F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 6 December 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 December 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Eirik Monsen (Norway), member

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, from country A

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Club B, from country B

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 12 July 2017, the Player A, from country A (hereinafter: player or Claimant / Counter-Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) with the Club B, from country B (hereinafter: club or Respondent / Counter-Claimant).

2. The period of validity of the contract was agreed as follows: “This contract shall remain in force the date of this agreement until 30 June 2018 (loan period) and shall be extended (from 1 July 2018) until 31 December 2020 pursuant to the terms of this contract if and only if: Club C, from country C exercise a Put-Option to transfer the permanent registration of the Player to the Club by giving notice to the Club between the dates of 15 May 2018 and 15 June 2018 […]”.

3. According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 11 July 2017, the Club C, from country C, and the club concluded a loan agreement, according to which the player was temporarily transferred to the club until 30 June 2018 against a payment of EUR 5,500,000. Said agreement contains a “unilateral option” in favour of Club C to permanently transfer the player to the club, which was to be exercised between 15 May 2018 and 15 June 2018.

4. According to further information contained in the TMS, also on 11 July 2017, Club C and the club concluded a transfer agreement, according to which the player would be permanently transferred to the club on 1 July 2018, if the “unilateral option” (cf. point I.3. above) was exercised by the country C club, Club C against payment of EUR 22,500,000; an event which occurred on 16 May 2018.

5. In accordance with the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 726,190, payable on the 10th day of each month.

6. Furthermore, the contract contains the following clause: “If the club wins a competitive football match and the player begins the match in the starting XI, he will be entitled to receive an additional EUR 22,500 NET” within 30 days.

7. Moreover, art. 10.3 of the contract stipulates: “If a [bonus] payment is late and it has still not been paid following 60 days of the Club being in receipt of written notification of non-payment, the Club will be deemed to have committed a serious breach of contract which shall grant the Player the right to terminate his employment with the Club with immediate effect with just cause”.

8. According to art. 10.5 of the contract: “If the player terminates his employment contract with the club following the granting of a right under clause 10.1, 10.2 or 10.3, the club shall pay within the next 30 days after the termination, the full outstanding total remuneration due until the end of the contract (i.e. 31 December 2020) increased by an interest at 10% per annum from the said date of termination until the date of effective payment”.

9. Art. 10.7 of the contract reads as follows: “For the avoidance of a doubt, a partial payment of the monthly wages/bonus/signing-on fee is considered as a no-payment; only the full payment of the monthly wages/bonus/sign-on fee is considered a payment”.

10. On an unknown date, the player and the company “Company X” from the from country X, signed an agreement (hereinafter: agreement), according to which the player assigned his “image rights” until 31 December 2020 to the company against a lump-sum payment of EUR 15,000,000.

11. Said agreement contains, inter alia, the following wording: “The Assignor and the Assignee have agreed that the Assignee shall be exclusively responsible for and have under its control all commercial and promotional rights relating to the Rights within the Territory”.

12. Equally, clause 17.2 of the agreement reads: "The Court of Arbitration for Sport shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes which may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement. The parties agree to submit to such jurisdiction. Any dispute shall be finally settled in accordance with the Rules of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration of the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

13. On 13 February 2018, the player sent a notification to the club, requesting payment of four match bonuses in the total amount of EUR 90,000 as well as the payment resulting from the agreement in the amount of EUR 15,000,000.

14. On 17 April 2018, the player sent another notification to the club, requesting the total amount of “EUR 150,000” as bonuses as well as well as the payment resulting from the agreement in the amount of EUR 15,000,000.

15. On 6 August 2018, received by the club on 9 August 2018, the player sent a letter to the club by means of which he unilaterally terminated the contract.

The player referred to art. 10.3 of the contract and argued that bonus payments in the amount of EUR 90,000 as well as the payment related to his image rights, i.e. EUR 15,000,000, remained outstanding.

16. On 13 September 2018, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA, claiming that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract. Therefore, the player requested to be awarded payment of the following monies:

- EUR 22,804,452 corresponding to 13 match bonuses of EUR 22,500 as well as his salaries as of July 2018 until December 2020, plus interest of 10% p.a. as of 9 August 2018;

- EUR 15,000,000 corresponding to the lump-sum resulting from the agreement, plus interest of 10% p.a. as of 9 August 2018.

17. In particular, the player held that he terminated the contract with just cause since the club failed to comply with its financial obligations and since the parties defined in the contract what would constitute a “just cause” to unilaterally terminate it.

18. In this regard, the player maintained that he complied with art. 10.3 of the contract, put the club in default and terminated the contract after the remittance remained unpaid within 60 days. He held that the club did not react to his notifications sent in February and April 2018.

19. Regarding arts. 10.3, 10.5 and 10.7 of the contract, the player argued that the club drafted the contract and implemented the detailed clauses due to the fact that the player raised concerns during the negotiations that he would not receive the promised money in country B.

20. The player listed 13 matches between 29 July 2017 and 20 May 2018, in which he deemed to be entitled to receive the bonus payment (cf. point I.6. above) in accordance with the contract.

21. Moreover, the player held that the last payment remitted by the club was the salary of June 2018.

22. In addition, the player maintained that the club is obliged to remit the amount resulting from the agreement even though it was signed with the company. According to the player, the contract and the agreement are directly linked.

23. In this context, the player purported that said agreement was signed on the same day and in the same location than the contract. He submitted a statement of his previous lawyer, who stated having drafted such agreement on instructions of the club. Further, the player submitted pictures of himself allegedly signing the agreement and pictures of the alleged chairman of the company.

24. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and held that the player left without authorisation.

25. Firstly, regarding the agreement, the club held that it is not bound by such document since the agreement was signed between the player and a company from country X.

26. Secondly, the club argued that it fulfilled its financial obligations and that there were no payments due in addition to the contract. In this context, the club held that it always paid bonus payments in cash and that the player signed receipts. Along these lines, the club presented several payment receipts, allegedly signed by the player, however in the language of country B only.

27. Moreover, the club argued that even if bonus payments would have remained outstanding, the player would not have had just cause to terminate the contract since such payments would only constitute a small part of his remuneration. Consequently, according to the club, the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract.

28. As such, according to the club, the player breached the contract and it is entitled to receive compensation.

29. Upon request of the FIFA administration to specify its request for compensation, on 7 November 2018, the club submitted a correspondence which reads, in its relevant part, as follows: “In order to promote the mediation between the Club and the Player A, the Club, while reserving all rights of claiming financial compensation otherwise, hereby withdraw the claims for compensation here in this procedure […]”.

30. On 13 November 2018, FIFA informed the parties that the investigation-phase of the present matter had been concluded and that, pursuant to art. 9 par. 4 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the parties were not authorised to supplement or amend their requests nor to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely and that hence no further submissions would be admitted to the file.

31. On 16 November 2018, the player signed a new employment contract with the Club C, from country C, valid as from 16 November 2018 until 30 June 2023, including the following salary:

- EUR 315,000 during the period in which Club C participates in country C’s first Division;

- EUR 100,000 during the period in which Club C participates in country C’s second Division.

32. On 3 December 2018, the club lodged a new counterclaim against the player and his new club.

33. On 4 December 2018, the FIFA Administration informed the club that, considering its letter of 3 December 2018, it will be up to the DRC to decide whether or not take into account its new counterclaim. Equally, the FIFA Administration informed the club that a claim against an alleged player’s new club in accordance with art. 17 is always accessory to a claim against the player himself.

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 13 September 2018. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; 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 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.

3. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber noted that the player’s claim is based on two different agreements. In particular, the player is claiming an alleged outstanding amount of EUR 15,000,000, which is provided in the image-rights agreement signed between him and a company. Therefore, the Chamber considered that it had to verify whether, for formal reasons, it was competent to deal with this specific component or not.

4. With the above in mind, the Chamber wished to recall that it is competent to deal with employment-related disputes. This is, disputes which are directly connected to an employment relationship between a player and a club. As such, the Chamber held that it is, in principle, not competent to deal with claims arising from image rights agreements.

5. To elaborate further, the DRC tends to consider the concept of image rights as non-employment-related which fall, as a general rule, outside the scope of art. 22 of the Regulations. However, such conclusion might be different if specific elements of the contract suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the actual employment relationship. Such elements, include, for instance and without limitation, stipulations regarding bonuses, the use of a car or accommodation, which are typical for employment contracts and not for image rights agreements.

6. Having stated the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the image rights agreement and concluded that none of the above-described stipulations appear to be included in said document. Conversely, the DRC put special emphasis on the fact that the image rights agreement provides in its preamble that “The Assignor and the Assignee have agreed that the Assignee shall be exclusively responsible for and have under its control all commercial and promotional rights relating to the Rights within the Territory” (emphasis added).

7. What is more, the Chamber noted that the club is not even a signatory to the image rights agreement and that said agreement does not create any rights or obligations between the player and the club. In other words, it is questionable whether the club has standing to be sued in relation to claims arising of the image rights agreement. In this regard, the DRC deemed it fit to stress that the allegations of the player regarding an alleged connection between his employment with the club and the image rights agreement are insufficient, in and of themselves, to outweigh the above-mentioned considerations, even more considering that the player failed to submit corroborating evidence regarding a possible link between the employment contract and the agreement.

8. Consequently, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that it was not competent to entertain the claim of the player based on the image rights agreement. The members of the Chamber felt comforted with their conclusion also considering that it would appear that the parties to said agreement agreed for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

9. In continuation, and before entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber deemed it necessary to address the admissibility of the club’s counterclaim lodged on 3 December 2018.

10. In so doing, the Chamber deemed worthy to mention first that, upon being notified of the player’s claim, the club lodged a first claim for compensation, which it subsequently withdrew by means of its correspondence dated 7 November 2018 (cf. point I.29. above). The Chamber recalled that the club expressly stated: “In order to promote the mediation between the Club and the Player A, the Club, while reserving all rights of claiming financial compensation otherwise, hereby withdraw the claims for compensation here in this procedure […]”. As a consequence, the investigation phase of the matter was closed on 13 November 2018.

11. The Chamber then noted that thereupon the club submitted further unsolicited comments and lodged a new counterclaim, towards the player and his new club, claiming compensation for breach of contract.

12. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber recalled art. 9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which provides inter alia for the following: “The parties shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their requests or their arguments, to produce new exhibits or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely, after notification of the closure of the investigation.”

13. It necessarily follows that, in principle, the second counterclaim of the club, lodged after the closure of the relevant investigation-phase, cannot be admitted to the file and is therefore inadmissible. In the Chamber’s view, any other conclusion would lead to a potential circumvention of the Procedural Rules.

14. What is more, the Chamber was of the opinion that to admit the new counterclaim of the club, after it had expressly withdrawn its first counterclaim, could potentially violate the principle of good faith. Indeed, the Chamber recalled that, according to CAS jurisprudence (2010/A/2112), the principles of Swiss procedural law dictate that a claim withdrawal against a party is only possible if that party agrees.

15. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the second counterclaim of the club is inadmissible.

16. Having determined the above, 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 June 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 13 September 2018, the June 2018 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

17. 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).

18. The Chamber first acknowledged that, on 12 July 2017, the parties signed an employment contract, according to which the player was contractually bound to the club until 31 December 2020, in accordance with the exercised option (cf. points I.2. to I.4. above).

19. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that in line with the above-mentioned employment contract, the player, inter alia, was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 726,190 as well as a bonus of EUR 22,500 per match, presumed the contractually agreed requirements (cf. point I.6.) were fulfilled.

20. The members of the Chamber further noted that the player lodged a claim against the club maintaining that he terminated the contract in accordance with its art. 10.3 and therefore with just cause.

21. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the player requested to be awarded the alleged outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the employment contract.

22. The members of the DRC acknowledged that, conversely, the club rejected such argumentation, argued that the player left without authorisation and that it remitted all remuneration due to the player. As such, the termination of the contract by the player should be considered as without just cause.

23. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties, was to determine as to whether the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract on 9 August 2018 and to decide on the consequences thereof.

24. In this context, 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.

25. In so doing, the DRC took note that before terminating the contract on 9 August 2018, the player had sent a default notice to the club on 13 February 2018 requesting, inter alia, payment of EUR 90,000, corresponding to four outstanding match bonuses (cf. point I.6. above). The Chamber further established, that the player sent a second default notice to the club on 17 April 2018, requesting payment of EUR 150,000, corresponding to match bonuses as well.

26. Subsequently, with his correspondence dated 6 August 2018, received by the club on 9 August 2018, the player terminated the contract, referring to art. 10.3 of the contract and arguing that he did not receive the bonus payments mentioned in his default notices.

27. Moreover, the Chamber noticed that the club argued having remitted the relevant bonus payments in cash. In this regard, the club submitted untranslated receipts, allegedly signed by the player. The Chamber also took note of the club’s argument, that even if bonus payments remained outstanding, the player had no just cause to terminate the contract, since said amounts would only constitute a small part of the player’s total remuneration.

28. At this point, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules, all documentation provided in the context of a dispute in front of FIFA should be presented in the original version and, if applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, Spanish and German). What is more, the Chamber emphasised that by means of its letter dated 26 September 2018, the FIFA Administration warned the club that failure to submit untranslated documents might result in the document in questioned being disregarded by the DRC. Bearing in mind the wording of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber concluded that the above-mentioned documents provided by the club without translation could not be taken into account. Consequently, the members of the DRC deemed that no substantial evidence was provided by the club with regard to the alleged remittance of the claimed bonuses. Taking into account the documentation on file, the Chamber established that the bonus payments claimed by the player should be considered as outstanding.

29. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 10.3 of the contract, which is at the basis of the player’s termination of the employment relationship.

30. For the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to recall the content of said art. 10.3 which reads: “If a [bonus] payment is late and it has still not been paid following 60 days of the Club being in receipt of written notification of non-payment, the Club will be deemed to have committed a serious breach of contract which shall grant the Player the right to terminate his employment with the Club with immediate effect with just cause”.

31. At this stage, the members of the Chamber deemed appropriate to remark that according to the fundamental principle of contractual stability, employment contracts ought to be respected, as otherwise, consequences have to be assumed by the relevant party. Further, the DRC took into consideration the content of art. 14 of the Regulations, which provides that “a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”.

32. The Chamber stressed that the definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each particular case.

33. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to its longstanding and well-established jurisprudence, which indicates that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.

34. With the above considerations in mind, the members of the Chamber emphasised that the player’s monthly salary was of EUR 726,190 and that the player in his termination notice referred to outstanding bonuses of EUR 90,000 (cf. point I.15. above). Therefore, the club had a debt of slightly more than 10% of one monthly salary towards the player. Even if one would consider the second default notice, i.e. for EUR 150,000, or the bonus amount presently claimed, i.e. EUR 292,500, the maximum amount the club was in default would correspond to only about 40% of one monthly salary of the player. In any case, the Chamber underlined that, in his termination letter, the player only referred to outstanding match bonuses of EUR 90,000.

35. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that, on the basis of the evidence and arguments on file, it cannot be concluded that at the moment of the termination of the contract there were objective criteria, which could not have reasonably permitted the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties. Indeed, it is well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that, when dealing with a unilateral termination of a contract due to outstanding remuneration, said remuneration should not be insubstantial or completely secondary. In casu, in the Chamber’s opinion, outstanding bonuses which do not even amount to one monthly salary cannot be considered as being substantial, also bearing in mind the total amount of salaries, which the player had apparently already received from the club, i.e. EUR 8,714,280.

36. Along those lines, the DRC emphasised that, albeit parties are free to determine in the relevant employment contract the circumstances which can lead to a justified termination, the relevant definition of what constitutes a just cause must be in line with the principles enshrined by the Regulations and its interpretation according to the DRC jurisprudence as otherwise the fundamental principle of contractual stability would clearly be jeopardised. In other words, the parties’ contractual freedom to define what constitutes a just cause is limited by the Regulations and its application by the DRC.

37. Based on all the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber considered that the player had terminated the contract without just cause on 9 August 2018 and decided therefore to reject the player’s claim for compensation for breach of contract.

38. Notwithstanding the above, due to the fact that the club acknowledged that it had to pay the match bonuses claimed by the player, but failed to provide evidence that said amounts were in fact paid, the Chamber concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 1,018,690, corresponding to EUR 292,500 outstanding match bonuses as well as the player’s salary for July 2018.

39. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 9 August 2018, until the date of effective payment.

40. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

41. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

42. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not pay the amount due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

43. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

44. The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations on the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the player.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 1,018,690 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.

3. It is established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, has terminated the employment relationship with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, without just cause.

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

5. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is inadmissible.

6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point 2 above.

7. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 2 above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

8. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2 above is not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

9. The ban mentioned in point 8 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

10. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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