009 is not time-barred and the claim is admissible. 21. In continuation, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in 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 respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Respondent to prove having paid the relevant amounts. 22. In this context, the DRC considered that the Respondent did not provide documentary evidence that the amounts were paid to the Claimant or that it would have just cause not to pay. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the amount of EUR 48,000 remained outstanding. 23. In continuation, the DRC proceeded to analyze the Claimant’s claim pertaining to the bonuses and considered that the contract established the relevant bonuses. On the other hand, the Respondent argues that according to the contract said bonuses would be awarded depending on the effective minutes played by the player and that the Claimant allegedly played 360 minutes in the Championship, being entitled to EUR 5,882 only. 24. In this context, the DRC referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and understood that the Respondent did not supports its allegations regarding the minutes played by the Claimant with documentary evidence and therefore, the decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 13,552 for bonuses as claimed. 25. Equally, as regards the Claimant’s claim pertaining to air tickets, on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel and referring to the relevant terms of the employment contract which established his entitlement to flight tickets, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 2,541 for one flight ticket from country R to country P. 26. Subsequently, the DRC considered the claim for accommodation expenses amounting to EUR 1,500 for the months of April, May and June 2010. In this respect, the DRC recalled the general legal principle of the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and observed that the Claimant had not presented any documentary evidence regarding his entitlement to the accommodation expenses. In view of the foregoing, the DRC decided that the Claimant’s request for accommodation expenses should be rejected. 27. Once established that the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 64,093 as outstanding remuneration (cf. points 22, 24 and 25), the DRC took note of the Respondent’s argument that a sanction was imposed to the Claimant by the club´s Managing Board with a sporting penalty of 25% of the contractual rights for the season 2009/2010, amount to that should be deducted from his remuneration. The DRC also took note that the Respondent maintains that this sanction was reviewed by the Disciplinary Committee of the country R Professional Football League and has become irrevocable since the Claimant never appealed such decision. Finally, according to the Respondent, considering the relevant deductions, the Claimant would be entitled to receive an amount of EUR 103,964 and allegedly already received EUR 110,764, reason why all claims should be rejected. 28. In this respect, the DRC highlighted that the sanctions imposed cannot be accepted, since the relevant decision was adopted after the expiry of the contract, i.e. 9 August 2010. Moreover, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. 29. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber agreed that the Respondent’s debt towards the Claimant on the basis of the employment contract cannot be compensated with the aforementioned fine. As a result, the Chamber rejected the respective argument of the Respondent. 30. In view of the above, the members of the DRC concluded that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amounts as agreed upon the contract. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 64,093 to the Claimant. 31. Moreover, the DRC considered the Claimant´s request for the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent and pointed out that sporting sanctions will only be imposed in cases regarding the early termination of a contract, i.e. in cases involving art. 17 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s request for sporting sanctions. 32. Finally, the DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. ****** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player B, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 64,093, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the abovementioned amount is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives