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 25 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2020,

in the following composition:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Chairman

Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member

Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Alain Dioko, Congo DR

represented by Mr Luis Cassiano Neves

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Al Gharafa SC, Qatar

represented by Ms Cintia R. Nicolau

& Mr Nilo Effori

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 July 2015, the Congolese player, Alain Dioko (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent or the player) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Qatari club, Al Gharafa AC (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant or the club), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2018.

2. In accordance with the contract’s payment schedule, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, from the club, the total amount of EUR 7,500,000, as follows:

a) For the season 2015-2016:

i. An “advanced payment” of EUR 1,250,000 payable on or before 1 August 2015;

ii. A monthly salary of EUR 104,166, payable 12 times on or before the end of each month, from July 2015 until June 2016.

b) For the season 2016-2017:

i. An “advanced payment” of EUR 1,000,000 payable on or before 1 August 2016;

ii. A monthly salary of EUR 125,000, payable 12 times on or before the end of each month, from July 2016 until June 2017.

c) For the season 2017-2018:

i. An “advanced payment” of EUR 1,000,000 payable on or before 1 August 2017;

ii. A monthly salary of EUR 125,000, payable 12 times on or before the end of each month, from July 2017 until June 2018.

3. Clause 4.5 of the contract stipulates that “the club has the right to plan individual training plan for the player and make periodic physical condition and competition performances as well as make periodic check-ups”.

4. Clause 10.4 of the contract stipulates that “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that in the event that the club terminates the contract with just cause (in accordance with the regulations of FIFA governing this matter) the player shall promptly pay to the club, as compensation for the breach, the amount of EUR 1,500,000”.

5. Clause 10.5 of the contract stipulates that “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that in the event that the player terminates the contract without just cause (in accordance with the regulations of FIFA governing this matter) the player shall promptly pay to the club, as compensation for the breach, the amount of EUR 7,500,000”.

6. Clause 10.6 of the contract stipulates that “the parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that in the event that the club terminates the contract unilaterally without just cause, the club shall promptly pay to the player, as compensation for the breach, the remaining amount of the contract until the end of contract”.

7. On 29 September 2016, the player, the club, and the Qatari club, Muaither SC (hereinafter: Muaither), signed a tripartite document titled “LOAN AGREEMENT” (hereinafter: the loan agreement) by means of which the parties agreed on the loan of the player from the club to Muaither, free of payment, as from the date of signature of the loan agreement until 30 June 2017.

8. Art. 4. of the loan agreement stipulated the following:

“4. Complement of Remuneration

4.1 During the period in which the PLAYER is under employment contract with [Muaither],[the club] shall pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 2,100,000 (…) as follows:

(i) An advanced payment of EUR 1,000,000 shall be paid by the club to the player on or before 15st November 2016; and

A monthly salary of EUR 122,222 shall be paid through equal and nine monthly instalments by the Club to the player on or before the end of each calendar month from October 2016 through June 2017.”

9. On the same date, i.e. 29 September 2016, the player and Muaither signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2017, according to which the player was entitled, inter alia, to a total remuneration of EUR 300,000 for said period.

10. By means of a letter dated 16 January 2017, Muaither unilaterally terminated the contract with the player. On 20 January 2017, the player and Muaither signed a document titled “Financial clearance for the 2016-2017”, by means of which the parties settled all their dues against each other.

11. On 20 January 2017, the player put the club in default of payment of EUR 1,366,666, corresponding to the advance payment and salaries for the months of October, November, December 2016. On 2 February 2017 and 6 March 2017, the player sent two other default notices to the club.

12. On 5 April 2017, the player lodged a first claim in front of FIFA against the club for outstanding remuneration and requested the payment of the total amount of EUR 1,611,110, corresponding to the payment of all amounts which became due between October 2016 and February 2017 (cf. points 17 and 19 below).

13. On 5 April 2017, 23 May 2017, 20 July 2017 respectively, the player put the club in default of payment, requesting the payment of his outstanding salaries.

14. On 25 July 2017, the club addressed a correspondence to the player, by means of which it invited the latter “to return to Doha to fulfill his contract with us”. Furthermore, the club enclosed a flight ticket for the player and indicated that it was “aware of our outstanding payments towards the player”.

15. By means of a correspondence dated 26 July 2017, the player informed the club that he is “currently contractually entitled to the total amount of EUR 2,325M” and that “despite [his] interest in fulfilling his contract with [the club], he is only in a position to travel to Doha to join your first team squad and hold any discussions once he is provided with a valid proof of payment of all outstanding amounts”. In this regard, the player further stated that “should you fail to provide such document, [the player] will not travel to Doha and he will remain in Paris waiting for [the club] to provide him with the requested proof of payment of the outstanding amounts and to indicate when and where he shall then present himself”.

16. Between 2 August 2017 and 4 September 2017, the player addressed several correspondence to the club, requesting from the latter the payment of all his outstanding dues.

17. On 13 September 2017, the player lodged a second claim in front of FIFA against the club, “thereby extending his original request for relief and demanding payment of amounts which in the meantime had become due and payable and were not object of the initial statement of claim of 4 April 2017, in the amount of EUR 1,738,890” (cf. points 12 above and 19 below).

18. On 15 September 2017, the player terminated the contract with the club in writing, stating that the club had been in breach of its fundamental contractual obligations “since October 2016, and with its conduct has caused sever distress and financial harm to [the player] who is in a very difficult financial situation”. In his letter, the player specified that it had lodged a new claim on 13 September 2017 “without prejudice to further claims that we shall be filing before FIFA in connection with the unilateral termination with just cause of the contract”.

19. On 15 February 2018, the DRC passed a decision in the matter of the player against the club (DRC 17-00637: the FIFA administration consolidated the first and second claims), whereby the club was condemned to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 3,349,998 (cf. points 12 and 17 above)

20. On 12 November 2018, the Player lodged a claim against the Club before FIFA and requested the payment of the total amount of EUR 1,250,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2017 until the date of effective payment, as follows:

- EUR 62,500 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to 50% of the salary of September 2017;

- EUR 1,187,500 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.

21. The player further requested that sporting sanctions be imposed on the club.

22. More in particular, the player affirmed that he had just cause to terminate the contract on 15 September 2017, in view of the persistent failure of the club to comply with its financial obligations. The player held that the club failed to pay him EUR 3,349,998, corresponding to “11 months of work provided between October 2016 and August 2017” and that “this was confirmed by the DRC in the decision rendered in the proceedings Ref. No. 17-00637”.

23. Furthermore, , the player stressed that he sent 11 notifications to the club over a time span of 8 months, i.e. between 20 January 2017 and 4 September 2017.

24. Moreover, the player affirmed that the club “continuously refused to reinstate the player in its team (or indeed even allow him to train) since February 2017 and until the date of termination and also failed to register him for the 2017-2018 season”.

25. In this context, the player stated that “the issue of outstanding salaries was comprehensively dealt with in case ref. 17-00637, in which the DRC ordered the [the club] to pay all amounts due to the claimant under the employment contract from 1 November 2016 until 1 September 2017”.

26. Furthermore, the player affirmed that the compensation clauses contained in the contract, i.e. clauses 10.4 and 10.5 of the contract, should be disregarded “as neither circumstances is applicable in this case”. In this regard, the player declared that he had not been able to find a new club since terminating the contract with the club and requested the residual value of the contract in accordance with art. 17.1 of the FIFA RSTP . According to the Player, the residual value of the contract amounts to EUR 1,187,000, corresponding to the monthly remunerations (EUR 125,000 each) of October 2017 until June 2018.

27. In its reply, the club deemed that the player terminated the contract without just cause “or at the very least contributed to the termination of the contract”.

28. More in particular, the club held that the player refused to resume his duties with the club in Doha after the termination of the contract with Muaither occurred. In this regard, the club stated that it sent a letter to the player on 25 July 2017, requesting him to go back to Qatar to resume his duties. According to the club, the parties had two meetings on 16 and 20 August 2017 during which “he was offered EUR 2,100,000 for outstanding payments (not mutual termination of the contract) but refused to accept it, leaving the club for good, i.e. breaching the contract himself”.

29. The club further argued that it “conditioned the payment to the player’s permanent return to Doha in order to join a special group of players who, at that time, were also attending a special type of training program since they were behind the physical condition” in accordance with clause 4.5 of the contract. The club also affirmed that the player was never prevented from training or re-joining the team and that the player’s separate training was never meant to be permanent.

30. Furthermore, the club affirmed that the player, for his part, “always conditioned his return from Paris to Doha to the payment of the alleged outstanding amounts”, which fact had been confirmed in his correspondence dated 26 July 2017. The club stressed that the player had breached his contractual obligations as he never returned to the club.

31. In addition, the club held that “even in case the DRC calculated the compensation in accordance with art. 17.1, such compensation must be reduced in at least fifty per cent, as the player contributed to the consequences of it”.

32. Along with its reply to the claim, the club lodged a counter-claim against the player, claiming that “by terminating the contract without just cause, the player unfairly prevented the club from, and even caused damages to it, by preventing compensation amounts, in case of a future transfer and also by preventing the club to benefit from the contracted work of the player for the regular term”.

33. In particular, the club referred to clause 10.5 of the contract and held that such provision was freely agreed between the parties and requested the payment of the amount of EUR 7,500,000 as compensation for breach of contract.

34. Alternatively, “and only if the above is rejected by the DRC”, the club requested the amount of EUR 1,187,500 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.

35. In reply to the counterclaim of the club, the player stated that after Muaither terminated the contract with him, the player left Qatar “after confirmation that all foreign players of the team have left for vacation”. In this regard, the player sustained that he sent a default notice to the club on 23 May 2017, by means of which he requested from the club i) the payment of his outstanding dues and ii) to be given instructions regarding his professional activity.

36. Furthermore, the player affirmed that from the period between 16 January until 23 May 2017, the club received six notifications from him, which all included “express reference to the player’s desire to resume his professional activities with the club” and further held that “not once did the club communicate to the player that he should return to Doha and present himself for training and/or any other activities”.

37. In this context, the player held that he only left Qatar once the sporting season ended and that he was “legally and contractually entitled to enjoy his vacation and therefore the player lawfully exited Qatar”. The player also affirmed that “it was evident that the club did not rely on his contribution”.

38. Furthermore, the player explained that “upon finally receiving a reply from the club [on 25 July 2017], and after the latter had not demonstrated any interest in the sporting contribution of the player in the previous sporting season after the termination by Muaither”, he had sought assurances regarding his return to Qatar, as explained in his correspondence dated 26 July 2017.

39. Moreover, the player underlined that he came back to Qatar on 16 August 2017 “only to confirm that no amounts had been or would be settled and that the club failed to reinstate him to the training program of the main senior team”. In this regard, the player stated that he arrived in Doha on 16 August 2017 and only left after the registration period closed on 4 September 2017. The player affirmed that he stayed in Doha for almost 20 days and that the club “never once allowed him to train with its team” and that he did not resume his activities “because the club did not allow him to”.

40. Furthermore, the player deemed that the DRC “shall merely decide on the basis of the findings by the DRC in the matter of case Ref. 17-00367, deciding on whether the facts that were established and the legal outcomes arising therefrom entitled the player to terminate the agreement with just cause or not”.

41. In particular, the player stated that the club “failed to bring to light any facts, or submit any contention relating to facts, which might have occurred after the time period covered by case ref. 17-00367, i.e. 1 September 2017, the whole Answer submitted by the club relies on facts and contentions which must be dismissed as they relate to facts and contentions already heard and decided by the same DRC”.

42. As a consequence, the player reiterated his position and requested that the counter-claim of the club be rejected.

43. Finally, since 15 September 2017, the player has not resumed his professional playing career and not entered into any contract after terminating the contract.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on 12 November 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 DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (2020 edition), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Congolese player and a Qatari club.

3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (2020 edition) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 November 2018, the June 2018 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasized 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. Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well as the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

6. In this respect, the Chamber deemed that the player and the club concluded the contract, valid as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2018. At this point, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled, for the whole duration of the contract, to a total amount of EUR 7,500,000 spread over three sporting seasons and subdivided in seasonal advance payments and monthly salaries.

7. In addition, the Chamber underlined the content of the contract’s clauses 10.4 to 10.6 as to the consequences of a termination of the contract by the parties, with and/or without just cause.

8. Moreover, the Chamber took note of the loan agreement, dated 29 September 2016 involving the parties and Muaither, by means of which the parties agreed on the loan of the player from the club to Muaither, free of payment, as from the date of signature of the loan agreement until 30 June 2017. In continuation, the Chamber also took note of the document signed on 20 January 2017 by means of which the player and Muaither settled all their dues against each other.

9. Furthermore, the DRC reminded that on 5 July and 13 September 2017, the player lodged two consecutive claims in front of FIFA against the club claiming outstanding remuneration composed of several dues which had not been duly paid according to him. In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that, on 15 February 2018, upon consolidation of the two aforementioned claims by the FIFA administration, it passed a decision in the matter of the player against the club, whereby the club was condemned to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 3,349,998.

10. With the above in mind, the DRC duly noted that on 15 September 2017, the player terminated the contract with the club and specified that he had had lodged a new claim on 13 September 2017 “without prejudice to further claims that we shall be filing before FIFA in connection with the unilateral termination with just cause of the contract”.

11. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim against the club on 12 November 2018 maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 15 September 2017 in light of the outstanding remuneration due. In this respect, the DRC took note that the player referred to the aforementioned decision of the DRC passed on 15 February 2018, which confirmed that the club had to pay outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 3,349,998 to the player, i.e. for a period up until August 2017.

12. As such, the Chamber further noticed that the player sustained and affirmed that that he sent 11 default notices to the club for the period between January and September 2017 before terminating the contract and that the club had not demonstrated any interest in the continuation of the employment relationship and in the player’s services.

13. With the above in mind, the Chamber also recalled that the player affirmed that the compensation clauses contained in the contract should be disregarded “as neither circumstances is applicable in this case”.

14. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, claimed in its counterclaim that the player terminated the contract without just cause since the latter allegedly refused to resume his duties with the club in Doha after the termination of the contract with Muaither occurred.

15. In this sense, the Chamber took note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s arguments sustaining that it sent a letter to the player on 25 July 2017, requesting him to go back to Qatar to resume his duties and that the parties had two meetings on 16 and 20 August 2017 during which an offer was made to the player as to the outstanding remuneration, allegedly refused by him.

16. In addition, the Chamber also recalled the club’s argument that it “conditioned the payment to the player’s permanent return to Doha in order to join a special group of players who, at that time, were also attending a special type of training program since they were behind the physical condition” in accordance with clause 4.5 of the contract and that the player was never prevented from training or re-joining the team and that the player’s separate training was never meant to be permanent.

17. Finally, the Chamber took note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s request to be awarded EUR 7,500,000 as compensation for breach of contract based on clause 10.5 of the contract or, in the alternative, EUR 1,187,500 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.

18. In reply to the club’s counterclaim, the DRC took note that the player rejected it in full, reiterating his initial requests and position as provided in his claim.

19. In view of the foregoing and of the diverging opinions of the parties, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was of the opinion that the issue at stake, considering the claim and counterclaim lodged respectively by the parties against each other, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player on 15 September 2017, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 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 consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.

20. Reviewing the argumentations of both parties, the DRC took note that it should be noted that the club did not provide any supporting evidence that it requested the player to come back in Qatar except the letter dated 25 July 2017, to which the player immediately and directly replied on 26 July 2017.

21. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that it is uncontested that the player travelled back to Qatar in August 2017 and was therefore available for rendering his services to the club as per his contractual obligations.

22. In addition, the DRC also underlined that it should also further be noted that the club did not reply to the several default notices sent by the player.

23. Considering all the above, and taking into account the absence of any evidence that the club was still interested in the player’s services and requested him to come back, the Chamber deemed that the player terminated the contract with just cause on 15 September 2017, since a considerable part of his remuneration has remained unpaid by the club, as already established the Chamber in its decision passed on 15 February 2018.

24. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player.

25. Having established the above, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to the aforementioned outstanding remuneration.

26. In this context, the Chamber outlined that in accordance with said provision the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

27. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract.

28. In this regard, the Chamber referred to clause 10.6 of the contract according to which : “the parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that in the event that the club terminates the contract unilaterally without just cause, the club shall promptly pay to the player, as compensation for the breach, the remaining amount of the contract until the end of contract”. As such, the Chamber deemed that in the event that said clause would constitute a compensation clause, it appears that the scenario foreseen in said clause did not occur, namely the club did not terminate the contract.

29. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.

30. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

31. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its termination and concluded that the player would have received EUR 1,250,000 as remuneration, i.e. 10 monthly salaries of EUR 125,000 each, had the employment relationship been executed until its regular expiry date of 30 June 2018. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,250,000 serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

32. In continuation, the Chamber assessed as to whether the player has signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract(s) 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.

33. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, after termination of the contract, the player has not been able to mitigate his damages as he has not resumed his professional playing career and not entered into any contract.

34. Consequently, the player is entitled to the residual value of as compensation for breach of contract amounting to EUR 1,250,000.

35. In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 12 November 2018, until the date of effective payment.

36. As such, the Chamber deemed that the claim of the player is partially accepted, that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected and, finally, that the counter-claim of the club is rejected.

37. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. 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 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/Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, 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/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

40. Finally, the Chamber 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.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Alain Dioko, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Gharafa SC, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,250,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 November 2018 until the date of effective payment.

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

4. The counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.

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

6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 2. 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 amount plus interest due in accordance with point 2. above are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

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

9. In the event that the aforementioned sums 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 related to the appeal procedure:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer