F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – club vs club disputes / controversie tra società – (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 21 February 2020

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 February 2020,

by

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the club

Mattia Football Club, Sierra Leone,

represented by Mr Luca Tettamanti

as Claimant

against the club

Athletic Football Club Eskilstuna, Sweden

as Respondent

regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties

and relating to the player Mohamed Buya Turay

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Swedish FA contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 2 August 2013, the player, Mohamed Buya Turay (hereinafter: player) was registered as an amateur with the Swedish club, Juventus IF.

2. Furthermore, pursuant to the player passport issued by the Swedish FA, the player was registered as a professional with the Swedish club, Athletic Football Club Eskilstuna (hereinafter: Respondent) on 17 July 2015.

3. By means of an email sent by Mattia Football Club (hereinafter: the Claimant) to the Respondent on 24 September 2017, the Claimant referred to an unsigned agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent dated 8 February 2015. According to the Claimant, as per said unsigned agreement, the parties had, inter alia, agreed upon the following:

“Mohamed Buya Turay (born 10 January 1995) goes from [the Claimant] to [the Respondent] on free Transfer from February 2015 to November 2017. […] If "the player" is to secure a professional contract while with [the Respondent]; [the Respondent] and [the Claimant] holds co ownership rights in "the player". [The Respondent] and [the Claimant] should jointly together, decide and negotiate all contract issue regarding the player. In case the “Player” signs an employment contract during the period of this agreement [the Respondent] will send out payment as such: 55% to AFC - 45% to [the Claimant] of any amount receivable by [the Respondent] hereinafter refer to as the “Transfer fee” This agreement has been entered into for the period of Three years commencing January 2015 and expires on November 2017. Nevertheless if for any reason by November 2017 there is a pending payment by [the Respondent] to [the Claimant] (according to terms and conditions of this agreement) this agreement is still valid until all payments has been fulfilled by [the Respondent].”

4. The Claimant held that, on 7 December 2017, a document entitled “Agreement Renewal” was signed by a representative of the Claimant and the Respondent’s President, “Mr Alex Rysshold”. According to the Claimant, as per the “Agreement Renewal”, the parties has, inter alia, agreed upon the following:

“As stipulated in the previous agreement dated 8th May 2015 to 30th November 2019 [the player] goes from [the Claimant] to [the Respondent] on free Transfer and free from paying any training compensation from 8th May 2015 to 30th November 2019.

If “the Player” is to secure a professional contract while with [the Respondent], [the Respondent] and [the Claimant] holds co ownership of the economic right over “the player”. [The Respondent] and [the Claimant] should jointly together, decide and negotiate all contract issues regarding the player. In case the “player” signs an employment contract with another club during the period of this agreement.

In consideration for the “transfer fee” of 100% of the federative, [the Respondent] will keep 60% of the economic rights of the player. [The Claimant] will keep 40% of the economic right of the player.

[The Respondent] will send out payment as such: 60% to [the Respondent] – 40% to [the Claimant] of any amount receivable after deduction from any [cost] by [the Respondent] hereafter refer to as “Transfer Fee”.

Article 1

1.1. [The Respondent] holds 100% of the federative rights and 60% of the economic rights and [the Claimant] holds 40% percent of economic rights of the player. When [the Respondent] transfer the player.”

5. On 23 March 2018, the Respondent and the Swedish club, Dalkurd AB, signed a transfer agreement regarding the permanent transfer of the player from the Respondent to Dalkurd AB.

6. As per clause 2 of said transfer agreement, Dalkurd AB committed itself to pay to the Respondent the transfer amount of SEK 4,000,000 by 7 April 2018.

7. In addition, said transfer agreement stipulated the following: “Seller [the Respondent] reserves the right to be provided 50% of the purchase price, in that case [the player], within the contract period, is further sold by [Dalkurd AB]”.

8. On 2 August 2018, Dalkurd AB and the Belgian club, Sint Truidense V.V. signed a transfer agreement regarding the permanent transfer of the player from Dalkurd AB to Sint Truidense V.V.

9. In accordance with Article 1 of said transfer agreement, the total transfer fee for the player amounted to EUR 1,600,000 excluding “any taxes in Belgium”, to be paid within 15 days “from the date when the contract between [Dalkurd AB to Sint Truidense V.V.] and the player was concluded”.

10. In addition, Dalkurd AB and Sint Truidense V.V. agreed that Sint Truidense V.V. “shall deduct solidarity […] and make a payment of [EUR 1,520,000] to [Dalkurd AB]”.

11. On 16 January 2019, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant which contained, inter alia, the following:

“At the end of December 2018 [the Respondent] held a meeting with [a] representative of [the Claimant]. During the meeting, it was confirmed that there was an oral agreement between [the Respondent] and [the Claimant]. In the agreement, [the Claimant] was awarded a right to 40 percent of a first transfer fee that [the Respondent] receives from the third club as a result of the sale of [the player]. We are convinced that [the Claimant’s representative], can testify this under oath.

[…] Agreement between [the Claimant] and [the Respondent] dated December 7, 2017, I would like to state that I do not know about this agreement. For this reason, I would appreciate that you receive information from you […] showing when and in what way this document has reached [the Claimant].

I emphasize that [the Respondent] has only concluded an oral agreement with [the Claimant] via the club’s representative […] However, due to the uncertainty that has arisen, we wish to take note of data showing that the payment, linked to the transfer of [the player] from [the Respondent] to Dalkurd FF, which [the Claimant] received from [the Respondent], has been booked by [the Claimant] according to the applicable law.” (…)

12. On 21 May 2019, the Claimant sent a correspondence to the Respondent, which contained, inter alia, the following:

“On 7 December 2017, your club and [the Claimant] signed an Agreement Renewal […] with the inclusion of a sell-on fee of 40% in favour of [the Claimant] out of any and all future incomes of your club from the player’s transfer to a third club.

On 23 March 2018, your club transferred the player to […] Dalkurd FF for a fix transfer fee of SEK 4,000,000 equal to EUR 388,000 (for which [the Claimant] has already received its part of the sell-on fee) and a further sell-on fee of 50% in favour of your club on the surplus of a future of the player from Dalkurd FF to a third club.

Afterwards, on 2 August 2018, Dalkurd FF transferred the player to the Belgian club Sint Truidense V.V. for a fix transfer fee of EUR 1,600,000 gross […].

Accordingly, this makes a surplus in favour of Dalkurd FF of EUR 1,132,000 […] thus, a sell-on fee of EUR 566,000 in favour of your club for the player’s transfer.

In view of the forgoing, your club shall pay to [the Claimant] a further 40% sell-on fee pursuant to the Agreement in the sum of EUR 226,400”.

13. On 7 June 2019, the Respondent sent an email to the Claimant which contained, inter alia, the following:

“We are not aware of said contract. If such a contract exists, we naturally dispute its authenticity, as no such contract has been signed by [the Respondent].

We did have a verbal agreement with your client regarding compensation of 40% of the first transfer (and first transfer only) of [the player]. This agreement was made with your client through his representative at the time […] This compensation from the first transfer has been paid in full.”

14. On 24 October 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting the amount of EUR 226,400 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 28 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.

15. The Claimant further requested that the Respondent pay the procedural costs.

16. In support of its claim, the Claimant firstly held that “on or around 8 February 2015 […] the player had started playing for the Respondent as an amateur”.

17. According to the Claimant, “instead of [the Respondent] paying the FIFA training Compensation to [the Claimant] in May 2015 […] the parties agreed on a sell-on fee in favour of the Claimant equal to “40% of the next Player’s transfers net of any agency fees”.

18. In continuation, the Claimant referred to the “Agreement Renewal” (cf. I.4), and reiterated that it held 40% of the player’s “economic rights”.

19. According to the Claimant, on 20 April 2018, the Respondent made two payments to the Claimant of SEK 600,000 and SEK 1,000,000 respectively, providing two bank statements. In this regard, as per the Claimant, the payment of the total amount of SEK 1,600,000 by the Respondent corresponded to the 40% of “the fix transfer fee of SEK 4,000,000” paid by Dalkurd AB to the Respondent for the transfer of the player.

20. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, following the transfer of the player from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V., the Respondent “became entitled to receive 50% sell-on fee surplus between SEK 4,000,000 (fix transfer fee to [Dalkurd AB]) and EUR 1,520,000 (fix transfer fee from [Dalkurd AB to St Truidense]). In turn, out of this [Respondent’s] 50% sell-on fee, [the Claimant] became therefore entitled to a further 40% sell-on fee pursuant the Agreement Renewal”.

21. With regard to the Respondent’s allegation in its correspondences that it had not signed the “Agreement Renewal” dated 7 December 2017, the Claimant stated that this is in contradiction with “what happened during the personal meeting held on 7 December 2017”, as well as with the fact that the Respondent paid the Claimant following the transfer of the player to Dalkurd AB.

22. In this regard, the Claimant again referred to the “Agreement Renewal”, and maintained that it was entitled to 40% of “any amount receivable”. As per the Claimant, the parties’ “intention was thus clear and unambiguous”.

23. According to the Claimant, it is “evident that even the second payment [the Respondent] received from [Dalkurd AB], being the 50% sell-on fee of the surplus, after the latter received its payment from [St Truidense], is still part of the “first transfer” of the player from [the Respondent to Dalkurd AB]”.

24. With regard to the final amount due, the Claimant firstly reiterated that St Truidense V.V. had paid EUR 1,520,000 “net” to Dalkurd AB. In continuation, the Claimant held that Dalkurd AB had paid SEK 4,000,000 to the Respondent, i.e. “equal to EUR 388,000”. Thus, as per the Claimant, “the sell-on fee on the surplus payable by [Dalkurd AB] to [the Respondent] is EUR 566,000 ((EUR 1,520,000 – EUR 388,000) x 50%)”.

25. Finally, the Claimant concluded that 40% of EUR 566,000 equals EUR 226,400.

26. In reply to the claim, the Respondent firstly held that the player had always been registered with it as a professional.

27. In continuation, the Respondent highlighted that no meeting took place on 7 December 2017, and that no agreement was signed between the Claimant and the Respondent. As per the Respondent, the “Agreement Renewal” submitted by the Claimant “contains a forged signature that does not at all match my […] signature”.

28. In this context, the Respondent held that it previously already had been misled by the Claimant. According to the Respondent, when it registered the player, it understood that the Claimant was the owner of 100% of the player’s rights. Subsequently, the Respondent understood that if it was “ready to pay a fee of 40% of [the player’s] first transfer to another club [the Claimant] would transfer the rights of the player to [the Respondent]”.

29. According to the Respondent, it only found out later that the Claimant did not own the rights of the player since, “on 4 August 2014”, the player had already signed his 1st professional contract with the Swedish club, Vasteras SK FK.

30. Given all of the above, the Respondent is of the opinion that it does not owe the Claimant anything and that, consequently, the claim is to be rejected in full.

31. Upon request of the FIFA administration, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of the alleged original version of the transfer agreement.

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 case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 October 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand

2. 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 June and October 2019 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 24 October 2019. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the October 2019 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance.

3. Subsequently, with regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between two football clubs affiliated to two different associations.

4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the facts of the dispute, the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

5. In doing so, the Single Judge recalled the main events that gave rise to the dispute, as reported by the parties during the course of the investigation.

6. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 17 July 2015, the player registered with the Respondent.

7. Following the registration of the player with the Respondent, the Single Judge observed that, according to the Claimant, by means of the “Renewal Agreement”, the Respondent would have “60% of the economic rights of the player”, while the Claimant would have “40% of the economic right of the player”. The Single Judge further recalled that, as per the “Renewal Agreement”, the Claimant would be entitled to 40% “of any amount receivable after deduction from any [cost] by [the Respondent] hereafter refer to as “Transfer Fee”.

8. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that on 23 March 2018, the player was transferred from the Respondent to Dalkurd AB, for the transfer amount of SEK 4,000,000. In this context, the Single Judge further established that, as per this transfer agreement, the Respondent “reserves the right to be provided 50% of the purchase price, in that case [the player], within the contract period, is further sold by [Dalkurd AB]”.

9. Finally, the Single Judge recalled that on 2 August 2018, the player was transferred from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V., for the net transfer amount of EUR 1,520,000 after deducting the solidarity contribution.

10. Having established the above, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent requesting the amount of EUR 226,400.

11. With regard to the Claimant’s request for relief, the Single Judge took into consideration the Claimant’s arguments, who held that it was entitled to 40% of all the amounts the Respondent received, or would receive, regarding any transfer of the player. In particular, the Single Judge deduced that the Claimant was of the opinion that it was entitled to 40% of the amount obtained by the Respondent for the transfer of the player from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V.

12. From the outset, the Single Judge wished to underline that he considers the references to “40% of the economic rights” and the “ownership of the economic rights” nothing more than what parties in football more typically refer to as “sell-on clauses”. In other words, the Claimant’s “ownership” of 40% of the “economic rights” is in the Single Judge’s view simply an agreement that the Respondent pays 40% as a sell-on fee to the Claimant should the Respondent transfer the player to a third club.

13. Having said this, the Single Judge also took note of the Respondent’s main argument, namely that the alleged “Agreement Renewal” was never signed between the Claimant and the Respondent, and that the document submitted by the Claimant “contains a forged signature”. In addition, the Single Judge understood from the Respondent’s argument that, following the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Dalkurd AB and by paying to the Claimant 40% of the transfer fee, the Claimant “would transfer the rights of the player to [the Respondent]”.

14. In light of the above, the Single Judge understood that the primary issue in this matter is establishing the existence of an agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent, by means of which the parties agreed that the Claimant was entitled to 40% of all the amounts the Respondent received, or would receive, regarding any transfer of the player.

15. In this light, the Single Judge firstly turned to the document entitled “Renewal Agreement”, which included a signature that was contested by the Respondent. After analysing said document, the Singe Judge deemed that that the signature on the contested document – for a layman – appeared genuine.

16. Having said this, the Single Judge also placed emphasis on the emails dated 16 January 2019 and 7 June 2019 respectively (cf. I.11 and I.13), both sent by the Respondent to the Claimant. The Single Judge recalled that, as per said emails, the Respondent admitted to having made an “oral agreement” with the Claimant regarding a sell-on fee by means of which the Claimant would receive 40% from the Respondent with regard to a future transfer of the player.

17. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that it remained undisputed that the Respondent paid an amount of SEK 1,600,000 to the Claimant, corresponding to 40% of “the fix transfer fee of SEK 4,000,000” paid by Dalkurd AB to the Respondent for the transfer of the player (cf. I.19).

18. Consequently, considering that the Claimant provided FIFA with the original version of the transfer agreement and considering it unlikely that a significant sum of SEK 1,600,000 was paid on the basis of an oral agreement only, whilst balancing the arguments made by both parties, the Single Judge had reason to believe that the Claimant was entitled to 40% of the amount obtained by the Respondent for any transfer of the player from one club to another. This further sell-on entitlement had also already been referred to in the Claimant’s email dated 27 September 2017, showing that negotiations to that extent had been going on by that time. In other words, as per the Single Judge, the agreement between the parties had been proven by the Claimant and therefore, as long as the Respondent benefits from any future transfer of the player, then the Claimant is entitled to 40% of this benefit.

19. Subsequently, the Single Judge turned to the query of whether the Claimant was entitled to an amount from the Respondent following the transfer of the player from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V. In order to solve this query, the Single Judge firstly had to determine whether the Respondent itself was entitled to an amount following the transfer of the player from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V. and, if so, which amount.

20. In this light, the Single Judge reiterated that, as per the transfer agreement concluded between the Respondent and Dalkurd AB, the Respondent obtained SEK 4,000,000, which was “equal to EUR 388,000”. The Single Judge recalled that it was further agreed that the Respondent “reserves the right to be provided 50% of the purchase price, in that case [the player], within the contract period, is further sold by [Dalkurd AB]”. In other words, the Single Judge understood that the Respondentand Dalkurd AB had agreed upon a sell-on fee of 50% in favour of the Respondent, should the player be transferred from Dalkurd AB to another club.

21. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled once again that, the player was subsequently transferred from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V., for the net transfer amount of EUR 1,520,000.

22. Next, with the objective of determining which amount corresponded to the Respondent, the Single Judge took 50% of the amount of EUR 1,520,000, and concluded that Dalkurd AB would have to pay the amount of EUR 760,000 to the Respondent.

23. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to the “Renewal Agreement”, and recalled that the Claimant was entitled to 40% of all the amounts the Respondent received, or would receive, regarding any transfer of the player. As such, the Single Judge took 40% of the amount of EUR 760,000, and concluded that the Claimant would have been entitled to receive EUR 304,000 from the Respondent following the transfer of the player from Dalkurd AB to St Truidense V.V.

24. Having said this, the Single Judge observed that in its claim, the Claimant had limited its request for relief to EUR 226,400. Thus, in accordance with the general legal principle of non ultra petita, the Single Judge understood that he could not award to the Claimant more than what it had requested.

25. Considering all of the above, the Single Judge determined that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 226,400.

26. In addition and as to the Claimant’s request related to the payment of interest on the aforementioned sum of EUR 226,400, the Single Judge, in accordance with the practice of the Players’ Status Committee, established that the Respondent has to pay 5% interest p.a. as from 28 August 2018, as requested.

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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).

28. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the full 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 EUR 226,400, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings would correspond to CHF 25,000.

30. However, and taking into account the complexity and particularities of the matter, as well as the volume of the submissions, the Single Judge established that the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 15,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

31. Taking into account the consideration under number II.2 above, the Single Judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with the decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

32. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

33. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

34. Finally, the Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

III Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of the Claimant, Mattia Football Club, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Athletic Football Club Eskilstuna, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 226,400, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 28 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point III.2.

4. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point III.2. to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

5. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point III.2. is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

6. The ban mentioned in point III.5. will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

7. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

8. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the Respondent as follows:

8.1 The amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank

account with reference to case nr. 19-02042/osv:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

8.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.

9. In the event that the aforementioned amount of costs is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note related to the appeal procedure:

According to article 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. 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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer