F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Jon Newman (USA), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the matter between the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, from country B as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Jon Newman (USA), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the matter between the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, from country B as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 June 2010, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid until July 2011. 2. Article 9 of the contract regulated the “consideration of labour disputes” and established the following: “9.1. All disputes arising in this Employment Agreement fulfillment process should be resolved by the parties through negotiations. 9.2. The parties came to an agreement that any disputes ensuing from this Employment Agreement or connected to it are subject to mediation settlement in Football Federation from country D juridical bodies. 9.3. If the dispute of the Parties cannot be settled by negotiations and/or by Football Federation from country D juridical bodies, it should be looked at in conformity with Country D Labour Code”. 3. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of 1,644,500, to be paid “not later than the first decade of the next month”. 4. On 1 July 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed a document named “Addendum Nº 1” to the contract (hereinafter: the additional agreement), by means of which the original contractual period was extended until 12 July 2012. 5. Article 1.2 of the additional agreement, reads as follows: “this Employment Agreement goes into effect from the moment of its signing by the parties and expires on July 12th, 2012 for the time of set work fulfillment with, which is participation in the Country D Football Championship’s 2011-2012 Season”. 6. The additional agreement increased the monthly salary to 2,200,000 as from the date of signature and established a signing-on fee in the amount of 4,850,000. 7. Article 2 of the additional agreement established that “the rest articles and points of Employment Agreement No. 64 of 15.06.2010 will have no amendments”. 8. On 10 April 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract and requested the amount of 14,100,000, equivalent to USD 96,136.36, detailed as follows: 1) 4,900,000 as outstanding remuneration: - 2,200,000 regarding the monthly salary of January 2012; - 2,200,000 regarding the monthly salary of February 2012; - 500,000 regarding the remuneration due for the period from 1 March 2012 to 7 March 2012; 2) 9,200,000 as compensation: - 1,700,000 regarding the remuneration due for the period from 8 March 2012 to 31 March 2012; - 6,600,000 regarding the remuneration due for the months of April, May and June 2012; - 900,000 regarding the remuneration due for the period from 1 July 2012 to 12 July 2012. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also requested procedural costs. 9. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that, although the remuneration was established in the contract in the currency of country D, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant always paid the remuneration in American dollars. 10. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, after his holidays, he arrived in country G on 7 January 2012 to attend the training of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, but was neither allowed to train with the team nor allowed to stay in the hotel. Moreover, he was informed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in writing on 8 January 2012 that he was free to enter into trials with other clubs as well as that, in case of injuries, he would have to bear the relevant costs. Consequently, he had to fly back to country B at his own expenses, was hindered from observing his contractual obligations and had to keep fit in country B also on his own expenses. Also, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant no longer allowed him to stay in the apartment provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 11. Subsequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated having sent a letter to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on 2 March 2012, asking it to fulfill its contractual obligations, paying the salary of January 2012 which became due on 10 February 2012 and providing accommodation, and to allow him to train, setting a deadline until 7 March 2012, as well as expressing his wish to fulfil the contract. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to inform him of an exact date and place for him to join the team’s activities. 12. In response, on 5 March 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was absent from trainings since 14 February 2012, asked for an explanation and requested that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would “appear on trainings”. 13. On 8 March 2012 and since he was not provided with the information requested, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract in writing, alleging just cause. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also requested the payment of the outstanding salaries for the months of January and February 2012 as well as 7 days regarding the month of March 2012. 14. In conclusion, according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide him with the conditions to fulfil his contractual obligations and left him no other option than to terminate the contract. 15. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied rejecting the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 16. First of all, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to art. 9.2 of the contract and held that the parties had agreed on mediation settlement of the disputes arising from the contract and thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent violated the contract appealing directly to FIFA. 17. Additionally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant challenged the competence of FIFA to decide on the present dispute based on art. 9.2 of the contract. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to art. 37.1 of the Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players of the Football Federation of country D, which establishes that “disputes arising among the football subjects with regard to violation of regulations’ provisions are subject to consideration in the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DSC) which is a legal body of Football Federation from country D”, enclosing extracts of the aforementioned regulations. 18. Even though invited to provide evidence regarding the composition of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Federation from country D, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to do so. 19. In continuation, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the contract is regulated by the Labour Code of country D (cf. art. 9 of the contract) and, in accordance with subitem 3) item 1 of its article 29, “labour contract may be concluded for the duration of particular work”. 20. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the extension of the contractual period was only for the duration of “particular work” of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in accordance with clause 1.2 of the additional agreement, which in practice consists of the effective participation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the Championship during the season 2011/2012. Considering that the Championship 2011 ended on 29 November 2011 and the Championship 2012 began on 10 March 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request for remuneration regarding January and February 2012 are unfounded. In fact, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should reimburse the remuneration regarding December 2011, since he was not entitled to receive it. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant made reference to a decision taken by the Football Federation from country D confirming this approach in a similar case. 21. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also rejected the request for remuneration for the period between 1 and 7 March 2012, since allegedly the Championship 2012 only began on 10 March 2012. 22. On the other hand, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that in fact the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause on 8 March 2012, before the beginning of the championship. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was notified by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 5 and 15 March 2012 to present himself to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s premises to fulfil the contract. 23. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, having breached the contract, must compensate the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with article 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players based on the residual value of the contract. 24. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant therefore, lodged a counterclaim, dated 1 October 2012, against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, requesting the aggregate amount of 24,759,059 equal to USD 167,572, as follows: a) Compensation for the residual value of the contract in the amount of 8,941,934 (or USD 60,700) composed as follows: - 1,490,333 regarding the salaries for the period between 10 March (the beginning of the Championship 2012) and 31 March 2012; - 6,600,000 regarding the salaries for the period between 1 April 2012 and 30 June 2012; - 851,612 regarding the salaries for the period between 1 July 2012 and 12 July 2012. b) Reimbursement of amounts paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as damages: - 4,850,000 (or USD 32,770) regarding the signing-on fee established in the additional agreement; - 2,200,000 (or USD 14,865) regarding the monthly salary paid for December 2011; - 8,497,125 (or USD 57,413) regarding “premium payments” made from 15 June 2010 until 8 March 2012; - 270,000 (or USD 1,824) regarding lodging costs in the city of Club C, paid on 25 March 2011 and 8 April 2011. 25. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent replied to the counterclaim, rejecting it. 26. First, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insisted in the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Federation from country D is not an independent arbitration tribunal. 27. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant challenges the competence of FIFA on the one hand, but on the other hand also lodges a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent before FIFA. 28. Subsequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the argument of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that the applicable law would be the labour law in country D, insisting that the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should apply in the present matter. 29. Regarding the substance of the matter, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that the contract was valid for the period from 15 June 2010 until 12 July 2012 and therefore, considering the principle of pacta sunt servanda the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the monthly salaries for all the months within the contractual period. 30. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent emphasised that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not allow him to train with the team and failed to pay his remuneration, clearly breaching the contract, insisting on his initial claim. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for reimbursement of amounts paid as well as compensation must be rejected. 31. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that after the termination of the contract he remained unemployed until the original expiry of the contract and signed a new employment contract with the club from country B, Club E, on 8 August 2012. 32. Despite having been invite to provide its position as to the counterclaim, Club E failed to do so. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 April 2012. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2010; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 2015) 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 player from country B, a club from country D and a club from country B regarding an alleged breach of the employment contract concluded between the player and the club from country D. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 9.2 of the contract and art. 37.1 of the Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players of the Football Federation from country D. 5. On the other hand, the DRC took note that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insisted on the competence of FIFA, arguing that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Federation from country D is not an independent arbitration tribunal. 6. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) 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 DRC referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the DRC further 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 is competence to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court 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 contained a clear jurisdiction clause. 9. In this respect, the members of the Chamber observed that art. 9.2 of the contract does not refer to a specific national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the Chamber deemed that said clause could not serve as the basis on which the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Federation from country D should be declared the arbitration tribunal competent to decide on the present dispute, since the relevant clause did not contain a clear reference granting jurisdiction to said arbitration tribunal. 10. Moreover, and for the sake of completeness only, the DRC recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). In particular, the members of the Chamber pointed out that it was upon the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to prove that the parties had agreed on the jurisdiction of the national arbitration body as well as that the relevant deciding-body is an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. 11. In this context, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that in the case at hand, although having been requested to do so, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide documentary evidence regarding the composition of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Federation from country D and thus, failed to prove that said national body is an independent arbitration tribunal in compliance with the requirements of the FIFA regulations. 12. As a result, and taking into consideration all of the above circumstances, in particular, that no clear arbitration clause was included in the relevant employment contract, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s objection to the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is therefore competent, on the basis of art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 13. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 April 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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 DRC acknowledged that, on 15 June 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until July 2011 and subsequently, on 1 July 2011, signed the additional agreement extending the validity of the contractual relationship until 12 July 2012. In particular, the DRC took note that in accordance with the additional agreement, the monthly remuneration was increased to 2,200,000 and the remaining articles of the contract remained unchanged. 16. The DRC further observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant indicating that he had terminated the contractual relationship on 8 March 2012 invoking just cause. 17. On the other hand, the members of the DRC observed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied arguing that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause and lodged a counterclaim against him. 18. Considering the opposite positions of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the DRC highlighted that the central issue in the matter at stake would be, thus, to determine as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had terminated the contract on 8 March 2012 with or without just cause. 19. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took into account that, on 7 January 2012, after his holidays, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent went to country G to join the training sessions of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and was apparently neither allowed to train nor allowed to stay in the hotel with the team. Moreover, the Chamber took into account that, on 8 January 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in writing that he was free to enter into trials with other clubs and also that, in case of injuries, he would have to bear the resulting costs. 20. In this context, the DRC pointed out that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sent a letter to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on 2 March 2012, asking the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to fulfil its obligations contractually agreed, pay the salary of January 2012, provide accommodation and allow him to train, setting a deadline until 7 March 2012. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also requested the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to inform him of an exact date and place for him to start training. 21. In continuation, the DRC highlighted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, did not contact the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to return to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and participate in trainings during January and February 2012, only reacting on 5 March 2012, after being contacted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 22. Furthermore, the members of the DRC took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant admitted not having paid the salaries of January and February 2012, alleging that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was only entitled to receive remuneration during his participation in the Championship 2012, i.e. as of 10 March 2012. The Chamber however does not share the view of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant since the relevant employment contract clearly specifies that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to a “monthly remuneration”, without any further conditions. In this context, the Chamber stressed that it also could not find any basis in the documentation provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that would support the interpretation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was only entitled to salaries for his “effective participation”. 23. On account of all the above, the members of the DRC stated that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a monthly salary for January 2012, in accordance with the contract and the additional agreement. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was free to go on trials and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not disputed the allegations put forward by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in its letter dated 2 March 2015 and had assumed that, in any case, it would not pay the monthly salaries until the beginning of the Championship 2012, i.e. 10 March 2012, without any valid reason. 24. Considering all the circumstances of the present mater, the DRC concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract on 8 March 2012 and that, consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 25. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of 4,400,000 corresponding to the salaries relating to January and February 2012. 26. In continuation, having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the contract and additional agreement. 27. In this context, the DRC outlined that, in accordance with said provision, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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. 28. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC held that first of all it had to clarify whether the pertinent contract and additional agreement contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC established that no such compensation clause was included neither in the contract nor in the additional agreement at the basis of the matter at stake. 29. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the remaining value of the employment contract and additional agreement as from the date of the termination until the expiry of the contract and additional agreement amounted to 9,700,000, i.e. four monthly salaries from March 2012 until June 2012, amounting to 2,200,000 each, as well as 12 days from 1 July 2012 until 12 July 2012, corresponding to 900,000. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination until the regular expiry of the contractual relationship amounted to 9,700,000 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 30. In continuation, the members of the Chamber remarked that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had remained unemployed during the relevant period. 31. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of 9,700,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which was considered to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 32. For all the above considerations, the DRC decided to partially accept the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim and held that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the total amount of 14,100,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, consisting of the amount of 4,400,000 as outstanding remuneration and the amount of 9,700,000 corresponding to the compensation for the unilateral breach of contract. 33. In addition, as regards the claimed procedural costs, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request relating procedural costs. 34. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected and that also the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. ******* III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of 4,400,000. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of 9,700,000. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. falls due as of the expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 7. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives