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 matter between the player,

Player A, Country B

as Claimant

and the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 15 August 2017, the player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter; the contract) valid as of 20 August 2017 until 30 June 2018, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of currency of Country D (currency of Country D) 20,000.

2. Moreover, according to article 4.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent:

i. currency of Country D 700,000 as signing-on fee payable in three instalments:

- currency of Country D 250,000 in November 2017;

- currency of Country D 250,000 in January 2018;

- currency of Country D 200,000 in April 2018.

ii. a match bonus “whose amount is fixed by [the Respondent] and corresponds to the participation and the results obtained during official matches of the championship of Country D, the national cup and CAF, UAFA & FIFA competitions”.

3. Furthermore, article 14 of the contract provided that in case the parties failed to solve a dispute arisen from the execution or interpretation of the contract’s clauses in an amicable way, the dispute is submitted by one of the parties to the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of Country D (hereinafter: the NDRC of Country D), i.e. the “Chambre de résolution des litiges de la Federation of Country D” (as read in French, “Article 14 : Procédure de règlement des litiges. En cas de contestation et/ou de litige né de l’exécution et/ou de l’interprétation des clauses du présent contrat, les parties sont tenues de recourir à tous les moyens et procédures en vue d’un règlement amiable du litige. En cas d’échec, le différend est soumis, par l’une ou l’autre partie, à la chambre de résolution des litiges de la Federation of Country D. Les décisions de la chambre de résolutions des litiges de la Federation of Country D sont susceptibles de recours conformément aux dispositions des statuts et règlements de la Federation of Country D”).

4. On 5 October 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, urging it to pay the outstanding amounts composed of unpaid salaries, singing-on fee and match bonuses, and granted it 11 days to pay.

5. On 18 October 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting the amount of currency of Country D 634,000, as follows:

- currency of Country D 520,000 as outstanding signing-on fee;

- currency of Country D 80,000 as outstanding salaries from March to June 2018;

- currency of Country D 34,000 as match bonus(es);

- Legal costs and late payment interests.

6. In his claim, the Claimant explained that despite several verbal reminders and the default notice sent to the Respondent, it failed to answer and/or to comply with the Claimant’s attempt to solve the matter amicably.

7. In its response to the claim, the Respondent challenged FIFA’s competence to adjudicate the present matter.

8. In support of its allegations, the Respondent referred to the contract’s clause allegedly providing that the parties contractually agreed to submit all disputes to the competent national body.

9. Moreover, the Respondent provided various arguments and evidence in order to prove that “there is a Chamber inside the Federation of Country D [Federation of Country D; hereinafter; Federation of Country D], that is an independent national arbitration tribunal, and which guarantees fair proceedings and respect to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs”.

10. In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided the Statutes of the Federation of Country D and the Regulations of the NDRC of Country D (as read in French “Réglement de la Chambre Nationale de Résolution des Litiges”; hereinafter: the NDRC of Country D Regulations). Moreover, article 5. a) of the NDRC of Country D Regulations stipulates that its chamber is composed of a chairman, a vice-chairman and a deputy vice-chairman, all appointed by the Executive Committee of the Federation of Country D (as read in French : “Article 5: Composition. La CNRL est composée des membres suivants : a) Un Président, un vice-président, et un vice-président suppléant désignés par le Comité Directeur de la Federation of Country D ;”). Furthermore, article 5. b) of the NDRC of Country D Regulations lists the representative members of clubs, players, trainers, women’s football, futsal, doctors and the administration of the Federation of Country D, and stipulates that each representative member, one for each entity, assists to the NDRC session as soon as the relevant dispute involves their respective entity (as read in French : “Article 5: Composition. La CNRL est composée des membres suivants : b) Un représentant des clubs de la LNFP, un représentant des clubs de la LNFA, un représentant des joueurs, un représentant du groupement des entraineurs, un représentant du groupement Football Féminin, un représentant du groupement futsal, un représentant du groupement des Médecins, un représentant administratif de la Federation of Country D. Les membres représentants assistent aux séances de la CNRL dès lors que le litige concerne leurs entités”).

11. As to the substance, and in case FIFA should be competent to decide on the matter at hand, the Respondent recognized its debt towards the Claimant in the amount of currency of Country D 520,000. However, it rejected all further amounts “due to the lack of proof and the principle of burden of proof” and, eventually, it requested the possible interests to be limited to 2.25 % at the interest rate of the Royal Bank of Country D.

12. Finally, the Respondent referred to an alleged change of its “Executive Board” to explain the failed payment of its debt as evidenced in its submission. Nevertheless, it also underlined its attempts to find an amicable settlement with the Claimant during the current proceedings providing correspondence between the parties from 18 December 2018 until 10 January 2019, however to no avail.

13. In his replica, the Claimant firstly alleged that article 14 of the contract was mandatory when signing the standard contract provided by the Federation of Country D, the Claimant having no active part in its negotiation.

14. Furthermore, the Claimant rejected said NDRC to be “independent and able to ensure the rights of all parties through fair proceedings”. In support of his allegations, the Claimant raised various arguments tending to allegedly demonstrate that said NDRC does not meet the requirements of FIFA to be competent in the matter, such as: the members of the Chamber are appointed by the Executive committee of the Federation of Country D (Article 69 of the Statutes of the Federation of Country D stipulates, inter alia, that the members of the NDRC are appointed by the Executive Committee of the Federation of Country D; as read in French : “Article 69 : Résolution des litiges (…) Chambre de Résolution des Litiges (…) 2.En matière contracuelle : (…) Les Membres de la CNRL [NDRC] sont désignés par le Comité Directeur de la Federation of Country D.”); fair proceedings are not guaranteed as the Chamber admits the presentation of new evidence after the investigation is closed (Article 23 of the Regulations of the NDRC of the Federation of Country D stipulates, inter alia, that no proofs are admitted after closure of investigation, unless the NDRC decides differently; as read in French : “Article 23: Clôture de l’instruction. A l’issue de l’administration des preuves, la CNRL prononce la clôture de l’instruction. Aucune preuve n’est admise après cette clôture à moins que la CNRL en décide autrement s’il s’agit d’une preuve nouvelle (…).”); the Chamber does not grant interest to the players in case of late payment despite its provisions and the execution of decisions. In support of his allegations, the Claimant provided decisions of the NDRC, CAS jurisprudence, a public statement of the Federation of Country D as well as the Regulation of the NDRC.

15. Moreover, the Claimant underlined that the Respondent recognized “its debt” during those negotiations attempts and that it only started to reject certain claimed amounts once the Claimant refused the Respondent’s proposal to settle the matter.

16. Finally, the Claimant explained that the burden of proof regarding the payments of the salaries relies on the Respondent.

17. Consequently, the Claimant insisted that FIFA was competent to adjudicate his claim as to the substance and reiterated his claim.

18. In its duplica and regarding the issues raised by the Claimant as to why the NDRC is not competent in the present case, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s arguments entirely and reaffirmed its position stated in its reply to the claim.

19. Finally, the Respondent did not provide any further comments as to the substance.

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, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 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 principle, 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 June 2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be 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. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA, arguing that the matter shall be submitted to the competence of the “Chambre de résolution des litiges de la Federation of Country D” (hereinafter: the NDRC of Country D) on the basis of art. 14 of the contract, which was drafted as follows:

“In the event of a dispute and/or litigation arising from the execution and/or interpretation of the clauses of this contract, the parties are required to give priority to all means and procedures with a view to an amicable settlement of the dispute.

In the event of failure, the dispute is submitted by either party to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Federation of Country D.

The decisions of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Federation of Country D may be appealed in conformity with the Statutes and Regulations of the Federation of Country D” [free translation from French].

4. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of the FIFA DRC to adjudicate on his claim against the Respondent, and sustained that the NDRC of Country D is not an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.

5. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit b) of the June 2018 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is, in principle, competent to deal with employment-related disputes of an international dimension; the parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for any disputes arisen between them to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs that has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal existing at national level, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

6. In this respect, the DRC noted the Claimant’s allegation, according to which, inter alia, the NDRC of Country D is not “independent and able to ensure the rights of all parties through fair proceedings” as “(…) the members of the Chamber are appointed by the Executive committee of the Federation of Country D (…)“ and “(…) fair proceedings are not guaranteed as the Chamber admits the presentation of new evidence after the investigation is closed (…)”.

7. Within this context, the Chamber noted the Respondent’s allegations as to how the parties have opted for the NDRC of Country D to be the competent body for any dispute in relation to the employment contract and that “there is a Chamber inside the Federation of Country D, that is an independent national arbitration tribunal, and which guarantees fair proceedings and respect to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs”.

8. With the aforementioned in mind, the members of the Chamber first emphasised that, in the present matter, indeed it would appear that the parties agreed, by means of clause 14 of the contract, that the disputes arisen between them in relation to the employment contract would be resolved by the NDRC of Country D.

9. Nevertheless, and in accordance with said art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, the DRC emphasised that it needed to analyse whether the entire dispute resolution system within the Federation of Country D, i.e. the NDRC of Country D, actually complies with the requirements as mentioned in point II./5 above. In so doing, the members of the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Regulations, it is for the Respondent to prove that the NDRC of Country D is an independent tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and which respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.

10. The DRC further stressed that the principle of equal representation of players and clubs is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In the same vein, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.

11. Taking into account the above, the DRC entered into the examination of the “Réglement de la Chambre Nationale de Résolution des Litiges” (hereinafter: the NDRC of Country D Regulations), entered into force as from 1 August 2017, which was submitted by the Respondent during the course of the investigation of the matter at stake.

12. In particular, the Chamber observed that Article 3, 5 and 10 of the NDRC of Country D Regulations read as follows:

"Article 3: Jurisdiction of the NDRC of Country D

The NDRC of Country D is competent:

(a) For disputes between clubs, clubs and players relating to the maintenance of contractual stability

(…)

Article 5: Composition:

The NDRC of Country D is composed of the following members:

a) A President, a Vice-President, and a substitute Vice-President appointed by the Federation of Country D Executive Committee

b)

- A representative of the clubs of the LNFP

- A representative of the clubs of the LNFA clubs

- A player representative

- A representative of the coaches' group

- A representative of the Women's Football group

- A representative of the futsal group

- A representative of the group of Doctors

- An administrative representative of the Federation of Country D

Representative members attend meetings of the NDRC of Country D when the dispute is of their concerns.

Article 10: Quorum

The NDRC of Country D can only meet validly in the presence of at least three members, including the president or vice-president” [free translation from French].

13. Furthermore, the DRC analysed the contents of the Statutes of the Federation of Country D provided by the Respondent. In particular, the Chamber referred to art. 69 of the Statutes of the Federation of Country D, which stipulates, inter alia, that “the members of the NDRC of Country D are designated by the Executive Committee of the Federation of Country D” [free translation from French].

14. In this respect, the DRC noted that, from Article 5 of the NDRC of Country D Regulations as provided by the Respondent, the principle of equal representation of players and clubs is not respected with regard to the appointment of the President, the Vice-President and the substitute Vice-President, since from the wording of the aforementioned NDRC of Country D Regulations, they appear to always be designated by the Executive Committee of the Federation of Country D, which appears to be composed of club representatives only. In addition, the DRC noted that among the other 8 members of the NDRC of Country D, there is only 1 player representative.

15. What is more, and with reference to art. 69 of the Statutes of the Federation of Country D, the Chamber also noted that it would even appear that all the members of the NDRC of Country D are designated by the Executive Committee of the Federation of Country D.

16. On account of all the aforementioned circumstances, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the Respondent failed to demonstrate, to the DRC’s satisfaction, that the NDRC of Country D is indeed an independent arbitration tribunal respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, which is a fundamental prerequisite that an DRC must comply with. As such, the DRC concluded that the Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to entertain the claim of the player as to the substance.

17. In continuation, 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 member, X, and the member, XX, had to cancel their attendance to the relevant meeting and thus did not participate in the deliberations in the case at hand. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the June 2018 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

18. The competence of the Chamber having been established, 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, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2018), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 October 2018, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

19. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. 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.

20. First of all, the Chamber noted that, on 15 August 2017, the Claimant concluded an employment contract with the Respondent valid as from 20 august 2017 until 30 June 2018. As to the financial terms of said contract, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant as follows:

- currency of Country D 20,000 as a monthly salary from August 2017 to June 2018;

- currency of Country D 700,000 as signing-on fee payable in two equal instalments of currency of Country D 250,000 in November 2017 and January 2018, plus one instalment of currency of Country D 200,000 in April 2018;

- a match bonus “whose amount is fixed by [the Respondent] and corresponds to the participation and the results obtained during official matches of the championship of Country D, the national cup and CAF, UAFA & FIFA competitions”.

21. In addition, the Chamber observed that, on 5 October 2018, the Claimant sent a default notice to the club, requesting the Respondent to pay him outstanding amounts composed of unpaid salaries, singing-on fee and match bonuses and granting 11 days to the Respondent to remedy the default.

22. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of currency of Country D 634,000, as follows:

- currency of Country D 520,000 as outstanding signing-on fee;

- currency of Country D 80,000 as outstanding salaries from March 2018 to June 2018;

- currency of Country D 34,000 as match bonus(es);

- Legal costs and late payment interests.

23. Subsequently, the Chamber took note that, for its parts, the Respondent had acknowledged in its reply that it did not yet pay the outstanding singing-on fee to the Claimant in the amount of currency of Country D 520,000. Moreover, the Chamber further noted the Respondent’s allegations as to the change of its “Executive Board” and its attempts to solve the matter amicably with the Claimant in order to justify the failed payment of said debt.

24. In this respect, considering the Respondent’s aforementioned explicit acknowledgment of debt, the Chamber was eager to conclude that the Respondent must pay the Claimant the amount of currency of Country D 520,000, corresponding to the outstanding singing-on fee.

25. Moreover, the DRC underlined the Respondent’s rejection of all further amounts requested by the Claimant due to “a lack of proof”.

26. In this respect and in relation to the documentation and the explanations provided by the Respondent, the DRC recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated 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.

27. Having that in mind, the DRC noted that the Claimant, for its parts, requested, inter alia, outstanding monthly salaries from March to June 2018 amounting to currency of Country D 80,000, as contractually provided. As such, In this regard, the DRC referred once again to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and considered that the Respondent failed to provide any conclusive evidence as to the payment of such monthly salaries.

28. Consequently, the DRC considered that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its defence, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate that it duly paid the outstanding salary payments of March, April, May and June 2018.

29. Subsequently, the Chamber turned it attention to the Claimant’s request to be awarded with the amount of currency of Country D 34,000, as bonus(es) due to match performances.

30. In this respect, the Chamber referred once again to the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”.

31. Within this context, the Chamber carefully examined the documentation presented by the Claimant, and noticed that he failed to provide any evidence supporting that the aforementioned bonus(es) was/were due. As a result, the DRC decided to reject this part of the Claimant’s claim.

32. In view of the aforementioned amounts, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to a total outstanding amount of currency of Country D 600,000, corresponding to his salaries of March, April, May and June 2018, as well as the outstanding signing-on fee payable in April 2018.

33. As a result, and in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of currency of Country D 600,000.

34. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim and bearing in mind that the Claimant only requested “late payment interests” without mentioning any date, which would have enabled the Chamber to determine the due dates of the specific financial obligations included in the amount of currency of Country D 600,000, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of currency of Country D 600,000 as of the date of receipt of the claim, i.e. 18 October 2018.

35. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s request as to the possible interests to be limited to 2.25 % at the interest rate of the Royal Bank of Country D, in the absence of any contractually agreed clause related to it.

36. Moreover, as regards the claimed “legal costs”, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.

37. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./18. above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

38. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

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

40. In addition, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

41. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by stating 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 admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of currency of Country D 600,000, plus interest at a rate of 5 % per year on the said amount as of 18 October 2018 until the date of effective payment.

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

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, 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 must pay the amounts mentioned under point 3 above.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with point 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 in accordance with point 3 above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due 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.

*****

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 (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEALS PROCEDURE BEFORE CAS

(Code of Sports-related Arbitration, 2019 edition)

The CAS appeals arbitration procedure is provided by articles R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2019 edition, hereafter: the Code). This procedure can be summarised as follows:

1. Any party intending to challenge a final motivated decision issued by a FIFA legal body, in accordance with the FIFA Statutes, must file a statement of appeal with CAS within a twenty-one-day time limit starting from the receipt of the decision challenged (article 58 of the FIFA Statutes). In order to file an appeal at CAS, it is necessary to have first requested that a full decision with the grounds be issued by FIFA. An appeal against the operative part of a FIFA decision only is not admissible.

The exact address of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Château de Béthusy

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-1012 Lausanne

Tel. (41.21) 613 50 00

Fax (41.21) 613 50 01

procedures@tas-cas.org

2. To be admissible, the statement of appeal shall be drafted in English or in French (article R29 of the Code) and contain the following elements :

- the name and full address of the Respondent(s);

- a copy of the decision appealed against;

- the Appellant's request for relief;

- the appointment of the arbitrator chosen by the Appellant from the CAS list, unless the Appellant requests the appointment of a sole arbitrator (clause 3 below); the list of CAS members is published on www.tas-cas.org;

- if applicable, an application to stay the execution of the decision appealed against, together with reasons (the statement of appeal filed with CAS does not stay automatically the execution of the decision challenged, save for decisions which are exclusively of a financial nature);

- a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to the CAS;

- the evidence of the payment of the Court Office fee of CHF 1’000 (Crédit Suisse, Rue du Lion d'Or 5-7, C.P. 2468, 1002 Lausanne; account n°: 0425-384033-71).

3. The arbitration procedure is allocated to a Panel composed of three arbitrators and constituted pursuant to the rules provided by article R54 of the Code. The Appellant may however request that a sole arbitrator be appointed by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division.

4. Within ten days following the expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, the Appellant shall file with the CAS an appeal brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal, together with all exhibits and specifications of other evidence upon which it intends to rely, failing which the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn (article R51 of the Code). Furthermore, in its written submissions, the Appellant shall specify any witnesses, including a brief summary of their expected testimony, and experts, stating their area of expertise, whom it intends to call at the hearing and state any other evidentiary measure which it requests.

5. Within twenty days from the receipt of the appeal brief, the Respondent shall submit to the CAS an answer containing the following elements :

- a statement of defence;

- any defence of lack of jurisdiction;

- any exhibits or specification of other evidence upon which the Respondent intends to rely, including the names of the witnesses, including a brief summary of their expected testimony, and experts, stating their area of expertise, whom it intends to call at the hearing.

6. The statement of appeal and any other written submissions, printed or saved on digital medium, must be filed by courier delivery to the CAS Court Office by the parties in as many copies as there are other parties and arbitrators, together with one additional copy for the CAS itself, failing which the CAS shall not proceed. If they are transmitted in advance by facsimile or by electronic mail at the official CAS email address (procedures@tas-cas.org), the filing is valid upon receipt of the facsimile or of the electronic mail by the CAS Court Office provided that the written submission and its copies are also filed by courier within the first subsequent business day of the relevant time limit (article R31 of the Code).

The time limits fixed under the Code shall begin from the day after that on which notification by the CAS is received. Official holidays and non-working days are included in the calculation of time limits. The time limits fixed under the Code are respected if the communications by the parties are sent before midnight, time of the location of their own domicile or, if represented, of the domicile of their main legal representative, on the last day on which such time limits expire. If the last day of the time limit is an official holiday or a non-business day in the location from where the document is to be sent, the time limit shall expire at the end of the first subsequent business day (article R32 of the Code).

7. In accordance with articles R64 and R65 of the Code, the CAS determines the possible advance of costs that the parties must pay to the CAS within a certain time limit. In the absence of payment of such advance of costs, the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn and the CAS shall terminate the arbitration.

8. For individuals, the CAS has created a legal aid fund. The form and the legal aid guidelines are available on www.tas-cas.org. However, the payment of the Court Office fee of article R64.1 or R65.2 of the Code remains mandatory before any procedure may be initiated even though a request for legal aid has been filed.

9. At the end of the written proceedings, the CAS summons the parties to a hearing, without prejudice to article R57 §2 of the Code.

10. The CAS shall have full power to hear the case de novo. It may issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and/or refer the case back to the competent authority for a new decision.

11. The award, a summary and/or a press release setting forth the results of the proceedings shall be made public by the CAS, unless both parties agree that they should remain confidential. A copy of the award is notified to FIFA if the latter is not a party to the proceedings.

In case of discrepancy between the present document and the Code, the provisions of the Code shall prevail.

Schedule of arbitration costs in force as of 1 January 2019 (extract)

Administrative costs

The CAS fixes the administrative costs for each case of arbitration subject to Article R64 of the Code in accordance with the table below, or at its discretion when the amount disputed is not declared or there is no value in dispute. The value in dispute taken into consideration is the one indicated in the statement of claim/appeal brief or in the counterclaim, if any, if it is higher. If the circumstances of a given case make this necessary, the CAS may fix administrative costs at an amount above or below that shown on the table below.

For a disputed sum

(in Swiss francs) Administrative costs

up to 50'000 CHF 100.- to CHF 2'000.-

From 50'001 to 100'000 CHF 2'000.- + 1.50% of amount in excess of 50'000.-

From 100'001 to 500'000 CHF 2'750.- + 1.00% of amount in excess of 100'000.-

From 500'001 to 1'000'000 CHF 6'750.- + 0.60% of amount in excess of 500'000.-

From 1'000'001 to 2'500'000 CHF 9'750.- + 0.30% of amount in excess of 1'000'000.-

From 2'500'001 to 5'000'000 CHF 14'250.- + 0.20% of amount in excess of 2'500'000.-

From 5'000'001 to 10'000'000 CHF 19'250.- + 0.10% of amount in excess of 5'000'000.-

Above 10'000'000 CHF 25'000.-

Arbitrators' costs and fees

The amount of fees to be paid to each arbitrator is fixed by the Secretary General of the CAS on the basis of the work provided by each arbitrator and on the basis of time reasonably devoted to their task by the members of each Panel. In principle, the following hourly fees are taken into account:

For a disputed sum

(in Swiss Francs) Fees

Up to 2'500'000 CHF 300.-

From 2'500'001 to 5'000'000 CHF 350.-

From 5'000'001 to 10'000'000 CHF 400.-

From 10'000'001 to 15'000'000 CHF 450.-

Above 15'000'000 CHF 500.-