F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach W, from country N as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club C, from country R as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach W, from country N as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club C, from country R as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 January 2010, Coach W, from country N (hereinafter referred to as: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or simply as: the Claimant) and Club C, from country R (hereinafter referred to as: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply as: the Respondent) concluded an “Individual Labour Contract” (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 15 January 2010 until 30 June 2011, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to the following salary: a) “for the period between 1 January 2010 - 30 June 2010: 59,879 currency of country R/month (the equivalent in currency of country R of the net amount of 10,000-tenthousand-Euro/month); b) for the period between 1 July 2010 - 30 June 2011: 107,784 currency of country R/month (the equivalent in currency of country R of the net amount of 18,000-eighteenthousand-Euro/month) […] The date on which the wage shall be paid is 15 of the next month and the employer [i.e. the Respondent] has the right to make any payment in advance”. 2. According to letter L.I. of the contract, “the employee [i.e. the Claimant] shall also benefit from a bonus of EURO 2,000 net (two thousand) for each win. This bonus shall be double in the event the team remains on the first place after a win away, after the first three matches of the championship in the season 2010-2011, and only if that win is against one of the following teams: Club B, Club D, Club R, Club Q and Club T”. 3. Letter L.I. of the contract stipulated that the Claimant would receive an amount of EUR 25,000 as “sign-on fee […] to be paid within 7 (seven) days from the registration and approval date of this individual labour contract”, whereas letter L.II. of the contract provided that the Claimant was entitled to a “telephone”, a flat as well as a car. 4. Letter L.IV. of the contract stipulated that “this individual labour contract [i.e. the contract] shall terminate under the following terms: a) Upon expiry of the term for which it was concluded; b) As a result of the parties’ agreement, on the date agreed upon by the parties”. 5. According to letter O. of the contract, “the disputes arising in connection with the conclusion, performance, alteration, suspension or termination of this individual labour contract shall be settled by the court having material and territorial jurisdiction, according to law, by the courts of the country R Football Federation with appropriate jurisdiction and by FIFA rules and regulation and the CAS”. 6. On 12 May 2010 as well as on 22 July 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract arguing that he had “not received EUR 2,000 net of his salary for February and his total salary of EUR 30,000 net for March, April and May 2010” as well as “10,000 of bonuses he is entitled to”, making a total of EUR 42,000. 7. The Claimant further explained that, on 3 May 2010, he was allegedly suspended by the Respondent “until further notice […] based on allegations that are false and lack any substance”. The Claimant added that, following his suspension, he had written to the Respondent on 4 May 2010 to ask the latter, inter alia, to “terminate the suspension with immediate effect”, pay his salary of May 2010 as well as “any amounts due in respect of back wages or bonuses”. In this respect, the Claimant explained that he had never received any written confirmation of his suspension from the Respondent. 8. The Claimant also alleged that on 6 May 2010, the Respondent had informed him that it would not pay him “any salary or back salary” for at least another 60 days. Thereupon, the Claimant informed the Respondent, by means of a fax dated 7 May 2010, that “until further notice he would not attend training or other activities, but of course would be available for work should the club require his services”. 9. According to the Claimant, on 3 May 2010, the Respondent had also blocked his mobile phone he was entitled to under the contract, failed to pay the rent of his flat for May 2010 and did not provide him with a “decent” car as per the contract. For those reasons, the Claimant claimed to have sent a letter on 19 May 2010, requesting the Respondent to take action in order to fulfil its obligations in relation to his flat and car. 10. As a result, the Claimant explained to have terminated his employment contract on 16 June 2010 “with just cause” and “with immediate effect” by means of a letter sent to the Respondent and requested the latter to pay his alleged outstanding salaries and bonuses up until 16 June 2010 as well as compensation for breach of contract amounting to his salaries from 16 June 2010 to June 2011. 11. Considering all the above-mentioned allegations, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay him the sum of EUR 47,000 as outstanding salaries and bonuses (i.e. EUR 2,000 for the salary of February 2010, EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salaries of March, April and May 2010, EUR 5,000 for the salary up until 16 June 2010 as well as EUR 10,000 representing outstanding bonuses), the amount of EUR 221,000 (i.e. EUR 5,000 for the salary of second part of June 2010 as well as EUR 18,000 x 12 months amounting to EUR 216,000) as remaining value of the contract, i.e. the period from 16 June 2010 to June 2011, as well as legal costs amounting to EUR 7,500. 12. On 3 February 2011, the Respondent provided FIFA with its position. First of all, the Respondent deemed that FIFA did not have the competence to hear the present matter as letter O. of the contract stipulated that the competence for settling disputes in connection with the contract belonged to “the legal courts with material and territorial competence”. 13. The Respondent further alleged that the Claimant was sanctioned “for the offences he committed, as per Art. 52, par. 1, let. B) of Law 53/2003[…]” of the Labour Code and was consequently “suspended for a period of 30 days, starting with 3 May 2010 until 2 June 2010”. 14. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that “after the expiry of the suspension period, the undersigned [i.e. the Respondent] repeatedly notified the coach [i.e. the Claimant] to report to the work place with a view to carrying out his contractual obligation”. 15. Moreover, and although the Respondent recognised that the Claimant was entitled to the amount of EUR 40,000 as salary for the months of January, February, March and April 2010 as well as the amount of EUR 10,500 regarding “5 wins and 1 draw” ”during the period he trained Club C”, the Respondent had duly paid the aforementioned amounts as it had paid “the amount of currency of country R 156,187 (the equivalent of EUR 38,000) and Coach W [i.e. the Claimant] was also given a disciplinary sanction of currency of country R 89,818.5 (the equivalent of EUR 21,579) as per Decision 61 of 28 May 2010”. The bank statement provided by the Respondent indicated that the Claimant had apparently received the following amounts: EUR 25,000 on 19 January 2010, EUR 5,000 on 15 February 2010 and EUR 8,000 on 16 March 2010. 16. As for the Claimant’s salary of May 2010, the Respondent stated that they “do not owe Coach W [i.e. the Claimant] any fee as he was suspended […] Even if we [i.e. the Respondent] had owed Coach W [i.e. the Claimant] the fee for May 2010, such fee was due on 15 June 2010, date on which he had already unilaterally terminated the contract with us, being for 15 days absent without leave from work and specifically communicating to us the unilateral termination of the contract”. Concerning the month of June 2010, the Respondent also denied owing anything to him since the Claimant was “missing from the work place”. 17. Concerning the compensation of EUR 221,000, the Respondent was of the opinion that such compensation has to “be dismissed as inadmissible since, it is not the club [i.e. the Respondent] that unilaterally terminated the contract with Club W [i.e. the Claimant], but the coach himself unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause”. In this respect, the Respondent further argued that the Claimant had “after the expiry of the suspension period, i.e. 2 June 2010, to report to the club as the contract made between the parties was still applicable” but had failed to do so. 18. In addition, the Respondent lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant requesting FIFA to “establish the unilateral termination without just cause of the labour contract” and obliged the Claimant to pay the Respondent the amount of “EUR 19,000, representing contract rights actually paid to the coach [i.e. the Claimant] up to the moment he terminated the contract” (i.e. 50% of EUR 38,000), in accordance with art. 26 par. 4 of the Regulations for the Status of the football coach of the country R Football Federation (hereinafter: the country R Football Federation Regulations for coach). 19. On 26 April 2011, the Claimant rejected the counter-claim as well as the allegations of the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant reiterated that the Respondent was the one who had breached the contract and that the Respondent’s strategy “was to not respond to any communication from Coach W [i.e. the Claimant] as of the day of the suspension, 3 May 2010”. The Claimant also alleged that the Respondent had, in the past, behaved in the same way with others coaches and further argued that after his suspension, the Respondent had hired a total of four different coaches until 27 August 2010. 20. According to the Claimant, the real intention of the Respondent was to put him under pressure, with the hope that he would simply “go away”, by “not paying any salaries due as of 15 March 2010, suspend Coach W [i.e. the Claimant] on 3 May 2010 without any substantiation for that, stop paying for the apartment so the landlord would evict Coach W and not providing him with a car and mobile phone”. 21. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent had never given him a copy of the decision dated 3 May 2010 since he was only verbally notified of the suspension. Therefore, he “could not contest the decision to the relevant body in country R due to the absence of a written decision”. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the allegation of the Respondent that he had failed to report to work after his suspension was false since he was “asked to leave the premises”. As the Respondent had failed to pay his salary and as he was apparently asked to leave his flat as well as due to the fact that the Respondent had never answered his letters sent after his suspension, the Claimant had thus decided to return to the country N. 22. The Claimant deemed that the Respondent had “failed to substantiate why they did not pay any salary as of 15 March 2010. Club C [i.e. the Respondent] mistakenly believes that any (unjust) disciplinary sanction in May 2010 would discharge them of pay salary for the months February and March 2010”, even though his suspension did not mention anything about his salary. 23. In continuation, and as to the amount of EUR 38,000 apparently paid by the Respondent, the Claimant stated that the amount of EUR 25,000 paid on 19 January 2010 was in fact the amount due to him as sign-on fee according to letter L.I. of the contract and “the amount paid on 15 February 2010 constitutes salary for January 2010. The amount paid on 16 March 2010 contains a partial payment of the salary for February, Club C [i.e. the Respondent] paid EUR 8,000 where the correct amount should have been EUR 10,000”. 24. According to the Claimant, the Respondent “tried before to impose a disciplinary sanction on Coach W [i.e. the Claimant], but failed to do so”. In this respect, the Claimant enclosed a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the country R Football Professional League in which they announced that the request of the Respondent to sanction the Claimant was denied. On 16 July 2010, the Claimant lodged an appeal against the Respondent in relation to a disciplinary sanction imposed by the Respondent but the Disciplinary Committee rejected the appeal. 25. Regarding the EUR 19,000 that the Respondent requested in its counter-claim, the Claimant alleged that it was requested on the basis of the regulation referred to in a decision for disciplinary sanctions dated 7 July 2010 allegedly adopted by the Disciplinary Committee of the country R Football Professional League, and that, consequently, such request should be rejected as he had already terminated his contract on 16 June 2010. 26. Finally, and in view of the above, the Claimant deemed that the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent should be rejected and reiterated that he should be entitled “to receive compensation for Club C’s [i.e. the Respondent’s] breach of contract”, i.e. EUR 221,000, and “to his salary up to 16 June 2010”, i.e. EUR 47,000, as stated in his initial complaint. 27. In its last position dated 18 February 2013, the Respondent stated that it “was excluded from the country R Football Federation in 2011 following an abusive an illegal decision of the Executive Committee of the said federation” and reiterated that the “country R Football Federation and the Professional Football League in country R do have arbitration tribunals set up in accordance with the requirements of Circular 1010 by FIFA”. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred as: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he acknowledged that the present dispute was submitted to FIFA on 12 May 2010, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge of Players’ Status Committee 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 and 2 of the 2009, 2010 and 2012 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 12 May 2010. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2009 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. The applicable regulations having been established, the Singe Judge went on to assess whether he was competent to hear the present matter and recalled that the Respondent had argued in its submissions that FIFA was not competent to deal with the dispute as a specific jurisdiction clause had been agreed upon between the parties in the contract and which allegedly gave the competence to hear the present matter to “the legal courts with material and territorial competence”. 4. In order to determine the aforementioned as well as to establish whether he was competent to hear the present matter, the Single Judge analysed the contract and, more specifically, the content of letter O. which stated that “the disputes arising in connection with the conclusion, performance, alteration, suspension or termination of this individual labour contract shall be settled by the court having material and territorial jurisdiction, according to law, by the courts of the country R Football Federation with appropriate jurisdiction and by FIFA rules and regulation and the CAS”. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to underline that said provision amounted in fact to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause allowing FIFA’s competent deciding body to hear the matter at stake. 5. Consequently, based on art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules in conjunction with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 and art. 22 c) of the Regulations and in view of the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in letter O. of the contract concluded between the parties, the Single Judge concluded that he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between a country N coach and a country R club. 6. Having established his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation of the present matter. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 15 January 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2011. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that according to the contract the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, from the Respondent the following remuneration : a) EUR 25,000 as signing-on fee; b) EUR 10,000 as monthly salary for the period between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2010; c) EUR 18,000 as monthly salary for the period between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011; d) EUR 2,000 as bonuses for each match win. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant had decided to terminate his contractual relationship with the Respondent on 16 June 2010 since the latter had apparently failed to comply with its contractual obligations. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had not paid part of his salaries of February and June 2010, his entire monthly salaries of March, April, May 2010 as well as bonuses. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent should be requested to pay him a total amount of EUR 275,500 representing EUR 37,000 as outstanding salaries, EUR 10,000 as bonuses, EUR 221,000 as compensation for breach of contract and EUR 7,500 as legal costs. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee reverted to the submission provided by the Respondent as response to the claim and noted, in particular, that the latter had argued that it was the Claimant who had not respected the terms of the contract as he had allegedly failed to resumed work after the expiry of a suspension period. Moreover, the Single Judge further took note that the Respondent had alleged that it had already paid the salaries and bonuses pursuant to the contract, i.e. EUR 25,000 on 19 January 2010, EUR 5,000 on 15 February 2010 as well as EUR 8,000 on 16 March 2010. 10. Equally, the Single Judge also acknowledged that the Respondent had lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant. In this regard, the Single Judge duly took note of the Respondent’s opinion that the Claimant should not be entitled to any kind of compensation whatsoever since he had unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause and that, therefore, it should be entitled to receive from the Claimant the amount it had paid to him in excess, i.e. EUR 19,000. 11. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge held that the present dispute revolved around the following issues: 1) was the Claimant entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause; 2) in the event that it is established that the Claimant was entitled to consider the contract as terminated, what are the consequences of such early termination. 12. Starting with the first issue, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee recalled that, on the one hand, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had unilaterally breached the contract without just cause while, on the other hand, the Claimant deemed 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 salaries and bonuses. 13. In continuation, 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 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”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 14. Starting with the allegations of the Claimant, the Single Judge noted, first of all, that the latter had explained that the Respondent had not paid part of the monthly salaries of February and June 2010 and the entire monthly salaries of March, April, May 2010 as well as bonuses. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent had blocked his mobile phone as well as had failed to pay for his flat. For all those reasons, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had decided to terminate his contract on 16 June 2010 with immediate effect. 15. Equally, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent had provided a number of bank statements in support of its allegations that it had already paid certain amounts to the Claimant as salaries and bonuses, i.e. EUR 25,000 on 19 January 2010, EUR 5,000 on 15 February 2010 as well as EUR 8,000 on 16 March 2010. 16. In view of the above and concerning the aforementioned payments apparently made by the Respondent, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant had confirmed having received such payments but claimed that the amount of EUR 25,000 received on 19 January 2010 was the signing-on fee stipulated in the contract, the amount of EUR 5,000 received on 15 February 2010 represented the outstanding remuneration related to the salary of January 2010 and finally the amount of EUR 8,000 received on 16 March 2010 constituted part payment of the salary of February 2010. 17. Consequently, and taking into account that the Respondent had not been able to prove that such amounts entirely covered the outstanding remuneration requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge reached the conclusion that the latter was still entitled to receive from the Respondent part of his monthly salaries of February and June 2010 as well as his entire monthly salaries of March, April and May 2010. The Single Judge added that these amounts were therefore still outstanding at the time the contract was unilaterally terminated by the Claimant on 16 June 2010. 18. In light of the above, the Single Judge held that the Respondent had stopped performing its obligations under the contract as early as February 2012. As a result and in view of the considerably long period of time during which the Respondent had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the Single Judge formed the view that the Claimant had terminated the contract on 16 June 2010 with just cause. 19. In this context, the Single Judge was also keen to underline that, although the Claimant appears to have been suspended from his duties by the Respondent some time before the Claimant had decided to terminate his contract, said suspension should not in any way have justified the non-payment of the Claimant’s salary for such a long period. 20. Furthermore and entering into the issue of the consequences of such termination with just cause by the Claimant, the Single Judge recalled, first of all, that, at the time the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract with just cause, his monthly salaries of March, April and May 2010 for a total amount of EUR 30,000, part of his monthly salary of February for a sum of EUR 2,000 as well as part of his monthly salary of June 2010 for an amount of EUR 5,000 were still outstanding. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that a total amount of EUR 37,000 as outstanding salaries has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 21. With regard to the bonuses of EUR 10,000 claimed by the Claimant, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that the Respondent had confirmed owing such bonuses to him. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 10,000 as outstanding bonuses. 22. In continuation, the Single Judge went on to consider the amount of compensation that the Claimant was requesting following his early termination of the contract with just cause. 23. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that, although the Claimant was, in principle, entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent, the Claimant was also under the obligation to mitigate the loss he suffered as a result of said termination with just cause. In this context, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant had signed another employment contract for a higher salary with an Club I, from country E on 17 June 2010, i.e. one day after having terminated his contract with the Respondent. Consequently, and in view of the aforementioned legal principle of mitigation of damages, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant should not be entitled to any compensation as the damages he had suffered as a result of the termination was compensated by the remuneration he subsequently received from his new club. 24. Furthermore, the Single Judge also decided to reject the Claimant’s request for legal costs as such amount, i.e. EUR 7,500, is not granted in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee in accordance with article 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 25. Finally and considering that the termination of the contract by the Claimant was done with just cause, the Single Judge held that the counter-claim of the Respondent has to be rejected. In addition and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge also held that the statement made by the Respondent, according to which it was allegedly “excluded from the country R Football Federation in 2011 following an abusive and illegal decision of the Executive Committee of the said federation”, could not be taken into account as the Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence in support of such allegation. 26. Consequently and in view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant, to reject the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent and held that the latter has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 47,000, representing outstanding salaries and bonuses as established above. 27. Lastly, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 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 and are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 28. Considering that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 29. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 18,000. 30. Consequently, and in view of the fact that the Claimant has only been awarded a small part of his original claim, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 3,000 by the Respondent. Considering that the Claimant already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings and the Respondent the sum of currency of country H 1,000 at the time the counter-claim was lodged, the Claimant has to pay the final amount of currency of country H 10,000 and the Respondent has to pay the final amount of currency of country H 2,000 in order to cover the costs in the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W, the amount of EUR 37,000 as outstanding salaries as well as the sum of EUR 10,000 as outstanding bonuses, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W, are rejected. 5. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 6. If the aforementioned total amount of EUR 47,000 is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country C 18,000 are to be paid to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 7.1 The amount of currency of country C 15,000 has to be paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W, has to pay the amount of currency of country H 10,000. 7.2 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 1,000 at the time the counter-claim was lodged, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay the amount of currency of country H 2,000. 7.3 The abovementioned two amounts have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Coach W, is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 3 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 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