F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 13 November 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

Passed on 13 November 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Matej Poplatnik

COMPOSITION:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:

MATEJ POPLATNIK, Slovenia

Represented by Mr. Ivan Smokrovic

RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:

KERALA BLASTERS FC, India

Represented by Mr. Ludovic Delechat

COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:

LIVINGSTON FC, Scotland

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 8 June 2018, the Slovenian player, Matej Poplatnik (hereinafter: the player) and the Indian club, Kerala Blasters FC (hereinafter: the club) signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2021 (hereinafter: the contract).

2. In accordance with Clause 6 and Schedule 1 of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player inter alia the following remuneration “to be paid in the first week of each succeeding month”:

- Season 2018/2019: USD 150,000 net in 12 equal instalments;

- Season 2019/2020: USD 190,000 net in 12 equal instalments;

- Season 2020/2021: USD 210,000 net in 12 equal instalments;

- Accommodation “during the season”;

- 5 round-trip between Kochi and Ljubljana to a maximum of “RS 5,000,000”, and the excess to be borne by the player;

- Bonuses for performance.

3. Schedule 1 of the contract further established the following:

“4. Deductions:

The [player] authorizes the [club] to deduct from the Fee any sums due from him to the [club] including, without limitation:

(a) Any over payments, loans or advances made to him by the [club];

(b) the cost of repairing any damage or loss to the [club’s] property caused wilfully by him;

(c) any fines properly and reasonably imposed upon him by the [club]. The relevant Competition Promoter and/or the AIFF/AFC.

4. Taxes, Payment and Documentation:

4.1 The total Fee payable to the [player] under this [contract] is net of any withholding tax (TDS) or any other statutory deduction which shall be paid by the [club] on top and over the Fee.

4.2 The net Fee shall be paid into such bank account in the name of the [player], as he shall specify. The Fee is exclusive of any applicable GST, which shall be made paid by the [club] in accordance with the applicable law.”

4. Schedule 2, clause 5.4 of the contract established the following: “Notices: Any notice (a “Notice”) required to be given for the purposes of this Agreement shall be given by sending the same by registered post, speed post, courier, email, or by delivering the same by hand to the relevant address shown in this Agreement or to such other address as shall have been notified (in accordance with this paragraph) by the party concerned us being its address for the purposes of this paragraph”.

5. On 29 July 2019, the player, the club, and the Hugarian club Kaposvari Labdarugo FC signed a loan transfer agreement by means of which the player’s services were loaned to the latter between 29 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. On the same date, the player and the club signed a side letter (hereinafter: the side letter), according to which the club undertook to pay to the player the net amount of USD 85,000 in 12 equal instalments for the season 2019/2020.

6. On 16 June 2020, the local competitions in India were suspended on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

7. On 12 June 2020, the player and the club exchanged e-mails regarding a possible settlement of the amounts owed to the player by the club, as well as adjusting the remuneration of the player for the upcoming season and a possible contract termination. In this occasion, the player’s representative stated inter alia as follows (quoted verbatim):

“I have spoken to Poplatnik and unfortunately he’s not agreeable to the proposed terms:

1. Upcoming season

100K + 20K bonus (basis 650 minutes (10K) + 800 minutes (10K))

Termination: 80K

In Our position Please understand We do understand his ppoint of view and on the other hand We do understand the Club’s point of view as well.

I/We are only the messengers and trying to mediate thi situation for both parties beneficially and with joint favourable situation.

In addition please kindly take the “heads up” the Poplatnik will send the 15 day notice on this following Monday if the situation doesn’t change:

1. With regards to the outstanding salaries (4)

2 Next Years contract”.

8. The club replied to such message on the same day with inter alia the following content (quoted verbatim):

“Subsequent to our discussion, we will remit the 2 months salary of matej in 15 days latest or before and please be assure of payments.

Though I know the difficulties and am counting on you guys to make Matej understand and agree. Hope to have a win-win situation.”

9. On 15 June 2020, the player put the club in default of payment of USD 28,333.33 in writing, granting it with a deadline of 15 days to cure the breach. Such letter was sent to the e-mail address info@kbfcofficial.com as well as e-mail addresses of the All India Football Federation (AIFF).

10. The club did not reply to said notice.

11. On 3 July 2020, the player unilaterally terminated the contract in writing by means of a letter sent via e-mail to the same e-mail addresses indicated above.

12. On 6 July 2020, the club sent a letter to the player acknowledging to have failed to pay the player’s salaries between February and May 2020 on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Furthermore, the club argued to have become acquainted with the player’s letters after these were forwarded to the club by the AIFF on 4 July 2020. The club contested to have received any of the letters addressed to the e-mail info@kbfcofficial.com. Lastly, the club affirmed it would pay all the player’s late dues by 15 August 2020 at the latest. Such letter was written in the club’s letterhead, which contains the e-mail info@keralablastersfc.in.

13. On 8 July 2020, the Scottish club, Livingston FC (hereinafter: LFC) publicly announced that it had hired the player.

14. On 13 July 2020, the player and LFC executed an employment contract valid as from 13 July 2020 until 9 June 2022, with an extension option for the 2022/2023 season. According to such contract the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration of GBP 4,116.66.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA

15. On 24 July 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. The claim of the player

16. The player claimed that despite being put on default, the club failed to pay him his salaries between February and June 2020, therefore leading to the termination of the contract with just cause on 3 July 2020.

17. The player further explained that after the termination, the salaries of February and March 2020 were paid.

18. The player requested his overdue salaries of April to June 2020 in the amount of USD 21,249 (i.e. 3 x USD 7,083) and compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 210,000, “with statutory default interest, within 15 days”.

19. The player further requested that the club is ordered to pay “the costs of this proceeding”.

b. Reply and counterclaim of the club

20. The club argued that on 11 March 2020 the World Health Organisation declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, following which the activities in India were suspended by the AIFF on 16 March 2020. The club further argued that in light of the suspension “The training activities were stopped and players asked to stay home. Therefore, the players were not performing any employment related activities during weeks”.

21. The club submitted that the player omitted to state in his claim that his agents and the club were negotiating during June and July in light of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, the club submitted text messages and two e-mail exchanges referring to proposals made by the club regarding the player’s salaries (both due and for the upcoming season) as well as for the termination. It also explained that it paid the player USD 14,166 on 6 July 2020.

22. In continuation, the club turned to the issue of the default and termination notices sent by the player and submitted that “Such default notice was not sent to the proper email address of the [club] and the latter became only aware of it after the [player] had decided to eventually unilaterally terminate the contract”.

23. The club is of the position that the player breached the contract insofar as article 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players “Is not applicable in the present matter as the matter is sensitive and very specific (COVID-19 situation). It results that the employment contract was breached by the Player and thus he should face the legal consequences”.

24. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that LFC induced the player to breach the contract and therefore should be jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation, as well sanctioned under art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. As to the compensation payable, the club requested the amount of USD 395,834, broken down as follows:

- USD 200,000 as lucrum cessans corresponding to the player’s market value;

- USD 195,834 as the residual contract value (USD 210,000) minus the unpaid salaries of the player (USD 14,166).

25. The club furthermore asked to be awarded “5% interest per annum” over the compensation amount.

c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player

26. The player rejected the club’s counterclaim and argued the latter did nothing to “dispute the legal foundation of the claimant’s claim”. The player was of the position that it remained undisputed that the club failed to pay him USD 28,332 corresponding to his salaries of February to May 2020 (i.e. 4 x USD 7,083), therefore the contract termination took place with just cause.

27. The player went on to argue that the default notices were sent to the club’s official e-mail address.

REF 20-01063

Page 7 of 16

28. Moreover, the player argued that he was a free agent when he signed the contract with LFC, and submitted that “where there was no unlawful conduct by the [player], there was no unlawful conduct by [LFC] either”. The player underlined that under art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players there is no liability of the player or LFC where the contract was terminated with just cause.

29. The player requested that the club’s counterclaim be dismissed.

d. Position of LFC

30. LFC argued that the relevant contractual clause pertaining to the notices did not include a specific e-mail address. To this end, LFC outlined that a quick internet search shows that the e-mail address used by the player can be found in the club’s website and social medial channels.

31. LFC further argued that the same e-mail was used before by the club itself in the context of issuance of the player’s ITC, and that LFC asked its agents “to establish the reliability of the generic email address. An email was sent to the generic email address at 06.20 BST on 1 October 2020 asking for sponsorship information (…). This was immediately responded to at 09.29 BST the same morning by a Mr. Joseph, the Respondent’s Chief Revenues Officer”. LFC argued that the club’s claims regarding the e-mail in question are “simply unfounded”.

32. LFC subsequently turned to the counterclaim of the club and argued that while LFC erred in publicly announcing an agreement with the player on 8 July 2020 given that the contract was only executed on 13 July 2020, said fact did not change the player’s position to lawfully terminate the contract on 3 July 2020. In any event, LFC stresses that the player “did not enter into discussions with LFC until after he had terminated his contract with the Respondent with just cause”. LFC argued that it was speculative of the Respondent to argue otherwise.

33. LFC further rebutted the argumentation of the club that it had induced the player to breach the contract with the Respondent.

34. LFC finally recalled that the AIFF did not reject the issuance of the ITC when this was requested by the Scottish Football Association.

35. LFC requested that the counterclaim be rejected.

III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

36. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 July 2020 and submitted for decision on 13 November 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

37. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Slovenian player, an Indian club and a Scottish club.

38. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (October 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 July 2020, the June 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

b. Burden of proof

39. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties.

40. In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.

c. Merits of the dispute

41. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC 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.

i. Main legal discussion and considerations

42. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the termination of the contract by the player took place with just cause or not. The Chamber further noted that the club raised the argument of not paying the player because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the notices sent by the player were addressed to an e-mail that did not belong to the club.

43. In this context, the Chamber firstly wished to highlight that FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.

44. The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID-19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines), said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract, the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply.

45. The DRC then turned to the matter at hand and observed that it did not pertain to a unilateral variation of the contract since the club did not unilaterally reduce the player’s remuneration on account of the COVID-19 pandemic; quite the contrary, the Chamber highlighted that the club does not dispute having defaulted payment of four salaries to the player – it solely argued that it did not pay because of the pandemic.

46. What is more, the DRC referred to the player’s termination notice of 3 July 2020, and noted that said termination pertained to the salaries in default, requested by the player via his letter of 15 June 2020. In other words, the DRC confirmed that the termination of the contract took place at the initiative of the player not because the club had unilaterally reduced his remuneration (something that never occurred), but because the club failed to pay him his remuneration of a period of four months. The DRC underlined that it stood undisputed that the club did not pay the player any remuneration during said period – which also included remuneration that fell due before the pandemic started and months before the AIFF suspended the local competitions on 16 March 2020.

47. In light of the particular circumstances of the case and taking into special consideration the constellation described above, the Chamber decided that in the case at hand there was no termination of a contract following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID-19. Consequently, the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ are therefore inapplicable and only the FIFA Regulations and the jurisprudence of the Chamber will apply.

48. Having so found, the DRC subsequently addressed the matter of the notices sent by the player, and based on the documentation of file concurred that the e-mail address to which the player’s notices of 15 June 2020 and 3 July 2020 were sent indeed belong to the club. The Chamber came to this conclusion based on the information available on the club’s website, which contains the e-mail info@kbfcofficial.com under the tab “contact”, as well as the evidence provided by LFC and detailed under the relevant section above.

49. Additionally, the Chamber emphasized that no specific e-mail address is found in the contract, nor other specific contractual disposition which would render the notices sent invalid. The Chamber underlined finally that the club was also made aware of the defaulted salaries by the player’s agent on 12 June 2020, and even recognized that two overdue salaries would be paid “15 days latest or before”.

50. Consequently, the DRC arrived at the conclusion that when the player terminated the contract, more than two salaries were due despite the fact that he had validly provided the club with 15 days to remedy the default. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the contract on 3 July 2020 based on art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations. The Respondent hence is to be held liable for the respective consequences.

ii. Consequences

51. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.

52. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to three salaries under the contract and the side letter, i.e. April to June 2020, amounting to USD 7,083 each.

53. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were outstanding under the contract and side letter at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 21,249 (i.e. three times USD 7,083).

54. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date of claim until the date of effective payment.

55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, 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.

56. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

57. 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.

58. 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 and side letter until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 210,000 (i.e. the 2020/2021 season) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

59. 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 enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, 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.

60. Indeed, the player found employment with LFC. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately USD 5,195 per month.

Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 62,340, that is, 12 times USD 5,195.

61. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.

62. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD 21,249, i.e. three times USD 7,083 as the monthly remuneration of the player.

63. 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 USD 168,909 to the player (i.e. USD 210,000 minus USD 62,340 plus USD 21,249), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.

64. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the player interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.

iii. Compliance with monetary decisions

65. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, 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.

66. In this regard, the DRC highlighted 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.

67. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player communicates the relevant bank details to the club, provided that the decision is final and binding, 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 club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

68. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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.

69. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.

d. Costs

70. The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

71. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, MATEJ POPLATNIK, is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, KERALA BLASTERS FC, is rejected.

3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 the following amounts:

- USD 21,249 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 July 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- USD 168,909 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 July 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.

5. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the due amount.

6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the following consequences shall arise:

 1.

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. 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.

8. The decision is rendered free of costs.

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