F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie allenatori –———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 October 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach A, country K represented by Mr xxxxx as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club B, country C represented by Mr xxxxxxxx as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie allenatori –---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 October 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach A, country K represented by Mr xxxxx as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club B, country C represented by Mr xxxxxxxx as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On or around 1 December 2010, the coach A from country K (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent or simply: the Claimant) and the club from country C , B, (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply: the Respondent) concluded a three-year employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 1 December 2010 until 30 November 2013, according to which the Respondent engaged the Claimant as “chief coach” of its football team. In this respect, art. III.1 of the contract stated that the Claimant “as a chief coach of the forefront football team (professional team) engages in training, competition and other relevant football activities” and that he “overall manages and supervise construction, competition and training of the club’s [i.e. the Respondent] echelon”. 2. In accordance with article V.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a total annual remuneration of USD 330,000, payable in 12 monthly salaries of USD 25,000 each, due on the “10th day every month” as well as USD 30,000 “as a merit” in case the Respondent wins “not lower than 8th prize in the Super League of country C”. 3. Furthermore, article V.2 of the contract provided that “the bonus of a win match or a draw match is paid to Party B [i.e. the Claimant] according to bonus standard of the Chinese first team players of Party A [i.e. the Respondent], and no bonus for a failed match”. 4. Finally, art. X.2 of the contract stipulated that “if Party B [i.e. the Claimant] violates the condition about terminating the labor contract stipulated in the contract and leave without notice, that is to say, leave the post without written notice one month ahead or transaction the demission procedure, besides leaving the total income of the last month of Party B to compensate Party A [i.e. the Respondent], Party B should also bear the compensation responsibility legally according to the degree of damage”. 5. The contract provided for a similar provision in case the Respondent would violate the condition of the contract. 6. On 15 March 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that the latter had unilaterally and without just cause breached the contract. 7. In this respect, the Claimant claimed that he was dismissed by the Respondent on 23 May 2011 due to an “alleged lack of sporting success”. As evidence of his allegations, the Claimant provided an excerpt from the Respondent’s official website together with its translation into English, which states as follows: “Because of the performance of the football team in the XXXXX Super League doesn’t fit our expectations (…) to remove the head coach Mr. A [i.e. the Claimant] and all his coaching group members’ position in our [i.e. the Respondent] First team”. 8. On account of the above, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent had breached the contract without just cause and claimed from the latter a compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the remaining value of the contract in the amount of USD 840,000 as follows: USD 750,000 corresponding to 30 monthly salaries (i.e. for the period from June 2011 until November 2013) and USD 90,000 corresponding to three yearly instalments in the amount of USD 30,000 each. 9. In addition, the Claimant stated that on 9 July 2012 he had signed a contract with the club X (hereinafter: X), valid from 10 July 2012 until 31 December 2013 and according to which he was entitled to receive a yearly salary of “xxxx (xxx) 300,000,000”. 10. In this context, the Claimant admitted having earned xxx 418,356,164, i.e. xxx 300,000,000 corresponding to the period from 10 July 2012 until 9 July 2013 as well as xxx 118,356,164 corresponding to the period from 10 July 2013 until 30 November 2013, since his dismissal until the end of the original validity of the contract, and that said amount has to be deducted from the aforementioned claimed compensation. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Respondent had also failed to pay him his salary for the month of May 2011, in the amount of USD 25,000. 12. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that he should also be entitled to receive bonuses as follows: USD 30,000 for three draw games, i.e. 3 x USD 10,000 as well as USD 25,000 for winning a xxx-Cup game. 13. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 558,798, i.e. USD 473,798 [USD 840,000 – xxx 418,356,164 corresponding to USD 366,202 on 10 July 2012] as compensation + USD 85,000 as outstanding salary and bonuses, plus interest at the rate of 5% per year over the aforementioned amounts as from the dates they became due. 14. Finally, the Claimant explained that he had tried “to settle the issue of the outstanding remuneration and the consequences of the unilateral dismissal with the club [i.e. the Respondent] in an amicable way”, but unfortunately the latter had failed to pay the requested amount. 15. On 12 June 2013, the Respondent in its response to the Claimant’s complaint rejected it in its entirety and lodged a counterclaim against the latter. In this respect, the Respondent requested from the Claimant the payment of USD 900,000 as compensation due to the alleged “unilateral termination of the contract” by the Claimant plus 5% interest “from the date that the Coach [i.e. the Claimant] unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause”. 16. In this regard and first of all, the Respondent confirmed that it had “decided to remove the Claimant from his duties with the forefront football team and appointed a new staff for the football team” but also alleged that “the main occupation of the Coach [i.e. the Claimant] was the management of the club’s echelon and not the training of the professional football team” and that therefore “the removal of the Claimant [i.e. the Claimant] and his staff as Head Coach of the football team is not a termination of the contract, being just a reduction of his duties due to the bad results of the team, meaning that the Coach was still committed to continue with his work as Manager of the club’s [i.e. the Respondent] echelon, which was actually the most important part of his work as it is stated in the Employment Contract”. 17. In addition, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had “leaved the club [i.e. the Respondent] without notice once he was removed from his duties as Head Coach and just 3 and a half months after he started working as new coach of X (…)”. 18. On account of the above, the Respondent was of the opinion that it had been the Claimant who had breached the contract and consequently deemed that based on art X.2 of the contract, it should be entitled to receive from the coach USD 750,000, i.e. 30 x USD 25,000, corresponding to the remaining part of the contract (i.e. for the period from June 2011 until November 2013), plus an additional amount of USD 150,000 corresponding to a “6 months’ salaries pursuant to the specificity of sport, as the TAS jurisprudence had stated in several occasion (CAS xxxxx, CAS xxxxxx)“. 19. Consequently, the Respondent claimed that the Claimant should therefore compensate them for the alleged breach and requested from the latter the total amount of USD 900,000 (i.e. USD 750,000 + USD 150,000) plus 5% interest “from the date that the Coach [i.e. the Claimant] unilaterally terminated the Contract without just cause”. 20. On 8 August 2013, the Claimant presented his comments to the Respondent’s reply and first of all reiterated his previous statements. In this respect, the Claimant insisted that he had been “dismissed from all his functions in the club [i.e. the Respondent]” and that the latter “never asked him to keep any other function than the one of the head coach of the club’s first team”. In this context, the Claimant further stated that he “never would have had to accept such a unilateral modification of his employment contract”. 21. In addition, the Claimant contested the Respondent’s allegation that he had left “the club [i.e. the Respondent] and the city without notice” after the alleged dismissal and emphasised that during the days following his dismissal, he had even tried “to find an agreement with the club [i.e. the Respondent] to settle the consequences of the dismissal”. 22. Furthermore, the Claimant pointed out that contrary to the Respondent’s allegations, he “did not sign a new employment contract three and a half months after the dismissal, but only 14 months after the dismissal”. 23. Finally, with regard to the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent against him, the Claimant stated that, first of all, it should be rejected for substantial reasons and also deemed that it is “time-barred, as it was submitted to FIFA more than two years after the relevant incidents” and that therefore it should be rejected “also for formal reasons”. 24. On 27 September 2013, the Respondent reacted to the Claimant’s last submission and reiterated its previous statements, emphasising that the Claimant had not been dismissed but only removed from one of his two obligations stipulated in the contract. In particular, the Respondent stated that “nowhere in the public statement neither when talked directly with the Claimant, the Club [i.e. the Respondent] used the term dismissal or termination of contract or something similar, in fact the Club never issued a termination letter to the Claimant” and deemed that it “never had any obligation to offer any other position to the Head Coach [i.e. the Claimant] and his team members because their contract clearly specified that their obligations were more than just train the first team and that OVER ALL were to Manage and supervise construction, competition and training of the club’s echelon”. 25. Moreover, the Respondent rejected the allegation that the Claimant had tried to find an agreement and stated that an “email sent without answer and without acknowledgement of receipt is evidence of nothing” and that “the real fact is that the Claimant [i.e. the coach] never communicated that he was leaving the country before doing it, and that until the 28th of January 2013, so 20 months after the breach of the contract, he did not requested anything to the Club [i.e. the Respondent], thus it means that not even him was as convinced from his own innocence in the breach of the contract”. 26. Finally, the Respondent argued that even if FIFA considers the Claimant’s “removal of the First team’s staff as a modification of the working conditions instead of a reduction of the workload, it should notice that such a modification does not legitimates the employee to terminate the contract and abandon the Club [i.e. the Respondent] and even less to claim for the rest of the contract for termination with just cause”. 27. In view of all of the above, the Respondent emphasised that “it is obvious that no breach was committed by the Club [i.e. the Respondent], as there was no dismissal or unilateral termination of the contract”. 28. With regard to the Claimant’s argument concerning the alleged prescription of the counterclaim, the Respondent deemed that the “time limit for prescription was suspended in the same moment that the Claimant [i.e. the coach] presented the first brief before FIFA” and that therefore the counterclaim is “perfectly within the time limits (…)”. 29. On 19 November 2013, the Claimant provided his response to the Respondent’s latest statements concerning the counterclaim lodged against him, and once again reiterated that “the counterclaim is to be rejected not only for substantial reasons, but also for formal reasons”. 30. In this respect, and first of all, the Claimant explained that according to the Respondent’s explanations, it has to be assumed that the latter had based its counterclaim on the fact that he had left country C on 31 May 2011, and that the counterclaim in question was submitted to FIFA on 12 June 2013 only, although the Respondent had been informed about the claim lodged against it on 19 April 2013 and a deadline until 10 May 2013 had been granted in order to provide its reply. 31. With regard to the Respondent’s argument that the submission of the Claimant’s claim had suspended the prescription period of the Respondent’s counterclaim, the Claimant argued that “since the prescription rule at stake is to be applied ex officio, it is to be considered as a <> [i.e. forfeiture]” and cannot therefore be suspended. 32. In view of the above and, in particular, since the counterclaim had been “submitted to FIFA more than two years after the alleged – and contested – breach of contract”, the Claimant was of the opinion that the counterclaim was “time-barred” and that “the Players’ Status Committee shall not enter into the substance of the counterclaim”. 33. As to the substance of the matter, the Claimant alleged that it had been the Respondent who had breached the contract and reiterated that, on 28 May 2011, he had sent an email to the Respondent in “an attempt to settle the consequences of the dismissal”. In this context, the Claimant explained that “should the respondent really have had the opinion that the claimant was still its employee and therefore the intention to keep him in any other function than that of a head coach – which is contested – this would have been the moment to inform him accordingly”. The Claimant further argued that since the Respondent had “totally ignored this e-mail and did not react to it (…) it had tacitly confirmed that it did not wish to continue to cooperate with the claimant in any form”. 34. Finally, the Claimant stated that even if the Respondent had wished to keep him in another position than that of the head coach, this would have been a unilateral modification of the employment contract that he “never accepted and never would have had to accept”. 35. On 3 February 2014, in response to FIFA’s request whether he had been able to conclude any other employment contract(s) for the period from May 2011 until the day he had entered into an employment contract with X (i.e. 10 July 2012), the Claimant informed FIFA that he had not been able to conclude any other employment contract(s) in the period between May 2011 and July 2012. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2012 and 2014). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 March 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a coach from country K and a club affiliated to the association of country C. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 and 2014 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 13 March 2013. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations). 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge noted that, on or around 1 December 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract) which was originally valid from the date of its signature until 30 November 2013 and which provided for the Claimant to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of USD 25,000, the sum of USD 30,000 “as merit” in case the Respondent wins “no lower than 8th prize in xxx Super League” as well as bonuses in accordance with the Respondent’s bonus standard rules. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had inter alia accused the Respondent of having prematurely terminated their contractual relationship without just cause on 23 May 2011 and had consequently requested from the latter the total amount of USD 558,798 as outstanding remuneration as well as compensation, in accordance with the contract. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had denied having terminated the contract and had insisted that it had been the Claimant who, by leaving the country without its consent, had breached their contractual relationship. Consequently, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant was the one who should be condemned to pay compensation and therefore it decided to lodge a counter-claim against the Claimant. 7. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the contract had been terminated by the Claimant or by the Respondent and whether such termination had occurred with or without just cause. 8. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had confirmed having removed the Claimant and his staff from their positions due to bad sporting results. However, the Single Judge took note that, according to the Respondent, the Claimant’s removal from his position as a head coach was not a termination of the contract but only a reduction of his duties. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant had undisputedly rendered his services to the Respondent until 23 May 2011, date when, according to him, he was dismissed for bad sporting results. 10. Considering the aforementioned and to begin with, the Single Judge referred to his well-established jurisprudence and pointed out that the absence of sporting results of a team cannot, as a general rule, constitute a valid reason for a club or an association to terminate a coach’s employment contract since the assessment of performance by a coach is a subjective perception which cannot be measured on an objective scale and therefore has to be considered as inadmissible grounds for a termination of the employment relationship. In this context, the Single Judge was eager to emphasize that this principle has to be also applied if the parties have agreed in an agreement that their contractual relationship can be terminated for such reason. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge pointed out that it was undisputed that the Claimant had been removed from his position of head coach of the Respondent after bad sporting results. In this respect, the Single Judge stressed that an amendment of the contractual terms would have only been possible with the Claimant’s acceptance. In casu, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the Claimant had not agreed to such amendment of the contract and had been replaced in his position of head coach of the Respondent by another coach. 12. Equally, the Single Judge found it worthwhile to mention that the circumstances surrounding the present matter seemed to indicate that the Respondent, after having removed the Claimant from his position as a head coach of the team and reduced his duties, had decided to unilaterally amend the contract and, therefore, had also de facto proceeded to terminate the employment contract concluded with the Claimant. 13. In light of all the aforementioned, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant had been dismissed by the Respondent on 23 May 2011 and that such dismissal had occurred without just cause. Therefore, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with his constant practice, the Respondent had breached its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and should, as a consequence, compensate the latter accordingly. 14. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the breach of the contractual relationship by the Respondent. 15. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge analysed the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of outstanding remuneration. 16. In doing so, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Single Judge had requested USD 25,000 as outstanding salary of May 2011 as well as some outstanding bonuses. 17. With regard to the request for the amount of USD 25,000 as outstanding salary for May 2011, the Single Judge duly noted that said salary was, according to the contract, due on 10th May 2011 and that the Respondent had not contested having failed to pay such salary. Therefore, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the Claimant the sum of USD 25,000 as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 11 May 2011. 18. With regard to the request for bonuses, the Single Judge referred to the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof and established that the Claimant had not been able to prove that the team achieved the alleged sportive results. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that such request is rejected for lack of proof. 19. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of compensation for breach of contract, in the total amount of USD 473,798. 20. In this context, the Single Judge first took note that the contract contained clauses related to compensation for breach of contract. However, the Single Judge remarked that such clauses were not clear enough and did not specify the amount of compensation to be paid by the party at fault in case of breach of contract. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of compensation due to the Claimant had to be assessed in accordance with other criteria. 21. The Single Judge remarked that the residual value of the contract as from the date of termination of the contract by the Respondent until the normal expiry of the contract amounted to USD 750,000, i.e. 30 monthly salaries of USD 25,000. 22. The Single Judge observed that, between 10 July 2012 and 30 November 2013, Claimant had been employed by X earning the total amount of xxx 418,356,164 as salary. 23. Considering all the aforementioned and, in particular, taking into account the remaining value of the contract as well as bearing in mind that the Claimant had received from X the total sum of xxx 418,356,164, which corresponded to USD 366,200 on 10 July 2012 when the relevant employment agreement with the X was concluded, the Single Judge reasoned that the amount of USD 383,800, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. UDS 750,000, less USD 366,200 already received by the Claimant from X, constituted a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract. 24. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the counter-claim of the Respondent and noted that the latter had inter alia requested from the Claimant the payment of compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 900,000. 25. In this regard, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations which establishes that the Single Judge shall not hear any case if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute and remarked that the Respondent counter-claim was lodged on 12 June 2013, i.e. more than two years after the dismissal of the Claimant on 23 May 2011. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent’s counter-claim is time-barred and is therefore not admissible. 26. In conclusion, the Single Judge ruled that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted, the counter-claim is inadmissible as time-barred and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 25,000 together with 5% interest per year on the relevant amount as from 11 May 2011 as well as compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 383,800 together with 5% interest per year on the relevant amount as from the date of claim, i.e. 15 March 2013. 27. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 28. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that both parties have to each bear part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 29. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is above CHF 200,001, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 30. In conclusion and in view of the numerous submissions that had to be analysed in the present matter as well as considering that a number of factual complexities had to be addressed but taking into account that the present decision was taken by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 22,000. 31. Consequently, the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of CHF 17,000 has to be paid by Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, B, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 25,000 as outstanding salary plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 11 May 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 383,800 as compensation plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 15 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected. 5. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, is inadmissible. 6. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 22,000 are to be paid to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 7.1 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant / CounterRespondent. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 7.2 The amount of CHF 17,000 has to be paid by the Respondent / CounterClaimant. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 during the present proceedings, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 12,000. 7.3 The abovementioned amount of CHF 12,000 has to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 3. above are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives