F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 14 June 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 June 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B,

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Club C (Club C), Country D

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 17 May 2017, the player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the club of Country D Club C (Club C) (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), valid as from 27 November 2017 until ‘the end of League X and Cup XX 2019 (two seasons)’, as well as a document referred to as ‘Agreement on Contract Signing Fee’ (hereinafter: the agreement), which is an ‘integral part of the employment agreement’.

2. According to the information in the TMS, the 2019 season in Country D ends on 20 November 2019. What is more, according to the information in the TMS, the player was registered with the club as from 26 December 2014, based on a contract valid between 5 November 2014 and 30 September 2015.

3. According to the contract and the agreement, the player was inter alia entitled to receive the following amounts:

 USD 8,000 as a monthly salary, payable on ‘the early dates of the month after, however it shall not be later than 15 days if there appear no disputes in between parties’;

 USD 80,000 as signing fee per season, payable ‘on annual basis’.

4. Article 4 of the contract stipulates the following: ‘[…] In case party B [the player]’s breach of the regulations of the club or terminating this contract before expiry time by himself, party B shall compensate for A [the club] an amount of 03 months wages and the contract fee decided by Company (minimum is equal all the fee).’

5. Article 5 of the contract stipulates the following: ‘The player shall at all times keep strictly confidential all the information received by him from party A during the validity of this contract and shall not disclose such information to any person or use the same for any purpose whatsoever’.

6. Article 11 of the contract holds the following clause: ‘[…] The player shall strictly follow all regulations in regard of living and concentration with the whole team in the club’s accommodation’.

7. According to the player, during the course of the season 2018, the club only paid him a part of the sign on fee of USD 80,000. In this respect, the player states that the club paid him the following amounts:

 USD 20,000 in November 2017;

 USD 20,000 in February 2018;

 USD 10,000 in May 2018.

8. Further, the player explains that on 23 July 2018, the club proposed to pay him an additional amount of USD 10,000, provided that he would accept a deduction of USD 20,000 from the sign on fee. In this respect, the player states that he refused said request.

9. What is more, according to the player, on 8 August 2018, the club ordered him to start ‘living in the team hotel’ as from 10 August 2018, instead of the private address in Country D where he was living with his wife and two children, apparently already for several years.

10. As the player did not agree with the aforementioned proposals of the club, on 8 August 2018, he sent a letter to the club, in which he requested the club to pay him the outstanding part of the singing on fee, i.e. USD 30,000. Furthermore, the player explained to the club that he wanted to continue living with his family, instead of in the club’s accommodation. This letter was provided to FIFA.

11. What is more, the player explains that on 10 August 2018, the head coach (on behalf of the club) sent him a letter, which is on file, by means of which he was ordered to start living ‘with the whole team’, based on article 11 of the contract. Furthermore, said letter stipulated that if the player would not fulfill said obligation, it would be considered that he had ‘failed to perform the regulation‘ of the club and ‘the contract conditions’. Additionally, the head coach on behalf of the club informed the player that he ‘propose discipline player Player A with details: temporary stop every training activities and stop to pay monthly salary for player […]’.

12. In reaction to the letter dated 10 August 2018, the player explains that he immediately reported for duty in the team’s hotel on the evening of 10 August 2018, and even recorded a video of his presence in the team hotel.

13. Further, the player states that by an e-mail dated 11 August 2018, on file, he confirmed to the club that he was not in breach of his contractual obligations, and requested the payment of the outstanding part of the sign on fee. In reply, also on 11 August 2018, the club reiterated that it deemed that the player had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that he was banned from all training activities, matches and that his salary payment would be stopped. Further, the club refused to give the player permission to leave the club’s accommodation without agreement from the coach department.

14. Said decisions were confirmed by the club by means of a letter dated 13 August 2018, in which the club further stated that the player posted ‘divulged and unrealistic information’ on social media and also recorded without permission a ‘video of Mr E’, the club’s head coach. Finally, the club requested ‘to stop forever with player join all of soccer activities around the world’.

15. As a result of the foregoing, on 16 August 2018, the player informed the club that he deemed to have a just cause to terminate the contract. In said letter, the player also provided the club a deadline until 23 August 2018 to pay him the outstanding part of the signing fee, to allow him to rejoin the club’s first team and to allow him to live with his family.

16. After the club had denied said requests by means of a letter dated 16 August 2018, in which it requested the player to provide evidence of his allegations, the player again sent a letter to the club on 27 August 2018. In said letter, the player reiterated that he had a just cause to terminate the contract and gave the club a deadline until 3 September 2018 to remedy its default. Should the club fail to meet said deadline, the player would lodge a claim before FIFA. These letters are also on file.

17. On 17 October 2018, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the total amount of USD 230,000, plus ‘interest at the prevailing rate’, specified as follows:

 USD 30,000 as outstanding part of the signing fee for the season 2018;

 USD 120,000 as residual value of the contract in the period between August 2018 and October 2019, corresponding to 15 monthly salaries of USD 8,000 each;

 USD 80,000 as value of the signing fee for the season 2019.

The player further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the club.

18. The player explains that the club, by excluding him from the first team and training sessions, and by stopping his salary payment, denied him his ‘fundamental rights under an employment contract’.

19. As a result, the player is of the opinion that he had a just cause to terminate the contract in August 2017.

20. In its reply dated 5 December 2018, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player for breach of contract and requested the payment of the total amount of USD 154,000, plus ‘interest at the prevailing rate’, specified as follows:

 USD 24,000 as three monthly salaries in line with article 4 of the contract;

 USD 80,000 as ‘the amount compensated by the player equivalent to contract signing fee’, in line with article 4 of the contract;

 USD 50,000 as ‘the amount player had received from the club prior to the term of the contract signing fee’.

The club further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the player.

21. The club argued that the player’s behaviour constituted inter alia a breach of article 5 and 11 of the contract. Specifically, it points out that the player had the obligation to live in the club’s accommodation, instead of in his privately rented house, however that he failed to fulfil said contractual obligation. Furthermore, the club referred to the alleged fact that the player had ‘disclosed incorrectly details of contract to social media and presses’, and ‘calumniated the club’s chairman on purpose of slander and discrediting the club’s leaders’, and submitted several untranslated screenshots of internet articles, allegedly confirming said circumstance.

22. Moreover, the club argues that the signing fee of USD 80,000 was only payable at the end of the respective year, and only ‘when he has completed exactly all his obligations as stipulated in the contract […] to the end of annual contractual expiry year’. In this respect, the club argues it only made the payments adding up to USD 50,000, in order to do the player a favour.

23. Finally, the club concluded that the player had unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause.

24. In his replica, the player reiterated his previous argumentation and pointed out that the club could not prove his alleged breach of article 5 of the contract, since the wording of said article is not clear. Further, the player argues that the club was aware of the fact that he was living with his family in a private accommodation and that this was never a problem in the ‘period of almost 4 years since he first signed with the club in November 2014’, as several other players did the same.

25. In addition, the player states that the club failed to prove that regulations regarding living with the club’s team as mentioned in article 11, actually exist. Moreover, the player claims that from the nature of the signing fee, it follows that such amount is paid at the start of the season.

26. Finally, the player requests the rejection of the club’s counterclaim and the acceptance of his claim, which he limited to the new amount of USD 222,000, corresponding to 14 monthly salaries of USD 8,000 each.

27. In its duplica, the club reiterated its previous argumentation and pointed out that the player was not able to submit evidence that he received permission from the club to live outside the club’s accommodation.

28. Upon FIFA’s request, the player explained that on 18 February 2019 he signed a contract with the club of Country B Club F, which nevertheless could not be executed, as the club failed to issue his ITC.

29. In the period after 18 February 2019, the player explains that he remained unemployed, as the club and the Football Federation of Country D refused to release his ITC.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 October 2018. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2018 and 2019), 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 this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 11 June 2019 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the members G and H refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member G was unable to attend the meeting due to certain personal circumstances. In order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member H refrained from participating in the meeting and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations.

4. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2018 and 2019), and considering that the Claimant’s claim was lodged on 17 October 2018, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter; the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

5. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

6. In so doing, the members of the Chamber first noted that the player and the club concluded an employment contract and an additional agreement on the sign-on fee, both valid as from 27 November 2017 until ‘the end of League X and Cup XX 2019 (two seasons)’.

7. Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that in spite of the absence of an explicit termination document issued by any of the parties, the contract was to be considered as prematurely terminated, at the latest on the date of the claim of the player, i.e. on 17 October 2018. The Chamber, however, deemed that in order to establish a precise date of termination and which party was responsible for it, it would first need to enter the substance of the matter.

8. The members of the Chamber then took note of the player’s claim who argues that the club terminated the contract without just cause, at a non-specified date in August 2018, by failing to pay him a part of the sign-on fee, excluding him from the training sessions and stopping the payment of his monthly salaries as from that month.

9. The members of the Chamber took note that, conversely, the club was of the opinion that the player had terminated the contract without just cause, as he allegedly disclosed confidential information on social media and he refused to live in the club’s accommodation, breaching the club’s regulations. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the club argued that it had fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the player regarding the payment of the sign-on fee, as such fee was only payable at the end of each season and only in case the player would have fulfilled his contractual obligations. Based on the foregoing, the club deems that player is the party in breach of contract and, consequently, lodged a counterclaim against him.

10. On account of all the above, the Chamber highlighted that the underlying dispute in the present matter, considering the conflicting positions of the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been prematurely terminated with or without just cause, by which party and on which date. In so doing, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

11. The members of the Chamber equally deemed appropriate to remark the general principle that contracts ought to be respected, as otherwise, consequences have to be assumed by the relevant party. Further, the DRC took into consideration the content of art. 14 of the Regulations, which provides that “a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”.

12. The Chamber stressed that the definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each particular case.

13. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled its longstanding and well established jurisprudence which indicates that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.

14. With the above-mentioned principles in mind, the Chamber first stressed that it is not disputed by the club that the amount of USD 50,000 had been paid to the player as part of the sign-on fee for the 2018 season, that the payment of his monthly salaries had been suspended as from August 2018 and that the player had been banned from all training activities. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the content of the club’s letters to the player dated 8, 10, 11 and 13 August 2018. In particular, the DRC noted that the reasons given by the club for stopping the payment of the player’s salary and excluding him from training, as mentioned in said letters, were briefly the player’s refusal to leave his private accommodation and start living with the team as from 10 August 2018 and the alleged fact that the player had published “unrealistic information” about the club on social media, breaching thus his contractual obligations.

15. At this point, the Chamber deemed it important to address individually each of the aforementioned allegations of the club. First, as to the reasons given by the club not to pay the player the full amount of his sign-on fee for the 2018 season, the Chamber noted from the documentation on file that the club, after paying the player part of his sign-on fee, at a later stage tried to renegotiate its amount with the player, which the latter refused. While the player deems that the full amount of USD 80,000 was due at the beginning of the 2018 season, the club claims that such amount was only payable at the end of the season, depending on the player’s performance of the contract, and that the USD 50,000 already paid were a “favour” to the player.

16. While analysing the wording of the contract, the DRC noted that the latter indeed does not mention an exact due date and only stipulates that said fee is paid on an annual basis. The Chamber, however, noted that not only had the club already paid more than half of the sign-on fee to the player, as from the start of the contract, but at a later stage it also tried to renegotiate its value and offer the player a lower amount in exchange of an immediate payment. Based on this information, and taking into account that a sign-on fee, given its nature, is meant as an award paid in advance for signing the contract, the Chamber was of the opinion that the sign-on fee of USD 80,000 was payable at the beginning of each season, i.e. as from January each year. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that by the time the contract was considered as terminated, the amount of USD 30,000 from the sign-on fee remained outstanding, corresponding to almost 4 monthly salaries.

17. Having said that, the Chamber proceeded to the analysis of the alleged player’s refusal to live in the club’s accommodation. In this respect, the Chamber first noted that in the period between 8 and 16 August 2018 the parties were discussing whether the player was obliged to live in the club’s accommodation, instead of in his privately rented house. As no common solution was found, the club informed the player that he had breached art. 11 of the contract as well as the club’s regulations, and therefore it had decided to exclude him from the training sessions, that the payment of his monthly salary would be stopped and that it would eventually request his ban to play football worldwide.

18. From the documentation on file and the information in TMS, the Chamber noted that the player had already been registered with the club since 26 December 2014, based on a previous employment contract, valid as from 5 November 2014. The club did not dispute the player’s allegation that since the beginning of their contractual relationship in November 2014 he had been living with his family in a private house and that the issue of his alleged breach of art. 11 of the contract first arose in August 2018. The Chamber also noted that from the documentation on file it appears that such discussion only started after the player’s refusal to renegotiate the amount of the sign-on fee. In this regard, the Chamber first deemed that the club’s request for the player to move into its accommodation after living almost 4 years in a private house with his family did not appear to be reasonable. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the ‘regulations in regard of living and concentration with the whole team in the club’s accommodation’, mentioned in art. 11 of the contract, were not provided by the club. Thus, the DRC concluded that such a breach on the side of the player, as alleged by the club, as well as the relevant consequences could not be sustained.

19. Finally, the Chamber addressed the issue of the player’s alleged breach of art. 5 of the contract, by supposedly publishing “unrealistic information” about the club on social media, as invoked by the club in its letters dated 10 and 11 August 2018. Once again referring to the principle of burden of proof, the Chamber noted that the club did not submit any corroborating documentary evidence that the player indeed disclosed any confidential or “unrealistic” information about the club on social media, irrespective of the question whether the suspension of the payment of his remuneration and his exclusion from the training sessions could even be considered as proportionate measures to such an alleged breach.

20. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the non-payment of the entire sign-on fee, the non-payment of the player’s monthly salaries as from August 2018 as well as his exclusion from training could not be reasonably justified by the club and, therefore, entails that the club had breached their employment contract without just cause.

21. Having said that, the Chamber still deemed important to refer to the player’s letters to the club dated 8, 11, 16 and 27 August 2018. In particular, the DRC focused on the player’s default notices dated 16 and 27 August 2018, in which the player claimed inter alia the payment of his monthly salaries and of the sign-on fee in full, as well as the authorisation to resume training and to continue living in his house with his family, giving the club a deadline until 23 August 2018 respectively 3 September 2018 in order to fulfil his requests, otherwise he would lodge a claim at FIFA. The Chamber referred back to the considerations made in point II.7 above and concluded that the aforementioned default notices of the player should be considered as the expression of his will to terminate of the contract. In this respect, the DRC deemed it important to point out that a notice period of 7 days, as given by the player in his default notices of 16 and 27 August 2018 could, in general terms, be considered too short in order for the party in alleged breach to solve the pending issues, however in these particular circumstances and considering the stance of the club it is clear that the latter did not intend to fulfill its contractual obligations towards the player. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the contract was terminated by the player with just cause, and that the date to be taken into account for the calculation of any eventual financial consequences would be 17 October 2018, i.e. the date of the player’s claim at FIFA. Thus, already at this point the Chamber could establish that the club’s counterclaim was entirely rejected.

22. Prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by the club in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the moment the contract was terminated by the player. In this respect, the Chamber noted that for the period between the start of the contract and 17 October 2018, a part of the signing fee in the amount of USD 30,000, as well as the player’s salaries for August and September 2018 in the amount of USD 8,000 each had remained undisputedly outstanding. Thus, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Chamber decide that the player is entitled to outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 46,000. Furthermore, considering the player’s request as well as the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence, the DRC decide that 5% interest p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amounts as from the respective due dates.

23. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

24. The Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the player by the club 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 player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that first of all, it had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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.

26. In this regard, the Chamber recapped that art. 4 of the contract stipulates the following: ‘[…] In case party B [the player]’s breach of the regulations of the club or terminating this contract before expiry time by himself, party B shall compensate for A [the club] an amount of 03 months wages and the contract fee decided by Company (minimum is equal all the fee).’

27. While analysing the aforementioned clause, the members of the Chamber noted that it provides for a scenario that did not occur, i.e. a breach of the contract by the player.

28. As such, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

29. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until its natural expiration. In particular, the Chamber concluded that the residual value of the contract amounts to USD 184,000 corresponding to the second sign-on fee of USD 80,000 plus 13 monthly salaries in the amount of USD 8,000 each; amount which should serve as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

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

31. During the relevant period, the player signed a new employment contract with the club of Country B Club F on 18 February 2019, however such contract was never executed as the player’s ITC was not released. Thus, the player in fact did not manage to mitigate his damages and no further deductions in that sense shall be done to the aforementioned amount.

32. The Chamber, however, noted that the player amended his claim during the course of the proceedings, limiting his request to the total amount of USD 222,000, corresponding to 14 monthly salaries. Consequently, in order to avoid an ultra petita decision, the Chamber reduced the amount of compensation due to the player to USD 176,000, i.e. USD 222,000 minus USD 46,000 granted as outstanding remuneration, which it considered to be a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. Equally, the Chamber decided to grant interest on said amount of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, as per the player’s request and the DRC’s constant practice in this regard.

33. The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by rejecting any further claim lodged by the parties.

***

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C (Club C), has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 46,000, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:

a. 5% p.a. as of 2 January 2018 on the amount of USD 30,000;

b. 5% p.a. as of 16 September 2018 on the amount of USD 8,000;

c. 5% p.a. as of 16 October 2018 on the amount of USD 8,000.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 176,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 17 October 2018 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amounts mentioned under points 2. and 3. above.

6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with points 2. and 3. above 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).

7. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 2. and 3. above are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

8. The ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are 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.

10. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

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, 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

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Encl.: CAS directives