F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 December 2016

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 December 2016,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member

John Bramhall (England), member

in the matter between the player,

Player A, from country B,

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

and the club,

Club C, from country D

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Club E, from country B

as intervening Party

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 21 August 2014, the player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the club of Country B club E (hereinafter: club E) signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 December 2016. According to said contract, the player was entitled to receive a salary of 7,500. 2. On 13 January 2015, Club E and the Club of country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player from 14 January 2015 to 30 June 2016. 3. Furthermore, on 14 January 2015, the player and Club C signed an employment contract valid as from 12 January 2015 until 30 June 2016 (hereinafter: the contract). According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, ‘a monthly salary, payable in arrears of [expressed in 2,200,000 gross, payable equivalent to EUR 20,000’. 4. Also on 14 January 2015, the player and Club C concluded an amendment to the contract (hereinafter: the amendment), which provided for several other benefits to the player. According to article 3.2 of the amendment, the player was inter alia entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 20,000 ‘net’. Further, the salary related to half of the month of January 2015, as well as the full salaries for the months of February and March 2015, i.e. the total amount of EUR 50,000, were due upon signing of the contract. The salaries as from the month of “March” 2015 were due on the 29th day of the respective month. 5. Article 3.4 of the amendment stipulates: ‘In the event of delay in the payment of salaries for more than 90 days, independently of notification of warning, the Sports Contract could be rescinded by the player for just cause. (cf. Art, 14 of FIFA RSTP), during the season or the so called ‘Protected Period’ (cf. Definition no 7 of FIFA RSTP) without any charge or any (compensation or sports sanctions) for Player A’. 6. On 4 February 2016, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against Club C, claiming the total amount of EUR 240,000, specified as follows:

 payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 130,000, ‘corresponding to 6 (six) and a half months salary delayed’;  compensation for breach of contract by Club C, the amount of EUR 110,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract in the period between 14 January 2016 and 30 June 2016.

Additionally, the player requested for sporting sanctions to be imposed on Club C, as well as to order ‘the Respondent to repay to the Claimant for all the amounts spent in his claim, […] at a 20% (twenty per cent) rate on the due amount, etc.’. 7. In his claim, the player argues that after the signing of the contract, he travelled to country D on a visa valid for only 10 days, as Club C informed him that a permanent visa would be arranged after his arrival in country D. On 31 March 2015, according to the player of Club C, gave him permission to go for an 8 days’ holiday to country B. However, on 8 April 2015, when the player wanted to return to country D, the entrance to the plane was denied to him, because of his expired visa. The player holds that only on 17 July 2015, Club C sent him the required documents for the permanent visa, and that only after arranging said visa by himself, he could return to country D. 8. In addition, the player argues that after signing the contract, on 14 January 2015, he received a first payment of EUR 50,000. Further, according to the player of Club C, allegedly failed to pay him the salaries for the months between April 2015 and September 2015. Moreover, the player holds that on 18 October 2015, Club C paid him ‘one monthly salary’ as well as that on 17 December 2015, he received a payment from Club C, in the amount of 3,680,000, corresponding to approximately EUR 30,000 or ‘one and a half monthly salary’. 9. The player further holds that he put Club C in default on 6 January “2014” for the outstanding salaries, providing a 10 days’ deadline for the payment. On 12 January 2016, Club C replied via e-mail to the player’s lawyer, by forwarding three letters dated 7 January, 10 January and 12 January 2016, in which Club C mentions that the player was absent from training sessions as from 5 January 2016. 10. On 13 January 2016, the player sent another letter to Club C, arguing that he ‘participated the training sessions on 5 January 2016’. In addition, the player again put Club C in default for the payment of the outstanding salaries, asking for the payment of said salaries by no later than 16 January 2016, however to no avail. 11. On 18 January 2016, the player unilaterally terminated the contract with Club C, due to the outstanding salary payments. 12. Club C replied to the claim of the player, by explaining that in January 2015, it tried to register the player from Club E, however that due to unknown reasons, the FA of country D did not timely request the ITC for the relevant transfer. Club C also holds that as a result, it agreed with the player that it would try to register him at the beginning of the 2015/2016 season.

13. In addition, Club C argues that the amendment submitted by the player, is ‘an illegal contract’, which is not approved by the Professional Football League. Club C holds that the document ‘remained null and void in terms of law’ (free translation). 14. Moreover, according to Club C, the player returned to country B on 31 March 2015, with the intention to register Club C only as from the beginning of the 2015/2016 season. 15. In addition, Club C argues that only on 3 July 2015, the transfer of the player could be validly entered in the TMS, and that on 17 July 2015, the player arrived to perform his contractual duties, after the contract was approved by the FA of country D. 16. With respect to the salary payments, Club C that the player was not entitled to receive salary between 14 January 2015 and 17 July 2015, since the ITC for the transfer of the player was not granted in time, as a result of which the player never played for Club C. 17. For the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016, Club C holds that the player was entitled to a monthly salary of 2,200,000’ gross, which corresponds to 1,313,800’ net. Club C that in the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016, it paid the player the total amount of 12,230,000’, but that the player was only entitled to 8,306,420’. As a result, Club C holds that it paid the player the amount of 3,923,580’, without a legal basis. 18. Moreover, Club C holds that the player did not respect his contractual obligations as of 5 January 2016 and confirmed that it sent three letters to the player, informing him that he was absent without valid reasons and requesting him to resume his work within 48 hours. Further, Club C holds that on 18 January 2016, it informed the player via his lawyer about his illegal absence and requested him to come back. 19. Club C concludes that no compensation is due to the player. Moreover, Club C lodged a counterclaim towards the player, claiming the amount of 12,230,000 to be paid by the player, as compensation for breach of contract by the player without just cause.

20. In his reply to Club C counterclaim, the player reiterates his claim and further explains that he is not contesting the contract as referred to by Club C (which provided for a gross salary), but argues that some parts of the contract are no longer valid anymore, because of the validly concluded amendment to the contract (which provides for a net salary). Furthermore, the player argues that Club C did not clarify why it paid him the salary in a net amount, if it was of the opinion that the only validly agreed salary is a gross amount. 21. In addition, the player states that the obligation to register the amendment before the Professional Football League ‘was relying on the club’ and not on the player. Therefore, the player argues that said circumstance can be no valid reason for Club C to not pay the contractually agreed salary. 22. Subsequently, the player argues that the fact that the ITC was only obtained on 3 July 2015, is not a fault of the player and that Club C cannot justify the non-payment of the salaries to the player, based on the circumstance that the ITC was not obtained. 23. Moreover, the Player explained that in the period between 14 January 2015 and 5 January 2016, he only received the amount of 11,380,000, despite being entitled to the amount of 26,400,000. 24. Finally, regarding ‘the alleged absence from work’, the player ‘absolutely refuses the allegation, having in mind that the first day the club allege that the player was absent from work was the day that the player formally notified the club to pay the salaries in delay […]’ and further states that he or his lawyer never received a Club C letter of 18 January 2016. 25. In its replica, Club C reiterated its counterclaim and argued that the amendment cannot be considered valid, as it was established ‘outside the required standards’. Further, the contract has to be considered valid, since said document was drafted ‘in line with the standards of the FA of country D and FIFA’. 26. Finally, Club C argues that the player cannot be entitled to salary for a period in which he did not work, as well as that it paid the player salary in excess, i.e. the amount of 3,923,580. 27. In his duplica, the player repeated his reply to the counterclaim, and submitted a copy of a visa, allegedly issued on 22 January 2015 and valid for a stay of 10 days in country D. 28. After being invited to do so by FIFA, Club E presented its comments to the player’s claim and Club C counterclaim, by arguing that it always acted in good faith and by requesting for the rejection of counterclaim of Club C. 29. Club E explains that on 14 January 2015, it concluded a transfer agreement with Club C for the temporary transfer of the player, but that due to miscommunication between Club C and the FA of country D, the player could only be registered in July 2015.

30. Further, Club E that in January 2016, the player returned to is club, by explaining that Club C did not pay him the agreed salaries. As a result, Club E asked Club C by means of a letter dated 24 February 2016 to explain this situation. In this respect, Club C answered on 28 February 2016 that it had fulfilled all its obligations. As a result, an after evaluating the explanation Club C concluded that Club C did not prove that it paid all the salaries the player was entitled. As a result thereof, Club E considered the loan transfer agreement terminated and integrated the player to its team. 31. In addition, Club E argued that it is irrelevant whether or not Club C failed to register the player in January 2015, as the contract clearly stipulates that Club C obligation to pay salary to the player started as from 14 January 2015. Also, Club E holds that the correct monthly salary is EUR 20,000 net, as per article 3.2 of the amendment, and that Club C failed to pay at least the amount of 13,520,000 to the player. 32. Finally, Club E held that it cannot be sanctioned based on article 17 par. 4 of the FIFA Regulations, since ‘there is no “club signing a professional”’, because ‘The contract was already settled and there was no inducement on the return of the Player’.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 February 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) Of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016) 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 of country B and club of country D, with the involvement of a club of country B.

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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 February 2016, the 2015 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.

5. In doing so, the DRC acknowledged that on 21 August 2014, Club E and the player signed an employment contract valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 December 2016, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of 7,500.

6. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that Club E and Club C concluded a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player until 30 June 2016. In this respect, the player and the Club C signed an employment contract, valid between 12 January 2015 and 30 June 2016, as well as an amendment to said contract. According to the contract, the player would be entitled to receive a monthly salary of 2,200,000 gross equivalent to EUR 20,000, whereas the amendment stipulates that the player is entitled to the amount of EUR 20,000 net.

7. In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it remained uncontested by both the player and Club C that their contractual relationship was unilaterally terminated by the player on 18 January 2016 and that afterwards, the player returned to Club E.

8. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the argumentation of the player, who insists on the fact that the breach of the contract occurred due to the fault of Club C, since it failed to pay him his salaries as from April 2015 until September 2015, and that for the period between October 2015 and until the termination of the contract on 18 January 2016, he only received two and a half monthly salaries. In this respect, the members of the Chamber further noted that the Player Explained that - due to problems with his visa for country D - he could only start performing his obligations under the contract with Club C as of July 2015. Moreover, the player denied Club C allegations that he was absent from its training sessions as of 5 January 2016. As a result, based on the above-mentioned circumstances, the player considers that Club C breached the contract by not paying him his monthly salaries, he was entitled to as per the contract.

9. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took due note of the fact that Club C argued that it was not obliged to pay salary to the player between 14 January 2015 and 17 July 2015, since the ITC of the player was not timely requested by the FA of Country D, as a result of which the player was not registered for Club C in January 2015 and did not play in matches during the first half of 2015.

10. Furthermore, Club C stated that the player was only entitled to a monthly salary of 2,200,000 gross, since the amendment it signed with the player was not approved by the FA of country D, as well as that in the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016, the player received too much salary. Moreover, Club C referred to the alleged absence of the player as from 5 January 2016 and to the unilateral termination of the contract on 18 January 2016. Based on said circumstances, Club C maintained that the player had terminated the contract without just cause and therefore claims 12,230,000 as compensation for the unjustified termination of the contract by the player.

11. With the aforementioned in mind, in particular, in view of the opposite position of the parties, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.

12. Moreover, the Chamber pointed out that from the information on file, it can be established that the player was not timely registered with Club C in January 2015, but only in July 2015, and that Club C is therefore of the opinion that it had no financial obligations towards the player between 14 January and 17 July 2015. Nevertheless, the Chamber emphasized that on the other hand, Club C paid the player’s salary between January and March 2015.

13. In this respect, the Chamber considered relevant to recall its jurisprudence in accordance with which the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the international transfer of a player, which is the sole responsibility of a club and on which a player has no influence. As regards the matter at stake, Club C asserted that it was the FA of country D who did not timely request the ITC to enable a player’s registration. In this respect, the Chamber noted that it is the obligation of the club and the new association (cf. art. 5.2 par. 2 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations) to timely proceed with the ITC request and to timely register the player. Bearing in mind the foregoing, Club C cannot uphold a delay in the procedure for the ITC request against the player.

14. For these reasons, since the player and Club C had already signed a contract, and whilst emphasizing once more that it is the responsibility of the club and new association to (timely) register a player’s contract with its national association, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Club C arguments in this regard. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the club is obliged to pay the player his salaries as from the starting date of the contract, i.e. 14 January 2015.

15. Moreover, the DRC took note that Club C also invoked that the player allegedly was absent from its training sessions as from 5 January 2016 and that as a result thereof, it was the player who breached his contractual obligations and afterwards, terminated the contract without just cause.

16. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

17. In view of the above, the Chamber observed that Club C did not submit sufficient evidence – at the Chamber’s satisfaction – which could prove that the player was indeed absent as from 5 January 2016, which circumstance is moreover contested by the player. In addition, the Chamber noted that the club could not prove that the letters it alleges to have sent to the player, requesting him to come back, were duly notified and received by the player, who claims to have never received these letters. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the club only submitted a copy of the letters, signed by the club’s president and was eager to emphasize that the information contained in a statement made by a person closely linked to the club, which is, moreover, not supported by any additional documentation whatsoever, is of a mainly subjective perception and might be affected by diverse contextual factors, and therefore, as such, do not fulfil the requirement of objectivity and impartiality.

18. However, regardless of the question whether the player was indeed absent from the training sessions as from 5 January 2016, the Chamber was of the firm opinion that even if the player would have been absent, in any case, said absence could not justify Club C conclusion that the player did not had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 18 January 2016 and that he has to be held responsible for the unilateral termination of the contract.

19. What is more, the members of the Chamber analysed that the player held that at the date of termination, six and a half monthly salaries remained outstanding, whereas Club C only held that it paid the player too much salary for the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016, since it had only to pay the amount of 2,200,000 gross to the player, as the amendment to the contract cannot be considered valid.

20. In this context, the Chamber the members of the Chamber first of all turned to the discussion between the parties about the validity of the amendment to the contract. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the amendment was signed by both player and Club C, and that in line with its well-established jurisprudence, the validity of an employment contract and/or an amendment to such contract, cannot be made conditional upon the approval of a national association. The Chamber was of the firm and unanimous opinion that the occurrence of said non-approval by the FA of country D and the alleged consequences thereof, could not be held against the player, who had no influence whatsoever on these processes and bore no responsibility in this regard. As a result, the DRC determined that the amendment signed between the parties on 14 January 2015 is valid and that it could be established that the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 20,000 net under the contract with country C. Said circumstance is also confirmed by the fact that it remained uncontested that on 14 January 2015, Club C paid the player the amount of EUR 50,000, which covers the monthly salary for half of the month of January, as well as the salaries for the months of February and March 2015.

21. As a result, and in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Chamber concluded that Club C is to be held responsible to pay to the player a monthly remuneration of EUR 20,000 net as of 14 January 2015, i.e. the date on which the contract between the parties was signed.

22. Along those lines, the Chamber firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 130,000 at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract. In this respect, the Chamber noted that Club C argued having paid to the player the total amount of 12,230,000 (allegedly corresponding to the player’s salary for the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016) and that said amount was actually more than the player was entitled to. Moreover, Club C provided several payment receipts and excel tables, related to these alleged payments.

23. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

24. Turning to the amounts Club C claims to have paid to the player, the members of the Chamber noted that the player acknowledged to have received the amount of 11,380,000, and that it can be noted that said amount consists of the payments made for the period between January 2015 and March 2015, as well as two and a half monthly salaries the player acknowledges to have received by means of the payments made to him on 18 October 2015 and 17 December 2015. Furthermore, Club C did not provide with sufficient evidence - at the Chamber’s satisfaction - that it paid the remaining salaries the player was contractually entitled to.

25. In conclusion, the DRC concluded that Club C has not provided sufficient evidence - at the Chamber’s satisfaction - of its defence that it paid all its debts to the player. Therefore, it could be established that, as explained by the player, Club C had failed to pay to the player six and a half monthly salaries in the period between January 2015 and January 2016, in the total amount of EUR 130,000.

26. In light of the aforementioned, the DRC came to the unanimous conclusion that, at the time of the termination, i.e. on 18 January 2016, the amount of EUR 130,000 had fallen due and remained outstanding. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Club C had seriously neglected its financial contractual obligations towards the player.

27. On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided that the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 18 January 2016 and that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player.

28. Having established that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive from Club C an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

29. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract up until the date of termination of the contract, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, taking into account that the contract between Club C and the player was terminated on 18 January 2016 and with reference to point II.22 to II. 25 above, the Chamber decided that Club C is liable to pay the player the outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 130,000.

30. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

31. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the clause in article 3.4 of the amendment stipulates the consequences of a unilateral termination of the contract with just cause by the player, however established that said clause cannot be upheld in the matter at hand, as it de facto would prevent the player from claiming compensation for breach of contract. Furthermore, no other applicable compensation clauses were included in the contract or the amendment at the basis of the matter at stake.

32. As a consequence of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by Club C to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

33. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the compensation and in this regard, it pointed out that the player determined the residual value of the contract in the amount of EUR 110,000. Consequently and in line with the above request, the Chamber decided to take into account said amount, when calculating the amount of compensation.

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

35. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player returned to Club E, as he had still a contract with said club, which was valid until 30 December 2016, by means of which he would receive in the period between January 2016 and June 2016 the total amount of approximately EUR 14,000.

36. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Club C must pay the amount of EUR 96,000 to the player which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

37. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber decided to reject any further claim lodged by the player.

38. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting the counterclaim lodged by Club C, as it has been established that the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, of Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 130,000.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 96,000.

4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2. And 3. are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 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

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Marco Villiger

Deputy Secretary General

Encl.: CAS directives