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 5 December 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, 5 December 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B,

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Club E, Country F

as Counter-Respondent II

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 7 August 2018, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Club C), valid as from 7 August 2018 until 31 May 2020.

2. In accordance with clause 3 of the contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to the following amounts:

2018 / 2019 Season

“580,000 […] Euros net for the full season, of which 110,000 (ninety thousand) Euros shall be paid of the 20th July 2018, 70,000 (ninety thousand) Euros shall be paid of the 20th of August 2018 and 400,000 […] Euros net shall be paid in 10 equal installments (wages) between due the 1st of each month from September 2018 to June 2019”.

2019/2020

“580,000 […] Euros net for the full season, of which 90,000 (ninety thousand) Euros shall be paid of the 20th July 2019, 90,000 (ninety thousand) Euros shall be paid of the 20th of August 2019 and 400,000 […] Euros net shall be paid in 10 equal installments (wages) between due the 1st of each month from September 2019 to June 2020”.

3. Furthermore, clause 8 of the contract stipulated that, “the parties hereto shall be obliged to promptly notify each other and Football Federation of Country D any change in their respective addresses by registered mail. Otherwise, a notice delivered to the respective addresses of the parties specified in this contract shall be deemed to have been served properly. All notices including disciplinary sanctions and out of squad decisions regarding the Player can also be made to the Players’ e-mail account”.

4. On 9 January 2019, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C for breach of contract and requested the payment of the following amounts:

Outstanding remuneration: EUR 100,000, plus “interest starting from the due dates”, corresponding to the following:

- “EUR 20,000 […] from 01.10.2018

- EUR 40,000 […] from 01.11.2018

- EUR 40,000 […] from 01.12.2018”.

Compensation: EUR 820,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract as from 1 January 2019 until 31 May 2020, plus “interest from the termination date of 26.12.2018”.

5. Furthermore, the player requested an additional compensation in the amount of EUR 240,000, corresponding to six monthly salaries.

6. The Claimant further requested that Club C shall pay “the judicial costs and the attorneyship fees that the Claimant is faced with”.

7. Finally, the player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against Club C.

8. In his claim, the player deemed that Club C failed to make several payments pursuant to the contract and, consequently, explained that he had put the club in default by means of a fax on 7 December 2018, for the payment of EUR 180,000, corresponding to part of the advance payment and the salary for September, October, November and December 2018 setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.

9. In particular, the player argued that Club C failed to pay or to reply to the default notice and therefore, on 26 December 2018, he unilaterally terminated the contract with the club via fax. In this regard, the player explained having sent the termination notice to the club to the same fax number as the default notice.

10. In addition, the player pointed out that “after the delivery (on 26.12.2018) of the said termination letter by the Respondent, the Respondent has paid to the Claimant in the amount of 80,000 EUR which corresponds to his 2 (two) monthly salaries”.

11. Consequently, the player claimed that he “waited for the payment for a long time and warned the Respondent in writing. After putting the Respondent in default and waited for a long time, the Claimant unilaterally terminated his Contract with just cause and with immediate effect on 26th of December”.

12. In addition, the player stressed that due to the circumstances he shall be entitled to an additional compensation of 6 months.

13. In its reply to the claim, Club C dismissed the player’s claim and filed a counterclaim against the player for breach of contract. Club C requested that the player shall pay a compensation of EUR 820,000, corresponding to the residual value of the player’s contract.

14. In this regard, Club C acknowledged to have failed to make some payments due to the club’s “unexpected short-term cash flow difficulties due to extraordinary significant expenses which had not been anticipated”.

15. However, according to Club C, “this situation was duly explained to the Player and the Club assured him that the difficulties were merely temporary and that all payments outstanding would be fully settled. The Club committed to make as many payments as feasible and as soon as possible. The Player confirmed that he understood the situation”.

16. Furthermore, Club C deemed to have made the following payments to the player:

20 July 2018

EUR 110,000

3 October 2018

EUR 20,000

19 October 2018

EUR 10,000

1 November 2018

EUR 20,000

6 December 2018

EUR 20,000

26 December 2018

EUR 80,000

17. In view of the above, Club C deemed that “the Club made the point of making regular payments to the Player, which is undeniable evidence of its good faith towards the Player and its concern towards his emotional stability and financial sustainability. Although the payments fell short of the contractually agreed amounts, the Club, in addition to the significant initial instalment of EUR 110,000, made monthly payments to the Player in October (2 payments), November and December (2 payments).”

18. In addition, Club C claimed that “the Player had terminated his Contract by means of a letter dated 26 December 2018, without having ever properly, previously and adequately warned the Club that it would do so in case the amounts in arrears would not be settled by a particular date. […] The Club was surprised and confused with the sequence of events, as the Player’s decision to terminate the Contract was not consistent with the absence of any complaint whatsoever up until that moment”.

19. In this regard, Club C argued that it never received the default notice and that the fax was sent to the wrong fax number stating that “this is not the Club’s fax number” and that “the positive fax report that the Player may have received is therefore simply a confirmation that the fax was delivered to someone, but certainly not the Club”.

20. Moreover, Club C deemed that it found out, that the player “had actually been negotiating his move to a new club for quite some time and that his intention was never to fulfil the Contract, but rather to engineer a way to force a unilateral termination, leaving him free to sign for another club, while, in addition, potentially putting him in a position to claim for compensation from the Club”.

21. In addition, Club C argued that “even if the Player had sent the Default Notice to the Club by fax, such would in any event not have been sufficient, as the Parties contractually agreed that all notices addressed to the Club would have to be sent by courier.”

22. Consequently, Club C stressed that the player terminated the contract unilaterally and without just cause and therefore, shall pay compensation to Club C.

23. Furthermore, Club C requested that the player’s new club, Club E (hereinafter: Club E), must be held jointly liable for the payment of the compensation and that sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the player and his new club.

24. Alternatively, “in the unlikely event that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber would find that Player A had just cause to terminate the employment contract”, Club C requested to “reject the claim dated 9 January 2019” and to “find that Club C shall pay a maximum amount of EUR 80,000 to Mr Player A as outstanding salaries” and to “find that Club C does not owe any compensation for breach of contract to Player A”.

25. In his replica and reply to the counterclaim, the player rejected Club C’s arguments, in particular, that the player was “happy and he understood that the Respondent was in an economical mess”.

26. Furthermore, the player claimed to have noticed certain discrepancies of the club’s fax numbers and due to that “chose to send it to Football Federation of Country D as well and requested them to make the communication to the Respondent in official way to avoid misundertakings. Football Federation of Country D accepted our request in line with his regulations and notified the Respondent in accordance with his legislation”. In this regard, the player submitted to the file the relevant fax reports and letters from the Football Federation of Country D.

27. In this regard, the player highlighted that “the fax number which was used by them [Football Federation of Country D] is the very same number that we eventually used in our communications. The Respondent obviously changed his number before Football Federation of Country D after these communications and now tries to make a fiction before […] [the] Committee that the Claimant had not made any warnings before the termination”.

28. Consequently, the player repeated his request as stated in his claim.

29. In its duplica, Club C reiterated its previous statements, in particular, that the player did not sent any default notice and failed to prove that he did.

30. Furthermore, it once more highlighted that the player would have been contractually obliged to send any correspondence by courier.

31. Consequently, Club C claimed that the player did not comply with the requirements of article 14bis of the RSTP and therefore terminated without just cause.

32. In its reply to the counterclaim, Club E rejected that it is jointly and severally liable for any compensation the Player is obliged to pay to Club C.

33. In this regards, Club E argued that the first time that the club became aware of the player’s availability was after a whatsapp message from the player’s agent on 27 December 2018. In view of the above, Club E stressed that “both Mr. G [the player’s agent] as well as Mr. H (attorney of the Player) underlined that the Player was free of contract and that no transfer compensation had to be paid”.

34. Furthermore, Club E deemed that it received the two letters sent by the player to Club C and that “Club E was under the legitimate assumption that these letters were in fact sent to the correct fax number of Club C […], Club E acted in good faith to trust that the information as mentioned in the UEFA Address List of Clubs in Europe 2018/2019 was indeed correct”.

35. Moreover, Club E stressed that “if the aforementioned letters were sent by Mr. H to the wrong fax number – such a circumstance cannot lead to the possible jointly and severally liability of Club E”. Consequently, Club E highlighted that it “did not induce the Player” as “it was the intermediary of the Player who contacted Club E after the employment contract with Club C was terminated”.

36. On 5 January 2019, the player signed an employment contract with the club of Country F, Club E, valid as from 11 January 2019 until 30 June 2020, according to which the player was entitled to, inter alia, a monthly gross salary of EUR 13,750 during the 2018/2019 season and EUR 15,625 during the 2019/2020 season. According to the information available on TMS, the sporting season runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.

37. In this regard, the player provided a list, in accordance to which he received the following net amounts per month: i) January 2019: EUR 5,327.64 ii) February – June 2019: EUR 7,438.57 iii) July 2019 – June 2020: EUR 8,343.26.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 January 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2019), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a club of Country D.

3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 29 November 2019 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member K refrained from participating in the deliberations due to personal reasons as well as the member L, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations.

4. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2019), and considering that the claim was lodged on 9 January 2019, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

5. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 Annex 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 TMS.

6. Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

7. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 7 August 2018, the player and Club C had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2020, pursuant to which Club C undertook to pay to the player the remuneration, as established in point I.2 above.

8. Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note of the fact that, on 7 December 2018, the player had sent a fax to Club C and had put the latter in default of payment of the amount of EUR 180,000, corresponding to part of the advance payment and the salary for September, October, November and December 2018 setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.

9. Moreover, the DRC took note that, according to the player, he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 26 December 2018, since Club C failed to reply to his default notice sent on 7 December 2018 and since no payment had been made by the latter in this respect. In this regard, the player affirmed that he had no alternative but to terminate the contract and deemed that Club C should be held liable for the early termination of said contract.

10. In addition, the Chamber noted that, according to the player, “after the delivery (on 26.12.2018) of the said termination letter”, Club C proceeded with the payment of the amount of EUR 80,000.

11. Subsequently, the members of the DRC took note that Club C, for its part, acknowledged to have failed to make several payments to the player due to the club’s “unexpected short-term cash flow difficulties due to extraordinary significant expenses which had not been anticipated”.

12. In continuation, the Chamber observed that Club C claimed that the player terminated the contract without just cause “by means of a letter dated 26 December 2018” and further stated that it never received the player’s default notice and that the fax was sent to the wrong fax number.

13. Moreover, the DRC noted that Club C alleged that, even if it had received the player’s default notice sent via fax on 7 December 2018, such notice could not be taken into account in accordance with clause 8 of the contract as “the parties contractually agreed that all notices addressed to the club would have to be sent by courier”. The Chamber further observed that Club C stressed that the player terminated the contract unilaterally and without just cause and therefore affirmed being entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract.

14. In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the parties’ position, was to determine as to whether the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract and to determine the consequences thereof.

15. In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to clarify that, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in the present case, the Respondent bore the burden of proving either the payment of the Claimant’s salaries or that it had a valid reason for not having done so.

16. In addition, the Chamber recalled that the Club C alleged having had some financial difficulties in order to justify its non-payment of the player’s outstanding salaries. In particular, the DRC noted that the Respondent held that due to the club’s “unexpected short-term cash flow difficulties due to extraordinary significant expenses which had not been anticipated”

17. However, the Chamber wished to stress that, in line with its well-established jurisprudence, a club’s financial difficulties cannot be considered a valid justification for non-compliance with its essential contractual obligation deriving from the signature of an employment contract, that is, to pay a player’s remuneration in full and in a timely manner. Consequently, the Chamber decided that this argumentation of Club C cannot be followed on this point.

18. Furthermore, and concerning Club C’s allegations that it never received the player’s default notice and that the fax was sent to the wrong fax number, the Chamber observed that the default notice had been sent to the exact same fax number as the one used in the termination letter, which Club C does not deny having received. In addition, the Chamber underlined that the default notice had also been sent via Fax to the Football Federation of Country D, which was confirmed by the latter. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the player provided sufficient evidence that it duly put the club in default in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations and decided to reject Club C’s arguments in this connection.

19. With the above in mind, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’ submissions, it could be noted that Club C did not contest that, by the time the player addressed it with his default letter on 7 December 2018, at least the amount of EUR 160,000 were outstanding. Moreover the members of the DRC observed that it also remained undisputed that the player provided Club C with 15 days to remedy its default and that Club C never reacted to the default letter.

20. However, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’ submissions, it could be noted that Club C provided several bank documents confirming that the total amount of EUR 260,000 had been paid to the player during the course of the employment relationship. However, the Chamber noted that out of the total amount of EUR 260,000, only the amount of EUR 80,000 had been paid after the player had put the club in default of payment on 7 December 2018. More in particular, the Chamber noted that said amount had been paid to the player on the date of termination of the contract, i.e. on 26 December 2018.

21. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under point. II./3. above, the DRC referred to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, stipulates that, in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).

22. Consequently, on account of the above and considering that, when the player terminated the contract, two monthly salaries were due despite having the player provided Club C with 15 days to remedy the default, the DRC concluded that, on 26 December 2018, the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract.

23. As a result, the Chamber decided that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player. The Chamber subsequently also decided that the counterclaim lodged by Club C against the player and Club E should be rejected.

24. Having established that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the DRC focused his attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC established that the player is entitled to receive from Club C compensation for breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

25. Along those lines, the DRC firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the employment contract. In this respect, the DRC concurred that Club C must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.

26. Consequently, and bearing in mind that the player terminated his employment contract on 26 December 2018 and that, on the same day, Club C paid the amount of EUR 80,000, the Chamber decided that Club C is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 80,000, pertaining to his monthly salaries of November and December 2018.

27. In addition, taking into consideration the specific request of the player on the point, the Chamber decided to award the latter interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the total amount of EUR 80,000 as follows:

- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 November 2018;

- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 December 2018.

28. Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from Club C.

29. In continuation, the DRC focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

30. 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. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the employment contract does not contain any such clause.

31. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by Club C to the player had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 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 been entitled to receive EUR 820,000 as remuneration had the employment contract been executed until its regular expiry date, i.e. 31 May 2020. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 820,000 serves 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 whether the player had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. In this respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the first sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player signed a new contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the ”Mitigated Compensation”).

38. In respect of the above, and according to the information contained in the TMS, the Chamber recalled that, on 5 January 2019, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the club of Country F, Club E, valid as from 11 January 2019 until 30 June 2020, according to which, he was entitled to, inter alia, a monthly gross salary of EUR 13,750 during the 2018/2019 season and EUR 15,625 during the 2019/2020 season. In this regard, the player provided a list, in accordance to which he received the following net amounts per month: i) January 2019: EUR 5,327.64 ii) February – June 2019: EUR 7,438.57 iii) July 2019 – June 2020: EUR 8,343.26. On account of the above, such amount shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the amount of EUR 685,703.65.

33. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the second sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in addition to the mitigated compensation, the player shall be entitled to an additional compensation of three monthly salaries, subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables.

34. With the above in mind, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant additional compensation corresponding to three monthly salaries, i.e. EUR 120,000, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision.

35. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that Club C must pay the amount of EUR 805,703.65 as compensation for breach of contract to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a fair and reasonable amount.

36. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, i.e. 9 January 2019, until the date of effective payment.

37. Therefore, the DRC decided to partially accept the player’s claim and concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the player.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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 I, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 80,000, plus interest until the date of effective payment as follows:

a. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 November 2018;

b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 December 2018.

4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 805,703.65, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 January 2019 until the date of effective payment.

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

6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I 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 amounts mentioned under points 3. and 4. above.

7. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts plus interest in accordance with points 3. and 4. 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).

8. In the event that the amounts plus interest due in accordance with points 3. and 4. above are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I 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 amount is 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).

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

10. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note 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 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. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

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

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer