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 September 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member

Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member

Stefano Sartori (Italy), member

Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member

on the matter between the player,

Player A, from country A

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

and the club,

Club B, from country D

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Club C, from country D

as Intervening Party

regarding an employment-related dispute

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 25 August 2017, the player, Player A, from country A (hereinafter: Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and the club, Club B, from country D (hereinafter: Respondent / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract, valid as from the date of signature until the end of the 2018/2019 season (hereinafter: contract).

2. According to clause 1.1 of the contract, during the 2017/2018 season the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 805,000, divided into 10 monthly instalments of EUR 80,500 net payable as from September 2017 to June 2018.

3. According to clause 1.2 of the contract, during the 2018/2019 season the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to receive EUR 805,000 in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 80,500 net as from August 2018 to May 2019.

4. On 25 November 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing that he was to train with the U-21 team, “because of [his] undisciplined and unprofessional behaviours. Until a new decision is taken, you will not be participating in the A-team trainings. Please take the note of the above and attend all the training sessions according to the U-21 training program. In case you do not attend any training without getting any written permission from [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant], a disciplinary process may initiated against you”.

5. On 30 November 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent wrote to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the contract did not provide for the possibility to send him to the U-21 team and that, as a consequence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant breached the contract. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent gave the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 72 hours to “proceed to the revocation of the command that imposes him to train with the U-21 team (…). Please note that in case [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] persists in its conduct, we will have no other choice than to act in the defence of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] rights”.

6. On 13 December 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent an email to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, holding that he had been prohibited from joining the team’s main activities, including training. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further requested his immediate reintegration in the A-team, by 19 December 2017 at the latest, and warned that “in case that reintegration did not occur, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] would reserve himself in the right to terminate unilaterally the employment contract in question with just cause”.

7. On 15 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant responded by email and held that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was, in fact, training with the A-team. As per the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, “the training plan is made by the head coach of [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] und no one can intervene in the strategy of the training plans (…) Many of the players (that are also A-team players) are training with [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in the same facilities and at the same time with [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.

8. On 18 December 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied by stating that he was not integrated in the A-team’s normal training activities. In fact, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, “without any medical or legal justification, [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has been discriminated and putted aside [sic], he’s only running and performing gym work - always apart from the remaining team group and without any objective purpose!” Moreover, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, other players who were not selected to play in official matches continued to train with the rest of the team, contrary to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Lastly, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent extended the deadline until 22 December 2017 for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to reintegrate him in all A-team activities, or otherwise the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would terminate the contract with just cause.

9. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on 24 and 25 December 2017, he was again ordered to train alone, being completely excluded by the coach from all team activities.

10. On 26 December 2017, and after receiving no reply from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to his letter of 18 December 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the employment contract with immediate effect, invoking just cause.

11. On 5 January 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA requesting compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,368,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of the claim.

12. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, between 10 September 2017 and 19 November 2017 he played 10 official matches for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

13. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that at first he was relegated to the U-21 team “just with the single objective of separate him from the A team”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent added that he is 27 years old and therefore not qualified to play for that team.

14. Subsequently, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he was obliged to train alone, without the assistance of any trainer, and that during this period of time he never trained with a ball. In particular, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 December 2017, he was instructed to do solitary training exercises, such as running and gym exercises, while the main team players were doing the regular trainings.

15. On 23 March 2018, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted its reply to the claim and lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In its submission, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant firstly held that it always fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that there were never any overdue payables.

16. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on 24 November 2017, after he learned that he was not selected as a starting-11 player, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked the general manager for permission to leave the stadium. After this request was denied by the manager, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that he was injured and that he could not take part in the game, even as a substitute. The manager subsequently learned from the team doctor that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was actually 100% fit, and informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s board of his behaviour.

17. In support of its defence and counterclaim the Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted a series of documents and it highlighted the following elements.

18. On 25 November 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing that it “initiated a disciplinary procedure against you (…) With this request for defence, we hereby give you the opportunity to submit your defence in writing (…) within two days with the evidences that you deem necessary for your defence. As soon as you submit your defence, [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] will render its decision about the case at hand. In case you do not submit your defence within the granted deadline, it will be presumed that you waived your right to defend yourself.”

19. In addition, on the same day, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant notified the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he was to pursue his training with the U-21 team, the purpose of which, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, was for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to maintain the discipline within the team.

20. On 27 November 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent submitted his defence in the aforementioned disciplinary procedure. In his defence, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent wrote that he regretted that his behaviour had been interpreted as an act of indiscipline. He added that over the last days he was “submitted consecutively to medical treatments with the objective of healing a pubis injury. Notwithstanding the (…) pains (…) I never refused to comply with instructions of the trainer (…) However, on 24 November 2017, (…) I felt a more intense [pain] than usual (…) For that reason – and only because of that – I’ve asked to not be included in the match sheet (…) I don’t deny that I got very annoyed when I realized that my complaints were being misinterpreted and understood as an excuse for not playing, allegedly for being unhappy for not being in the team’s starting eleven (…) I never wanted to harm [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant].”

21. On 2 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing that he was reinstated with the A-team.

22. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant highlighted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was once again part of the A-team, but that the he tried “to give an impression that [he] was training with the U-21 team until the date of termination”.

23. In fact, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the photos provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in support of his allegations were taken at the A-team’s training facilities, thereby clearly demonstrating that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was part of the A-team.

24. Given the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “never acted with good faith and (…) terminated the contract without having just cause”.

25. As a consequence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested to be awarded:

a. compensation in the amount of EUR 1,368,500 corresponding to the residual value of the contract;

b. compensation in the amount of EUR 283,334 corresponding to the non-amortized part of the transfer fee of EUR 350,000 it paid to acquire the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s services;

c. it further requested that a sporting ban of six months be imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

26. In his replica and response to the counterclaim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasised that he terminated the contract on 26 December 2017 because of the “illegal prohibition imposed by [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant], that prevented him of participating in the main team training sessions and to join the other players’ activities from 25 November to 25 December 2017”.

27. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that he did not invoke unpaid salaries by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as it suggested in its counterclaim. As per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the payment of salaries by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant could never legitimate the “discrimination that the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] [endured] nor the breach of the contract obligations by [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.

28. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged disciplinary infractions by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the subsequent disciplinary procedure, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent further explained that, on 2 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant imposed a fine on him in the amount of EUR 53,333.20 “set-off and deducted from your receivables already stemmed (…)”.

29. In the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s opinion, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s decision to send him to the U-21 team “was not motivated by any disciplinary behaviour”, but rather “a first discrimination act perpetrated against [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.

30. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, even though the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed him in writing that he was reinstated to the A-team on 2 December 2017, it “immediately informed [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] verbally that he was forbidden to train with the main team”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further explained that the training of 5 December 2017 was the first training following the verbal announcement, and the first time he had to train alone.

31. In other words, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, as of 2 December 2017, he seized to be part of the A-team. In this context, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent submitted a “letter of testimony” written by a former performance coach on 11 April 2018, a press article, as well as 40 photographs and videos taken between 11 December and 24 December 2017, in order to prove that he was separated from all A-team activities, including meals and group discussions, and forced to train alone.

32. Given all of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent concluded that, contrary to what the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated in its response, he was separated from the A-team, and consequently had a just cause to terminate his contract on 26 December 2017.

33. In its rejoinder, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated that a club has the right to move a player between the first team and the second team, as in the case at hand by means of the decision of 25 November 2017. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further highlighted that this was a temporary measure.

34. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that all the photos provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent were taken at the A-team’s training facilities, thereby demonstrating that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was part of the A-team.

35. Regarding the “letter of testimony”, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that the performance coach in question “is no more working with [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and had problems with the new coach and [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] had to mutually terminate his contract”.

36. As regards the fine of EUR 53,333.20 imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that the fine was cancelled “in order to motivate [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.

37. In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that it attempted to “win back [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”, that it invested an amount EUR 350,000 in order to acquire the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s services, and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant duly paid his salaries.

38. Finally, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “asked [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to let him go which is rejected by [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]. Upon the rejection and on the date that the II. Transfer window of 2017-2018 started, he terminated his contract”.

39. On 19 July 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with the Club C, from country D (hereinafter: the intervening party) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020. According to clause 3 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive EUR 450,000 for the 2018/2019 season, divided in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 45,000 as from 25 August 2018 until 25 May 2019.

40. The intervening party submitted its comments on the matter at hand arguing that by the time it signed an employment contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, i.e. on 19 July 2018, seven months had passed since he terminated his contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

41. Consequently, as per the intervening party, it had “no knowledge and/or any kind of involvement in the unilateral termination of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] contract”.

42. The intervening party added that it had not contacted the Claimant / Counter-Respondent during the 2nd transfer and registration period of the 2017/2018 season and that it had not induced the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to terminate his contract.

43. The intervening party requested that FIFA:

a. decide that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated his contract with just cause;

b. alternatively, decide that the intervening party “did not induce [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to terminate his contract and therefore no sporting sanctions applied to [the intervening party] and also [the intervening party] is not jointly liable for the payment of any possible compensation”.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) 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 5 January 2018. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 and a club and with a club as intervening party.

3. Furthermore, 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 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 5 January 2018, the 2018 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

5. The Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract on 25 August 2017 valid until the end of the country D 2018/2019 season. In this regard, the DRC established that according to the information in the TMS, the country D 2018/2019 season will end on 31 May 2019. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated his contract on 26 December 2017 invoking just cause for allegedly being excluded from the A-team and forced to train alone. The Chamber further took into consideration that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, for its part, rejected the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s allegations and held that he terminated the contract without just cause.

6. Having said that, the Chamber established that the primary issue at stake is to determine as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had a just cause to terminate the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 26 December 2017. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it essential to make a brief recollection of the facts as well as the parties’ main arguments and the documentation on file.

7. In this context, the Chamber firstly noted that, on 25 November 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train with the U-21 team, because of alleged undisciplined behaviour the day before. In continuation, the DRC evoked that, on 2 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reinstated the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the A-team. However, the Chamber brought to mind that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that he continued to be excluded from all of the A-team’s activities and instructed to train alone as from the first training day following his reinstatement to the A-team, i.e. as from 5 December 2017. The DRC further recalled that, after sending two default letters on 13 December 2017 and 18 December 2017 respectively, in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked to be reintegrated in all of the A team’s activities, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 26 December 2017.

8. In this sense, the members of the Chamber agreed that the series of events in the matter at stake need to be separated in two parts: On the one hand, the period of time between 25 November up until 2 December 2017, during which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was instructed to train with the U-21 team and, on the other hand, the period of time as of 5 December until 26 December 2017, during which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent allegedly continued to be excluded from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s A-team activities and was forced to train alone.

9. As regards the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s decision to send the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train with the U-21 team, the Chamber took into account that a) the contract at stake does not include any clause which would prohibit the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to take such measure; b) the decision to send the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train with the U-21 team was temporary only, as was demonstrated by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s written communication to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent dated 2 December 2017; and c) it has remained undisputed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant continued to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary during this relevant period of time.

10. On account of these circumstances, the Chamber unanimously agreed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not act in breach of contract when it sent the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train with the U-21 team as of 25 November 2017 until 2 December 2017.

11. The Chamber then focused its attention on the second series of events, i.e. the alleged exclusion of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent from all of the A-team’s activities, including team trainings, team discussions and team meals as from 2 December 2017 until 26 December 2017.

12. In this sense, the DRC recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had sent a first default notice on 13 December 2017, in which he held that he had been excluded from all A-team’s activities, requesting his reintegration in the main team by 19 December 2017 at latest. The Chamber further noted that, in its email reply dated 15 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant denied that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was excluded from the A-team and insisted that he was training at the A-team’s facilities, in accordance with the head coach’s training program. Moreover, the DRC took into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s second default letter, dated 18 December 2017, by which he inter alia insisted that he was not reintegrated in the A-team, but instead told to run and perform gym work by himself, and asked to be reintegrated in the A-team activities by 22 December 2017, warning that otherwise he would terminate the contract. Furthermore, the Chamber noted from the documentation on file that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not replied to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s letter of 18 December 2017.

13. In addition, the Chamber took into account the documentation provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in support of his allegations, which consisted inter alia of photos and videos taken of him allegedly doing solitary gym work as well as a written statement of a former performance coach of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, these images were taken at the A team’s training facilities and thus demonstrate that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was part of the club’s A team.

14. Having analysed all of the above listed evidence, the DRC made reference to the principle of the burden of proof stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and determined that the photos, videos and the written statement provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in support of his allegations are not sufficiently convincing due to their subjective nature. Indeed, the Chamber agreed that the photos and videos do not unequivocally prove that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant obliged the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train alone during the alleged period of time. In addition, the Chamber deemed that the written statement of an employee of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant cannot be considered objective evidence. Consequently, the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not manage to prove to the DRC’s satisfaction that he was excluded from all of the A-team’s activities as from 2 December 2017 and training alone as from 5 December 2017 until 26 December 2017.

15. At this stage, in addition, the DRC recalled and took into account that no remuneration had been outstanding when the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 26 December 2017.

16. In light of the above, the Chamber established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract on 26 December 2017 and decided that, consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for compensation must be rejected.

17. It follows from the conclusion of the preceding paragraph that, taking into consideration the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as well as art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is, in principle, entitled to receive from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract.

18. In this context, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed on with another club only six months after terminating his contract. In other words, the Chamber deemed that such fact indicates that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s decision to terminate the contract was not influenced by the possibility of signing on with another club.

19. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber deemed of relevance to recall and take into consideration that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant never replied to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s final default letter of 18 December 2018. In addition, the DRC emphasised the fact that after the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 26 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not react for more than three months and that it was only after FIFA notified the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the latter decided to react by lodging the relevant counterclaim.

20. In particular, if the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would have considered the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s services a valuable asset one would have expected a more proactive conduct from it in order to try to keep such services or, in the alternative, in order to be compensated for their loss. Along these lines, the Chamber determined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not present any evidence to corroborate its allegation that it refused the alleged request of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to terminate the contract.

21. In view of the aforementioned objective considerations and facts, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous conclusion that the conduct of Respondent / Counter-Claimant surrounding the early termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent clearly shows that it was not genuinely interested in continuing making use of his services and did not attribute any value to the player’s services at that moment.

22. Consequently, the members of the DRC considered fair and reasonable not to grant any compensation for breach of contract to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and, therefore, decided to reject the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. It is established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, has terminated the employment relationship with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club B, without just cause.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract is rejected.

*****

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

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives