F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 9 April 2020
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 April 2020, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player William Sery, France, represented by Mr Aydin Dogonay as Claimant against the club, Giresunspor, Turkey, represented by Mr Ercan Sevdimbas as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 28 June 2018, the French player, Sery Williams (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
player) and the Turkish club, Giresunspor Kulübü Dernegi (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract)
valid as of 2 July 2018 “during the football season of 2018/2019 and 2019/2020”.
2. As per the contract the player was entitled to the following remuneration:
Season 2018/2019: EUR 137,5000 payable in 6 instalments as follows: EUR 17,500 on
26 June 2018; EUR 25,000 on 30 September 2018; EUR 25,000 on 31 October 2018; EUR
20,000 on 31 January 2019; EUR 25,000 on 28 February 2019 and EUR 25,000 on 30
April 2019;
Season 2019/2020: EUR 175,000 payable in 6 instalments as follows: EUR 45,000 on
30 July 2019; EUR 25,000 on 30 September 2019; EUR 25,000 on 31 October 2019; EUR
25,000 on 31 January 2020; EUR 30,000 on 29 February 2020 and EUR 25,000 on 30
April 2019.
3. Furthermore, the contract stipulated in its clause 6.2 the following: “The payments are
to be due and payable to the Player on the dates determined above. In case the Club
falls into a default for any payment for more than 60 (sixty) days then the Player
shall have the option to terminate the contract. In order to exercise this option, the
Player shall first send a written notification via a notary public to the Club and if the
Club fails to pay the amount due to the Player within 30 (thirty) days after the receipt
by the Club of the respective notification, the Player shall be free to terminate the
Contract. In this case the Player shall be entitled to take action before FIFA
bodies to settle the dispute. The gainings of the Player arising from the new
club (s) between the termination date and expiration date shall be deducted
from the indemnification to be decided by the judicial committees.”
4. As per clause 6.3 of the contract “the club shall pay success bonuses to the Player,
which will be set by the Club on its own discretion. The Player is entitled to get bonus
that shall not be less than other players in the team.”
5. On 25 December 2018, the Claimant send a default notice to the Respondent for the
amount of EUR 45,000 arguing that he had so far only received the sum of EUR 17,500
from the latter, corresponding to his salary of June 2018, as well as the additional
amount of EUR 5,000. The Claimant gave 15 days for the Respondent to pay the
outstanding amount.
6. By means of a document dated 4 January 2019, the Respondent acknowledged owing
the sum of EUR 42,645 to the Claimant and referred the latter to the content of clause
6.2. of the contract (cf. par. I.3. above).
7. On 8 January 2019, the Claimant sent another default notice to the Respondent for
the amount of EUR 45,000. In the same correspondence the Claimant mentioned, inter
alia, that the “other amounts received (...) correspond to the success team bonuses
according to article 6.3. of [the] contract 1255,00 euro on August 17, 2018, 580 euros
on August 31, 2018, 245,00 euros on September 19, 2018, 318,00 euros October 1st,
2018, 590 euros on November 22, 2018, 365,00 euros on December 14, 2018”. The
Claimant gave 15 days for the Respondent to pay the outstanding amount.
8. On 27 January 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent, requesting to be awarded the total amount of EUR 45,000 as outstanding
remuneration. The Claimant argued having so far only received from the Respondent
the sum of EUR 22,500 out of EUR 137,500 due as per the contract.
9. In addition, the Claimant requested the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the claimed
amount as of 30 September 2018 as well as the reimbursement of the sum of EUR
3,500 spent as “lawyer’s fees (…) for starting this case”.
10. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent contested the amount claimed by the
Claimant as outstanding remuneration arguing that it was “more than it should be”.
11. According to the Respondent, only the sum of EUR 42,645 was due to the Claimant.
12. In this respect, the Respondent alleged having made the following payments to the
Claimant: EUR 17,500 on 26 June 2018; EUR 255 on 17 August 2018; EUR 580 on 31
August 2018; EUR 245 on 14 September 2018; EUR 320 on 1 October 2018; EUR 5,000
on 4 October 2018; EUR 590 on 22 November 2018 and EUR 365 on 14 December 2018.
13. The Respondent further contested the allegation of the Claimant that the
aforementioned amounts would have been bonus payments as per art. 6.3. of the
contract.
14. The Respondent also rejected the claim of the Claimant related to the reimbursement
of the latter’s legal expenses pointing out that “the lawyer’s fee [was] between the
representative and the client” and it was “not responsible for the fee”.
15. Finally, the Respondent maintained that “because of economic and political crisis in
Turkey, the club has difficulty in financial position (...)” but was “eager to pay the
debts as soon as possible.”
16. In his replica on 6 April 2019, the Claimant amended his claim and additionally
requested from the Respondent the payment of EUR 45,000, corresponding to his
salaries of January and February 2019.
17. In addition, the Claimant mentioned that the Respondent had failed to pay the draw
bonus of the game dated on 24.12.2018 versus Altinordu in application of art. 6.3. of
the contract.
18. Equally, the Claimant accused the Respondent of having had him train alone in a
specific training center without coach and without any medical follow-up.
19. In continuation, the Claimant pointed out once again that the additional amounts
received by the Respondent corresponded to bonuses and not to his salary.
20. In this context, the Claimant clarified having received the following amounts from the
Respondent: EUR 255 on 17 August 2018 as victory bonus following “the game versus
Eskisehirspor on 12.08.2018, home game”; EUR 580 on 31 August 2018 as victory bonus
following “the game versus Osmanlispor on 18.08.2018, away game”; EUR 245 on 14
September 2018 as victory bonus following “the game versus Elazigspor on 25.08.2018,
home game”; EUR 320 on 1 October 2018 as victory bonus following “the game versus
Altay on 23.09.2018, away game”; EUR 590 on 22 November 2018 as success bonus
following “the victory versus Karabukspor on 10.11.2018, home game” and EUR 365
on 14 December 2018 as draw bonus following “the game versus Adana Demir on
10.12.2018.”
21. Finally, the Claimant requested once again to be awarded the sum of EUR 3,500 as
contribution towards his legal fees.
22. In its duplica on 25 April 2019, the Respondent mainly reiterated the content of its
previous submission.
23. On 27 July 2019, the Claimant amended again his claim and informed FIFA that he had
terminated the contract on 29 May 2019 “with just cause for outstanding salaries”.
24. In view of the above, the Claimant deemed being entitled to additionally claim from
the Respondent, as compensation for breach of contract, the amount of EUR 175,000,
corresponding to the “residual value of the contract”.
25. Equally, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the sum of EUR
25,000, corresponding to his April 2019 salary.
26. As a result, the Claimant deemed being entitled to claim from the Respondent the
payment of the total amount of EUR 290,000, corresponding to the sum of EUR
115,000 as outstanding remuneration and of EUR 175,000 as compensation for breach
of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 September 2018.
27. Finally, the Claimant requested once again the payment of EUR 3,500 as “lawyer’s
fees”.
28. In its final position on 18 August 2019, the Respondent rejected the claim of the
Claimant with regard to the payment of compensation for breach of contract arguing
that the Claimant had not terminated the contract in the correct manner. In this
respect, the Respondent referred to art. 6.2. of the contract and pointed out that the
Claimant had failed to send a written notification of the termination letter via a
notary public. Hence, from the Respondent’s point of view, the Claimant had
terminated the contract without just cause.
29. In addition, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had “signed a new contract
with US Fleury Foot after the termination” and failed to “take into consideration the
new contract values while demanding a compensation.”
30. In addition, the Respondent maintained once again that the amount due to the
Claimant as outstanding remuneration amounted to EUR 42,645 and not to EUR
45,000.
31. Similarly, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant was not “entitled to add” an
amount to the one originally claimed and requested therefore “for the exceeding
amount claimed in the correspondence dated 30.07.2019 to be dismissed.”
32. Finally, the Respondent argued once again again that the “economic and political
crisis” faced in Turkey had caused “our payment pending”. According to the
Respondent, it was “very strict about payments to the players” and that its approach
was “to fulfil our obligations arisen from the contract.” Hence, the Respondent
requested FIFA to “consider this fact while seeing the case and impose the sanction of
warning because of good conduct.”
33. Asked about his labour situation as of 29 May 2019, the Claimant informed FIFA that
on 5 July 2019 he had signed a contract with the French club, Fleury 19 F.C. valid as
from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2021, according to which he was entitled to receive a
monthly salary of EUR 1,614.6 gross.
34. As alleged by the Claimant, the relevant contract was an amateur contract and he
deemed that after terminating the contract with the Respondent, he was not able to
find a professional contract. Finally, the Claimant claimed that the aforementioned
sum of EUR 1,614.6 gross corresponded to a net amount of EUR 1,300.
II. Cons iderations 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 27 January
2019 and decided on 9 April 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee
and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
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 2020), 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
French player and a Turkish club.
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 (2020), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 January 2019, the June 2018
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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. The members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, 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.
5. In this respect, the Chamber first acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
signed an employment contract valid as of 2 July 2018 “during the football season of
2018/2019 and 2019/2020”, as per which the Claimant was entitled to receive the
remuneration detailed in points I.2. and I.4 above. The DRC also noted that, after
having put the Respondent in default of payment of the amount of EUR 45,000 on 25
December 2018 and on 8 January 2019, the player had lodged a claim with FIFA.
Equally, the DRC remarked that, on 29 May 2019, the Claimant had unilaterally
terminated the contract.
6. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had
requested the payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract, arguing that he had had just cause to terminate his contractual relationship
with the Respondent.
7. Equally, the Chamber took note of the fact that, for its part, the Respondent had
contested part of the Claimant’s claim related to the payment of outstanding
remuneration and rejected the latter’s request to be awarded compensation for
breach of contract arguing that the relevant termination of contract had not been in
line with art. 6.2 of the contract.
8. In view of the foregoing and considering the diverging opinions of the parties, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed that the first issue to be discussed was to
determine whether the contract had been terminated by the Claimant with or without
just cause on 29 May 2019, and which party was responsible for the early termination
of the contractual relationship in question.
9. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment
contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary
to determine the consequence for the party that had caused the unjust breach of the
relevant employment contract.
10. At this point, the DRC deemed it necessary to recall the content 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 respective burden of proof.
11. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber noted that the Respondent bore the
burden to prove that it had indeed paid the amounts due to the player in accordance
with the employment contract. In this respect, the DRC further noted that the
Respondent had not contested having failed to pay to the Claimant the majority of
the latter’s salary between June 2018 and April 2019.
12. In the same context and as to the allegation of the Respondent that the Claimant
would have not taken into account the payment of EUR 2,355 that it had made to the
latter between June and December 2018 as part of his salary, the DRC first of all
recalled that the documentation provided by the latter as evidence had not been
translated into one of the official languages of FIFA. In addition, the DRC took into
account that, according to the Claimant, the relevant amount had been paid as
bonuses and not as salary by the Respondent.
13. Taking into account the aforementioned and in particular the fact that the evidence
submitted by the Respondent had not been translated into one of the four FIFA
languages as well as bearing in mind its jurisprudence with regard to such small
payments made by a club to a player, the DRC came to the conclusion that it had to be
assumed that the sum of EUR 2,355 received by the Claimant between June and
December 2018 corresponded to bonuses due by the Claimant and was not part of his
salary.
14. In view of all of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that on the date of
termination by the Claimant more than two of his monthly salaries were due under
the contract had remained unpaid.
15. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber additionally noticed that the
Claimant had put the Respondent in default of payment on two occasions, i.e. on 25 December 2018 and on 8 January 2019, granting the latter both times 15 days to
remedy the default. Equally, the DRC remarked that, before unilaterally terminating
the contract on 29 May 2019, the Claimant had also lodged a claim with FIFA against
the Respondent for outstanding remuneration.
16. Considering all of the aforementioned, the DRC determined that the player had acted
in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations and that, therefore, he terminated the
contract with just cause.
17. The DRC further deemed that Respondent’s argument that the Claimant would have
not complied with the procedure included in clause 6.2 of the contract could not be
accepted, as it had not been sufficiently substantiated and, in casu, the just cause to
terminate the contract was given by application of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
18. As a result, the DRC concluded that the Respondent was to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant.
19. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such
termination of contract with just cause by the Claimant.
20. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that
the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of
contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the contract.
21. The DRC first addressed the issue of the unpaid remuneration requested by the
Claimant, i.e. the total amount of EUR 115,000.
22. In this respect, taking into account the content of the contract and bearing in mind
the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements
must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Chamber resolved that the
Respondent, in order to fulfil its obligations established in the contract has to pay to
the Claimant the outstanding amount of EUR 115,000.
23. In addition, and with regard to the Claimant’s claim related to the payment of interest
on the aforementioned amount of EUR 115,000, the DRC, in line with its wellestablished
jurisprudence, decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 5%
interest p.a. on the different instalments due as of the day following the day on which
each amount fell due until the date of effective payment as follows: 5% interest p.a.
on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 October 2018; 5% interest p.a. on the amount
of EUR 25,000 as from 1 November 2018; 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR
20,000 as from 1 February 2019; 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from
1 March 2019 and 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from 1 May 2019.
24. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the
early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant, the
DRC focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into
consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Claimant is
entitled to receive an amount of money from the Respondent as compensation for the
termination of the contract with just cause in addition to any outstanding payments
on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
25. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the calculation of the
amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at
stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall
be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the
basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the
specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within
the protected period.
26. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify whether the 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. In this regard, the Chamber established that
no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of
the dispute at stake.
27. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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.
28. The members of the DRC then turned their attention to the remuneration and other
benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract,
which criterion was considered by the DRC to be essential. The DRC deemed it
important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows
the DRC to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any,
in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
29. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract from its date of termination with just cause by the
Claimant, i.e. 29 May 2019 until the end of the end of the 2019/2020 season, i.e. until
31 May 2020, and concluded that the Claimant would have received in total EUR
175,000 as remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 175,000 serves 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 Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means
of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract
shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his
damages.
31. The Chamber noted that the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the
French club valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2021, according to which he was
entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 1,614.6 gross. Therefore, the sum earned from the
relevant club would in principle have to be deducted by the amount payable as
compensation.
32. In continuation, the Chamber referring to art. 17 par. 1 point ii. of the Regulations,
established that, because the termination of contract had occurred as a result of the
non-payment by the Respondent of the Claimant’s salary, the latter should also be
awarded additional compensation equalling to 3 of his monthly salaries, i.e. the total
amount of EUR 34,375. In this respect the Chamber pointed out that the value of the 3
monthly salaries were calculated taking into account the monthly allocation of the
player’s remuneration.
33. Taking into account on the one hand the amount by means of which the Claimant was
able to mitigate his damage, i.e. the sum of EUR 14,300, and on the other hand, the
fact that the Claimant was entitled to receive additional compensation on the basis of
art. 17 par. 1 point ii of the Regulations, the DRC reasoned that in casu it was fair and
reasonable to award to the Claimant the sum of EUR 175,000 as total compensation
for breach of contract, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract.
34. Thus, the DRC decided that the total amount of compensation payable to the Claimant
by the Respondent corresponds to EUR 175,000.
35. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s specific request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the DRC decided that the
Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of
compensation as of the date of his last amendment of claim, i.e. 27 July 2019 until the
date of effective payment.
36. Additionally, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in
accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective
longstanding jurisprudence in this regard.
37. In continuation and taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above,
the DRC 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 DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts 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. Finally, the DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban 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. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
*****
III. Decis ion of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, William Sery, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Giresunspor, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 115,000,
plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 October 2018;
b. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from 1 November 2018;
c. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 February 2019;
d. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from 1 March 2019;
e. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from 1 May 2019.
3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 175,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 July 2019 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 email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision,
of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts plus
interest mentioned under points 2. and 3. above.
6. The Respondent 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 into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with points 2. and 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 amounts due in accordance with points 2. and 3. above 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 related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of
a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the appeal procedure:
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. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant
shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS
(cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne, Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: info@tas-cas.org / www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer