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 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, Country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, Country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. The Player A from Country B, (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club C from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), concluded an undated employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 5 August 2010 until 31 May 2012. 2. Clause 2 of the contract provides for the payment of the following amounts to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent: • Net minimum salary; • for the period between 1 August 2010 and 31 May 2011: - EUR 30,000 as advance payment payable on 15 August 2010; - EUR 50,000 to be paid in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 5,000 each between August and May; • for the period between 1 June 2011 and 31 May 2012: - EUR 40,000 as advance payment payable on 15 August 2011; - EUR 60,000 to be paid in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 6,000 each between August and May; • “Special Provisions” EUR 50,000 as championship premium in case the club becomes champion in “this season’’. Finally, clause 2 states that “the total amount of the minimum salaries within the term of the contract that has been written in the net monthly salary section of the contract, the other payments of the contract that have been undertaken by the Club and the way of payment, have been included within the Salary of the Football Player”. 3. On 26 April 2011, the parties signed an “annex agreement” (hereinafter: the annexe) referring to the contract and stipulating inter alia a bonus of “50.000” for “entrance in the Super League”. 4. On 26 July 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sent an e-mail to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent enclosing a proposal for a termination agreement, offering the payment of compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the amount of EUR 70,000. 5. On 27 July 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent replied to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant via fax stating that he wished to fulfil the contract and put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default for the payment of EUR 50,000 as the championship premium allegedly due on 15 June 2011 and 50,000 as the bonus for the promotion to the Super League in Country D. In this regard, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested the payment of said amounts until 12 August 2012. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that he would only accept the termination of the contract in case the Respondent/Counter-Claimant paid him compensation in the amount of EUR 140,000. 6. On 13 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in writing with immediate effect, making reference to the outstanding bonus amounting to EUR 50,000, which was allegedly due on 15 June 2011. 7. On 25 May 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint before FIFA requesting the payment of the amount of EUR 188,200 and 50,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates, as follows: • EUR 90,000 and 50,000 as outstanding remuneration made up of: - EUR 50,000 corresponding to the championship premium allegedly due on 15 June 2011; - EUR 40,000 corresponding to the advance payment due for the second season and allegedly due by 1 August 2011; - 50,000 corresponding to the bonus for the entrance in the Super League allegedly due on 8 June 2011; • EUR 58,200 as compensation made up of: - EUR 36,000 corresponding to 6 remaining monthly salaries (August 2011 until January 2012); - EUR 22,200 corresponding to 4 remaining monthly salaries (February until May 2012) minus the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s new salary, i.e. EUR 24,000 minus EUR 1,800. Additionally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claimed an additional penalty, the amount of which should be determined by the DRC. 8. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explains that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant qualified for the Super League in Country D on the last match of the 2010/11 season, on 29 May 2011. During the summer break, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent then heard different rumours, according to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would not count on him for the following season. 9. Subsequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explains that he started the preseason training with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 25 June 2011 and, very soon after the start of training, he was allegedly told by the Respondent/CounterClaimant that it would not need him anymore and that he could search for another club. Equally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not invited to travel with the team to a training camp in Country F (cf. point I.11. below). Without information about his situation at the club, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent decided to travel by himself to Country F and was informed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that he was not allowed to train with the team. Thereupon, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent returned to Country D and trained as from 20 July 2011 with a group of players who were no longer part of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s plans for the new season. Based on the foregoing, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract without just cause by not providing him with professional training in order to maintain and improve his performance. 10. As a result of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s behaviour, the Claimant/CounterRespondent deemed that it was no longer reasonable for him to stay with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that he could not expect to receive his outstanding remuneration as long as he would not agree to the premature termination of the contract. Thus, he terminated the contract on 13 August 2011 (cf. point I.6. above). 11. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant confirmed that the Claimant/CounterRespondent could not join the training camp in Country F, due to the decision of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s technical director who deemed it more suitable for him to continue training at the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s facilities due to his allegedly insufficient performance. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also confirmed that the parties had negotiated a possible premature termination of the contract. However, no agreement could be reached. 12. With regard to the outstanding remuneration claimed by the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated not to have any debts toward him. To the contrary, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that according to its records it had paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of 14,728.94 in excess. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided copies of bank statements relating to payments made to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent throughout the 2010/2011 season. Equally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided a document bearing the signature of both the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in relation to a payment of EUR 52,000 on 12 August 2012 with the indication ‘’total premium for rising super league that is accepted by sides’’. 13. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against him, as it deems that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract. In particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested the reimbursement of the amount of 14,728.94 allegedly paid in excess as well as EUR 150,000 as compensation for the unjustified termination. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 14. In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintains having never received the alleged payment in the amount of EUR 52,000 on 12 August 2011, and claims that his signature on the receipt provided by the club must have been forged. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not contest the existence of the further outstanding amounts, neither the amount of 50,000 due as promotion bonus according to the annexe, nor the amount of EUR 40,000 allegedly due on 1 August 2011. On account of the foregoing, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent emphasises that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to corroborate its allegation of having fulfilled its financial obligations. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has confirmed the fact that he was excluded from the club’s training. As a result, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asks for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim to be rejected in its entirety. 15. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a last statement in which it explains that the payment of EUR 52,000 of 12 August 2011 was made in cash because of time constraints. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the original document ‘’is now in a local prosecution file’’ and states being willing to provide the FIFA DRC with the document after said investigation is concluded. 16. In his final comments on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reiterated his previous arguments and insisted that the document provided regarding the allegedly payment of 12 August 2011 by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant cannot be considered, since the Respondent/CounterClaimant failed to submit the relevant original document. 17. In spite of having been invited to do so, Club E, the Intervening Party, failed to present its comments on the present affair. 18. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that, on 31 January 2012, he signed an employment contract with the Intervening Party, valid as from the date of signature until 1 July 2013 in accordance with which he was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 450. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 May 2012. 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 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (editions 2010, 2012, 2014), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a player from Country B and a club from Country D. 3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010, 2012, 2014) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 May 2012, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. 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. 6. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an undated employment contract valid as from 5 August 2010 until 31 May 2012. In addition the parties also signed on 26 April 2011 a supplementary agreement (cf. point I.3 above). 7. In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved that the employment relationship had been terminated by the Claimant/CounterRespondent, in writing, on 13 August 2011. 8. The DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has breached the contractual relationship without just cause, by failing to pay outstanding bonus due to him (cf. point. I.7. above) and excluding him from the trainings with the professional team (cf. point I.9. above). In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged the documentation provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, consisting of a certificate of attendance to two daily sessions for the period from 19 July to 12 August 2011 signed by the player and the club. The Chamber further observed that, by means of his correspondence of 27 July 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its situation of breach of contract. As the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not react to such reminder, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 13 August 2011 and requested, by means of his claim before FIFA, the amounts detailed in point I.7. above. 9. Subsequently, the DRC noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent/CounterClaimant claims that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, since it deems to have no debts toward the Claimant/CounterRespondent but, on the contrary, to have paid him 14,728.94 in excess. In support of its position, the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided bank statements and a document allegedly bearing the signature of both parties in relation to a payment of EUR 52,000 on 12 August 2011 with the indication “total premium for rising super league that is accepted by sides”. In addition, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant confirmed that due to the lack of performance of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it did not send the player to the training camp with the team but kept him at the club’s facilities. 10. In continuation, the Chamber observed that, in his replica, the Claimant/CounterRespondent denies having signed the aforementioned document of 12 August 2011, claiming that it is a counterfeit. Furthermore, the DRC noted that, despite having been invited by FIFA to provide the original version of the document allegedly signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to do so. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the allegations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 12. In this respect, the Chamber considered that it should first analyze whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argument regarding the alleged counterfeit of the document dated 12 August 2011, could be upheld or, in case not, whether the financial obligations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent could be considered as extinguished with the alleged signature of the aforementioned document. 13. At this stage, the members of the Chamber considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 14. In addition, the members of the DRC pointed out that, upon FIFA’s request and in view of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent allegation of falsification, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not able to provide the original of such receipt. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the document allegedly signed by both parties on 12 August 2011 cannot be taken into account. 15. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC analysed the bank statements provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. point I 12 above) in order to establish whether the financial obligations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent could be considered as complied with and, consequently, extinguished. In this context, the members of the Chamber noted that from the dates indicated in the bank statements, it could not be established that the bonuses due as per the annexe were paid because of the fact that all the dates refer to a period prior the promotion of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 16. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has not provided enough evidence of its defence and that, therefore, it could be established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to pay the promotion bonus as per the annexe. 17. Furthermore, the DRC focused its attention on the second reason given by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to terminate the contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 13 August 2011, namely, his exclusion from the first team and his subsequent assignment to a training program with a group of players who were no longer part of the club’s plans for the upcoming season. 18. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 19. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged the documentation provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, consisting of a certificate of attendance to two daily sessions for the period from 19 July to 12 August 2011 signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that, the training schedules happened to consist of two daily running sessions. 20. The Chamber equally noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not contest the allegations of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent regarding his exclusion from the first team and his assignment to a special training group, neither presented any documentation in this regard. On the contrary, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant confirmed that its technical director did not want the player to travel to the training camp with the group but deemed it more suitable for the player, due to his insufficient performances, to continue his training at the club’s facilities (cf. point I.11. above). 21. Bearing in mind the aforementioned allegations of the parties, the Chamber further observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s exclusion from the first team occurred for at least the period comprised between the 19 July and the 12 August 2011, as it can be inferred from the documentation provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in this regard. The indicated period forms part of what is considered to be a crucial phase of preparation for the upcoming season, during which all players are required to display their performance, in order to be able to undergo a selection by the club’s coach for the next season. 22. It was during this highly important preparation phase that the Claimant/CounterRespondent was not only excluded from the trainings of the first team, but was also not provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with a sufficient training for a professional football player. 23. In addition the Chamber noted that the club did not dispute, but rather confirmed the player’s allegations that it had presented him with a termination agreement dated 26 July 2011, which he refused to sign, due to its allegedly unfair conditions (cf. point I.4. and I.5. above). 24. In view of the aforementioned facts, the DRC was of the opinion that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had founded reasons to believe that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was no longer interested in his services for the upcoming season and that the latter would no longer provide him with any remuneration for his services. 25. As a consequence of all the aforementioned allegations combined with the documentation provided by the parties, the Chamber considered that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was to be considered responsible for the breach of contract without just cause. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had a valid reason to terminate his contractual relation with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 13 August 2011 and that it should be considered as a well-founded just cause. 26. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until the date of termination, i.e. on 13 August 2011, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. 27. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that two bonuses and an advance payment of EUR 40,000 remain outstanding (cf. point. I.7. above). On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide any consistent evidence of the payment of the bonus for the entrance in the Super League stipulated in the annexe (cf. point I.3. above). 28. Furthermore, the members further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not substantiate its claims with regard to the bonus stipulated in clause 2 of the contract under the section Special Provisions, as it did not present sufficient evidence that the club became champion. 29. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the bonus that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amount of 50,000. The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5 % p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amount, as from 9 June 2011. 30. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. 31. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the 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. 32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract 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 Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 33. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment contract on 13 August 2011, the contract would run until 31 May 2012, for 10 other months. Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant until its regular expiry amounts to USD 100,000 (10 salaries of USD 6,000 each plus EUR 40,000 as advance payment for the season 2011/2012) and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 34. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 35. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with the club from Country D, Club E, valid as from 31 January 2012 until 1 July 2013, in accordance with which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive a monthly salary of EUR 450. Therefore, this employment contract enabled the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to earn an income of EUR 1,800 (4 x EUR 450) during the relevant period of time of 31 January 2012 until 31 May 2012. 36. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 37. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the amount of EUR 98,200 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount of compensation. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amount, as from 25 May 2012, i.e. the date of the claim. 38. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of 50,000, plus 5% interests as from 9 June 2011 corresponding to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s outstanding bonus at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract without just cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, as well as the amount of EUR 98,200, plus 5% interests as from the date of claim, i.e. 25 May 2012, corresponding to compensation for breach of contract without just cause. 39. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of 50,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 98,200 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 May 2012 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent plus interest are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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