F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country B represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I against the club, B, country S as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, C, country L as Counter-Respondent II and the club, D, country N represented by Mr xxxxx as intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country B represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I against the club, B, country S as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, C, country L as Counter-Respondent II and the club, D, country N represented by Mr xxxxx as intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 7 January 2013, the player from country B, A (hereinafter: the player), and the club from S, B (hereinafter: B), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 January 2013 until 30 June 2015. 2. In accordance with the contract, B has to remit the player the following fixed remuneration: i. EUR 500,000 as sign-on fee due before 2 February 2013; ii. EUR 50,000 as monthly salary due at the end of each month and for the entire 30 months of the contract. 3. According to art. 7 of the contract, ‘’the club and the player shall abide by the federation’s rules and regulations, and the Professional Players Regulations (…)’’. Art. 13 stipulates that ‘’the player is aware of the club’s internal disciplinary code in accordance with article (23), chapter (9) of the Professional Player Regulations, and the two parties abide by it’’. In addition, as per art. 14 of the contract, ‘’in case the player is found guilty of misconducts, repeating misbehaviors, or violating the federation or the club’s regulations, the disciplinary sanctions stipulated in the federation’s regulations including the Professional Player regulations shall be applicable to him’’. 4. By means of faxes dated 11 February and 2 May 2013, the player put B in default of the payment of the sign-on fee (EUR 500,000) as well as salaries that were allegedly outstanding at the time (EUR 150,000 corresponding to the salaries of February, March and April 2013). Subsequently, on 14 November 2013, the player addressed a correspondence to the President of the Commission, in relation to the outstanding payment of his sign-on fee and his salaries for September, October and November 2013. 5. On 26 November 2013, the player once again put B in default in writing and referred to the outstanding payment of the sign-on fee and salaries for August, September and October 2013. In particular, the player states in his correspondence that in case B fails to pay the relevant amount within a deadline of seven days, the contract shall be considered as automatically terminated with just cause. 6. On 27 November 2013, B passed a decision to deduct 50% from the player’s salary of November 2013 for having allegedly left B’s training camp on 24 November 2013 and refused to play in a match on 25 November 2013. 7. On 5 December 2013, the player granted B a final deadline to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 635,000 [EUR 500,000 + 4 x EUR 50,000 August to November 2013) – EUR 65,000] in consideration that since his last correspondence (cf. point I.5. above) B had only paid the amount of EUR 65,000 and the salary for November had fallen due. Again, the player stated that should the entire outstanding amount not be paid by 8 December 2013, the contract would be automatically terminated with just cause. The player considered the contract as terminated on 8 December 2013. 8. On 7 December 2013, B passed a decision to deduct 20% from the player’s salary for November 2013 due to declarations allegedly made to media. 9. On 9 December 2013, B passed a decision to deduct 20% from the player’s salary for December 2013 as well as his salary for 5,6 and 8 December 2013 for having been absent from training on these dates. 10. On 18 December 2013, B responded to the player’s fax dated 5 December 2013 stating that said correspondence was null and void because the deadline given was not in line with the regulations of the association of country S which state that a club has 15 days to respond to a default notice. In addition, B claims that since it paid the player the amount of EUR 65,000 on 3 December 2013 corresponding to the salary for October 2013 and 30% of the salary for November 2013 and considering the two fines imposed on the player, only the salaries for August and September 2013 remain outstanding. However, these will be paid on 22 December 2013 and the sign-on fee will be paid on 28 February 2014, once the TV rights have been distributed to the clubs. 11. On 19 December 2013, B passed a decision according to which 35% of the player’s salary for December 2013 and his salary for 14, 16, 17 and 18 December 2013 would be deducted for having missed training on these dates. Then, on 22 December 2013, B decided that 25% would be deducted from the player’s salary for December 2013 in relation to comments apparently made by the player to country B media. On 28 December 2013, B decided to deduct 50% from the player’s salary for December 2013 and his salary for 25, 26 and 27 December 2013 on the basis that he had been absent from training on these dates. 12. Between 12 December 2013 and 20 January 2014, the player and B exchanged correspondence regarding the player’s visa and the duration of his absence. In this context, the player requested authorisation on 4 January 2014 in order to travel to country B and return on 26 January 2014. B, for its part, addressed a correspondence to the player specifying that the latter was requested to return to the club on 18 January 2014. On 20 January 2014, B addressed a warning requesting the player to return within five working days. 13. On 30 December 2013, the player lodged a claim against B in front of FIFA, requesting the following: i. EUR 635,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest on the amount of EUR 435,000 as of 3 February 2013 and as of the day following the due date of the payment for the salaries of August, September, October and November 2013. ii. EUR 900,000 as compensation, plus 5% interest as of the date of the claim; iii. EUR 3,000,000 as damages caused by B’s decision to prevent him from leaving country S (amount allegedly due to compensate the fact that the player missed the opportunity of accepting offers made by other clubs to hire him); iv. EUR 500,000 as moral damages caused by B’s decision to prevent him from leaving country S; v. Sporting sanctions to be imposed on B. 14. In this regard, the player explains that B failed to pay his sign-on fee and only paid the amount of EUR 65,000 on 3 December 2013 after having been put in default many times. In relation to the latter payment, the player claims that since it did not refer to a specific debt, it should be deducted from the oldest one, i.e. the outstanding sign-on fee. On account of B’s failure to pay remuneration in the amount of EUR 700,000, i.e. the sign-on fee and four monthly salaries (August to November 2013), the player insists that B clearly breached the contract and that he therefore had a just cause to terminate the contract. 15. In addition, the player claims B refused to arrange the necessary authorisation for him to leave country S. Without such authorisation, the embassy did not grant him permission to leave the country and he was therefore, at the time of his claim, ‘’being held captive’’. In this respect, the player makes reference to his letter dated 17 December 2013 by means of which he allegedly confirmed the termination of the contract and requested B to provide him with the necessary documentation to leave the country. 16. In response to the player’s claim, with regard to the player’s allegation of being unable to leave country S, B maintains that a written request from the applicant is a formal requisite and only upon receipt thereof the employer may give the necessary approval for the visa application. In casu, the player apparently only made such a request on 4 January 2014 (cf. point I.12. above) and was able to travel within 72 hours, i.e. on 8 January 2014. 17. B further deems that the player had no just cause to terminate the contract since the delay in paying his salaries was not longer than 60 or 90 days and the failure to pay the sign-on fee can never constitute a just cause to terminate a contract. In this regard B refers, inter alia, to the following circumstances: i. it paid the player’s salary for October 2013 and 30% for November 2013 on 3 December 2013, i.e. EUR 65,000; ii. it paid the amount of EUR 50,000 to the player on 22 December 2013 (note: bank receipt on file; not confirmed by the player); iii. the player was informed that the sign-on fee would be paid by 28 February 2014 (cf. point I.10. above); iv. the player committed several violations of the contract for which he was sanctioned for the residual salary for November and the entire salary for December 2013; v. B deems that the player terminated the contract by means of his fax dated 26 November 2013 which it only received on 30 November 2013 and never put B in default prior thereto; vi. the player was informed that according to the Regulations of the association of country S, a deadline of 15 days had to be given. 18. On account of the circumstances at stake, B claims that the outstanding amount is of EUR 550,000, corresponding to the salary for August 2013 and the sign-on fee. 19. Moreover, referring to several letters exchanged between the parties regarding the player’s visa (cf. point I.12. above), B states that the player in fact deemed that the contract was still in force. However later on, he was induced by the club from country N, D (hereinafter: D), to breach his contract with B. 20. As a consequence, on 30 January 2014 B lodged a counterclaim against the player and D requesting the following: i. EUR 1,500,000, plus the transfer fee paid to the player’s former club borne by the player and D; ii. EUR 900,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest as of the date of the counterclaim; iii. EUR 3,000,000 to be paid by D for the damages caused by the latter; iv. EUR 500,000 to be paid by the player as moral damages; v. a four or six months ban to be imposed on the player. 21. In his response to B’s counterclaim, the player first holds having always complied with his contractual obligations, objects to the various sanctions imposed by B, stating that they were imposed unilaterally and he was not offered the possibility to exercise his contradictory and defence rights. The player also claims that B had no legal basis to set-off the outstanding remuneration through the imposition of these illegal sanctions. 22. Furthermore, the player maintains that the contract was terminated upon expiry of the deadline granted in his correspondence of 5 December 2013, i.e. 8 December 2013. Thus, all sanctions imposed after the termination are totally void. 23. In addition, according to the player, B was warned on several occasions – 11 February, 2 May, 14 November, 26 November and 5 December 2013 – about the outstanding remuneration and B never refuted the existence of these communications (cf. points I.4. and I.5. above). 24. In conclusion, by B’s repeated breach of the contract, the player could no longer be expected to continue to be bound by the contract and, hence, had a just cause to terminate it. Therefore, B’s counterclaim should be rejected. 25. In continuation, the player again made reference to the alleged lack of authorisation to leave country S. In this regard, the player insists that, contrary to B’s statement, by means of a letter dated 17 December 2013, he explicitly asked B ‘’to make all diligences in order to my travelling visa be issue and delivered to me as soon as possible’’. In particular, despite such an explicit request, B refused to issue the necessary documentation for almost a month. Then, when the authorisation for his departure was granted (on 7 January 2013), it was made conditional, under intimidation, to his return to country S even though the contract was already terminated. 26. The player added that, contrary to B’s allegation, he had never signed an employment contract with D. 27. D did not provide its response to the counterclaim lodged by B, in spite of having been requested to do so. 28. On 17 February 2014, the player concluded a contract with the club, C (hereinafter: C), valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2014, and for a remuneration of EUR 7,500 for the month of February 2014 and EUR 15,000 for each of the following months. Then, by means of a document signed on 25 April 2014, the parties terminated their employment relationship by mutual consent. 29. Upon request to provide its position in relation to the matter at stake, C outlines that B considered D to be the club to be held as jointly liable for the termination of the contract. C, for its part, insists not having taken part in the termination of the contract. On account thereof, Sofia claims that it may not be held severally and jointly liable for the payment of compensation. Furthermore, C claims that B breached the contract by failing to pay the player’s entire remuneration and did not substantiate any of the alleged breaches of the player. Therefore, the counterclaim lodged by B should be entirely rejected. 30. Finally, the player informed FIFA that on 26 June 2014, he signed a contract with the club, K, for a period of one year as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015 and a total remuneration of USD 750,000. 31. According to TMS, the player signed a new contract with the club, F, valid from 4 February 2015 until 31 December 2015 for a monthly salary of (xxx) 15,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) 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 30 December 2013. Consequently, 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country S. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 30 December 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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 members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they had signed on 7 January 2013 an employment contract valid as from 1 January 2013 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 50,000, as well as a signon fee for an amount of EUR 500,000, payable before 2 February 2013. 7. The Chamber further observed that the player held that he had unilaterally terminated the contract with B on 8 December 2013 invoking just cause, and that he subsequently lodged a claim in front of FIFA against B seeking payment of the amount of EUR 5,035,000 plus interest, corresponding to the amounts detailed in points I. 13. above. On the other hand, the Chamber duly noted that B held that the player had terminated the contract without just cause by not returning to country S after the expiry of the authorisation on 18 January 2014, and, as a result, lodged a counter-claim against the player and his alleged new club, D for the total amount of EUR 5,900,000 plus interest. 8. As a consequence of the above, the Chamber duly noted that it first had to examine which is the date to be considered as the date on which the contract was terminated. Whereas the player held that the relevant date is 8 December 2013, B held that the termination occurred on 18 January 2014, first because of the fact that the player’s correspondence dated 5 December 2013 (cf. point I.10. above) was allegedly null and void and secondly because he did not return to B on 18 January 2014. After having taken into account all the circumstances of the present matter, in particular the fact that the player provided a copy of a fax report proving the transmission of his letter of 5 January 2013 to B, the members of the DRC found that the contract must be considered as terminated by the player on 8 December 2013, after having put B in default three times and given a last three days deadline to B in his correspondence of 5 December 2013 in order to pay its contractual debts. 9. In continuation, the Chamber underlined that it had to examine whether or not the player had had a just cause to terminate the contract with B on 8 December 2013. 10. In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall 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 on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 11. In view of the above, the DRC deemed that, in the present case, B carried the burden of proof of proving the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration or to have had any valid reasons not to pay the player in accordance with the contract. 12. In this context, the members of the Chamber first observed that B could only provide documentary evidence proving a single payment towards the player on 3 December 2013, for an amount of EUR 65,000, which the DRC considered as part of the sign-on fee as the oldest outstanding debt. Moreover, the Chamber observed that B explicitly acknowledged that it did not pay the player the sign-on fee of EUR 500,000 (cf. point I.10. above), which fell due on 2 February 2013, or his salary for the month of August 2013 (cf. point I.18. above). 13. Secondly, the Chamber analysed whether B had any valid reasons not to have paid the player any remuneration due as per the contract. First, the DRC observed that B stressed that it had not been put in default by the player prior to his departure from the club (cf. point I.17.v. above). The Chamber outlined that various letters had been sent to B and that B had recognized that it had, at the very minimum, been notified of the existence of the existence of an allegedly pending debt by means of a fax dated 26 November 2013 (cf. point I.17.v. above). Moreover the Chamber underlined that the player was able to prove to have sent reminders to B on 11 February, 2 May, 26 November 2013 and 5 December 2013). As such, B had been notified by the player that he was not willing to accept the nonpayment of his salaries. Therefore, the Chamber does not accept the statement of B that it had never been put in default and found it proven that the player, on more than one occasion, had clearly stated his disagreement with the nonpayment of his salaries. 14. In continuation, the Chamber further observed that B recognised that it had not fully complied with its financial obligations towards the player but, at the same time, indicated that the delay of payment had never been longer than 60 or 90 days and that failure to pay a sign-on fee is not a valid reason to terminate a contract. 15. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that no such clause establishing a grace period of 60 or 90 days for the payment of contractual remuneration was inserted in the employment contract and that the amount of EUR 500,000 had been outstanding since 2 February 2013 and that thus B had been neglecting its contractual obligations from the very beginning of the employment relationship. 16. As to the fines allegedly imposed by B on the player in November and December 2013, the Chamber considered that such fines must be disregarded. The Chamber emphasised that the player was allegedly fined by B on 6 different occasions between 27 November 2013 and 28 December 2013, all of them after the player had sent his first default notice on 26 November 2013 (cf. points I.6., I.8., I.9. and I.11. above). 17. Firstly, the Chamber does not find it reasonable and proportionate that a player is fined for not complying with his contractual obligations, when the club, at that very moment, is itself seriously in default of its own contractual obligations. Furthermore, the Chamber deemed that the fines referring to alleged disciplinary breaches occurred after the date of termination, i.e. 8 December 2013, cannot be taken into account, as the contractual relationship between the parties no longer existed (cf. point I.11. above). As to the fines imposed on 27 November 2013, 7 December 2013 and 9 December 2013 (cf. points I.6., I.8. and I.9. above), the Chamber deemed that not only there was no evidence of the alleged disciplinary violations of the player or of his notification of or participation in such disciplinary proceedings, but also the amount of the fines imposed on the player are clearly disproportionate in relation to the alleged violations. 18. As such, the Chamber determined that the relevant fines should all be disregarded. In this context, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject B’s argument in this connection. 19. Taking into consideration all previous deliberations as well as the fact that B transferred the amount of EUR 65,000 to the player on 3 December 2013, the Chamber concluded that the total amount of EUR 635,000 was outstanding at the time of the termination of the contract by the player, corresponding to the signon fee and four monthly salaries (August to November 2013). 20. In this context, the Chamber concluded that B had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the player in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. B had failed to remunerate the player for a substantial period of time regarding a significant amount of money. As a consequence, the Chamber established in accordance with its well established jurisprudence that the player had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 8 December 2013 and that, consequently, B is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with the player. 21. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player. 22. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that B must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that B is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amount of EUR 635,000, consisting of the monthly salaries of August to November 2013 (EUR 200,000) as well as EUR 435,000 as the sign-on fee minus the amount paid by B on 3 December 2013 (EUR 500,000 minus EUR 65,000). 23. As a result, the Chamber determined that B has to pay the player the amount of EUR 635,000 as outstanding remuneration. Considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber also ruled that B must pay 5% interest p.a. on the aforementioned amounts as from the respective due dates. 24. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from B compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 25. In this context, the Chamber 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 player 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. 26. 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. 27. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by B, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to EUR 900,000 (18 months) and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 28. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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. 29. The Chamber remarked that the player had found new employment with three different clubs, where he earned the total amount of EUR 412,780 for the period between December 2013 and 30 June 2015 (cf. points I.28., I.30. and I.31. above). 30. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, the remuneration as indicated in the new employment contracts shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 31. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that B must pay the amount of EUR 487,220 to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 32. In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that B must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation for breach of contract as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e., 30 December 2013, until the date of effective payment. 33. In conclusion, the DRC decided that B is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 635,000, plus 5% interests p.a. as from due dates, as well as the amount of EUR 487,220, plus 5% interests p.a. as from the date of claim, i.e. 30 December 2013, corresponding to compensation for breach of contract without just cause. 34. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the player is rejected and that B’ counterclaim is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, A, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, B, is rejected. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 635,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 3 February 2013 on the amount of EUR 435,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000. 4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 487,220 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 30 December 2013 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers III.3. and III.4. are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, 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 I is rejected. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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 Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives