F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant with the club, Club E, country F as Counter-Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant with the club, Club E, country F as Counter-Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 November 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C or Respondent / Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract valid for three seasons, as from the 2011-12 season until the 2013-14 season. 2. According to the employment contract, the player was entitled to receive inter alia the total amount of “Dollars” 1,350,000 for three seasons payable as follows: a. $ 350,000 for the 2011-12 season: $ 175,000 on 30 September 2011 and three instalments of $ 58,333 each, falling due on 1 January and 31 July 2012, without any indication as regards the due date of the third instalment; b. $ 450,000 for the 2012-13 season: $ 112,500 on 1 November 2012 and four instalments of $ 84,375 each, falling due on 1 January 2013, 1 March 2013, 31 July 2013 without any indication as regards the due date of the fourth instalment; c. $ 550,000 for the 2013-14 season. 3. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the seasons of country D ran as follows: 2011-12: as from 20 July 2011 until 15 May 2012 2012-13: as from 15 August 2012 until 30 May 2013 2013-14: as from 22 November 2013 until 30 July 2014 4. The Football Association of country D provided the following particulars regarding these seasons: 2011-12: ceased in February 2012 and was cancelled in March 2012 2012-13 started on 2 February 2013 and was cancelled before its end 2013-14: started on 26 December 2013 5. According to art. 4 of the employment contract, “the player will incur the taxes of the total amount of the contract according to law. The club will settle the taxes to the concerned tax administration and inform the player for the document of paying after the end of the season and before the beginning of the next season.” 6. In addition, the employment contract refers to the payment of 1% of the contractual value to the association as a contract approval fee. 7. According to art. 5.15 of the employment contract, sanctions on the player may not exceed the “total amount of the contract or 50% of it”. 8. Under the heading “special conditions”, the contract contains a handwritten clause, which stipulates, inter alia, “If he [the player] did not receive his salary after 3 months of the date required in this contract then he is free player”. 9. On 24 May 2012, the player put the club in default of payment of his remuneration indicating inter alia that the last time he received a payment was in January 2012. He further set a time limit for Club C to pay or he would consider the contract as terminated for sporting and financial just cause. 10. On 12 July 2012, the player informed FIFA that he cancels his employment contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players referring to his notice of 24 May 2012 as well as to the contractual clause under point I./8. above. He further asked FIFA to confirm such termination and lodged an unspecified claim against the club. The player was then informed by FIFA of the particulars that petitions lodged in front of FIFA shall contain in accordance with the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The player reverted to FIFA on 24 June 2013 (cf. point I./18. below). 11. On 17 December 2012, the player contacted the Football Association of country D informing it of his desire to put an end to the employment contract due to the Club C’s alleged non-respect of its financial obligations and the fact that the league had been cancelled for an indefinite period of time. 12. On 19 January 2013, the player allegedly sent a “warning letter” to Club C via the Football Association of country D, asking Club C to pay outstanding remuneration, i.e. USD 112,500 due on 1 November 2012 plus USD 84,375 due on 1 January 2013, and pointing out that the season had been pending since 1 February 2012, which negatively affected his career. 13. On 21 January 2013, the player terminated the employment contract in writing invoking that he had not played any official match in the league of country D since 1 February 2012, as the league had been cancelled since that date, and that the following instalments had remained unpaid: the last instalment of USD 58,000 from the previous season, the USD 112,500 instalment of 1 November 2012, 2 x USD 84,375 which according to the player fell due on 1 January 2013. 14. On 2 April 2013, the player, Club C and the club from country H, Club G, signed an agreement regarding a 4 months’ loan of the player to the club from country H, i.e. until 30 July 2013. Article 4 of this loan agreement reads that: “Player A accepts and declares that he fully releases Club C from any dues and cancels any dues or payments for season 2012/2013 according to his employment contract with Club C dated 14/9/2011 and the first party [Club C] is considered clear under this loan agreement from any obligations and payments for season 2012/13 towards the third party [Player A] upon the signature of this contract by the parties.” 15. According to the information available in the TMS, the player was not registered with the club from country H due to administrative TMS issues. 16. On 27 January 2014, the player signed an employment contract with the club from country F, Club E (hereinafter also Counter-Respondent 2), valid as from 27 January 2014 until 31 May 2014. 17. On 26 February 2014, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised the Football Federation of country F to provisionally register the player with Club E following the refusal of the Football Association of country D to issue the relevant international transfer certificate (ITC). Claim of the player: 18. On 24 June 2013, the player lodged a claim against Club C and after various requests from FIFA to specify and clarify the financial part of the claim, on 18 November 2013, the player claimed payment of the difference between the entire contractual value (USD 1,350,000) and the total amount which Club C allegedly paid to him (USD 278,500), i.e. USD 1,071,500. 19. In his 24 June 2013 petition, the player indicated that he felt pressured to sign the loan agreement with Club C and Club G including its art. 4, in order to be able to register with the club from country H within the registration period and that, finally, due to administrative errors the transfer fell through. 20. The player maintains that he terminated the contract due to the Club C’s breach of its obligations and for sporting reasons. Club C’s reply and counterclaim against the player and Club E: 21. Club C rejected the player’s claim and, on 1 April 2014, lodged a counterclaim against the player and his new club, Club E, for breach of contract without just cause and payment of compensation of USD 1,843,000, plus 5% interest as of the date on which the breach occurred, which was detailed as follows: a. USD 887,500 as residual value of the contract; b. USD 150,000 relating to its loss of future earnings; c. USD 530,000 for the replacement of the player; d. USD 275,000 in connection with the specificity of sport. 22. With respect to its alleged loss of earnings, Club C highlights that it paid a transfer compensation of USD 150,000 to the player’s former club. 23. As regards the specificity of sport, Club C points out that it was impossible for it to hire a replacement player of the same calibre due to the registration limit of 3 foreign players. In addition, it alleges that Club C’s reputation was damaged due to huge media attention based on the player’s false claims. 24. In addition, Club C asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player and Club E. 25. Should the Dispute Resolution Chamber decide that the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract, Club C refers to the player’s obligation to mitigate damages. 26. Club C further points out that the player disregarded the procedural rules of FIFA and that he failed to provide a breakdown of the amount claimed and even changed the claimed amount when he was asked to provide a breakdown. 27. Club C considers that the player failed to submit the relevant employment contract or any other documentation or substantiated arguments in support of his position. In this regard, Club C denies that it received a default notice from the player. 28. Club C confirms that, on 1 February 2012, the league of country D was suspended indefinitely due to the “incident I” and that on 10 March 2012 the Football Association of country D decided to cancel the 2011-12 season. 29. Furthermore, according to Club C, between March 2012 and July 2012, it sanctioned the player several times for late arrival at training, misconduct, absence from training, red cards, all in line with its internal regulations. Furthermore, the player was sanctioned with a 4 match ban by the African Football Confederation relating to African Champions League matches. 30. According to Club C, the player travelled to country J on 7 May 2012 and was absent for 3 months, until 30 July 2012. 31. Club C, allegedly still wishing to make use of his services, decided to reduce the fine imposed upon the player due to his 80 days’ absence and it allegedly even had started to pay the instalment that fell due on 1 November 2012 in advance in portions. 32. Club C further holds that the player failed to return from holidays as from 3 January 2013 and it asserts having warned the player, who allegedly refused to return and asked being transferred to another club. 33. According to Club C, it then received the player’s letter of termination dated 21 January 2013 claiming outstanding remuneration, whereas he had received all of his payables until December 2012. 34. In respect of the payments made to and entitlements of the player, Club C presented the following particulars: 2011-12 season a. Entitlement to USD 276,500 net (gross salary of USD 350,000 minus alleged 20% taxes according to art. 4 of the employment contract and minus 1% registration fee). b. It alleges having paid USD 50,000 by cheque on 15 October 2011; USD 125,000 in cash on 20 October 2011; USD 46,666 by cheque on 16 January 2012, totalling USD 221,666. c. Fines in the total amount of USD 66,500 were allegedly imposed by Club C on the player, mainly due to his absence as from 7 May until 30 July 2012 (USD 55,000) in accordance with the internal regulations, and deducted from his salary. Therefore, Club C holds that the player owed USD 11,666 to the club, which were to be deducted from his next salary. 2012-13 season d. Entitlement to USD 85,500 net for the first instalment (gross instalment of USD 112,500 minus alleged 20% taxes according to art. 4 of the employment contract and minus 1% registration fee on the total contractual value for the relevant season). e. It alleges having paid USD 10,000 by cheque on 31 July 2012; USD 10,000 on 1 August 2012; USD 25,000 on 11 August 2012; USD 15,000 on 17 October 2012. In this respect, Club C maintains that this subtotal of USD 60,000 was related to the 1 November 2012 instalment and paid in advance to the player in order to persuade him to return to training; USD 7,000 on 22 November 2012; USD 11,000 on 5 December 2013. f. The amount of USD 3,450 relating to a fine allegedly imposed on the player in August 2012 for absence from training for 4 days as well as the balance of USD 11,666 as alleged undue payment from the previous season should be deducted. 35. Subsequently, in January 2013, Club C was allegedly contacted by other clubs in order to obtain its approval for trials with the player, to which it had consented. 36. Club C asserts that, in this context, on 2 April 2013, the above-mentioned tripartite 4 months’ loan agreement was signed with Club G and it highlights that the player failed to return after said loan. 37. According to Club C, it then asked the Football Association of country D, on 1 October 2013, to inform the Football Association of country B that the player shall return to the club. 38. For these reasons, Club C holds that the player was repeatedly in breach of his contractual obligations and that he terminated the employment contract without just cause. 39. Club C further points out that the player’s unjustified lengthy absence should be considered a termination of the contract by the player without just cause. 40. Club C submitted some press articles, which, in its view, demonstrate the characteristics of the player as a “troublemaker”. 41. Club C highlights that in accordance with art. 4 of the loan agreement signed on 2 April 2013, the player had renounced his right to claim any monies owed, if at all, as from the conclusion of the employment contract until the date of signature of the loan agreement. 42. The club further deems that by presenting his claim on 24 June 2013, thus shortly after having signed the aforementioned loan agreement with its clause 4, the player has demonstrated a greedy and malicious behaviour. Reply of the player to the counterclaim of Club C: 43. The player rejects the counterclaim and highlights that the loan to the club from country H never transpired. Accordingly, so the player, the loan agreement and thus all of its articles are null and void. The player adds that Club C was aware of this fact and even is to be held liable for the fact that he could not be registered with the club from country H due to its inputting a wrong and non-matching loan duration into TMS. 44. The player further states that Club C is also responsible for the cancellation of a try-out at a club from country K following the termination of the employment contract. 45. Furthermore, the player considers that the fines imposed upon him show a deliberate pattern used by Club C to avoid its financial obligations towards him. He highlights that Club C has not presented any proof of warning, invitation to defend himself or notification of sanctions. 46. As regards his alleged absence, the player highlights that he was on national team assignment at FIFA/CAF recognised competitions for five consecutive weeks, during which time he was sanctioned by Club C. Upon his return to Club C, he allegedly was given a cheque which was not covered. 47. The player states that he reluctantly invoked the handwritten clause of the employment contract (cf. point I./8. above) after his salary had been outstanding for many months. He adds that he has not received any salary during the period of time he was supposed to be on loan with the club from country H. 48. He further holds that, as at December 2012, he had not received any salary for 8 months. As regards the payment documents presented by the club in support of its position, the player contests having signed the document relating to a payment of USD 46,666 on 16 January 2012 maintaining that the signature is different from his signature. 49. The player points out that he cancelled his contract in January 2013 but still showed sportsmanship to the club by allowing them to benefit from his transfer. 50. The player states that he has not been able to join any club as from January 2013 until January 2014. Reply of Club E to the claim of Club C: 51. Club E points out that the player had declared that he terminated his contract with Club C due to outstanding remuneration. 52. It further highlights that following the refusal of the Football Association of country D to issue the relevant ITC, FIFA authorised the registration of the player with it. 53. After the closure of the investigation-phase of this matter, Club C and the player presented further, unsolicited, comments and documentation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 June 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed 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 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and an club from country D and involving a club from country F. 3. Furthermore, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 June 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS). 5. In this context and to begin with, the Chamber deemed it fit to highlight that the unsolicited comments and documents received from both parties after the closure of the investigation in the present matter could not be taken into consideration by the Chamber in its assessment of the facts relating to the present matter. In this respect, on 16 July 2015, the parties were duly informed of the closure of the exchange of correspondence in this matter and of the fact that no further submissions from the parties with respect to the claim and counterclaim would be admitted to the file. 6. Having said that, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 24 November 2011, the parties signed an employment contract, which was valid during three seasons, i.e. as from the 2011-12 season until the 2013-14 season (hereinafter: contract). It was further noted that in accordance with the contract the player was entitled to receive inter alia the total amount of “Dollars” 1,350,000 for three seasons and that it has remained undisputed that the applicable currency is the United States Dollar (USD). 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, on the one hand, maintained that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and, thus, shall be held liable to pay, inter alia, compensation for breach of contract. 8. The Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, rejected the claim put forward by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and lodged a counterclaim against the latter. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is to be held liable for breach of contract without just cause due to his alleged repeated breaches of contract and lengthy absences. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintained that the player must pay compensation for breach of contract and that his new club shall be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of such compensation. 9. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 fully rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim maintaining his own position. In addition, it was noted that the CounterRespondent 2, for its part, equally rejected the claim of the Respondent/CounterClaimant. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 11. The Chamber took into account that, as of the 2011-12 season, the sporting seasons of country D appear to have been affected by national riots. According to the Football Association of country D, the sporting season ceased as from February 2012 until February 2013 and the 2012-13 season was cancelled prior to its ordinary expiry. The 2013-14 season then started on 26 December 2013. 12. In continuation, the members of the Chamber recapped the chronology of events in which a termination of the employment relationship between the parties is referred to. Indeed, in July 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 informed FIFA that he cancelled the employment contract asking the latter to confirm such action. It was further noted that, subsequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 returned to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, towards the end of July 2012. Later on, in December 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 turned to the Football Association of country D with a complaint against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in which the player highlighted his desire to put an end to the employment contract, the alleged failure of the Respondent/CounterClaimant to fulfil its contractual obligations and the fact that he had not played in official matches since the cancellation of the sporting season in February 2012. 13. With respect to the year 2012, it was further noted from the financial documents presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the position of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in this respect, without, at this point, addressing the question as to whether Club C had fully complied with its financial contractual obligations, that during said cessation of the sporting seasons the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has made payments to the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 until in December 2012. Indeed, apart from his general position that he had not received any payments during eight months as stated in his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 has not commented on the various specific payments that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged having made. Nor has the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 commented on the payment-related documents presented by Club C in this regard, except for the specific receipt and related alleged payment of USD 46,666 on 16 January 2012, for which alleged payment the player contested the signature on the relevant receipt. 14. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that the employment contract signed by and between the parties continued to be in force until at least the end of the year 2012 and that the parties had acted in the same belief, in spite of references having been made, in particular by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, to the termination of the employment contract during said year. 15. The members of the Chamber felt confirmed in their opinion by the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 addressed a notice of termination of the employment contract to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only on 21 January 2013. 16. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the question as to whether by said notice of 21 January 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 had undeniably terminated the employment relationship with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 17. That is, on 2 April 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, and the club from country H, Club G, signed an agreement regarding a 4 months’ loan of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club G. 18. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, this loan agreement is null and void, since the related transfer to Club G never transpired due to administrative issues. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 asserted that he had felt pressured to sign this loan agreement in order to be able to register with the club from country H during the relevant registration period. 19. The members of the Chamber, however, whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 had not presented any documentation corroborating his allegations that he had signed said loan agreement under pressure. Furthermore, whereas the information contained in TMS demonstrates that the relevant loan indeed has not transpired due to administrative TMS issues, which fact has moreover remained undisputed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber disagreed with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s argument that, therefore, the loan agreement and all of its articles are null and void. On a side note, the Chamber remarked that the relevant loan agreement does not contain any conditional clause to this effect. 20. On account of the above, the Chamber concurred that by agreeing to his loan to the club from country H in April 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in fact explicitly acknowledged the existence of an ongoing contractual relationship with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. This seems to be confirmed by the wording of art. 4 of the relevant loan agreement which clearly refers to “his [the player’s] employment contract with Club C …”. The DRC further took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant equally considered that the contractual relationship with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 continued to exist, not only by signing the relevant loan agreement, but also in the light of its statement that the player had not returned to the club after the said loan. 21. For these reasons, the members of the Chamber concluded that by their action, i.e. the signature of the loan agreement, the parties acknowledged that their employment relationship continued to exist beyond the date on which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 issued the notice of termination of 21 January 2013. 22. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the circumstances that occurred subsequent to the signature of the relevant loan agreement. 23. As stated above, the loan of the player to the club from country H as of 2 April 2013 until 30 July 2013 did not transpire due to administrative issues linked to the registration of the player via the TMS. Hence, the Chamber established that both the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must have been aware, at the latest by May 2013, of the fact that the player would not be transferred on a loan basis to the club from country H. 24. Equally, the Chamber noted that at the time the above circumstances relating to said loan occurred and until 26 December 2013 the sporting seasons of country D had been cancelled. 25. The members of the Chamber considered that, in spite of the loan transfer having failed, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 did not return to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA. 26. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, the Respondent/CounterClaimant had not respected its financial obligations towards him, which he considered to be a just cause for the termination of the employment contract. 27. In this respect, and bearing in mind its considerations under points I./14. and II./19. above, the members of the Chamber concurred that by signing the loan agreement, including its art. 4, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 had waived any rights relating to his remuneration for the 2012-13 season on the basis of the employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 28. Having come to this conclusion, the members of the Chamber deemed that they did not need to further address and examine the allegations and documents presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in support of its position with regard to the financial entitlements of and payments made to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, in order to establish if there are any outstanding payables towards the player. 29. Furthermore, on account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1. 30. In continuation, whilst recalling its consideration outlined in point II./23. above, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, first reacted with respect to the apparent absence of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 in October 2013 by means of its request to the Football Association of country D to contact the association of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in order for the latter to return to the club. In other words, between May 2013 and October 2013, no action was undertaken by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in order to ensure the return of the player to Club C. 31. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not demonstrated any real interest in the player’s services any longer, not even after the player did not return to the club in October 2013, bearing in mind that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged its claim against the player in April 2014 only, without having undertaken any other action against the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 as from October 2013 until then. 32. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant. 33. As a final remark, the Chamber wished to highlight that, in the case at hand, the parties may have acted as established above against the particular background of the sporting seasons of country D having been cancelled during the time when the facts which are at the basis of the present dispute occurred. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Player A, is rejected. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives