F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision25 January 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 January 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

Daan de Jong (the Netherlands), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 9 July 2013, the player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2016.

2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a salary of EUR 490,000 for the first season (2013-2014), of EUR 375,000 for the second season (2014-2015) and of EUR 375,000 for the third season (2015-2016). The salary of the second season was payable as follows:

a) EUR 100,000 “at the beginning of the season”;

b) EUR 275,000 in ten instalments of EUR 27,500 each, “for 10 months from August to May”.

Moreover, the Respondent committed to provide the Claimant with a “fully furnitured house […] (Bills will be paid by the player […]) “.

3. Pursuant to art. 4 lit. b) and art. 5 lit. c) of the contract, the Respondent and the Claimant respectively committed “to comply the status and regulations of FIFA, Continental Confederation and Football Federation of Country D, to promote football moral principles and to encourage”.

4. Art. 8 of the contract stipulated that the “parties must immediately notify FIFA and each other with registered letter in any case of address changes. Otherwise, the notifications made to the address written in the contract are invalid”.

5. On 1 June 2015, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, by means of which he put it in default for the payment of outstanding salaries for season 2014-2015 in the total amount of EUR 105,000, requesting such payment within ten days.

6. On 11 June 2015, the Claimant sent a second default notice to the Respondent, requesting the payment of the aforementioned amount within 15 June 2015.

7. On 16 June 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA for breach of contract and notified copy of such claim to the Respondent. The Claimant requested the following:

a) EUR 105,000 as outstanding salaries for the period between February and May 2015, plus interest as follows:

- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 22,500 as of 1 March 2015;

- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 27,500 as of 1 April 2015;

- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 27,500 as of 1 May 2015;

- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 27,500 as of 1 June 2015.

b) EUR 375,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to its remaining value, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of the claim;

c) sporting sanctions on the club.

8. In his claim, the Claimant affirmed that, during season 2014-2015, the Respondent breached the contract as it paid him only a part of the salaries provided therein and, moreover, with systematic delay. In particular, the Claimant stressed that, during such season, he received only EUR 270,000 out of EUR 375,000, as follows:

a) EUR 100,000 on 5 August 2014;

b) EUR 27,500 on 9 September 2014 instead of 31 August 2014;

c) EUR 27,500 on 17 October 2014 instead of 30 September 2014;

d) EUR 27,500 on 12 December 2014 instead of 31 October 2014;

e) EUR 27,500 on 16 January 2015 instead of 30 November 2014;

f) EUR 27,500 on 13 February 2015 instead of 31 December 2014;

g) EUR 27,500 on 3 April 2015 instead of 31 January 2015;

h) EUR 5,000 on 29 April 2015.

9. On account of the above, the Claimant emphasised that the Respondent still had to pay him EUR 105,000, corresponding to more than three monthly salaries. As a consequence thereof, the Claimant argued that he was entitled to terminate the contract and requested the payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.

10. On 23 June 2015, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant, in reply to his notification dated 16 June 2015, affirming that:

a) the player had been sanctioned, by means of a resolution of the Club’s Board of Directors dated 28 January 2015, with a fine of 70,000 in the currency of Country D (hereinafter: the first fine);

b) the player had been sanctioned, by means of a resolution of the Disciplinary Committee of the Football Federation of Country D dated 4 June 2015, with a fine of 13,000 in the currency of Country D (hereinafter: the second fine);

c) the remaining outstanding salaries, after deduction of the aforementioned fines, amounted to EUR 73,288.85, which were paid by the Respondent on 23 June 2015;

d) the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause, as he did not send to the club the thirty days’ default notice provided by the Football Federation of Country D Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Professional Football Players (hereinafter: Football Federation of Country D Regulations).

11. On the same date, the Claimant amended his claim arguing that he was not aware of the first fine and of the second fine and stressed that the Respondent did not provide proof of notification to him.

12. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent did not provide any justification for the delayed payment, made on 23 June 2015 only.

13. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent affirmed that both the first and second fine were deducted from the player’s salary. In particular, the Respondent stressed that the first fine had been imposed “due to repeated cards imposed on the Player in different matches” pursuant to the club’s disciplinary regulations, “signed by the Player”. In this context, the Respondent submitted a statement signed by the Claimant, dated 25 August 2014, where the latter declared that he understood said regulations and committed to abide by them. Pursuant to section 4, art. 28 of the club’s disciplinary regulations, “according to the report of the technical team, penalties starting at 10.000 in the currency of Country D for yellow cards and 20.000 for red cards may be implemented, and in the event that such actions are repeated the penalties will be increased”, furthermore, section 5, art. 4 of said disciplinary regulations stipulates that “penalties will be deducted from instalment payments or match appearance fees”.

14. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that the Board Resolution containing the first fine was affixed “to the Board of Directors Resolution Ledger of the Club” and was certified by a notary and notified to the Football Federation of Country D on 2 February 2015. In particular, the Respondent averred that the first fine was communicated to the Claimant “by announcement on the bulletin board of the facilities of the players”, in compliance with the club’s disciplinary regulations.

15. In addition, the Respondent affirmed that its disciplinary regulations “authorizes” the club to deduct the fine from the player’s remuneration and stressed that the Claimant, having accepted said regulations, also accepted their content, their method of notification and the relevant deduction from the salary.

16. The Respondent also stated that it paid the following amounts for remuneration to the player:

a) EUR 100,000 on 5 August 2014 as “transfer”;

b) EUR 27,500 on 9 September 2014 as “transfer”;

c) EUR 27,500 on 17 October 2014 as “2014/9th month salary”;

d) EUR 27,500 on 12 December 2014 as “2014/10th month salary”;

e) EUR 27,500 on 16 January 2015 as “2014/11th month salary”;

f) EUR 27,500 on 13 February 2015 as “2014/12th month salary”;

g) EUR 3,566.62 on 13 February 2015 as “salary payment”;

h) EUR 1,779.36 on 13 March 2015 as “salary payment”;

i) EUR 891.27 on 13 March 2015 as “salary payment”;

j) EUR 27,500 on 3 April 2015 as “transfer”;

k) EUR 5,000 on 29 April 2015 as “transfer”;

l) EUR 3,756.26 on 30 April 2015 as “transfer”;

m) EUR 5,785.03 on 8 May 2015 as “transfer”.

Furthermore, the Respondent stated that, on 17 April 2015, it paid 3,900 in the currency of Country D to the Claimant for the bills of his apartment, as “periodical payment for the house”. In this regard, the Respondent emphasised that the contract provided that the club had to pay the rental only, while the bills remained the player’s obligation.

17. On account of the above, the Respondent stated that, on 23 June 2015, it paid EUR 73,288.85 to the Claimant and, as consequence thereof, it affirmed that it did not have any outstanding payments due to him.

18. In continuation, the Respondent denied having paid the salaries with delay, as the contract did not stipulate a fixed or certain date for their payment. In view of that, the Respondent also argued that the player had to put the club in default in order to receive the payments. The Respondent alleged that, nonetheless, it did not receive any default notice from the Claimant.

19. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not terminate the contract, because he did not send any notice of termination to the club before lodging the claim. In particular, the Respondent affirmed that a contract cannot be terminated “without a notice of termination under Country D or Swiss Code of Obligations”.

20. The Respondent also averred that, should the lodging of the claim be considered as a termination of the contract, the Claimant did it without just cause for the following reasons:

a) the Respondent did not have outstanding payments due to the Claimant “before the filing of the claim before FIFA”;

b) the Claimant did not send to the Respondent any default notice compliant with the formalities requested by the Football Federation of Country D Regulations, the application of which was imposed by art. 4 and 5 of the contract. In particular, the Respondent stressed that said regulations impose on the player, who wishes to terminate an employment contract, the obligation to send a prior default notice to the club through the notary public, granting a thirty days’ time limit for the payment;

c) the Claimant did not sent any default notice compliant with art. 8 of the contract. In this regard, the Respondent affirmed that, according to such clause, any notice under the contract had to be sent via registered mail (cf. point 4 above);

d) during the season 2014-2015, the club made payments to the player every month, so that the latter “never had three-month salary owed to him at any time”.

21. In his replica, the Claimant insisted on his previous arguments and affirmed that the dispute had to be primarily regulated in accordance with the FIFA regulations, rather than with Football Federation of Country D Regulations.

22. Moreover, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent did not comply with its main obligation, i.e. the payment of the player’s remuneration as provided in the contract. In particular, he argued that, even though a specific date for the monthly salaries was not specified in the contract, each monthly salary had to be paid on the first day of the subsequent month.

23. Furthermore, the Claimant affirmed that the further amounts mentioned by the Respondent were paid as match bonuses and not as salaries. Thus, the Claimant argued that said amounts did not constitute the remuneration provided in the contract (cf. point 16 above, lit. g, h, i, l and m).

24. As to the default notices contested by the Respondent, the Claimant affirmed that said notices were transmitted to the Respondent via e-mail and fax, hence the Respondent could not ignore them.

25. In continuation, the Claimant alleged that the first fine was disproportionate and imposed by the club’s Board in violation of his right of defence. In particular, the Claimant affirmed that the club’s Board did not give him the opportunity to defend himself.

26. Equally, as to the second fine, the Claimant contested the regularity of the disciplinary procedure and alleged that his right of defence was not respected. In particular, he emphasised that, being the relevant resolution issued after the end of season 2014-2015 (i.e. on 4 June 2015), the fine could not be deducted from the remuneration due for season 2014-2015 but, rather, for season 2015-2016. Moreover, the player stressed that such fine was imposed by the Football Federation of Country D on him and not on the club.

27. As a result of the above, the Claimant reiterated that, on the date of the claim, the equivalent of more than three monthly salaries was unpaid, even after the deduction of the first fine and of the amount paid by the club for the bills of his apartment. Consequently, the Claimant affirmed that the late payment made by the club on 23 June 2015, did not affect the termination of the contract with just cause, made by the player on 16 June 2015.

28. In view of the above, the Claimant amended the requested outstanding remuneration to the amount of EUR 30,492.96, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 June 2015.

29. Finally, the Claimant informed that, on 13 July 2015, he signed a new employment contract with the club of Country D, Club E , valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2017. According to such contract, the player was entitled to a remuneration of EUR 675,000 for the season 2015-2016 and of EUR 655,000 for the season 2016-2017.

30. In its duplica, the Respondent recalled the content of his response to the claim and rejected the player’s arguments. In particular, it reiterated that the Claimant was aware of the first and second fine and emphasised that he did not contest them.

31. As to the Claimant’s argument according to which the second fine was imposed on the player and not on the club, the latter alleged that the Football Federation of Country D, when imposing a fine on a player, automatically deducts the relevant amount from the player’s club receivables from Football Federation of Country D. Hence, the club affirmed the amount of second fine was deducted by the Football Federation of Country D from the club’s receivables.

32. Finally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s request of compensation for breach of contract had to be rejected because he terminated the contract without just cause and, allegedly, he signed the new contract with Club E immediately after the termination of the contract with the Respondent and, thus, he suffered no damages.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: the Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 June 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player of Country B and a club of Country D.

3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 June 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber 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. First, the Chamber noted that the parties entered into an employment contract valid until 31 May 2016 and providing, inter alia, a salary of EUR 375,000 for season 2014-2015 and of EUR 375,000 for season 2015-2016. In particular, the members of the Chamber took note that the salary of season 2014-2015 was payable as follows: i) EUR 100,000 at the beginning of the season and ii) a monthly salary of EUR 27,500 payable as of August 2014 until May 2015.

6. Moreover, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, on 1 and 11 June 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 105,000.

7. In continuation, the members of the DRC took note that, on 16 June 2015, the Claimant lodged his claim before FIFA requesting the aforementioned outstanding remuneration, referring to the season 2014-2015, and compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 375,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.

8. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it remained undisputed that a copy of the player’s claim was sent by the latter to the Respondent on 16 June 2015 and that, on 23 June 2015, the Respondent provided the Claimant with the payment of EUR 73,288.85. Furthermore, the Claimant eventually limited the claimed outstanding remuneration to the amount of EUR 30,492.96.

9. After having taken note of the above, the DRC also took note of the position of the parties in the present matter. First, the Claimant affirmed that, on the date he lodged his claim (i.e. 16 June 2015), the equivalent of more than three monthly salaries were unpaid by the Respondent and, thus, he argued that the Respondent breached the contract, which he terminated with just cause on the same date.

10. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the position of the Respondent, which first contested that the contract had not been terminated by the Claimant, as it did not receive any termination notice from said party.

11. What is more, the Respondent also affirmed that it did not receive from the Claimant any default notice complying with the requirements imposed by the regulations of the Football Federation of Country D and by the contract. Moreover, the Respondent stated that it paid further amounts to the Claimant (cf. point I.16) and that the first fine and the second fine (cf. point I.10) had been deducted from the player’s salary. In view of all the aforementioned circumstances, the Respondent argued that the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause.

12. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Claimant, in particular, argued that the further amounts paid by the Respondent did not refer to salaries and contested the aforementioned fines.

13. In view of the divergent position of the parties, the members of the Chamber concurred that the first issue in the present case is to assess if the contract at the basis of the present dispute had been terminated.

14. With the above in mind, the DRC noted that none of the parties expressly terminated the employment relationship; however, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that, taking into consideration the allegations of the Claimant as well as the nature of the amounts requested by him, the Claimant considered having terminated the labour relationship between the parties by lodging a claim on 16 June 2015 in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract. In this respect, it is important to emphasise that the claim of the player for breach of contract was also sent to the Respondent on the same date. In view of the above, the Chamber held that 16 June 2015 must be considered as the date of termination of the contractual relationship between the parties.

15. Having established that the Claimant terminated the contract, the Chamber confined its assessment of the matter and stressed that the second disputed point was whether the relevant employment contract had been terminated by the Claimant with or without just cause and, depending on this finding, it would have to determine which would be the consequences of said termination.

16. In this context, the members of the Chamber first reverted to the Respondent’s line of defence, according to which its debt towards the Claimant was to be set off with the first fine and the second fine that had been imposed on the Claimant before the date of termination of the contract. In this regard, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players.

17. Moreover, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as established in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

18. With the above in mind, as to the first fine, the members of the Chamber emphasised that, even though the Respondent averred that said fine had been properly notified to the Claimant in compliance with the club’s disciplinary regulations, the Respondent neither provided any evidence that such fine was directly notified to the Claimant nor that the club’s disciplinary regulations provided any specific method of notification for the fines.

19. As to the second fine, the members of the DRC emphasised that the same had been allegedly imposed not by the Respondent but, rather, by the Football Federation of Country D. What is more, no evidence was submitted by the Respondent that the Claimant was given the opportunity to defend himself within the context of the alleged disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Chamber decided to disregard the alleged fines imposed on the Claimant and to reject the Respondent’s arguments in this regard.

20. In continuation, the members of the Chamber went on to analyse the payments made by the Respondent and recalled that, according to the Claimant, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 105,000 was unpaid on the date of termination of the contract. As to the payment of EUR 73,288.25 made by the Respondent, the DRC pointed out that said payment occurred on 23 June 2015, which is only after the aforementioned date of termination.

21. Furthermore, as to the further payments made by the Respondent, in the total amount of EUR 15,778.54 (cf. point I.16 lit. a, g, h, i, l and m), the members of the DRC noted that, on the basis of the documentation submitted by the Respondent, such payments expressly refer to “salary payment” and to “transfer” and were made before the termination of the contract. Equally, the DRC noted that the Claimant argued that said payments were made by the Respondent for alleged match bonuses. In this regard, the members of the Chamber emphasised that the Claimant did not submit sufficient evidence which would demonstrate to the Chamber’s satisfaction that said payments referred to specific bonuses.

22. In view of the above, the DRC decided that the above-mentioned further payments, in the total amount of EUR 15,778.54, referred to the player’s salary and not to match bonuses and, consequently, have to be deducted from the Claimant’s remuneration outstanding on the date of termination of the contract.

23. In continuation, having established that the Respondent provided evidence that it paid only EUR 15,778.54 out of EUR 105,000 for the player’s salaries regarding the season 2014-2015 before the date of termination, and considering that the Respondent did not invoke any other reason to justify the non-payment of such salaries, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent, on the date of termination of the contract, was in breach of the latter as it failed to pay, without a just cause, the due salary for a significant period of time and, indeed, for more than three months.

24. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber went on to examine the argument of the Respondent, according to which the Claimant did not send default notices in compliance with the requirements set out in the regulations of the Football Federation of Country D and of the contract. However, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the contract did not provide any specific formal requirements for the notification of default notices and that, on 1 and 11 June 2015 respectively, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the payment of outstanding remuneration.

25. In this context, the DRC recalled that, on the date of termination, the Respondent was in breach of contract, as it failed to pay to the Claimant the remuneration corresponding to a substantial amount, i.e. more than three monthly salaries.

26. In view of all the aforementioned considerations, and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber consequently decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 16 June 2015 and that, as a result thereof, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant.

27. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant.

28. In continuation, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that, to date, is still outstanding, i.e. the amount of EUR 15,932.61.

29. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 15,932.61 as of 1 January 2015 until the date of effective payment.

30. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for the breach of contract.

31. Subsequently, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

33. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until 31 May 2016 and concluded that the Claimant would have received a total remuneration of EUR 375,000 had the contract been executed until its expiry date.

34. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

35. Indeed, on 13 July 2015, the Claimant found employment with the club of Country D, Club E. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, valid as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2017, the Claimant was entitled to receive a salary in the amount of EUR 675,000 for the season 2015-2016 and of EUR 655,000 for the season 2016-2017.

36. In accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

37. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Claimant was able to mitigate his damages arisen from the breach of contract by the Respondent in full and, therefore, the Chamber decided that there is no amount that should be awarded to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand.

38. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 15,932.61, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 June 2015 until the date of effective payment.

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

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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

Encl.: CAS directives