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 23 March 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 March 2017,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member

Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member

Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 20 August 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid for two seasons, i.e. 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.

2. According to clause 2 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of XXX 4,410,000, payable as follows:

Season 2014/2015:

- XXX 980,000 due on 1 September 2014;

- 10 equal instalments of XXX 39,200 each due on the 1st day of each month, from 1 October 2014 until 1 July 2015;

- XXX 588,000 due on 15 July 2015.

Season 2015/2016:

- XXX 1,225,000 due on 1 September 2015;

- 10 equal instalments of XXX 49,000 each due on the 1st day of each month, from 1 October 2015 until 1 July 2016;

- XXX 735,000 due on 15 July 2016.

3. The contract established in the section of “General Conditions” inter alia the following:

- “The player is in charge to pay his taxes, the club has to deduct it and to pay it to the government on behalf of the player”.

- “This contract has to be registered at the federation and its fees has to be paid equally between the player and the club”.

4. According to the “Financial Regulations for the First Football Team for the Season 2014/2015” (hereinafter: the club regulations), signed by several players including the Claimant, the following was established:

“This regulation illustrates financial principles applicable on the players as per the rules and regulations rendered by the Football Association of Country D … as well as the contract issued by the Football Association of Country D.”

“This Regulation is complementary to the contract of the player and includes all tasks, responsibilities, obligation and rights of the club during the term of the contract”.

“The player is acknowledged about this regulation and signed on it”.

“Financial penalties and deduction imposed on the player, whether by the club or the entity implementing the penalty such as the Football Association of Country D or the club shall be borne by the player and the club shall deduct it from the payments due to the player and fund it to the Football Association of Country D or executing body, whether the Football Association of Country D or the club”.

In addition to several bonuses and penalties, the club regulations further include a schedule outlining a different payment scheme of the player’s remuneration.

5. Moreover, clause 10 of the club regulations, titled “Technical Affairs related Penalties”, established inter alia that “The club has a right to terminate the contract with players, after the end of the season after sending 15 days prior notification to the players from the date of the last match in the season, without referring to the club by the player for any financial claim in the future”.

6. After the end of the season 2014/2015, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract.

7. On 6 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA for breach of contract, claiming payment of the following amounts:

- XXX 1,200,500 as outstanding remuneration for the season 2014/2015, plus 5% interest as from the respective due dates;

- XXX 1,960,000 as the minimum amount of compensation corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, i.e. remuneration for the season 2015/2016;

- XXX 1,000,000 as further compensation due to specificity of sport, corresponding to six monthly salaries;

- 5% interest on the compensation “in accordance with Swiss Law”;

- USD 2,000 as legal fees;

- Procedural costs.

In addition, the Claimant asked that a registration ban be imposed on the Respondent.

8. According to the Claimant, during the first season, the Respondent only paid the amount of XXX 759,500 in connection with the first instalment, thus, at the end of the season 2014/2015, the amount of XXX 1,200,500 remained outstanding.

9. Moreover, the Claimant held that he was injured during an official match and that the Respondent did not pay any medical expenses for his operation and treatment.

10. In addition, the Claimant stated that after the end of the first season, it became clear that the Respondent was no longer interested in his services and it terminated the contract without just cause. In particular, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent cleared his name from the team and did not register him for the 2015/2016 season.

11. In conclusion, the Claimant held that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause and caused damages to his career.

12. The Respondent, for its part, rejected the Claimant’s claim and held having terminated the contract in writing at the end of the 2014/2015 season. In particular, the Respondent invoked clause 10 of the club regulations (cf. point I./5. above). In this regard, the Respondent presented only the translated version of a letter dated 26 July 2015 in which it apparently informed the Football Association of Country D of the termination of the contract, allegedly in accordance with the contract, the “Regulations of Players Affairs Status” and the club regulations.

13. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the total remuneration for the season 2014/2015 was of XXX 1,960,000, whereas the payments made to the Claimant and applicable deductions amounted to XXX 2,423,900.

14. Therefore, the Respondent held that “there is a balance of XXX 463,900 in favour of [the Respondent]”. In this respect, the Respondent presented the following financial details, enclosing a document issued by the Respondent itself named “Financial Position of the Player”:

- it paid the Claimant the amount of XXX 759,500 via three cheques, respectively dated 12 September 2014, 17 May 2015 and 16 June 2015. In this respect, the Respondent submitted the translated versions only of the relevant cheques;

- it paid the Claimant a sum of XXX 367,500 “from his participation in the match”;

- a deduction in the amount of XXX 715,400 “standing for (Tax/ Admin Fees Sportsmen Syndicate subscription/ Authentication Fees)” for the 2014/2015 season; the aforementioned document refers to 25% tax, 10% “Sportsmen Syndicate Administrative fees” as well as “Contract Authentication Fees”;

- penalties in the amount of XXX 214,000 were imposed on the Claimant for being absent during the period from 1 until 3 December 2014 without permission, justifiable reason or authorization, to be deducted from the Claimant’s receivables. In this respect, the Respondent submitted the translated version only of a document issued by the Respondent indicating the penalties imposed on the Claimant during January 2015;

- a further deduction of a penalty in the amount of XXX 367,500, “representing 25% of his contract for the season 2014/2015” for the continuation of the Claimant’s absence from attending the trainings and matches during the period between 4 and 22 December 2014. In this respect, the Respondent submitted the translated version only of a document issued by the Respondent addressed to the Football Association of Country D indicating the alleged absences of the Claimant and imposition of penalties.

15. The Respondent further highlighted that it showed good will by paying the Claimant the amount of XXX 1,163,000 in spite of the fact that he participated in one match only as well as that it provided the Claimant with medical care and paid for his surgery. In this respect, the Respondent submitted the translated version only of its letter, dated 4 January 2015, by means of which the Respondent informed its director of the situation of the Claimant and indicated that the Claimant went to surgery and that one month was given for his rehabilitation.

16. In his replica, the Claimant rejected the arguments of the Respondent, insisting on his claim.

17. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the Claimant highlighted that the Respondent accepted having paid the amount of XXX 759,500, providing a copy of the cheques, which demonstrate that the Respondent paid part of the amount which fell due on 1 September 2014 several months later. Moreover, he denied having received the amount of XXX 367,500 and stated that the Respondent failed to provide any document in this respect as well as to indicate the date or method of payment.

18. In continuation, the Claimant rejected all the deductions raised by the Respondent, considering them invalid. In this respect, the Claimant explained that he participated in two matches during the season 2014/2015, respectively on 19 and 23 October 2014, when he suffered an injury and had to undergo a knee surgery, as admitted by the Respondent, on 13 November 2014. Subsequently, he was in treatment for 6 months, reason why he could not participate in other matches or training. In this respect, the Claimant submitted a copy of an undated medical report indicating that after surgery on 13 November 2014, “it recommends treating normal for a period of 6 months starting from 13 November 2014 until 5 December 2015”. In this context, the Claimant stated that he was not absent from trainings and matches in December 2014 as falsely claimed by the Respondent, but he was in fact not able to do so.

19. Moreover the Claimant stated that, in any case, the fines imposed by the Respondent are invalid, since he was never notified of any sanctions imposed on him and, in any case, he was injured in the relevant period.

20. Regarding the additional deductions for administrative reasons alleged by the Respondent, the Claimant stressed that he never agreed to such deductions and they were not established in the contract. Moreover, the Claimant stated that, in any case, taxes in Country D amount to 20% only and not to 25% as indicated by the Respondent.

21. The Claimant further held that the clause in the club regulations invoked by the Respondent with respect to the termination of the contract was not accepted by him and was not included in the contract. Moreover, the Claimant stated that such clause is invalid and violates the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of the Players, since it grants only the Respondent the right to terminate the contract.

22. The Respondent submitted its final comments, insisting that it terminated the contract in accordance with the club regulations.

23. On 6 October 2015, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Club of Country D, Club E, valid for two seasons, i.e. seasons 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, establishing a remuneration of XXX 516,666 for the season 2015/2016.

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 6 September 2015. 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 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 a Club of Country D.

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 6 September 2015, 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. In particular, 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 respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract on 20 August 2014, valid for the seasons of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.

6. The Chamber took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract without just cause, requesting outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for the alleged breach of contract by the Respondent.

7. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Respondent, for its part, rejected the Claimant’s claim and argued that it rightfully terminated the contract in accordance with the club regulations. In this respect, it was noted that the Claimant held that the club regulations were not accepted by him and were not included in the employment contract.

8. Having said that, the DRC observed that it has remained undisputed by the parties that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract, which was to run until the end of the 2015/2016 season, after the end of the season 2014/2015. In particular, the members of the DRC took note that, according to the information in the TMS, the 2014/2015 season in Country D ended on 15 July 2015.

9. Considering the opposing position of the parties, the members of the DRC deemed appropriate to first and foremost analyse as to whether or not the club regulations formed part of the contractual relationship.

10. In this respect, the DRC took note that the club regulations presented by the Respondent were duly signed by the Claimant. In particular, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant did not deny having signed them, but merely stated not accepting its contents.

11. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the club regulations expressly established that they were complementary to the contract as well as that “the player is acknowledged about this regulation and signed on it”.

12. In this context, the Chamber considered that, by signing the club regulations, the Claimant expressed his acceptance of their contents and that, thus, the club regulations form part of the employment contract between the Claimant and the Respondent.

13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine as to whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent.

14. In this context, the DRC recalled that the Respondent argued having terminated the contract in accordance with clause 10 of the club regulations.

15. Taking this into account, the members of the DRC reverted to the contents of said clause 10, which establishes inter alia that “The club has a right to terminate the contract with players, after the end of the season after sending 15 days prior notification to the players from the date of the last match in the season, without referring to the club by the player for any financial claim in the future”.

16. In this respect, the Chamber held that it could not accept said clause as being valid, as it provides for a unilateral termination right without any compensation to the benefit of the Respondent only. Therefore, and bearing in mind the Chamber’s jurisprudence in this context, the Chamber decided that the Respondent could not legitimately terminate the contractual relation with the Claimant by making use of clause 10 of the club regulations. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s argument in this respect.

17. Having said that, the Chamber took into account that, in response to the Claimant’s claim in front of this Chamber, the Respondent merely invoked clause 10 of the club regulations in order to justify its termination of the employment contract with the Claimant.

18. Considering all the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent did not have just cause to terminate the contract with the Claimant.

19. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by the Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the moment the contract was terminated by the Respondent.

20. In this regard, the DRC took note that, for the season 2014/2015, the Claimant was entitled to receive remuneration in the total amount of XXX 1,960,000.

21. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Claimant, the Respondent only paid him the amount of XXX 759,500 in connection with the first instalment and that thus, the amount of XXX 1,200,500 allegedly remained outstanding at the end of the season 2014/2015.

22. On the other hand, the DRC took note that, for its part, the Respondent argued that, considering the payments made to the Claimant and the deductions applicable to the remuneration due for the season 2014/2015, there would be in fact a balance amount in favour of the Respondent.

23. In addition, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant, in his replica, rejected all the deductions invoked by the Respondent and denied having received any further amount from the Respondent.

24. Considering the conflicting position of the parties, before analysing the parties’ arguments, the members of the DRC made reference to 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.

25. In addition, the Chamber made reference to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules, according to which documents of relevance to the dispute must be submitted both in the original version and, if applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA languages.

26. With respect to the payments allegedly made by the Respondent, the DRC took into account that the Respondent only provided documentary evidence regarding the amount of XXX 759,500, which payment was in fact already acknowledged by the Claimant in his claim.

27. However, regarding the alleged payment of the sum of XXX 367,500 corresponding to a participation in a match, the DRC considered that the Respondent has failed to discharge its burden of proof.

28. This being established, the DRC reverted to the Respondent’s argument that deductions were applicable to the Claimant’s remuneration for the season 2014/2015, which were rejected by the Claimant.

29. Consequently, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine each and every deduction invoked by the Respondent.

i) The deduction related to the imposition of penalties on the Claimant due to his absence

30. The DRC started by taking note that, according to the Respondent, the total amount of XXX 581,500 (XXX 214,000 + XXX 367,500) is to be deducted as fines relating to the alleged absence of the Claimant, which was denied by the Claimant. The DRC further noted that the Respondent, in its defence, submitted the document “Financial Position of the Player” issued by itself, which indicated the relevant deductions. In particular, the Chamber highlighted that the other two documents submitted in this respect were presented in their respective translated versions only and thus could not be taken into account.

31. In this regard, the DRC recalled the principle of burden of proof and concluded that the Respondent did not submit credible corroborating documentation in respect of said alleged financial sanctions. The Chamber in particular outlined that no conclusive evidence had been provided by the Respondent as to the offences allegedly committed by the Claimant and/or as to the effective notification to the Claimant of any of the sanctions or of any disciplinary proceeding for that matter. As a result, the Chamber could not accept that the fines invoked by the Respondent are to be deducted from the Claimant’s financial entitlements and decided to reject the Respondent’s arguments in this respect.

ii) The deduction of “Adm Fees Sportsmen Syndicat” and “Authentication fees”

32. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Respondent invoked that the amount of XXX 715,400 regarding “Tax / Admin Fees Sportsmen Syndicate subscription / Authentication fees” shall be deducted from the Claimant’s entitlements.

33. In this respect, the DRC, after analyzing the contract and club regulations submitted by the Respondent in its defence, established that although the contract determines that the contract shall be registered in the Football Association of Country D and that the authentication fees have to be paid equally by the Claimant and the Respondent, neither the contract nor the club regulations indicate any amount or percentage that would apply.

34. Moreover, the DRC considered that the fees related to the “Sportsmen Syndicat” referred to by the Respondent were not established in the contract, thus they have no contractual basis.

35. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent had not discharged its burden of proof and decided that the Respondent’s arguments relating to these apparent administrative fees cannot be backed.

iii) The deduction of income tax

36. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent was of the opinion that 25% income tax should be deducted from the total value of the contract. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Claimant, who disagreed with the deduction of income tax from his receivables, declared that income tax in Country D amounts to 20%.

37. Considering the arguments of the parties, the Chamber reverted to the contract and highlighted that it establishes that the Claimant is responsible for taxes as well as that the Respondent shall deduct the taxes from the player’s remuneration and pay to the relevant authorities on behalf of the Claimant.

38. In this respect, although the contract does not indicate the tax percentage to be applied, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant affirmed that 20% is the applicable percentage, which was not denied by the Respondent in its final comments. As a result, the Chamber determined that the Respondent was allowed to deduct taxes from the Claimant’s remuneration, as expressly established in the contract, corresponding to 20%.

39. Therefore, considering that the total net amount for the season 2014/2015 is of XXX 1,568,000 and that the Respondent only demonstrated having paid the amount of XXX 759,500, on account of the above, the DRC concluded that the amount of XXX 808,500 remained outstanding at the moment of the termination of the contract by the Respondent.

40. In continuation, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent had to fulfill its obligations as per the contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda” and decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of XXX 808,500.

41. In addition, taking into consideration the fact that the contract and the club regulations establish different due dates for the remittance of the Claimant’s receivables and bearing in mind that the Claimant had not specified the exact due dates in his request for interest, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of XXX 808,500 as of the date on which the claim was lodged in front of FIFA, i.e. 6 September 2015.

42. Having established the above, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in addition to the outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

43. 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 Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years.

44. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the contract at the basis of the present dispute contains 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 established that no such compensation clause was included neither in the contract nor in the club regulations at the basis of the matter at stake.

45. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.

46. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

47. On the basis of the contract signed by the Claimant and the Respondent, which was to run for one more season, i.e. season 2015/2016, after the termination of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the amount of XXX 2,450,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

48. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.

49. The Chamber noted that the Claimant, on 6 October 2015, signed an employment contract with another Club of Country D, Club E, for the seasons 2015/2016 and 2016/2017. In particular, the DRC noted that in accordance with this new employment contract the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of XXX 516,666 for the season 2015/2016.

50. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of XXX 1,933,334 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract.

51. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 1,933,334 as of the date on which the claim was lodged in front of FIFA, i.e. 6 September 2015.

52. Regarding the Claimant’s request for additional compensation corresponding to 6 monthly salaries, the DRC took into account that no corroborating evidence had been submitted by the Claimant that demonstrated or quantified any additional damage suffered and thus, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s request.

53. In addition, as regards the claimed legal fees and procedural costs, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, and decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.

54. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of XXX 808,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 September 2015 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Respondent, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of XXX 1,933,334 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 September 2015 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, 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 is rejected.

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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 article 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:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives