F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – coach disputes / controversie allenatori (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, 17 April 2018

Decision of the Single Judge

of the

Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 April 2018,

by

Mr Geoff Thompson (England),

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the coach

Coach A, Country B

as “Claimant”

against

Football Association of Country C

as “Respondent”

regarding an employment-related contractual dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 27 December 2016, the coach of Country B, Coach A (hereinafter: the coach or the Claimant), and the Football Association of Country C (hereinafter: the Football Association of Country C or the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of 15 January 2017 until 30 June 2019, for the position of assistant coach of the women’s senior national team and head coach of the women’s U-20 national team.

2. Pursuant to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a net monthly salary of USD 5,833.33 (i.e. a total of USD 175,000 net), payable on the last working day of each month. The first monthly salary was due in advance on 15 January 2017.

3. The contract also specifies that the aforementioned remuneration is “net of any fee, taxes, social contribution and withholdings, independent of whether such fees, taxes, social contributions and withholdings are applicable in Country C or in the country where the coach has her residence payable. For the sake of clarity, it is specified that the [Respondent] shall bear any deduction, tax or any other charge (income tax etc) relevant to all fees as well as bonus indicated herein”.

4. As per the contract, the Claimant is entitled to “2 yearly airplane return tickets to Country B/year for her or for her family’s personal use”.

5. The contract also stipulates that “all travel and other expenses incident to the rendering of services reasonably incurred on behalf of the [Respondent] by the [Claimant] during the term shall be paid by the [Respondent]. If any such expenses are paid in the first instance by the [Claimant], the [Respondent] shall promptly reimburse him (sic) therefor on presentation of appropriate receipts for any such expenses. All travel and lodging arrangements shall be made in accordance with [the Respondent]’s regular policies”.

6. Pursuant to the contract, the Claimant is entitled to a work permit and a medical insurance with full coverage.

7. The contract provides that “Parties may terminate this agreement upon mutual consent or for just cause in light of the relevant FIFA case law. In case of termination without just cause by the [Respondent], the latter shall pay the coach a compensation equal to the remaining amount of the contract and to any loss of profit”.

8. The contract further states that “[the contract] is subject to the FIFA rules and regulations in force and applicable at time of this Agreement and to Swiss Law in case of any gap. The parties hereby elect the jurisdiction of FIFA to settle any disputes arising from this Agreement and the subsequent appeal, if any, shall be filed before the CAS in Lausanne, in accordance with the provisions of the FIFA Statutes”.

9. On 6 June 2017, the Claimant puts the Respondent in default of payment regarding the amount of USD 9,113.76 corresponding to the monthly salary for April, “less prepayments”, and for May 2017. The Claimant also requests to be provided with a copy of the “full health medical insurance”. The Claimant grants the Respondent ten days to remedy the contractual defaults.

10. On 14 June 2017, in reply thereto, the Respondent requests from the Claimant to “determine what remains outstanding”. On the same day, the Claimant replies, reiterating her financial requests and underlying the necessity to be provided with proof of full health medical insurance, tax payment receipts of the salaries already paid, and visa permit.

11. On 23 June 2017, the Claimant reiterates her requests to be paid the salary for April and May 2017, as well as all other requests relating to tax receipts of payment, visa permit and health insurance, granting the Respondent seven days to do so.

12. On 28 June 2017, the Respondent explains that “for over the past month and a half, made several attempts to get [the Claimant] to sign documents that would facilitate the delivery of payment. Moreover, the payments were coming from funds dispensed on behalf of, and on the instruction of, the [Respondent] by the Continental Confederation. […] In spite of this, and for reasons not fully understood by the [Respondent], [the Claimant] refuse to sign and submit the required documents. It is to be noted that persons employed by the [Respondent], holding similar Head Coaching positions with our various national teams, have signed all related documents and have been paid to date.” The Respondent also “accepts its responsibility to remit all statutory deductions” and as soon as the work permit will be granted, it will be “facilitating permission to secure all related documents […] that will allow statutory payments to be accepted and applied to the relevant employee”. The Respondent finally stresses on the “efforts to secure feasible health medical insurances” and that “per the most recent information available to the [Respondent] from the Immigration Division of the Ministry of National Security, work permits were granted for [the Claimant] (…) for the full duration of her contract with the [Respondent] (…)”.

13. On 1 July 2017, the Claimant insists that “the contract has been signed by and between the [Respondent] and [the Claimant]. Therefore, the [Respondent] – and not third parties – has the obligation to remunerate its employees. […] such a payment could have serious and undesired consequences from a tax point of view pursuant to the very restrictive legislation of Country D. [The Claimant] could consider the proposed payment only once with specific regard to the balance of the currently 3 outstanding months’ salaries, provided that Continental Confederation shall send an official letter to [the Claimant] in which: a) it assumes the obligation to pay the outstanding amount of money on behalf of the [Respondent] and, above all, b) waives [the Claimant] from – and bears the entire responsibility for – any kind of request or fine from the tax authority of Country D. However, […] the [Respondent] still remains obliged to pay any future monthly salary payments directly to [the Claimant]”. The Claimant also reiterates all other requests relating to tax receipts of payment and health insurance.

14. On 2 July 2017, the Respondent reiterates the same offer of payment, through the Continental Confederation, made in its letter dated 28 June 2017.

15. On the same date, the Claimant sends a “Termination notice of employment agreement” to the Respondent, giving ten days to inter alia pay the outstanding salary from April to June 2017, failing which the Claimant would terminate the contract “for just cause and no further notice will be served”.

16. On 3 July 2017, the Respondent acknowledges receipt of the “Termination notice of employment agreement” and reiterates its position as to the offer of payment. The Respondent also reserves its right to challenge such “Termination notice”.

17. On 5 July 2017, the Claimant insists that such “Termination notice” remains “valid” and that she has not received any amount since then. The Claimant also explains that following her letter dated 1 July 2017, she has not received any reactions from the Continental Confederation regarding the offer of payment.

18. On 7 July 2017, the Respondent in return refers the Claimant to “attached copies of correspondence prepared and submitted to the Continental Confederation to facilitate payments” and specifies that such correspondence “includes requesting an advance release of salaries and the monies are being paid from funds belonging to the [Respondent]; as such, [the Claimant] will actually be paid by the [Respondent]. It is also to be noted that a lack of response by [the Claimant] has stymied this process”.

19. On 13 July 2017, the Claimant sends to the Respondent a “Termination with just cause” notice.

20. On 15 August 2017, the Claimant lodges a complaint against the Respondent before FIFA, claiming that the Respondent did not comply with its contractual obligations of payment.

21. In particular, the Claimant highlights that the Respondent did not pay the remainder of her salary for April 2017 (i.e. USD 5,833.33 – USD 2,552.90 = USD 3,280.43) and her full salary for May and June 2017.

22. With regard to the Respondent’s offer to have the payment of outstanding amounts done through Continental Confederation, the Claimant insists that such proposal was rejected because a) the contract was concluded exclusively by and between the Claimant and the Respondent; b) Continental Confederation is not part of the contract, it is an entity with its seat in the Country D, while the Claimant is not a fiscal resident in the Country D; c) neither Continental Confederation nor the Respondent provided the relevant information and documentation asked by the Claimant with regard to guarantees concerning the payment of taxes; d) Continental Confederation never communicated any agreement in order to pay the coach on behalf of the Respondent.

23. Moreover, the Claimant sustains that in the event the Respondent had already in the past proceeded through Continental Confederation to make payments to its employees “on its behalf”, the Respondent should have expressly negotiated and foreseen such clause in the contract with the coach.

24. Finally, the Claimant emphasises that the Respondent did not provide her with a medical insurance, as contractually agreed upon.

25. In this context, the Claimant alleges that she terminated the contract with just cause in writing on 13 July 2017 and left Country C on 16 July 2017 with the head coach, Head Coach E. In this regard, the Claimant provided a flight ticket Country F-Country G-Country H amounting for both coaches to USD 4,854.46.

26. In this regard, the Claimant holds that she is entitled to be refunded the two-return flight tickets allegedly paid to go back to Country B insofar as the Respondent apparently did not provide the Claimant with any of the two return flight tickets contractually foreseen. To this end, the coach files an invoice for a roundtrip flight ticket Country F-Country B from 21 June 2017 through 3 July 2017 for the amount of USD 3,467.

27. Consequently, the Claimant requests the total net amount of USD 161,355.86, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 15 August 2017, broken-down as follows:

 USD 17,280.43 as outstanding salary from April to June 2017 (i.e. USD 14,947.10) and the pro rata salary for July 2017 (i.e. USD 2,333.33);

 USD 137,861 as compensation, in accordance with the contract, corresponding to the remaining salaries from 13 July 2017 to 30 June 2019;

 USD 6,214.40 as reimbursement of flight tickets.

The Claimant finally requests that the Football Association of Country C bears the full costs of the present proceedings.

28. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledges the non-payment of the Claimant’s salary for part of April as well as for May and June 2017, and proposes a schedule of payment for such amounts. With regard to the salary of April 2017, the Respondent submits a proof of payment of the amount of USD 2,552.90 on 18 April 2017 and holds that such payment was made in advance.

29. The Respondent however alleges that in order to remedy the situation and “compensate the inconvenience”, it instructed the Continental Confederation for the payment of the Claimant’s outstanding salary for April 2017 (remainder) and also for the full salary of May and June 2017 in advance, “on [the Respondent’s] behalf using the loan facility that has been extended to [the Respondent]”.

30. In particular, the Respondent explains that there was an agreement between the Respondent and Continental Confederation regarding a loan from the latter to the former in the amount of USD 600,000, which the Respondent pretends having used in order to pay inter alia coaches’ salary. In this respect, the Respondent submits the following documentation:

 Amendment to the loan agreement dated 26 May 2017 between the Respondent and Continental Confederation, which inter alia states that “all amounts borrowed hereunder shall be solely for administrative, technical, and operational expenses of the [Respondent], including preparation and travel of the [Respondent]’s national teams […], and which have been pre-approved in writing by [Continental Confederation].” ;

 Letter dated 15 September 2017 from Continental Confederation, according to which Continental Confederation confirms having “made wire transfer payments […] as of September 15, 2017, on behalf of [Respondent] utilizing the loan facility that has been extended to [Respondent] for coaches, staff and players.”

31. The Respondent further states that since the loaned amount was allegedly not paid at once by Continental Confederation, the Respondent could apparently not proceed with the payment of the Claimant’s salary on time from April 2017 onwards. In this respect, the Respondent files bank statements indicating an account balance of approx. USD 4,000 from April to June 2017.

32. The Respondent also holds that such “insolvency” could not be foreseen as the loan payments from Continental Confederation were usually received on a regular basis.

33. Furthermore, the Respondent sustains that it submitted to the Claimant the relevant documentation to fill out in order for Continental Confederation to proceed with the payment of the due amounts. In this respect, the Respondent alludes to an e-mail sent to the head coach, Head Coach E, by its finance manager on 26 May 2017, attaching the relevant forms to be completed and signed.

34. Subsequently, the Respondent holds that the contract does not contain any contractual clause specifying from which account to make the payments of salary or that such payments should be done by the Respondent itself from its own bank account. The Respondent also mentions that the payment of salaries by Continental Confederation to the Claimant would have not changed the contractual responsibility of the Respondent to pay the taxes and other charges relating to the salary, as per the contract.

35. With regard to the reimbursement of the flight tickets, the Respondent underscores that it is not clear which flight ticket is requested by the Claimant. The Respondent further emphasises that any claim for reimbursement of the flight ticket allegedly paid by the Claimant on 16 July 2017 is void insofar as it was paid after the Claimant had terminated the contract with the Respondent.

36. As per the health insurance, the Respondent insists that it sought to obtain health insurance for its employees but that it took longer than planned. In this respect, the Respondent submits the e-mails exchanged with an insurance group as to its request for quotations for a company insurance plan.

37. In this context, the Respondent considers that the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause and, consequently, the Claimant should not be awarded any compensation for breach of contract. In the event FIFA decides otherwise, the Respondent insists that the compensation should be mitigated with the Claimant’s new employment contract.

38. In her replica, the Claimant holds that, when signing the contract with her, the Respondent was aware of its “insolvency” insofar as the Respondent initially signed a loan agreement with Continental Confederation on 1 March 2016. The Claimant further underscores that the Respondent however failed to mention such agreement at the time of the negotiation of the contract, and failed to provide her afterwards with a copy of this or any agreement concluded between the Respondent and Continental Confederation regarding the payment of the salaries of the Respondent’s employees.

39. Moreover, the Claimant alleges that Continental Confederation never replied to her directly, especially as to her letter dated 1 July 2017. The Claimant also highlights that in reply to the Respondent’s e-mail dated 26 May 2017, she asked for clarifications regarding the forms to sign as well as to be provided with the tax receipts of payment for the salaries already paid to her, e-mail which apparently remained unanswered by the Respondent. Therefore, the Claimant considers that, in the absence of any clarifications and guarantees on the tax issue, she did not have to sign the forms submitted to her in order to authorise the payment from Continental Confederation.

40. Finally, the Claimant considers that since the contract foresees two roundtrip flight tickets per year for her and her family, and that she “had only used one of these”, she reiterates her request in this respect.

41. Therefore, the Claimant upholds her claim and additionally requests to be provided with “the relevant tax certificates attesting the payment of the taxes on the first three delayed salaries paid to the coach (January-February-March 2017)”.

42. In its duplica, the Respondent mainly reiterates its position, further explaining that, in 2017, Continental Confederation allegedly proceeded with an internal change, following which the funds were no longer disbursed directly to the associations, such as the Respondent, but directly to the employees of those associations. Therefore, the Respondent alleges that it could not foresee these changes within Continental Confederation when the contract was concluded with the coach.

43. Moreover, the Respondent highlights that there was no persistent failure of payment from its side which could justify a termination with just cause by the Claimant insofar as solely the remainder of the salary for April 2017 was outstanding when it offered the Claimant the possibility to settle through Continental Confederation said salary, and “pay in advance” the salary for May and June 2017.

44. The Respondent also underscores that the compensation clause does not apply since the Claimant was the party who terminated the contract.

45. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant confirms that she has remained unemployed since the termination of the contract.

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 took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 August 2017. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2017 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution (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 4 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2018 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at stake which concerns an employment-related dispute between a coach and an association of an international dimension.

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 2018 edition 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 15 August 2017. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2016 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. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that, in the following considerations, he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect and in a first instance, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 27 December 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract valid as of 15 January 2017 until 30 June 2019, by means of which the Respondent inter alia agreed upon the payment to the Claimant of a monthly salary of USD 5,833.33.

6. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that, in her claim to FIFA, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the whole remuneration due in accordance with the contract alleging that her contractual relationship with the latter had been terminated with just cause following principally the non-payment of her remuneration.

7. In this context, the Single Judge took note that, on 13 July 2017, the Claimant had terminated the contractual relationship with the Respondent in writing arguing that the latter had breached the contract by not fully complying with its financial duties and also by not providing a medical insurance as per the contract. In this context, the Single Judge additionally observed that, on 6, 23 June 2017 and 2 July 2017, the Claimant had put the Respondent in default and informed the latter that, in case on non-compliance within the given deadline, she would terminate the contract “for just cause and no further notice will be served”.

8. Equally, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent acknowledged the non-payment of the Claimant’s salary, yet alleged that the salary was financed by a loan from the Continental Confederation, which subsequently decided to no longer disburse such funds to the Respondent, but directly to the Claimant. The Respondent added that the Claimant refused to collaborate in such mechanism and, therefore, deemed that the Claimant was in fact liable for the termination of the contractual relationship.

9. After having carefully considered the submissions of the parties as well as the documentation at his disposal, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the Claimant had terminated the contractual relationship with the Respondent with or without just cause.

10. In this context, the Single Judge first of all took note that the employment contract does not foresee the Continental Confederation neither as a party to the contract, nor as the remitter of the Claimant’s salary. Along these lines, the Single Judge wished to underline that said contract does not even bear the signature of the Continental Confederation. Additionally, and referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge deemed it fit to point out that the Respondent did not provide any conclusive evidence supporting its allegations with regard to the loan of the Continental Confederation being dedicated to the payment of the Claimant’s salary. The Single Judge deemed that if this was the case, the Claimant was actually entitled to be aware of such agreement between the Continental Confederation and the Respondent prior to signing the employment contract. In this respect, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the Claimant had every right to refuse being paid in a different way and by a different entity than the one which was agreed between the parties by means of the contract. What is more, from the evidence on file it would seem that the refusal of the coach to receive her remuneration from the Continental Confederation was not absolute; rather it was conditioned to being provided with certain documentation which, from the evidence on file, never occurred.

11. As a consequence to the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent was the only party responsible for the payment of the Claimant’s salary and that the coach was under no obligation to accept the de facto change of conditions to the contract that the Football Association of Country C was apparently attempting to do.

12. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that it is undisputed by the Respondent that at the time of the termination of the contract by the Claimant on 13 July 2017, there were two and a half monthly salaries which were outstanding. Furthermore, the Single Judge emphasised that the Respondent was put in default on several occasions prior to the Claimant terminating the contract.

13. In view of the above, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent failed to present any valid reason which would justify the non-payment of the coach’s salaries. On the contrary, in the Single Judge’s view, it could be established that the Respondent neglected its contractual obligations towards the coach for a considerable period of time. What is more, considering the position of the Football Association of Country C, it would appear that the latter party did not have the intention to comply with its contractual obligations. As such, the Single Judge considered that the loss of confidence of the coach on the feasibility of the continuation of the employment contract was justified.

14. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant did have a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the parties on 13 July 2017 and, therefore, the Respondent is to be held liable for such early termination of the employment contract with just cause.

15. The Single Judge continued his deliberations by examining the consequences of such unilateral termination with just cause by the Claimant. In doing so, the Single Judge analysed the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. her request for payment of outstanding salaries.

16. In this respect, the Single Judge alluded to the contract, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary amounting to USD 5,833.33. On this point, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant’s salary for May and June 2017, as well as the remainder of her salary of April 2017 (i.e. USD 3,280), had not been paid to the Claimant.

17. Furthermore, with regard to the Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of the flight ticket costs, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee alluded to the contract (cf. point I.4. above) and the documentation on file, and decided to award the Claimant the amount of USD 3,467 corresponding to the flight ticket to return to Country B.

18. In view of the above, and taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the outstanding amount of USD 18,414.

19. In addition, as per the Claimant’s claim for interest and in accordance with his longstanding jurisprudence, the Single Judge granted the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 August 2017 on the aforementioned amount of USD 18,414.

20. After having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to deal with the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. her request for compensation for breach of contract.

21. In this respect, the Single Judge decided that, taking into consideration the longstanding jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, the Claimant was entitled to receive compensation for the Respondent’s breach in the contractual relationship with the Claimant.

22. In this respect, the Single Judge first turned his attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract. The Single Judge pointed out that the contract signed between the Claimant and the Respondent was to run until June 2019, after the termination of the contract occurred on 13 July 2017. Furthermore, the Single Judge understood that for this relevant period, the Claimant was entitled to receive a total salary of EUR USD 140,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 140,000 served as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

23. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, at the time of the decision, the Claimant had not found any new employment since the termination of the contract, which could enable her to mitigate her damages.

24. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 140,000 as compensation for breach of contract, which was considered by the Single Judge to be a reasonable and justified amount.

25. In addition, as per the Claimant’s claim for interest and in accordance with his longstanding jurisprudence, the Single Judge granted the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 15 August 2017 on the aforementioned amount of USD 140,000.

26. 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.

27. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.

28. 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 amount at dispute in the present matter is between CHF 150,000 and CHF 200,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000.

29. As a conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to CHF 10,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order 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, Coach A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Football Association of Country C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the outstanding amount of USD 18,414, plus 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from 15 August 2017 until the date of effective payment

3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 140,000, plus 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from 15 August 2017 until the date of effective payment.

4. If the aforementioned amounts, plus interest as established above, 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.

5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.

6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows:

6.1 The amount of CHF 7,000 has to be paid directly to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

6.2 The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.

7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2., 3. and 6.2 are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 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

Coach A, Country B / Football Association of Country C

15

For the Single Judge of

the Players’ Status Committee:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS Directives