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 August 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
Passed on 13 August 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player JUNIOR
KABANANGA KALONJI
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
JUNIOR KABANANGA KALONJI, Congo
DR
Represented by Mr. Farid Bashirov
RESPONDENT:
QATAR SC, Qatar
Represented by Mr. Konstantinos Antoniou
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 4 July 2019, the Congolese player, Junior Kabananga Kalonji (hereinafter: Claimant),
and the Qatari club, Qatar SC (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021.
2. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
monies:
USD 121,573 as monthly salary between July 2019 and May 2020 (11x);
USD 5,900 as “Housing and Car allowance” between July 2019 and May 2020
(11x);
USD 2,300 as “annual ticket (equivalent to 5 business class tickets)” between July
2019 and May 2020 (11x);
USD 121,573 as monthly salary between July 2020 and May 2021 (11x);
USD 5,900 as “Housing and Car allowance” between July 2020 and May 2021
(11x);
USD 2,300 as “annual ticket (equivalent to 5 business class tickets)” July 2020 and
May2021 (11x).
3. Art. 10 of the contract reads inter alia as follows:
“4. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause or mutual agreement
between the Parties concerned, the Club shall pay to the Player only the remaining basic
salary entitlement of the season in which the club terminate the contract (i.e. 2019/2020).
For the avoidance of doubt, should the player be terminated not due to just cause or mutual
agreement during the Season 2019/2020, he is not entitled to claim or the right to receive
the financial entitlement for the Season 2020/2021 or to receive any other compensation.
5. In case if the first party “club” wish to terminate the Contract after the end of Season
2019/2020, (the last match of the Club in QSL League), the Club must notify the player on
or before 1 June 2020 by official communication to the Player via email to the E-mail address
indicated in Article 13.1 (B). Communications/Notices, the Player shall receive a
compensation of USD 450,000 ONLY for this early termination and he shall not make any
further claim toward the Club or receive any other financial entitlement from the Club
whether concerning fees, salaries, bonus, etc., based on the Contract.
6. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause or mutual agreement
between the Parties concerned during the Season 2020/2021, the Club shall pay to the
Player the remaining basic salary entitlement of the season or 3 months’ salary whichever
is lower.
7. If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to
the Club compensation equal to the remaining contract value of the season in which the
Player terminate the contract.
8. In the case, the Player with to terminate the Contract after the end of Season 2019/2020
(the last match of the Club in QSL League), the Player must notify the Club on or before 1
June 2020 by official communication to the Club as indicated in Article 13.1 (B). The Player
shall pay the Club a compensation of USD 450,000 for this early termination.
9. In the case, the Player terminate the contract before expiry date due to an offer by a new
club or to transfer to a new club (buyout), the Player or the new club shall pay to the Club
the remaining value of the total contract”.
4. According to art. 14 of the contract:
“Any dispute between the club and the player arisen in connection with the present contract
shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Qatar Sports Arbitration Tribunal
(QSAT), if operational, which shall be settled in accordance with the QSAT procedural rules.
As a transitionary rule and as long as the QSAT is not yet operational, the QFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC), if established, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction for any
disputes related to this contract. Subsidiary and as long as the QFA DRC has not yet been
established, FIFA shall hear employment-related disputes related to this contract in
accordance with the relevant FIFA regulations governing this matter. This transitionary rule
is without prejudice to the competence of the Qatari courts to hear employment related
disputes (…)”.
5. On 31 March 2020, the Respondent terminated the contract, referring to art. 10 par. 4 of
the contract, with effect as of 31 May 2020. In such termination letter, the Respondent
indicated the following: “we would like to inform you that the club management will only
commit to pay your financial dues until the end of the sport season 2019/2020 (i.e.
31/5/2020) as described in the article no. 10, paragraph no. 4 of the contract”.
6. On 14 April 2020, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent objecting to the termination
of the contract.
7. Between 20 April 2020 and 25 April 2020, the parties exchanged correspondence
attempting to amicably settle the dispute, to no avail.
8. The Claimant informed the FIFA administration that, following the termination of the
contract, he remained unemployed up to the date this decision was rendered.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
9. On 17 June 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract against the Respondent before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed below.
a. The claim of the Claimant
10. According to the Claimant, the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause. In
this regard, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent terminated the contract with
effect as from 31 May 2020, while stating that the termination was made in accordance
with the end of the season 2019/2020.
11. In this context, the Claimant pointed out that according to the Regulations on the Status
Transfer of Players of the Qatar Football Association (QFA), the term Sports Season means
the period starting on 1 July and ending on 30 June of the following year. Furthermore, the
2019-2020 sports season was in fact suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Qatar
and was scheduled to resume on 24 July 2020. According to the Claimant, it follows that
the Respondent’s actions directly violate the norms established by FIFA and the QFA
Regulatory documents.
12. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent unreasonably and without explanation
dismissed the Claimant from training, thereby negatively singling him out from the team,
which morally and psychologically affected the Claimant’s condition.
13. Finally, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent had failed to pay him outstanding
remuneration for the months of May and June 2020 and that such breach would in principle
have entitled him to terminate the contract on the basis of art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players.
14. In conclusion, the Claimant made the following statement: “Taking into account all of the
above, the plaintiff has the right and opportunity, including legal grounds for termination
of the Contract for a good reason, but in this situation, when the defendant creates
negative conditions for the plaintiff by abusive actions, the plaintiff intends to require the
defendant to pay the appropriate compensation before the end of the Contract, that is,
until May 30, 2021”.
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant are the following:
“1. To call and oblige Qatar Sports Club Football Company to pay in favor of Kabananga
Kalonji Junior the amount of salary arrears for APRIL and MAY 2020 in the amount of
243,146 USD,
2. Oblige Qatar Sports Club Football Company to pay the amount of USD 1,337,307 in
favor of Kabananga Kalonji Junior to repay compensation for early termination of the
employment contract unilaterally without a reasonable reason,
3. Oblige Qatar Sports Club Football Company to pay additional compensation to
Kabananga Kalonji Junior amount of 364 719 (three hundred sixty-four thousand seven
hundred nineteen) USD,
- or oblige Qatar Sports Club Football Company to pay in favor of Kabananga Kalonji Junior
the amount of alternative, increased additional compensation from 3 to 6 months, so that
it is 729,438 USD,
4. Oblige Qatar Sports Club Football Company to pay interest at 5% per annum in favor of
Kabananga Kalonji Junior”.
b. Position of the Respondent
16. In reply to the claim, the Respondent contested FIFA’s competence and argued that in
accordance with art. 14 of the contract, the Qatar Sports Arbitration Tribunal (hereinafter:
the QSAT) should be exclusively competent to deal with the present dispute. It further held
that the QSAT has been fully operational since 18 August 2019.
17. The Respondent argued that the QSAT is an independent arbitral tribunal and provided the
Dispute Resolution Chamber with a copy of the “Statutes of Qatar Sports Arbitration
Foundation” as well as the “Arbitration Rules of Qatar Sports Arbitration Tribunal”.
18. As to the merits of the dispute, the Respondent held that pursuant to art. 10 par. 4 of the
contract it had, following the termination of the contract, paid the Claimant’s remuneration
until 31 May 2020.
19. The Respondent was of the opinion that the fact that the Qatar season restarted had no
impact on the termination since said termination occurred on 31 March 2020 and the
decision to resume the Qatar season was taken by the QFA on 17 May 2020 only.
20. On the termination, the Respondent argued, with reference to art. 10 par. 4 of the contract,
that the termination is valid and its consequences are well defined in said clause.
21. Moreover, the Respondent deemed that the compensation clause, which grants the
respective party the residual value of the season during which the termination occurred,
constitutes a valid compensation clause, as it is reciprocal and proportional since it provides
for the same amount in case of termination by the player or by the club.
22. In the Respondent’s view, the Claimant had in fact accepted the application of the clause
and termination of the contract, since it took him more than eight months to denounce it.
23. The Respondent held that it paid the following amounts to the Claimant as compensation
(and provided payment receipts in this respect):
April 2020 (paid on 10 June 2020): QAR 443,741.45 i.e. approx. USD 121,906;
May 2020 (paid on 14 July 2020): QAR 503,801 i.e. approx. USD 138,406.
24. According to the Respondent, it should have paid the Claimant USD 259,546 but “due to
an administrative oversight” it overpaid the Claimant the amount of USD 766.
25. The Respondent highlighted that it had no overdue payables toward the Claimant by the
date of termination, which is also clear form the request of relief of the Claimant since he
is not requesting any outstanding amounts.
26. Should the amount of the compensation be re-evaluated, the Respondent held that the
deciding body should take into account the Claimant’s duty to mitigate his damages.
c. Claimant’s comments on payment receipts
27. Upon the FIFA administration’s explicit request for the Claimant to provide his comments
as to the payment receipts provided by the Respondent only (cf. par. II.23. above), the
Claimant made the following statement: “the defendant paid the salary arrears for April
and May 2020 after the plaintiff filed a claim with FIFA, that is, with violations of the terms
of payment of wages”.
28. Furthermore, the Claimant made some additional unsolicited comments as to the
Respondent’s reply.
III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 17 June 2020 and submitted
for a decision on 13 August 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.
30. 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. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2020), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Congolese player and a Qatari club.
31. This being said, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent had challenged its jurisdiction
in the present matter, arguing that according to art. 14 of the contract, the parties had
agreed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the QSAT to hear disputes. The Respondent stated
that the QSAT fulfils the minimum requirements of the FIFA Circular no. 1010 and the FIFA
National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations.
32. The Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the June 2020 edition of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with
employment-related disputes between a player and club unless the parties have opted
explicitly and in writing for such disputes to be decided by an independent arbitration
tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the association
and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included
either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the
parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and
respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs
33. With regard to the requirements which an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings must fulfill, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20
December 2005 as well as to the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations.
34. In particular, the Chamber underlined that the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs constitutes one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled in order for a
national dispute resolution chamber to be duly recognised. Indeed, this prerequisite is
mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no.
1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the
aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following
members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy
chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three
and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the
players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis
of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club
representatives (…).”
35. Equally, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal
influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall
have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the
chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a
predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal
influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.
36. Bearing in mind the principles recalled above, the Chamber first of all established that art.
14 of the contract does constitute a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the
QSAT.
37. In continuation, the Chamber examined the documentation that the Respondent provided,
this is, the “Statutes of Qatar Sports Arbitration Foundation” as well as the “Arbitration
Rules of Qatar Sports Arbitration Tribunal”.
38. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, according to art. 38 of the “Statutes of Qatar Sports
Arbitration Foundation”, “in establishing the lists of arbitrators and mediators, the [Qatar
Sports Arbitration Foundation] Board shall take into consideration the principle of parity
and equal representation”. The Chamber thus understood that the QSAF Board is
responsible for drawing up the list of arbitrators of the QSAT. While the said article refers,
in general terms, to the principle of parity and equal representation, the Chamber, though,
cannot establish with certainty that both groups of interest (representatives of players and
of clubs) can exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list.
39. The above considerations led the Chamber to decide that there is not enough evidence that
the QSAT respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, criteria which
is essential in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised.
40. As a result, the Chamber held that it cannot follow the Respondent’s arguments as to its
lack of jurisdiction, The DRC is, therefore, competent to hear the present matter in
accordance with art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
41. 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 (edition June 2020), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 June 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
42. 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.
43. 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
44. Once it established its competence and the regulations applicable to the present matter,
the DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, it 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
45. 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 Respondent had a
just cause to terminate the contract on 31 March 2020 with effect as from 31 May 2020.
46. In this context, the Chamber first acknowledged that the Respondent had proceeded to the
termination of the contract in application of art. 10 par. 4 of the contract, which stipulates
the following:
“4. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause or mutual agreement
between the Parties concerned, the Club shall pay to the Player only the remaining basic
salary entitlement of the season in which the club terminate the contract (i.e. 2019/2020).
For the avoidance of doubt, should the player be terminated not due to just cause or mutual
agreement during the Season 2019/2020, he is not entitled to claim or the right to receive
the financial entitlement for the Season 2020/2021 or to receive any other compensation.
47. While reading such clause, the Chamber understood that it provided the Respondent a
unilateral right to terminate the contract at any point in time during the course of the
season. In such case, the Respondent would only have to pay the Claimant his salaries up
until the end of the relevant season in which the termination of the contract occurred.
48. In this regard, the Chamber held that it must determine whether such clause can be
considered as valid and granting a right to unilaterally terminate the contract before its
original expiry.
49. The Chamber first determined that it must look precisely at the wording of the entire article
10 of the contract in order to fully understand the parties’ intention at to the issue of
premature termination of the contract.
50. The DRC underlined, in particular, that art. 10 par. 7 of the contract in fact granted the
same right for the Claimant to terminate the contract during the course of the season. For
ease of reference, art. 10 par. 7 of the contract stipulates the following:
“7. If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to
the Club compensation equal to the remaining contract value of the season in which the
Player terminate the contract”.
51. In light of the above, the Chamber determined that the parties had mutually agreed that
either of them could prematurely terminate the contract during the course of the season
against the payment of compensation. In light of these considerations, the Chamber
deemed that such clauses are valid since both parties dispose of equal rights under the
contract; as such, they are valid and proportionate. In other words, the Chamber is bound
by the contractual stipulations of the parties, which must be applied in the present matter,
irrespective as to whether the termination of the contract occurred with or without just
cause.
52. It follows that the Respondent was entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract on 30
March 2020 with effect as of 31 May 2020. This being said, the Chamber established that
the termination of the contract was conditional upon the payment of compensation,
amount which must now be determined by looking at the contractual stipulations in this
regard.
ii. Consequences
53. The members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the compensation
due to the Claimant under the contract. In this context, once again, the Chamber analysed
the terms of art. 10 of the contract.
54. The Chamber concurred in this regard that, although the Respondent referred to art. 10
par. 4 of the contract in its letter of termination dated 31 March 2020, the manner in which
the termination actually took place rather corresponds to the circumstances described in
art. 10 par. 5 of the contract.
55. Indeed, art. 10 par. 5 stipulates the following:
“5. In case if the first party “club” wish to terminate the Contract after the end of Season
2019/2020, (the last match of the Club in QSL League), the Club must notify the player on
or before 1 June 2020 by official communication to the Player via email to the E-mail address
indicated in Article 13.1 (B). Communications/Notices, the Player shall receive a
compensation of USD 450,000 ONLY for this early termination and he shall not make any
further claim toward the Club or receive any other financial entitlement from the Club
whether concerning fees, salaries, bonus, etc., based on the Contract”.
56. The Chamber determined that the Respondent had proceeded to the termination of the
contract with effect as from 31 May 2020, i.e. the end of the (originally planned) 2019/2020
season, and had done so prior to 1 June 2020. Furthermore, the termination of the contract
had been duly communicated to the Claimant in writing, as confirmed by the Claimant himself. The Chamber also concurred with the Respondent’s position that fact that the
Qatari season restarted had no impact on the termination since said termination occurred
on 31 March 2020 (with effect as from 31 May 2020), while the decision to resume the
Qatar season was taken several months later.
57. In view of the above, the Chamber ruled that art. 10 par. 5 of the contract must be applied
in the case at hand as far as the amount of the compensation is concerned.
58. Reverting to the contents of art. 10 par. 5 of the contract, the DRC recalled that the said
clause provides for the payment of USD 450,000 as compensation due to the Claimant for
the termination at the end of the season 2019/2020. Furthermore, the Chamber
acknowledged that, following the termination of the contract, the Claimant had confirmed
having received the total amount of USD 243,146 from the Respondent.
59. The above-mentioned considerations led the Chamber to decide that the Respondent must
pay the Claimant, as compensation in accordance with art. 10 par. 5 of the contract, the
difference between USD 450,000 and the amount of USD 243,146 already paid.
60. In conclusion, the Respondent must pay the Claimant the amount of USD 206,854 as
compensation for the early termination of the contract at the end of the season 2019/2020.
61. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation
as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 17 June 2020, until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 41. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its
decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from
the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
63. 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.
64. 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, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
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 Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
65. 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.
66. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
*****
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Junior Kabananga Kalonji, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3. The Respondent, Qatar SC, has to pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 206,854 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 17 June 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