DECISIONI DI GIUSTIZIA SPORTIVA • F.I.F.A. - CAMERA DI RISOLUZIONE DELLE CONTROVERSIE - CONTRIBUTO DI SOLIDARIETÀ

• Data decisione: 10 agosto 2018 • Stagione sportiva: 2018/2019

F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution / contributo di solidarietà – (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 10 August 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 August 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member

Eirik Monsen (Norway), member

Juan Batista Mahiques (Argentina), member

Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, Country B,

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country B

as Respondent

regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer

of the player, Player D

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the player, Player D, born on 8 February 1988, was registered with Club A (hereafter: Club A or Claimant) as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008. Furthermore, on 7 August 2008, the player was transferred from Club A to the Club of Country E, Club F (hereinafter: Club F).

2. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 20 December 2012, Club F and the Country B club, Club C (hereafter: Club C or Respondent) agreed upon a transfer of the player from Club F to Club C and a transfer compensation of EUR 3,500,000.

3. Further, Club F and Club C agreed upon the following clause:

‘3. […] In case Club C receives an offer for the transfer of the player, Player D to another club, Club C shall inform Club F immediately about the offer and its contents. Club C is obligated to accept the offer to transfer the player, if the transfer sum amounts to EUR 8.000.000,-- or higher.

4. In case Player D will be transferred to a third club, Club F is entitled receive 50% of the transfer sum including all payments related to the transfer, but at least EUR 3.000.000,--. This means, in case the transfer sum is EUR 3.000.000,-- or lower, Club F will receive the full amount. In case the transfer sum is EUR 6.000.000,-- or higher, Club F will receive 50%.

The payment is due within 10 days after execution of the Transfer Agreement between Club C and the third club and after proper invoice by Club F.’

4. The football season in Country B follows the calendar year.

5. The football season in Country E starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the following year.

6. In addition, according to the information contained in the TMS, on 8 January 2016, Club C and the Club of Country G, Club H (hereafter: Club H) agreed upon the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H and a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 8,000,000. Said amount is payable ‘before the release of the ITC’, in the following manner: EUR 5,000,000 net to Club C and EUR 3,000,000 net to Club F. Furthermore, Club H and Club C agreed upon the following clause: ‘4. Party B [i.e. Club C] and Club F shall provide party A [i.e. Club H] original invoices and copy of business certificates (business registration form) with the transfer compensation amount. This amount is net of any taxes, retentions or deductions. Besides the transfer fee, Party A shall pay solidarity contribution to the player’s training clubs (but not including party B and/or Club F), without any retention or deduction over the transfer fee)’.

7. According to TMS, the player was registered with Club H on 26 February 2016 and his ITC was delivered on 23 February 2016.

8. On 24 July 2017, Club A lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C, claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with (a) the sell-on clause agreed upon between Club F and Club C for future transfers of the player, as well as in connection with (b) the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H.

9. In particular, Club A requests 58.48% of 5% of the total compensation in connection with the sell-on clause (i.e. EUR 3,157,894.73), therefore, the total amount of EUR 92,336.84, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date. Alternatively, Club A requests 58.48% of 5% of EUR 3,000,000, i.e. the amount of EUR 87,720, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date.

10. In its claim, Club A explains that based on the sell-on clause agreed between Club F and Club C, as well as the (subsequent) transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, it is entitled to solidarity contribution. Club A explains that the transfer of the player to Club H ‘triggered two payment obligations’, as follows:

- an obligation for Club H to pay an amount of EUR 8,000,000 to Club C and;

- an obligation for Club C to pay an amount of EUR 3,157,894.73 to Club F.

11. Moreover, Club A explains that it can be noted from the transfer agreement between Club C and Club H that said parties agreed upon a net amount of EUR 3,000,000 to be paid to Club C in relation to the sell-on clause. Club A argues that ‘in order to generate a net payment of EUR 3,000,000’, ‘the actual transfer fee should have been fixed in the total amount of EUR 3,157,894.73’ and that it is entitled to receive its share of the solidarity contribution calculated on this amount, apparently agreed upon between Club C and Club F in relation to the sell-on clause.

12. In its reply to Club A’s claim, Club C explains that the club already received its solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the player from Club F to Club C and the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H. As a result, Club C argues that in relation to the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, any payments related to solidarity contribution should be made by Club H, as this is to be considered the player’s new club. Moreover, the amount of EUR 3,000,000 paid by Club H to Club F ‘never entered in Club C’ bank account’.

13. Furthermore, Club C explains that ‘it does not make sense to assign to Club C the responsibility’ to pay to Club A solidarity contribution calculated over the EUR 3,000,000 received by Club F from Club H, ‘because such amount represents the financial interest belonged to Club F, which must not be confused with Club C’ financial and economic interest in the player’. Moreover, Club C denies that there were two payment obligations ‘triggered’, as Club H ‘paid just once to different parties’.

14. In conclusion, Club C requests for the rejection of Club A’s claim, because otherwise Club A will receive ‘three times the solidarity contribution over two transfers of the player’.

15. In its replica, Club A reiterates its previous arguments and clarifies that article 1, Annexe 5 of the FIFA Regulations explicitly mentions that solidarity contribution is payable calculated on ‘any compensation’, which according to Club A also includes amounts received by the selling club in relation to a sell-on clause.

16. As a result, Club A upholds its position that two separate payment obligations were triggered. Finally, Club A states that the fact that Club H, Club F and Club C for whatever reason agreed that the sell-on fee should be paid directly by Club H to Club F, ‘shall not influence or circumvent Club A’s right to solidarity contribution’.

17. In its duplica, Club C states that the EUR 3,000,000 paid by Club H to Club F, were a part of the total transfer fee of EUR 8,000,000. As Club A already received its share of the solidarity contribution in relation to this transfer amount, Club C holds that the present claim of Club A should be rejected.

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 24 July 2017. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2017; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. e) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016 and 2018), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns a dispute relating to the solidarity mechanism between two clubs belonging to the same association, however, in connection with an international transfer of the player between clubs belonging to different associations.

3. Furthermore, the DRC 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, the members referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 24 July 2017 and that the player was registered with Club H on 26 February 2016. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber confirmed that the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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.

5. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that Club A claimed the payment of the amount of EUR 92,336.84 as solidarity contribution from Club C, corresponding to 58.48% of the 5% of the total value of the sell-on clause agreed upon between Club F and Club C, which Club A holds to correspond in total to EUR 3,157,894.73.

6. In its claim, Club A explained that first of all, it needs to be noted that in the scope of the transfer of the player from Club F to Club C in December 2012, said parties agreed upon a sell-on clause in case of a future transfer of the player. What is more, Club A explains that in February 2016, the player was again transferred, from Club C to Club H for a transfer fee amounting to EUR 8,000,000 and that as a result of this transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, it is entitled to solidarity contribution. As a result of the foregoing, Club A argues that two payment obligations had arisen, namely (a) an obligation for Club H to pay an amount of EUR 8,000,000 to Club C and (b) an obligation for Club C to pay an amount of EUR 3,157,894.73 to Club F. Finally, Club A explains that it already received the solidarity contribution in connection with the amount of EUR 8,000,000, however Club C failed to pay to Club A the solidarity contribution in connection with the amount of EUR 3,157,894.73.

7. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that Club C, for its part, contested Club A’s claim and explains that Club A already received all the due solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer of the player from Club F to Club C for the amount of EUR 3,500,000, as well as for the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H for the amount of EUR 8,000,000. As a result, Club C argues that in relation to the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, any further possible payments related to solidarity contribution should be made by Club H, as this is to be considered the player’s new club. Moreover, the amount of EUR 3,000,000 related to the sell-on clause, was paid by Club H directly to Club F and therefore, cannot generate any financial obligations for Club C.

8. In addition to the above, and referring to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, the members of the Chamber first of all, took into account that according to the information contained in the TMS, Club C and Club H agreed upon a transfer of the player from Club C to Club H in February 2016 for a transfer compensation amounting to EUR 8,000,000, payable as follows: EUR 5,000,000 net to Club C and EUR 3,000,000 net to Club F.

9. At this point, the members deemed it necessary to emphasize that the aforementioned payment schedule is the result of the previous transfer of the player from Club F to Club C in 2012, in the scope of which the transfer Club F and Club C had inter alia agreed upon the following: “In case Player D will be transferred to a third club, Club F is entitled receive 50% of the transfer sum including all payments related to the transfer, but at least EUR 3.000.000,--. This means, in case the transfer sum is EUR 3.000.000,-- or lower, Club F will receive the full amount. In case the transfer sum is EUR 6.000.000,-- or higher, Club F will receive 50%”.

10. From the information on file, the members of the Chamber understood that in the scope of the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H, several payment obligations arose. First of all, Club H, as the player’s new club agreed upon paying a transfer fee of EUR 8,000,000 for the transfer of the player to its club, which amount in principle needed to be paid to the player’s previous club, Club C. What is more, in view of the sell-on clause agreed upon between Club F and Club C, the latter club would subsequently be obliged to pay an amount of EUR 3,000,000 net to Club F. Although, for mere practical reasons, the parties had agreed on a different payment plan, i.e. an amount of EUR 5,000,000 net to be paid by Club H to Club C, and an amount of EUR 3,000,000 net directly to Club F, the Chamber wished to point out that said payment plan cannot lead to a circumvention of the mandatory regulations regarding the payment of solidarity contribution, which stipulate that, if a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation.

11. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to art. 21 of the Regulations in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, if a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and be distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion of the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday.

12. It follows from the aforementioned article that the solidarity contribution shall also be calculated on the amount of the sell-on fee agreed upon between Club C and Club F, as the obligation to pay said amount arose directly from the subsequent transfer of the player from Club C to Club H and is to be considered as a payment made in the scope of said transfer.

13. Based on all the foregoing, the members of the Chamber decided to reject Club C’ argumentation, and established that Club C is to be held liable for the payment of the solidarity contribution to Club A, calculated on the amount of the sell-on fee agreed between Club C and Club F.

14. In conclusion, the Chamber established that the transfer of the player from Club C to Club H lead to two different entitlements for the payment of solidarity contribution Club A: (a) solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer compensation of EUR 8,000,000 net, which was to be paid by Club H for the transfer of the player from Club C, which Club A states to have already received and (b) solidarity contribution in relation to the sell on fee of EUR 3,000,000 net, which was to be paid by Club C to Club F for the subsequent transfer of the player from Club C to Club H.

15. As the matter regarding the solidarity contribution in relation to the transfer compensation of EUR 8,000,000 net to be paid by Club H was indeed already decided upon in another case before the DRC, with reference number XXX, as confirmed by Club A, the members of the Chamber deemed it vital to outline that the matter at hand will only deal with Club A’s entitlement to solidarity contribution in relation to the sell-on fee agreed upon between Club C and Club F, the payment of which was triggered by his subsequent transfer from Club C to Club H.

16. What is more, in relation to the aforementioned sell-on fee, the Chamber considered that it had to determine exactly on which amount the solidarity contribution should be calculated.

17. In view of the above, the Chamber recalled the content of the transfer agreement in relation to the sell-on fee, concluded on 20 December 2012 by Club C and Club F, where the following was agreed upon “3. […] In case Club C receives an offer for the transfer of Player D to another club, Club C shall inform Club F immediately about the offer and its contents. Club C is obligated to accept the offer to transfer the player, if the transfer sum amounts to EUR 8.000.000,-- or higher.

18. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that in January 2016, Club C and Club H agreed upon the transfer of the player to Club H for a transfer amount corresponding to EUR 8,000,000, as well as that said parties agreed that said amount was payable ‘before the release of the ITC’, as follows: EUR 5,000,000 net to Club C and EUR 3,000,000 net to Club F, as well as that “Party B [i.e. Club C] and Club F shall provide party A [i.e. Club H] original invoices and copy of business certificates (business registration form) with the transfer compensation amount. This amount is net of any taxes, retentions or deductions. Besides the transfer fee, Party A shall pay solidarity contribution to the player’s training clubs (but not including party B and/or Club F), without any retention or deduction over the transfer fee)”.

19. In this respect, the members of the Chamber observed that in the aforementioned agreements, it is clearly stipulated that the amount of EUR 3,000,000, payable by Club H directly to Club F, was connected to the previously agreed sell-on clause, as well as that said amount of EUR 3,000,000 is a “net” amount, as well as that Club H is exclusively responsible for the payment of solidarity contribution, and that a “retention or deduction over the transfer fee” is not permitted.

20. According to the Chamber, under these circumstances, the above-mentioned wording of the transfer agreement does not leave room for an interpretation that the solidarity contribution must be deducted from the transfer compensation stipulated in the transfer agreement.

21. Having analysed the wording of the transfer agreement at stake, the Chamber wished to underline that there is no legal obstacle which prevents the clubs from agreeing that the new club, apart from paying the transfer compensation, additionally bears the solidarity contribution. In this regard, the members of the Chamber reiterated that this is indeed what the parties to the transfer agreement clearly agreed upon. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, as a general rule, the relevant clause in the transfer agreement must make a clear reference to a net amount as well as to the solidarity contribution.

22. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that CAS has established, in line with its jurisprudence, that an agreement on a net transfer compensation without deducting solidarity contribution does not contravene the spirit of the Regulations. Equally, CAS has established that a scenario in which the solidarity contribution is to be deducted from a gross transfer compensation does not harm the entitlement of the training club(s) since it would rather enhance the solidarity contribution.

23. Having said that, the members of the Chamber held that the agreement between Club C and Club H is also covered by the wording of art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which, as pointed out previously, provides that 5% of any transfer compensation shall be deducted from the total amount of the compensation and distributed by the new club. In this respect, the CAS held that the wording of the Regulations does not prohibit that the amount specified in a transfer agreement represents only 95% of the gross transfer value, as long as the solidarity contribution in the end is still deducted from the gross transfer value and distributed in conformity with the wording of art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations.

24. As a consequence of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the above-mentioned provisions in the transfer agreement between Club C and Club H, in connection with a sell-on fee payable to Club F, are valid, considering the clear reference to a net amount as well as the explicit reference to the solidarity contribution which may not be deducted from the transfer compensation stipulated in the transfer agreement. Therefore, the Chamber held that the gross transfer compensation shall serve as the basis for the calculation of the solidarity contribution. In this respect, the members of the Chamber wished to emphasize that Club A had explicitly claimed solidarity contribution on the basis of the gross transfer compensation.

25. In the present matter, the Chamber explained that the agreement on a net transfer compensation without deduction leads to the situation that the agreed compensation in connection with the sell-on fee of EUR 3,000,000 payable to Club F constitutes only 95% of the total amount due for the subsequent transfer of the player, while 100% of this amount corresponds to a total of EUR 3,157,894.73.

26. Having established the above, the members of the Chamber went on to determine which should be the relevant amount of the solidarity contribution to be paid by Club C to Club A over the sell-on fee of EUR 3,157,894.73.

27. To that end, the members of the Chamber referred again to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according to the period of time the player was effectively trained by a specific club and taking into consideration the age of the player at the time he was being trained and educated by the club(s) concerned.

28. In continuation, and by reiterating art. 21 in combination with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the Chamber recalled that according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B the player, born on 8 February 1988, was registered with Club A as from as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008. Furthermore, it appears that on 7 August 2008, the player was transferred from Club A to Club F.

29. On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, the DRC considered that Club A is, thus, entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the period as as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008.

30. Further to that, and specifically entering into the calculation of the due solidarity contribution in relation to the season of the players 20th birthday, the members of the Chamber equally observed that the dates of the seasons in Country E and Country B overlapped, i.e. whereas the season in Country B runs from 1 January to 31 December of every year, the season in Country E runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.

31. Taking into consideration the foregoing information, the Chamber pointed out that in view of the overlapping seasons in Country B and Country E and taking into consideration that the player was born on 8 February 1988, the duration of the 2008 season had to be shortened to a timeframe shorter than the standard 12 months.

32. What is more, the Chamber emphasised however that there is not more to be distributed as solidarity contribution than 100% of 5% of any compensation paid to the player’s former club within the scope of an international transfer of a player. As a result, the only logical way to ensure an adequate distribution of the solidarity contribution for the relevant seasons is to establish that the season of the player’s 20th birthday lasted 6 months, i.e. from 1 January 2008 (beginning of the season of his 20th birthday) to 30 June 2008 (end of the season of his 20th birthday with respect to Country B) and that the season of the player’s 21st birthday lasted from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009. Thus, the season of the player 20th birthday only lasted for 6 months, whereas the season of the player’s 21st birthday followed the standard of 12 months.

33. As a result and considering that the player was registered with Club A for the entire 6 months during the season of the player’s 20th birthday, Club A is, thus, entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the periods as from 9 May 2001 until 10 July 2008, i.e. for 8 months of the season of the player’s 13th birthday and for the entire seasons of the player’s 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th birthdays.

34. As a result of the aforementioned, and considering the claim of Club A, the Chamber decided to accept the latter, and decided that Club C is liable to pay the amount of EUR 92,336.84 to Club A, corresponding to the claimed percentage of 58.48% of 5% of the total gross value of the sell-on fee, i.e. EUR 3,157,894.73 as solidarity contribution, in relation to the subsequent transfer of the player from Club C to Club H.

35. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration both the claim of Club A, as well as art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations, Club C has to pay, in conformity with the well-established and longstanding practice of the DRC, interest on the amount of EUR 92,336.84 at rate of 5% p.a. as from 18 February 2016, i.e. “10 days after execution of the Transfer Agreement between Club C and the third club”, namely 8 January 2016, plus 30 days as per art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations.

36. In continuation, the deciding authority 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes regarding solidarity mechanism 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.

37. In this respect, the DRC reiterated that the claim of Club A is accepted and established that Club C has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.

38. 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.

39. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 92,336.84 related to the claim of Club A. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).

40. Considering that the case at hand showed relative factual difficulty and legal complexity, the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 8,000, which, considering that the claim was accepted, needs to be totally covered by Club C.

41. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid by Club C to cover the costs of the present proceedings.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 92,336.84 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 18 February 2016 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

4. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 8,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows:

4.1. The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to the Claimant.

4.2. The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.1. 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. 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

www.tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Enclosed: CAS directives