F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2011-2012) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 January 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club N, from country S as “Claimant” against the coach Club F, from country N as “First Respondent” and against the club Club S, from country N as “Second Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2011-2012) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 January 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club N, from country S as “Claimant” against the coach Club F, from country N as “First Respondent” and against the club Club S, from country N as “Second Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 June 2007, the country S club N (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the country N coach F (hereinafter: the First Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid for 11 months, from the date of signature until the end of the country S 2007-2008 football season. 2. According to the said contract, the First Respondent was entitled to receive a total amount of EUR 550,000, of which EUR 250,000 had to be paid as “advance payment against his total salaries”, to be paid after the coach passed the “official medical test” and signed the original contract with the Claimant. The remaining sum of EUR 300,000 was payable as follows: a) EUR 100,000 to be paid in two instalments of EUR 50,000 on 1 October 2007 and 1 January 2008; b) EUR 200,000 to be paid in 11 equal monthly payments of EUR 18,200. 3. Article 16 of the contract stipulated that “in case the CLUB [i.e. the Claimant] wishes to terminate this contract prematurely, the CLUB should pay the COACH [i.e. the First Respondent] a full salary of two months unless the period of the contract is less than two months the penalty should cover the rest of the contract.” 4. On 19 December 2007, the Claimant lodged a joint claim with FIFA against the First Respondent, his players’ agent Mr L (hereinafter: the agent) and the country N club S (hereinafter: the Second Respondent) arguing that, in November 2007, the First Respondent had “decided to unilaterally terminate the employment contract freely signed with Club N [i.e. the Claimant] alleging family situation as well as differences opinion upon the professional team”. 5. According to the Claimant, the First Respondent had sent a number of letters in which he was informing them about the early termination of his contract without providing any plausible reason for such decision. In particular, the Claimant referred to a letter dated 18 November in which the First Respondent stated that “Herewith again, I announce the early termination of my labour contract per November 21, 2007. I will book my flight to country N next Friday November 23, 2007”. In response to these letters, the Claimant stated that it had written back to the First Respondent to “strongly object the terms of cited correspondences a well as the reasons presented for the premature termination of your employment contract […] which leads to an undisputed unilateral breach of contract by your side without a just cause”. 6. In view of the above, the Claimant referred to articles 16 and 17 of the Regulations and argued that the First Respondent had committed a breach of contract without just cause in the middle of the season. The Claimant deemed that the First Respondent “shall be considered as liable to compensate Club N [i.e. the Claimant] EUR 300,000 meaning EUR 50,000 per month multiplied by the months remaining of the contract, i.e. 6 months, (…) and to compensate the expenses incurred by country S club in hiring a new head-coach to replace him due to the premature and unmotivated breach of the employment contract”. In support of the above, the Claimant provided FIFA with the employment contract it claimed to have concluded with its new coach on 24 November 2007, which was valid for a period of six months and which provided for a total salary of USD 230,000. 7. The Claimant further argued that, by co-signing the “termination letters”, the agent had induced the First Respondent to breach his contract. Moreover, the Claimant also deemed that the Second Respondent had played an active role in such inducement by offering the First Respondent an employment contract. 8. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the First Respondent “the total sum of EUR 300,000 […] in view of the unjustified violation of the employment contract signed with Club N [i.e. the Claimant] added to the expenses incurred by Club N in hiring a new head coach to replace Coach F [i.e. the First Respondent]”, as well as 5% interest “from the date of the last notification addressed by Club N to Coach F, i.e. 22 November 2007“. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the agent and the Second Respondent should be “jointly responsible for the payment of the compensation” it was claiming from the First Respondent and should also be sanctioned disciplinarily. 9. On 13 February 2008, the Claimant was informed by FIFA that its claim lodged against the agent and the Second Respondent might not be accepted for lack of legal basis as the Regulations do not regulate inducement of breach of an employment contract concluded between a coach and a club. The Claimant was consequently invited by FIFA to confirm whether it adhered to its claim against the agent and the Second Respondent. On 26 February 2008, the Claimant adhered to its claim against the First Respondent, his agent and the Second Respondent. 10. On 28 November 2008, the First Respondent provided his statement of defence explaining that the contract concluded between the parties was terminated by mutual consent at the beginning of November 2007. In this respect, the First Respondent alleged that “during the period preceding the termination of the contract” the salaries due to him had not been paid “in timely manner” and some of the cheques issued by the Claimant were not covered and, therefore, could not be paid to him. The First Respondent further explained that for all of these reasons, during two meetings which were apparently held on 22 and 24 October 2007, he had requested to terminate the contract as from 1 January 2008. As evidence, the First Respondent provided FIFA with a letter dated 12 November 2007 sent by the First Respondent to the Claimant [cf. par. 4 above] and allegedly confirming that it had been agreed that the contract would be terminated on 1 January 2008. According to the First Respondent, despite having asked on several occasions a written confirmation of termination from the Claimant, the latter had never reacted and he had therefore ”himself confirmed the agreement” allegedly adopted during the said meetings. 11. The First Respondent further claimed that after the Claimant had received his letter dated 12 November 2007, it had apparently proposed “to terminate the employment relationship with immediate effect (instead of 1 January 2008)”. The First Respondent claimed to have “accepted this proposal, as a result of which the employment relationship between the parties was terminated with mutual consent as from 15 November 2008” by means of a letter dated 15 November 2007 in which the First Respondent had written to the Claimant, inter alia, that “I accept your proposal of terminating the labour contract as per immediate effect, preserving all my rights”. 12. Alternatively, the First Respondent deemed to have unilaterally breached the contract with just cause since he had not received his salaries for several months in time and expenses such as plane tickets for him and his agent. In this respect, the First Respondent provided FIFA with a list of different payments. Finally, the First Respondent argued that since article 16 of the contract limited the compensation to two monthly salary in case the Claimant decided to terminate the contract, it would be unreasonable to allow the Claimant to be entitled to more than two monthly salary as compensation in the event that FIFA decides that he had breached his contract. 13. On 28 November 2008, the Second Respondent responded to the Claimant’s allegations. Firstly, it stressed that since no contract was concluded between the Claimant and the Second Respondent, it was clear that, in accordance with article 22 of the Regulations, FIFA lacked competence to deal with the claim of the Claimant against the Second Respondent. Secondly, the Second Respondent deemed that “article 17 of the Regulations is not applicable on breach of contract by a coach” and therefore, it could not be sanctioned for inducement of breach of contract. 14. On 9 February 2011, the country N Football Association informed FIFA that the agent had passed away on 11 August 2010. 15. On 14 March 2011, the Claimant withdrew its claim against the agent but reiterated its claim against the First and the Second Respondent, maintaining that article 17 of the Regulations should be applicable to the First Respondent since his position “is clearly more similar and comparable to that of a player, than to that of a normal worker”. In addition, the Claimant stated that the First Respondent had not been able to prove that the contract had been terminated following a mutual termination. 16. Furthermore, and while holding that the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in disputes involving players and clubs should also apply in the matter at hand, the Claimant deemed that the First Respondent should be liable to pay a compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 741,000 as follows: • EUR 300,000 representing the remaining value of the contract. The Claimant, in its calculation, explained that the First Respondent’s monthly salary “was equal to EUR 50,000” and therefore, since “he had left the club six months before the normal expiry of its contract, he shall compensate the club” accordingly; • EUR 141,000 as reimbursement of the remuneration paid in advance by the Claimant to the First Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the First Respondent had received an amount of EUR 391,000 for five months of work representing EUR 250,000 as “advance payment”, one instalment of EUR 50,000 (1 October 2007) and five monthly instalments of EUR 18,200 each. As the First Respondent had only worked for five months, the Claimant deemed that he should therefore only have been entitled to an amount of EUR 250,000; • EUR 300,000 representing “damages relating to the specificity of sport”. 17. In addition, the Claimant argued that the First Respondent should also be requested to pay an amount of USD 230,000 as “extra replacement costs”, an amount representing the salary that it had to pay to its new coach. Moreover, the Claimant held that the Second Respondent should be held jointly and severally liable for the amounts it is requesting from the First Respondent, and further added that disciplinary sanctions should be imposed on both the First and the Second Respondent. 18. Finally, the Claimant reiterated that an interest of 5% should apply “over the total amount due as compensation” by the First Respondent, as from 22 November 2007 until the date of effective payment. 19. On 24 August 2011, the Second Respondent reiterated its statement of defence and rejected again any involvement or inducement in the matter at hand. 20. On 28 August 2011, the First Respondent, in his final position, reiterated his position and stressed in particular that: 1) the contract was terminated by mutual consent on 21 November 2007 after a meeting held on 24 October 2007 with the Claimant’s President, Vice President and its technical director. As the Claimant had failed to confirm the outcome of the meeting in writing, the First Respondent had to send himself the letter dated 12 November 2007; 2) The Claimant had failed to prove any unilateral breach of contract; 3) article 17 of the Regulations is not applicable to a contractual relation between a coach and a club since “coaches and players cannot be equated” and; 4) in the event that FIFA should decide that he had unilaterally breached the contract, article 16 of the contract should apply to him mutatis mutandis and, consequently, he should only be requested to pay to the Claimant as compensation an amount equal to two monthly salary. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. Before addressing the arguments and submissions raised by the parties, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 1, 2 and 3 of the current edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). Consequently, since the claim was submitted to FIFA on 19 December 2007, the Single Judge concluded that the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the case before him (cf. art. 18 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 of the 2010, 2009 and 2008 versions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 19 December 2007. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2005 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations). 3. Furthermore and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 c) of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned an employment-related dispute between a football club from country S and a football coach of country N nationality. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 23 June 2007, the Claimant and the First Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid for 11 months, from the date of signature until the end of the country S 2007-2008 football season. 5. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that according to the contract the First Respondent was entitled receive from the Claimant a total amount of EUR 550,000, of which EUR 250,000 had to be paid as “advance payment against his total salaries”, payable after the coach passed the “official medical test” and signed the original contract with the Claimant. The remaining sum of EUR 300,000 was payable as follows: a) EUR 100,000 to be paid in two instalments of EUR 50,000 on 1 October 2007 and 1 January 2008; b) EUR 200,000 to be paid in 11 equal monthly payments of EUR 18,200. 6. The Single Judge further noted that article 16 of the contract stipulated that “in case the CLUB [i.e. the Claimant] wishes to terminate this contract prematurely, the CLUB should pay the COACH [i.e. the First Respondent] a full salary of two months unless the period of the contract is less than two months the penalty should cover the rest of the contract.” 7. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to the argument of the Claimant that the First Respondent had breached the contract without just cause and that the Second Respondent had induced the First Respondent to breach his contract. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant had argued that the First Respondent had informed it on 21 November 2007, by means of a letter dated 18 November 2007, that he had decided to “announce the early termination” of his contractual relationship with the Claimant. The Single Judge further noted that the Claimant was of the opinion that it should be entitled to receive compensation from the First Respondent as the latter had breached the contract without any justification and that the Second Respondent should be considered jointly liable to pay compensation. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee reverted to the submission provided by the First Respondent as response to the claim and noted, particularly, that the latter had argued that it was the Claimant who had not respected the terms of the contract since the salaries as well as a number of expenses were not paid in a timely manner and some bank cheques issued by the Claimant were not covered and that, consequently, after having met the Claimant on two occasions, he had requested to terminate his contract as from 1 January 2008. The Single Judge further took note of the First Respondent’s allegation that he had been asking on several occasions for a written confirmation of termination from the Claimant but, having apparently not received any answer, had decided to tender his resignation to the Claimant. 9. In view of the above, the Single Judge held that the present dispute revolved around the following three issues: 1) was the First Respondent entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract; 2) in the event that it is established that the First Respondent was not entitled to consider the contract as terminated, is the Claimant entitled to any compensation and how much that compensation should be, and; 3) in the event that it can be established that the contract was indeed breached by the First Respondent, can the Second Respondent also be held jointly and severally liable for any compensation to be paid as a result of the breach. 10. Starting with the first issue, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee recalled that, on the one hand, the Claimant argued that the Respondent had unilaterally breached the contract without just cause while, on the other hand, the First Respondent sought to argue, first of all, that the parties had terminated the contract by mutual consent and, secondly and alternatively, that he had a just cause to unilaterally terminate his contract on the basis that the Claimant had failed to pay several of his monthly salary and expenses. 11. Based on the above, the Single Judge went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of article 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”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 12. Starting with the allegations of the First Respondent, the Single Judge first noted that the latter had explained that the Claimant had not paid the salaries “in timely manner” as well as expenses and that some of the bank cheques issued by the Claimant were not covered. The First Respondent further argued that he had, for these reasons, organised two meetings with the Claimant in which he had requested to terminate his employment contract as from 1 January 2008. Since the First Respondent had not received any written confirmation of termination from the Claimant, he had therefore “himself confirmed the agreement” allegedly adopted during the meetings and had proposed to “terminate the employment contract with immediate effect”. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that in support of such allegations the First Respondent had only provided a number of letters he or his agent had written and sent to the Claimant. Consequently, and in the absence of further documentary evidence demonstrating that both parties had agreed to terminate the contract amicably, the Single Judge held that the First Respondent had not been able to prove such allegations. 13. Furthermore, the Single Judge came to the same conclusion with regards to the First Respondent’s claims in relation to his alleged outstanding salaries and unpaid expenses. Once again, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was forced to observe that the Respondent had not remitted any proof whatsoever in support of the above-mentioned allegations. In such circumstances, the Single Judge was of the opinion that if these allegations were true, the First Respondent should have been able to provide some evidence corroborating his claims, such as payment receipts and bank statements which could back up the alleged fact that he had not received his salaries for several months. As for the expenses claimed and after having analysed the documentary evidence provided by the First Respondent in this respect, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the contract did not specifically stipulate that such expenses would have to be reimbursed by the Claimant. Consequently, the First Respondent did not appear to be entitled to claim the said expenses. 14. In light of the above, the Single Judge held that the First Respondent had not been able to successfully demonstrate that the Claimant had failed to perform its obligations under the contract. 15. Turning his attention to the allegations of the Claimant, the Single Judge first remarked that the latter had sent to the First Respondent a letter on 19 November 2007, in which it strongly objected to the reasons presented by the First Respondent for the early termination of the contract. After having again acknowledged the content of the letter in question, the Single Judge observed that the First Respondent had not provided any explanations in response to the aforementioned letter, nor does he appear to have, at the time, contested the allegations contained in this letter. As a matter of fact, the Single Judge underlined that, during the entire proceedings, the First Respondent had not contested having received the aforementioned letter but had simply rejected the allegations brought forward by the Claimant, maintaining that it was the latter who had failed to comply with the contract. 16. On account of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge established that, while the First Respondent had failed to prove that the contract had been terminated by mutual consent and that the Claimant had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards him, the Claimant had, for its part, clearly warned the First Respondent that it would not accept his decision to unilaterally terminate the contract. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the First Respondent had terminated his contract on a unilateral basis and that consequently he had breached it without just cause. 17. Secondly, in view of the above and entering into the issue of the compensation to be paid as a result of the breach of contract by the First Respondent, the Single Judge was keen to recall that, irrespective of art. 17 of the Regulations, it is a common legal principle that any breach of contract entitles the injured party to maintain a claim for compensation and that compensation is the basic remedy available to the party that has suffered as a result of the breach. In this connection, the Single Judge stressed that within the framework of organised football, the principle of contractual stability is of upmost importance. Thus, any party to an agreement which fails to honour its contractual obligations may be asked to compensate the other party. Such a principle also undoubtedly applies to the employment relationship between a coach and a club. 18. This said and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge underlined that art. 16 and 17 of the Regulations are not relevant in the calculation of the amount of compensation to be awarded as they specifically relate to contractual disputes between football players and their clubs. 19. In view of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the First Respondent should be requested to compensate the Claimant following his unjustified breach of the contract. 20. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the amount of compensation that should be granted to the Claimant following the First Respondent’s unjustified termination of the contract. 21. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge referred to article 16 of the contract which stipulates that in case of premature termination of the contract by the Claimant, the latter would have to pay the First Respondent a “full salary of two months unless the period of the employment contract is less than two months”. 22. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that it would be unreasonable to allow the Claimant to be entitled to more than two monthly salary since article 16 of the contract limited the compensation to two monthly salary in the event the Claimant decided to terminate the contract. Consequently, the Single Judge was of the opinion that article 16 of the said contract must be applied mutatis mutandis in case of premature termination of the employment contract by the First Respondent and that, therefore, the Claimant is entitled to a compensation amounting to EUR 36,400, representing two monthly salary of EUR 18,200, on the basis of article 16 of the contract. 23. With regard to the amount of EUR 250,000 which, according to the contract, had been paid to the First Respondent as “advance payment against his total salaries” and in view of the Claimant’s request that said amount should be partially reimbursed, the Single Judge underlined that the First Respondent had worked for the Claimant for about five months, i.e. from 23 June 2007 until 21 November 2007. In this respect, and taking into account that the contract was concluded for a total period of 11 months, the Single Judge concluded that the First Respondent has to reimburse to the Claimant the amount of EUR 136,363, which represented the pro rata excess amount from the “advance payment” of EUR 250,000. 24. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant also requested EUR 300,000 corresponding to compensation for “damages relating to the specificity of sport” and concluded that the Claimant based this specific request on article 17 of the Regulations. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the said article is not applicable to contractual disputes between coaches and clubs and consequently decided to reject this part of the claim. For the sake of completeness, and notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge added that any claim for additional damages has to be supported by clear documentary evidence in order to be taken into account. In other words, any injured party claiming an amount of damages on top of what it is entitled to on the basis of the relevant employment contract, has to provide evidence demonstrating that it is entitled to such any additional compensation. 25. The Single Judge then observed that the Claimant had also requested the amount of USD 230,000 as “extra replacement costs”, an amount which represented the salaries the Claimant had to pay to its new coach following the First Respondent’s departure. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that, had the contract not been breached, the Claimant would have paid more as salary to the First Respondent and, therefore, it could not be concluded that the Claimant had suffered any such damage. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to also reject this part of the claim. 26. Consequently, and in view of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that a total monetary compensation of EUR 172,763, representing two months of salary (i.e. 2 x EUR 18,200) as well as part of the “advance payment” paid in excess to the First Respondent (i.e. EUR 136,363), seemed an appropriate and reasonable compensation to be paid by the First Respondent to the Claimant for breach of contract. 27. Ending with the third issue, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the Second Respondent could not be considered to have induced the First Respondent to breach his contract with the Claimant since, as previously mentioned, article 17 of the Regulations only applied to contractual dispute between a player and a club. In this regard, and recalling the general legal principle of “nulla poena sine lege”, which provides that someone cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law, the Single Judge concluded that the Second Respondent cannot be sanctioned for inducement of breach of contract and cannot be considered jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. 28. With regard to the interest requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge held that, since the amount awarded is to be considered as compensation for breach of contract, an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the total amount of EUR 172,763 should therefore apply as from 30 January 2012, i.e. the date of the present decision, until the date of effective payment and not as from 22 November 2007 as requested by the Claimant. 29. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 172,763, together with an interest of 5% on the said amount as from 30 January 2012. 30. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 15 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 31. Furthermore and according to Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 741,000. 32. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. Considering that in the case at hand the responsibility of the breach can entirely be attributed to the First Respondent, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 15,000. As a result, the First Respondent has to pay the amount of currency of country H 15,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club N, against the First Respondent, Coach F, is partially accepted. 2. The First Respondent, Coach F, has to pay to the Claimant, Club N, the amount of EUR 172,763, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 30 January 2012 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club N, against the First Respondent, Coach F, are rejected. 4. The claim of the Claimant, Club N, against the Second Respondent, Club S, is rejected. 5. If the aforementioned amount is not paid by the First Respondent, Coach F, within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The Claimant, Club N, is directed to inform the First Respondent, Coach F, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 are to be paid by the First Respondent, Coach F, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case Nr. XX-XXXXX: Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives