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 28 January 2021

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 28 January 2021

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A

COMPOSITION:

Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairman

Todd Durbin (USA), member

Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member

CLAIMANT:

A, country A

Represented by

RESPONDENT:

B, country B

I. Facts

1. On 24 April 2019, the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021.

2. The contract stipulated, inter alia, the following financial conditions:

Clause 5: “The Club shall pay the Player a salary of US$15,000 (United States Dollars Fifteen Thousand Only) net per month from 1st July 2019 to 31st May 2021.”

Clause 15: “This ANNEX is firstly subject to the football authority of the FA of Country B, the Confederation and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”). Where it is allowed under the relevant FIFA regulations, it is also subject to the Laws of Country B.”

3. Clause 17 of the contract stipulated the following:

“7. Dispute Resolution

17 .1 This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of Country B.

17.2 Notwithstanding any provisions in any Country B FA Regulations or Football Regulations but subject to applicable laws in Country B, any dispute (whether contractual or non- contractual, and including any disputes in relation to interpretation of clauses of this Agreement) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be referred to and determined by the NDRC in accordance with the NDRC Regulations. The Club and the Player that they shall be bound by any decisions or judgments of the NDRC on such dispute (including any allocation of costs). If the NDRC determines that it does not have jurisdiction (as set out in the NDRC Regulations) over such dispute, the dispute shall be referred to the appropriate body(ies) specified in the Football Regulations. If no such body(ies) is specified, the courts of Country B shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle such dispute.”

4. On 23 March, the Country B Professional League was suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

5. On 9 April 2020, the Respondent's President, together with senior management staff from the Respondent, met with the coaches and players in a Zoom meeting, in which he explained the FIFA guidelines and Country B FA paper in respect of the disruption caused to football activity by the Pandemic.

6. According to the player, on 21 April 2020, the President of the Club, Mr. xxx, in the WhatsApp group with the players sent a message emphasizing that “since we failed to reach a collective agreement, we have to work individually with each player and please wait for your turn.”

7. On 22 April 2020, the club sent a correspondence to the player, indicating that, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, his salary will be reduced in a percentage between 22.50% an1.67%.

8. On 23 April 2020, the player sent a message to the club, and expressed his disagreement with the salary reductions

9. On 6 May 2020, the club sent a correspondence to the club acknowledging that he is “unwilling to accept the proposed schemed” and expressing that it is open to receive an offer, including a transfer.

10. On 3 June 2020, the player insisted that he still rejects any deduction to his salary,

11. On 3 June 2020, the club replied to the player’s letter, and insisted that it is still open to a proposal.

12. On 17 June 2020, the player sent a letter to the club, expressing that “under no circumstances FIFA had declared as a valid excuse the “force majeure” in order to unilaterally modify and alter the terms and conditions agreed in the employment contract” .

13. On 2 July 2020, the player insisted in his rejection to an “unilateral imposition of reducing” his salaries.

14. On 28 August 2020, the player sent a letter to the club, requesting the payment of his salaries of, May and June 2020 salaries which were unilaterally and unlawfully reduced and hence unpaid.

15. On 8 September 2020, the player sent a letter to the club requesting the payment of an outstanding amount of USD 10,155.24.

16. On 22 September, the Claimant initially lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration before FIFA against the Respondent and requested the payment of the following amounts, corresponding to “unilateral reductions which should have been paid”:

i. April 2020 monthly salary: USD 3,385.08, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 April 2020;

ii. May 2020 monthly salary: USD 3,385.08, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2020;

iii. June 2020 monthly salary: USD 3,385.08, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2020.

17. In addition, the Claimant requested “in any case, order the Respondent to pay the Claimant a contribution for the legal costs incurred in the present matter.”

18. According to the player, he “has always been sympathetic and sensitive with the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, showed his good faith and good will to find an amicable and proportionate solution.”

19. The player considered that “the Club has been deliberately lying and twisting the facts with the only aim to finally apply the Unilateral Reduction imposed by means of its letter dated 22 April 2020” and noted that this “can only be seen (…) as a complete unacceptable behavior, which shall be consequently punished.”

20. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to the financial difficulties arisen due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as it noted that its income during the second quarter of 2020 was reduced by 63.2. The Respondent attached a statement issued by an auditor in this respect.

21. On 1 October 2020, and during the proceedings already initiated before FIFA, the player sent a letter to the club, requesting to be registered.

22. On 5 October 2020, the club replied to the aforementioned letter indicating the following:

“(…)

According to COUNTRY B FA regulations, only 5 foreigners and 1 Confederation foreigners may be registered at any one time. For the Restart, our Head Coach has selected six foreigners to register accordingly and consequently, 2 foreigners were not registered, you being one of them. The Head Coach may register you later at his discretion during future registration periods for the 2020-2021 season.”

23. On 6 October 2020, the player sent a “final notice to register him”, indicating the following:

“In this sense, I would like to state that the excuses explained in your letter dated 5 October 2020 to deregister me cannot be seen, under any circumstances, as valid. Especially, emphasis shall be made on the groundless reason that I am not registered because the foreigners’ quota has been already covered”

(…)

The sad reality is that there are several factors which all point out to the same direction, which is no other that my registration will never occur, since the Club is no longer interested in my services.

(…)

Therefore, I give the Club until 11 October 2020at the latest to inform me whether it will proceed with my registration for the last match of the season 2019/2020 AND for the following season 2020/2021.”

24. On 12 October 2020, the player sent a termination letter to the club stating the following:

“the well-established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC is crystal clear in this regard and it establishes 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, 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.”

25. The club replied to the aforementioned letter as follow:

“There is no ground for your claim of termination with just cause. Your assertion that you are unilaterally terminating your employment contract with us prematurely is a breach of the employment contract, which we demand to be ratified immediately by your ongoing execution of the said employment contract.

Specifically, the Club will start the 2020/21 preseason training on Wednesday 14 October, 2020 at 3 p.m. at the Club B Centre. You are expected to attend this and all subsequent official training sessions. “

26. On 16 October 2020, the player lodged a new claim before FIFA for breach of contract without just cause. The player requested in this respect to “accumulate the present proceedings to the FIFA proceedings ref.no. xxxxx”.

27. In particular, the player requested the payment of the following amounts:

i. USD 6,000 net, as outstanding salaries for the first 12 days of October 2020 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 October 2020,

ii. USD 134,484.37 net as compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020, iii.USD 45,000 net as additional compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020.

28. In addition, the player requested the payment of the “legal costs”.

29. In this respect, the player argued that, following the restart of the competition in September 2020, the club forced him to train alone.

30. Within this context, the player argued that “the Club deliberately deregistered him with the COUNTRY B FA, considering that he was indeed registered before the COVID-19 suspension of the competition took place.”

31. The club was invited to reply to the claim for breach of contract without just cause.

32. In this respect, the club considered that the matter shall be “transferred to the NDRC of the COUNTRY B FA” in view of the contents of clause 17.2 of the contract.

33. On the question of registration, the Respondent argued that the Country B Football Association confirmed that “at all material times a registered player pursuant to Article 5 of the COUNTRY B FA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players”.

34. In this respect, the Respondent wished to emphasize that that any discussions of the Claimant not being "registered" has always been referring to the quota of foreign players and therefore related to the Foreign Player Cap and the corresponding Players List provided in the League Regulations, and not "registration" pursuant to the COUNTRY B FA RSTP as such.

35. Within this context, the Respondent explained that, under any circumstance, the quota of foreign players was always expected to sort itself out shortly as several of the Respondent's foreign players were applying for their Country B citizenships.

36. In addition, the club explained that, “during the Restart Period, all players had to undergo COVID-19 tests. Between 3 September 2020 and the Claimant's unilateral departure, there were 8 tests (on 3/9, 10/9, 17 /9, 22/9, 25/9, 29/9, 2/10 and 9/10) and the Respondent ensured that the Claimant took part in all 8 tests.” According to the club, “this is indicative of the Respondent's intention in trying to keep the Claimant ready for participating in matches, if and when the Respondent decides to add the Claimant to the Players List.”

37. Was a result, the club concluded in this respect that it “had made available a foreign player slot on its Players List for the 2020-2021 season after not signing a new foreign player, and made available for the Claimant a new apartment after 16 October 2020, which he ultimately turned down.”

38. On 6 November 2020, the player sent an unsolicited correspondence acknowledging

“the payment of his salary as from 1 October 2020 until 11 October 2020”.

39. In view of the above, the player amended his claim as follows:

i. USD 624.78, as outstanding salaries related to the exact date of 12 October 2020, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 October 2020, when the outstanding salary became due until effective date of payment. The player acknowledged that said amount may be granted as part of his compensation.;

ii. USD 132,513.57net as compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020,

iii. USD 45,000 net as additional compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020,

40. On 10 November 2020, the Country B Football Association provided the following statement to FIFA:

“The Player has been registered as a professional player of the Club from 23 August 2019 to now, in accordance with the COUNTRY B FA RSTP. His registration met all requirements under the COUNTRY B FA RSTP regarding his contract, work permit, ITC, and preseason medical check-up. His contract is valid until 31 May 2021.

(…)

We confirm that the Player was in the Club's List during the original 2019-2020 season until 30 June 2020. During the restart of the 2019-2020 season, the Club has submitted the List under the League Rules without including the Player. However, the Club submitted the 8 test results of Player's COVID-19 sputum tests which were all tested negative. The Player was eligible to be added to the Club's List, if and when so decided by the Club.

The COUNTRY B FA RSTP and the League Rules are available for download at the COUNTRY B FA website (www.Country B FA.com).”

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. 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.

2. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised 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, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with matters which concern employment- related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs. Therefore, it would be competent to deal with a matter concerning a player from Country A and a club from Country B.

3. However, in relation to this, the Chamber noted that the Respondent considered that the matter shall be “transferred to the NDRC of the COUNTRY B FA” in view of the contents of clause 17.2 of the contract, which stipulate the following:

“17.2 Notwithstanding any provisions in any COUNTRY B FA Regulations or Football Regulations but subject to applicable laws in Country B, any dispute (whether contractual or non- contractual, and including any disputes in relation to interpretation of clauses of this Agreement) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be referred to and determined by the NDRC in accordance with the NDRC Regulations. The Club and the Player that they shall be bound by any decisions or judgments of the NDRC on such dispute (including any allocation of costs). If the NDRC determines that it does not have jurisdiction (as set out in the NDRC Regulations) over such dispute, the dispute shall be referred to the appropriate body(ies) specified in the Football Regulations. If no such body(ies) is specified, the courts of Country B shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle such dispute.”

4. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

5. Equally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber reminded the parties of the contents 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 burden of proof”.

6. In application of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber understood that, in the matter at stake, it is up to the Respondent to prove that the Country B NDRC effectively guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.

7. In this respect, and after observing the evidence provided by the parties, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not provide any evidence on the effective and actual composition of the Country B NDRC, or that said body effectively guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.

8. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber arrived to the conclusion that, from the evidence on file that was gathered within the course of the present investigation, it cannot be established that the Country B NDRC respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations. Therefore, the Chamber considered that it is competent to deal with the present matter.

9. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. Entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. 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.

10. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering the date when the claim was lodged, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.

11. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

12. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021, according to which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 15,000.

13. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, on 22 September 2020, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, initially claiming the payment of outstanding remuneration.

14. However, the Chamber observed that, during the proceedings, the matter evolved from being a related to outstanding remuneration only, to a matter related to breach of contract without just cause due to the alleged non-registration of the player. In particular, the Chamber observed that the player lodged a new claim on 16 October 2020, arguing that he terminated the contract on 12 October 2020 due to his alleged non- registration. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that said new claim was consolidated under the same procedure. Thus, the Chamber observed that the initial element about outstanding remuneration was apparently resolved between the parties, and that the legal issue at stake is therefore to determine whether the player had a just cause to prematurely terminate the contract.

15. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfillment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.

16. In view of the above, the Chamber observed that, during the course of the investigation, a document issued by COUNTRY B FA confirmed that the player was “at all material times a registered player pursuant to Article 5 of the COUNTRY B FA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players”.

17. Nevertheless, the Chamber also noted that, on 5 October 2020, that the club indicated to that “(…) According to COUNTRY B FA regulations, only 5 foreigners and 1 Confederation foreigners may be registered at any one time. For the Restart, our Head Coach has selected six foreigners to register accordingly and consequently, 2 foreigners were not registered, you being one of them. The Head Coach may register you later at his discretion during future registration periods for the 2020-2021 season.”

18. 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.

19. In this context, the DRC emphasized that the registration of a player cannot be left to the discretionary power of a coach. Indeed, the members of the Chamber underlined that, 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.

20. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the Respondent clearly expressed its lack of interest for the player’s services.

21. In this respect, the Chamber referred to, art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause.”

22. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the club acted in an abusive manner and, as a result, the player could reasonably expect that the club was not interested in his services anymore. Hence, he had a just cause to terminate the contract.

23. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the club is liable to pay compensation to the player.

24. In this respect, 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.

25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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.

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

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

28. 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 date of termination with just cause, i.e. 12 October 2020 until 31 May 2021, and concluded that the Claimant would have received in total USD 114,150 [i.e. USD 15,000* 7,61=7+(19/31=0,61), equaling 19 days of October 2020 as well as the full months of November 2020 until May 2021)]. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 114,150 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

29. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

30. In this respect, the Chamber verified that the player did not conclude any new contract afterwards.

31. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s claim and that the club must pay the amount of USD 114,150 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

32. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount as of the date of the new claim, i.e. 16 October 2020.

33. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the parties are rejected.

34. As to the requested legal fees, the Chamber referred to art. 18 pars. 2 and 4, 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” and “no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee and the DRC.”

35. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution 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.

36. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution 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.

37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.

38. Finally, the Dispute Resolution 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, A, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:

- USD 114,150 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 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.

8. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Emilio García Silvero

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