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 18 June 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed via videoconference, on 18 June 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Prince Segbefia

COMPOSITION:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member Stefano Sartori (Italy), member

CLAIMANT:

Prince Segbefia, Togo

Represented by Mr Selguk DEMIR

RESPONDENT:

Gaziantep Futbol Kulübü AS, Turkey

Represented by Mr Dursun KÜÇÜK

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 17 January 2018, the Togolese player, Prince Segbefia (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) and the Turkish club, Gaziantep Futbol Klubu (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020.

2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration:

 for the season 2018/2019:

 EUR 100,000 as advance payment payable in 2 instalments of EUR 50,000 each on 15 July 2018 and 15 August 2018;

 EUR 300,000 as salaries in 10 instalments of EUR 30,000 payable on the last day of the month as from 30 August 2018 until 30 May 2019 included;

 EUR 15,000 on 1 August 2018 “for house rental fee and car charges and fly tickets”.

 for the season 2019/2020 “if the club got the promotion to super league (super Lig) after 2017/1028 or 2018/2019 (i.e. the club plays in Super League in 2019/2020)”:

 EUR 150,000 as advance payment payable in 2 instalments of EUR 75,000 each on 15 July 2019 and 15 August 2019;

 EUR 450,000 as salaries in 10 instalments of EUR 45,000 payable on the last day of the month as from 30 August 2019 until 30 May 2020 included;

 EUR 15,000 on 1 August 2019 “for house rental fee and car charges and fly tickets”.

3. The contract further provided in its article 8 that “bonuses to be paid to the football player shall be determined by the Board of Directors of the club”.

4. Art. 7 provided that “football player as well as liabilities of this contract, shall fulfil other liabilities of Professional Football Player Status and Transfer. In case the contract is terminated by the player without just cause or by the club with just cause, the down payments shall be accepted as a payment for the whole football season and shall be reimbursed by the player on pro-rata basis considering the actual service period.”

5. According to the player, the club failed repeatedly to pay his salaries on time and as from the 2019/2020 sporting season the Respondent provided him a discriminatory treatment “mobbing”.

6. In this respect, the Claimant explained that he participated in 31 matches during the 2018/2019 season, in particular, he argued having played a crucial role in the promotion of the team to the 1st division.

7. Moreover, the player held that, as from 2019/2020 season, he was not allowed to train with the first team and was instructed to train with the U17 team and having, as of October 2019, three training sessions per day without a professional coach and medical support. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed the training program (from 27 November 2019 until 4 December 2019) provided by the Respondent.

8. Moreover, the Claimant claimed that as from the start of the new tournament, he was not included in the list of players registered at the Turkish Football Federation making, de facto impossible his participation in an official match.

9. The Claimant explained that on 21 September 2019, he sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 210,000 as outstanding salaries and Turkish Lira (TRY) 460,000 as bonus due to the team´s promotion to 1st division. Besides, the Claimant requested the Respondent to reinstate him with the 1st team.

10. In continuation, the Claimant argued that the Respondent paid the outstanding salaries with many delays, however he was not reinstated with the professional team. The Claimant added that on 9 November 2019, he sent a new default notice letter requesting EUR 90,000 as outstanding salaries (September and October 2019) and his reinstatement to the 1st team and once again, after the letter the Respondent only paid the outstanding salaries with delay.

11. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that on 27 November 2019, he requested in writing the Respondent to reinstate him with the 1st team, to provide him professional coaching and appropriate medical conditions. In addition, the Claimant requested to change his three daily training sessions to one as the 1st team. The Claimant further stated that after the formal request the Respondent changed his training plan to two daily sessions, which proved de facto that the Respondent operated a discrimination before.

12. In continuation, on 9 January 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default once more as to the payment of EUR 90,000 as outstanding salaries (November and December 2019).

13. The Claimant argued that on 12 January 2020 he sent a letter to the Respondent informing that he suffered medical problems and requested a medical exam. Moreover, the Claimant stated that he was hospitalized in the emergency services without the presence of any club´s representative . In the same letter, the Claimant requested again the payment of EUR 90,000 as previously claimed and warned the Respondent to consider the contract terminated if it would fail to fulfil its contractual obligations.

14. Following this, on 22 January 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent once again in default urging it to reinstate him with the 1st team, to provide him professional coaching and appropriate medical conditions. Moreover, it appears that for the period as of 22 January until 2 February 2020, the training program had been considerably lighten, following the Claimant’s latest default in his opinion.

15. Finally, the Claimant explained that on 27 January 2020, despite acknowledging a payment of EUR 45,000, he was forced to unilaterally terminate the contract (in line with art. 14bis of the RSTP in the Claimant’s opinion) with the Respondent due to the discriminatory treatment suffered for many months preventing him to train with the 1st team and to play official matches and the partial lack of payment of his monthly salaries as from November 2019. In addition, the Claimant alleged having to search urgently a new club taking into account the end of the registration window on 31 January 2020. The Claimant further stated that he managed to sign a new employment contract with a 2nd division club from Turkey earning a salary 10 times less than the one agreed with the Respondent.

16. With regard to the bonus, the Claimant alleged that the contract stipulates that the bonus are equal for the entire team and that the President of the club presented to the media that the bonus for promotion for the season 2018/2019 was between TRY 450,000 and TRY 500,000 taking into account a prorata the time that the player played during the final. The Claimant stated that taking into account that he played 114 minutes in the relevant match, he deemed being entitled to receive a bonus amounting to TRY 460,000. The Claimant enclosed three media reports as well as alleged financial evidence of two other players having received their share of the claimed bonus amounting to TRY 155,000 and TRY 377,000, i.e. Theodor Bjarnason and Rydell Poepon.

17. On 6 February 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract, requesting the following:

 To condemn the Respondent to pay EUR 270,000 (EUR 45,000 x 6) as monthly salaries related to season 2019-2020, i.e. from December 2019 until May 2020;

 To condemn the Respondent to pay TRY 460,000 as bonus for the promotion of the team to 1st division;

 To condemn the Respondent to pay EUR 150,000 as compensation for moral damage, i.e. not having played an official match for 7 months, training separately from the 1st team and the difficulty to sign a new employment contract with a new club;

 Application of an annual interest of 5% over the aforementioned amounts;

 Imposition of sporting sanctions to the Respondent

18. In reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Respondent explained that due to the Turkish Football Federation limitations on the number of registered foreign players with its affiliated clubs, as from the 2019/2020 season, the Claimant had been allegedly duly informed of the Respondent’s internal decision not to register him.

19. Consequently, the Respondent explained that as from that moment until termination, the Claimant lost any motivation to get fit and ready for the season with no signs of a possible return. In addition, to the contrary of what assessed by the Claimant, his training sessions with another non-registered foreign player, were under the supervision of qualified training and medical staff which allegedly proved that no “mobbing” acts had occurred.

20. Moreover, the Respondent held that the Claimant completely lost his physical fitness and condition as shown by the Respondent’s dietitian’s measures which led the Respondent to impose the Claimant a food/nutrition program to be followed and provided some “body fat results” and “dietician reports”. In the Respondent’s opinion, these results justified the Claimant’s “completely unprofessional lifestyle” and fully justified the specific training schedules given to the Claimant.

21. In continuation, the Respondent accused the Claimant’s lawyer to have acted in bad faith by repeatedly sent default notices and letters in French, which had to be translated, all part of a strategy leading to a future termination. In this respect, the Respondent deemed that due to such repeated actions, it got confused and missed the payment of one salary (i.e. December 2019) and, consequently, the Claimant’s termination was not in accordance with FIFA rules.

22. As to the possible compensation claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent sustained that the contract signed with the Claimant’s new club is not realistic as the payment of a monthly salary of EUR 5,000 for the 2019-2020 season is in bad faith in comparison with the payments due for the 2020-2021 season. In this respect, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant’s salary with the new club should be considered as amounting to EUR 25,000. In addition, the Respondent provided a letter allegedly proving that the Claimant’s new club paid him EUR 35,000 as a sign-on fee.

23. Upon being requested to exclusively comment on the alleged offer sent by Altay to him, as provided by the Respondent in its reply to the claim, s. above, the Claimant explained the following: despite he is unsure about the authenticity of said document and on how the Respondent managed to obtain said document, the Claimant held that said document is dated 30 January 2020 which is prior to the signed new contract registered at the TFF dated 31 January 2020. In addition, the Claimant underlined that said document is to be considered as an offer, not a contract, therefore the new contract which the player provided on file is the only valid document to be considered in the present.

24. On 31 January 2020, the Claimant and the Turkish club, Altay Spor Kulubu signed an employment agreement valid until 31 May 2021 involving a monthly salary amounting to EUR 5,000 as from 1 February 2020 until 1 June 2020.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 February 2020. Consequently, the January 2020 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 (edition 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Togolese player, and a Turkish 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 (editions March 2020) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 February 2020, the January 2020 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 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. IIn particular, the DRC recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed an employment contract on 17 January 2018 valid until 31 May 2020.

6. The DRC recalled that in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled, inter alia, for the season 2018/2019 to an advance payment of EUR 100,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 50,000 payable on 15 July 2018 and 18 August 2018 as well as EUR 300,000 payable in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 30,000. For the season 2019/2020, the player was inter alia entitled to an advance payment of EUR 150,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 75,000 payable on 15 July 2019 and 15 August 2019 and EUR 450,000 payable in 10 monthly instalments.

7. The DRC further noted that the player was entitled to EUR 15,000 per season as “house rental and car charges and fly tickets”.

8. In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved that the employment relationship had been terminated by the player, in writing, on 27 January 2020 following several default notices between 21 September 2019 and 22 January 2020.

9. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player, who requested EUR 270,000 as residual value of the contract corresponding to the monthly salaries from December 2019 to May 2020, TRY 460,000 as bonus for the promotion of the team to 1st division, EUR 150,000 as compensation for moral damages and 5% interest on each amounts.

10. The Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Claimant who held that despite several default notices, he had not been reinstated with the 1st team and was not registered to play with the team. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent owed him a bonus as the team qualified for the 1st division.

11. Moreover, the DRC took note that in reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Respondent held that the deregistration was due to the limitation of the number of foreign players in the Turkish League and that the Claimant did not make the sufficient effort to retrieve his physical fitness. The DRC noted that the Respondent was made fully aware of this situation.

12. The DRC further noted that the different default notices of the Claimant were all in French, which it deemed to be an act of bad faith from the Claimant. The DRC noted that the Respondent acknowledged one outstanding salary at the moment of the termination which it deemed to not be enough to justify a premature termination of the contract.

13. 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 lodged by the Claimant and the reply of the Respondent, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player on 27 January 2020, 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.

14. Reviewing the argumentations of both parties, the DRC took note that the player considered that he had just cause to terminate the contract as the club deregistered him, thereby effectively preventing him from being qualified to play an official game (“rendant de facto impossible toute apparition du joueur lors d’un match officiel”) despite several default notices.

15. On the other hand, the DRC took note that the Respondent deemed that the deregistration was justified and that the Claimant had been informed accordingly. In this regard, the DRC recalled that the Respondent considered that although it had one monthly salary outstanding due at the date of termination, that was not enough to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause.

16. With regard to the claim of the player requesting EUR 270,000 for the salaries of December 2019 to May 2020 and TRY 460,000 as bonus for qualifying to 1st division, the DRC noted that the salary of December 2019 for an amount of EUR 45,000 was acknowledged by the Respondent has outstanding.

17. Following this, the Chamber considered that it remained uncontested that the Claimant had been deregistered by the Respondent for the season 2019/2020.

18. Moreover, the DRC recalled 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, in that sense, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that the Respondent had not provided conclusive evidence that the player had indeed agreed to his deregistration as no evidence in that sense had been provided.

19. In continuation, the members of the DRC considered that at the time of termination, and in the absence a reply from the Respondent to the default notices of the Claimant with regards to the possible date of re-registration of the player. Against such background, the DRC was of the view that the Respondent did not give any indication to the Claimant as to when he could be re-registered. In this context, the DRC was of the firm believe that such absence of reactions to the player’s default notices and requests for information with regard to his status within the team could have lead the player to legitimately believe that the Respondent was no longer interested in his services.

20. At this point, the members of the DRC first of all considered important to point out, as has been previously sustained by the DRC, that among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official matches. In this context, the DRC emphasized that in principle, by refusing to register a player, a club is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to competition and, as such, violating one of his fundamental rights as a football player.

21. Therefore, the members of the DRC highlighted that, at the time the player terminated the contract, he was deregistered by the club and had strong reasons to believe the club was no longer interested in him. Moreover, and as mentioned previously, at the time of termination, the Respondent owed at least EUR 45,000 to the Claimant for the salary of December 2019 and had been late in the payment of previous salaries.

22. Consequently, and considering the situation of the player at the time of termination, the Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did provide the Claimant with just cause to terminate the employment contract.

23. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that the player had terminated the contract on 27 January 2020, with just cause.

24. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

25. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant’s claim, which included the outstanding amount of EUR 45,000 relating to the salary of December 2019.

26. At this stage, the Chamber considered relevant to recall that the acknowledged the outstanding amount of EUR 45,000.

27. The DRC further recalled that the Claimant was requesting a bonus for qualifying to the 1st division in the amount of TRY 460,000.

28. In this regard, the DRC was eager to underline that although the contract provides for a possibility of bonuses, it did not provide for any amount nor did it provide for scenarios for which the player would be entitled to a bonus.

29. Moreover, the Chamber found it important to recall the content of 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. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the claimant provided evidence relating to public sayings from the President of the club and transactions on other player’s alleged bank accounts referring to the promotion of the Respondent’s team. However, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that he participated to the match on the basis of which he claimed to be awarded the requested bonus. In the absence of any bonus scheme nor any official bonus list of the Respondent’s Board, it appears to be impossible to quantify the bonus to which the Claimant could be entitled to. In that sense, the DRC was of the firm opinion that said bonus could not be granted to the Claimant and therefore that said claim had to be rejected.

30. Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 27 January 2020, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay the player the amount of EUR 45,000, corresponding to the salary of December 2019, plus 5% interest as of 31 December 2019.

31. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract 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 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.

32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent 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 the contract did not contain a clause in case of termination by the player with just cause due to the club.

33. 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.

34. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until 31 May 2020, taking into account that the player’s remuneration up to 27 January 2020 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. point II. 30 above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 225,000 (i.e. salaries for January 2020 until May 2020 included) serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

35. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to 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. 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.

36. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed on 31 January 2020 an employment contract with the Altay Spor Kulubu, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2021, by means of which he was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000 as monthly salary in accordance with the employment contract.

37. The Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Respondent according to which, the contract with Altay Spor Kulubu contained a sign on fee of EUR 35,000. In this respect, the Chamber further noted that the Claimant held that said document had not been signed by the player, contested its authenticity and in any case deemed that this document could not be considered as a contract but to the most as an offer not signed by the player and not binding.

38. Taking into account the argumentation of the parties, the DRC was of the opinion that in the absence of signature of the Claimant on said document brought forward by the Respondent, the Claimant could not be bound by said document and only the amounts due under the contract with Altay Spor Club should therefore be taken into account for the calculation of the mitigation.

39. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 205,000 to the player which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

40. 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 club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of 6 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.

41. Subsequently, the DRC analyzed the request of the player for the amount of EUR 150,000 as compensation for moral damages. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no contractual basis and was not sufficiently substantiated. Consequently the DRC deemed that such request could not be awarded.

42. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.

43. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./9. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Prince Segbefia, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Gaziantep Futbol Kulübü AS, has to pay to the Claimant EUR 45,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 December 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Respondent, has to pay to the Claimant EUR 205,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:

 1.

The Respondent 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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players). 2.

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

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) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:

FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland

www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777