F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 9 April 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 9 April 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member

Daan De Jong (Netherlands), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Abubakir Muydinov, Uzbekistan,

represented by Mr Evgeny Krechetov

as Claimant

and against the club,

Al-Nasr FC, United Arab Emirates,

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

Contractual basis

1. On an unspecified date, the Uzbek player, Abubakir Muydinov (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and the Emirati club, Al-Nasr FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter “the contract”), valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 July 2022.

2. According to the information contained in the TMS, on 3 September 2019 the club entered a transfer instruction to “engage the player permanently”, uploading, inter alia, the contract. On 4 September 2019, the Uzbekistan Football Association (hereinafter: the UFA) issued the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC).

3. Furthermore, according to the TMS, on 16 January 2020, the United Arab Emirates Football Association (hereinafter: the UAEFA) requested the cancellation of the transfer instruction.

4. Finally, according to the TMS, on 30 January 2020, the transfer was cancelled.

5. Pursuant to the employment contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to a monthly salary of USD 5,000, as well as bonuses depending on games played.

6. According to art. 9 para. 2 of the contract, “This contract is considered null and void if it is found that the player participated with his national team or any other country in any official match or part from it”.

Request of the parties

7. On 15 November 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA and requested the following:

I. “Finding that this claim is admissible;

II. Finding that point 2 of Ninth Article of the Employment Contract is null and void;

III. Finding that the Employment Contract was terminated by Al-Nasr FC without just cause;

IV. Ordering Al-Nasr FC to pay [the player] the following amounts:

a. USD 294,1667.67 – as compensation for the unilateral termination of the Employment Contract without just cause (from which USD 264,166.67 shall be the residual value of the Employment Contract, while the rest USD 30,000 shall be an additional compensation due to the specificity of sport), plus 5% interest per annum on the said amount as of 6 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;

b. USD 833.33 – as the outstanding salaries of the player, plus 5% interest per annum on the said amount as of 6 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;

V. Banning Al-Nasr FC from registering new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods;

VI. Ordering the AL-Nasr FC to pay the costs of the proceedings in the event that any arise and are to be apportioned.”

8. The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in full.

Position of the parties

9. The player argued that on 26 July 2019, the club asked the player’s representative if he had played for his main senior national team. According to the player, his representative responded, that he only played for his youth national teams of Uzbekistan – U-16 and U-19.

10. According to the player, on 28 August 2019, “i.e. after the Employment Contract had already been celebrated, the UAEFA sent a letter to the Uzbekistan FA, requesting whether the Player was registered for any Uzbekistan representative clubs “or even participated with Uzbekistan national teams at any category”.

11. On 7 September 2019, the Uzbekistan FA informed the UAEFA of the following: “herewith, we confirm the receipt of your letter dated 28.08.2019 with the request for the information whether the player (…) was registered for any Uzbekistan representative clubs or ever participated with Uzbekistan national teams at ant category. In addition, please note that [the player] has participated in the AFC events for Uzbekistan U16 and U19 national teams respectively.”

12. According to the player, on 27 September 2019, he was called for a meeting with the club’s management, according to which he was allegedly inform that the it “cannot register the Player as it appeared that the UAEFA rules prohibit registration of players, who participated in official matches for any national team, but not only the A-team, as the Club believed before.” In this respect, as per the player, he was informed that he should leave the country, unless the Uzbekistan Football Association would confirm that he had never participated in matches for any national team of Uzbekistan.

13. According to the player, on 28 September 209, he was called by the club and proposed to terminate the contract in exchange of compensation in the amount of two monthly salaries (i.e. USD 10,000). However, the player expressed that he rejected this proposal, and that the club prohibited him from taking it or make a photo to consult it with his lawyer.

14. According to the player, on 30 September 2019, the registration period in the United Arab Emirates expired.

15. Furthermore, also on 30 September 2019, the player informed the club in writing inter alia that he was yet to be registered with the Respondent despite the ITC having been “successfully delivered to UAEFA long time ago”. In addition, reminding the club that the registration period in the United Arab Emirates ended on 30 September 2019, the player requested the Respondent “to immediately proceed with the registration”, and added that he “has received o single salary since the beginning of his work at [the club].”

16. By correspondence dated 1 October 2019, the player asked the club “to provide (…) a confirmation of the player’s registration with [the Respondent]” as well as requesting the payment of his unpaid salaries starting as from 1 August 2019 within the next ten days.

17. By correspondence dated 5 October 2019, the club sent a “Notice of Invalidity of the employment contract” to the player, which inter alia contained the following:

“1- Under UAEFA Regulations, no club can register any player as a resident player if that player had participated with his national team in any official match.

2- Before signing the contract, the player and his agent (…) (many times) emphasised that the player had never participated with his national team in any official match.

3- The Employment Contract has been signed in light of the above information, but – for more guarantee – this contract has been included a very clear provision (…) saying: “This contract is considered null and void if it is found that the player has participated with his national team or any other country in any official match or part from it” Ninth Article (Para 2) from the Employment Contract.

4- When [the Respondent] started Player’s registration procedures in front of UAEFA, our Football Association sent “Player Inquiry Letter” to the Uzbekistan Football Association in accordance with standard procedures.

5- On September 4, 2019, we were all surprised by a letter from the Uzbekistan Football Association stating that he player (…) had previously participated with his national team in an official match! So, the club will be not able to register the player as a resident player.

6- When we asked the player and his agent about the final letter and we informed them that means the contract invalidity clause mentioned above must be activated, they asked us for more time saying maybe something wrong happened and they will arrange with the Association to address the situation.

7- Unfortunately, they promised and promised and the time passed without doing anything until we received your mentioned letter.

8- In this respect and from the time we received the Uzbekistan Football Association letter till now the player keep training and staying in the hotel with full board, besides we provide the player Emirates ID, health insurance and visa.

(…)

In light of the above and pursuant to activation of the contract invalidity clause mentioned above, we consider that the Employment Contract signed between the player [and the club] is null and void.

Accordingly, we officially (…) ask the player to leave the hotel up to 8 October 2019.

Nevertheless, given that the player has spent two months in the UAE, we will pay to the player an amount of USD 10,000 equivalent to two months’ salary as stipulated in the invalid contract, in addition to a return ticket.”

18. As per the player, on 6 October 2019, the club sent him a flight ticket to return to his country and, on 7 October 2019, was given the amount of USD 10,000, with an invitation to sign a waiver. The player expressed that he refused to sign said document.

19. According to the player, he left the United Arab Emirates on 8 October 2019.

20. In his claim, the player firstly argued that the club had been informed at an early stage that he had played for the Uzbek youth teams. The player referred to a YouTube film, where he allegedly plays for an Uzbek youth team, and which was provided to the club. As per the player, given that this was publicly available information, this demonstrates that he never attempted to mislead the club.

21. Having said this, the player failed to understand how it could be problematic that he played for an Uzbek youth team.

22. Furthermore, the player referred to the “Notice of Invalidity of the employment contract”, in which the club held that the “Club will be not able to register the player as a resident player”. However, as per the player, the club never explained to him what this exactly means, nor is it specified in the employment contract.

23. The player held that “if the issue of not-participating of the Player in any international matches for any of his national teams was of huge importance to the Club, the Club had to act diligently and check this information”.

24. With regard to Art. 9 Para. 2 of the contract, the player maintained that “no reasonable person would ever accept a clause that leads to annulment of the contract in the case such obviously existing, open and easily available information is found.” Thus, as per the player, Art. 9 Para. 2 “is null and void since it expressly contradicts the rules set forth by Annexe 1 to the FIFA RSTP”.

25. As such, the player argued the club had no legal basis to terminate the contract and that therefore, the club’s Notice of Invalidity of the employment contract”, dated 5 October 2019, should be interpreted as a unilateral termination by the club of the employment contract without just cause.

26. With regard to the request for outstanding remuneration, the player stated that on 7 October 2019 he received USD 10,000 from the club, which was the only amount he ever received from the club. Therefore, as per the player, on the date of contract termination, the amount of USD 833.33 remained outstanding to him.

27. Regarding compensation for breach of contract, the player elucidated that the residual value of the contract corresponded to “33 and 5/6 months”. As per the player, given that his monthly salary equals USD 5,000, the residual value would amount to USD 169,166.67.

28. In addition, the player argued that the compensation should also include amounts deriving from bonuses for matches played. In this context, the player was of the opinion that “at least the lowest possible conditions (40% of played matches in the first season and 50% of played matches in the second season) have to be considered as fulfilled and therefore the Player’s damages shall be increased by USD 15,000 for 40% of played matches in the season 2019/2020 and USD 15,000 for 50% of played matches in the season 2020/2021 and USD 65,000 as the salary increase for the last season 2021/2022 (USD 5’000 x 13 month, from 1 July 2021 to 31 July 2022)”.

29. Thus, the player concluded that the total amount of compensation for breach of contract due to him amounts to (USD 169,166.67 + USD 15,000 + USD 15,000 + USD 65,000) = USD 264,166.67.

30. Finally, the player referred to the specificity of sport principle, and maintained that he was entitled to an additional compensation of USD 30,000, corresponding to six monthly salaries.

31. In its reply to the claim, the club first stated that the player and his intermediary misled the club.

32. The club explained that according to the UAEFA regulations, clubs may register players that never played for their respective national teams as “resident players”. The club indicated that it intended to register the player under such exception, and the player confirmed that he never played any official matches for his national team. As such, the player was invited for a trial between 10 and 19 July 2019.

33. Then, the club indicated that the negotiations for an employment contract started, and a draft was sent to the player. The Respondent emphasized that art. 9 par. 2 of the contract stipulated that the contract would be null and void should the club find out that the player represented his national team.

34. The club stated that after some negotiation, the player arrived on 21 August 2019 and signed the contract. The club underlined that the intermediary was present at the time of signature and that neither the intermediary nor the player objected to any of the contractual clauses.

35. After starting the registration procedure, the club was surprised to receive a letter from the UFA stipulating that the player had participated in a national team official match.

36. As such, the club explained that the player could not be registered, and the club attempted a mutual termination, to no avail.

37. Then, the club received a notice from the player dated 1 October 2019 in which he declared, inter alia, that the club was in breach of the contract for not registering the player and not paying his dues.

38. The club stated that after unsuccessful talks with the player, due to the “procrastination” of his intermediary, it decided to terminate the contract on 5 October 2019 via the provisions set out in art. 9 par. 2 of the contract.

39. The Respondent denied the player’s version of the facts as to the fact that he informed the club that he had played for his national team and that they received videos of him playing in said match.

40. In view of the above the Respondent came to the following conclusions:

“A- Player was aware about UAEFA & UAE Pro League regulations regarding conditions of resident players registration, nevertheless, the player declared that he never played to any of his national team.

B- At the signing of the Employment Contract, the will of both parties (Claimant & Respondent) and their common intention met, and they expressly agreed to make this contract conditional on the realization of a particular condition of “non-prior participation of the player with any of his national teams”.

C- This condition (non-prior participation of the player with any of his national teams) hasn’t been met, because it is found that the player has participated with his national team before signing the Employment Contract.

D- That leads to consideration that the Employment Contract is null and void, therefore, the Respondent notified the Claimant of this fact, and he did not terminate the contract unilaterally without just cause as the Claimant’s allegations.

41. Upon request of the FIFA administration, the player informed that he signed a new employment contract with the Portuguese club Leixoes, valid as from 16 January 2020 until 30 June 2022, with a monthly salary of EUR 635. In this respect, the Claimant would earn EUR 19,050 over the relevant period, which corresponds to USD 21,223.

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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 November 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

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 March 2020), 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 Ghanaian player and an Emiraticlub.

3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition March 2020), and considering that the claim was lodged on 15 November 2019, the October 2019 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the 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 Annex 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 TMS.

5. Having said this, 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.

6. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the player and the club had concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 July 2022.

7. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the club, despite having requested and received the ITC of the player on 4 September 2019, did not register him and cancelled the transfer instruction in TMS.

8. What is more, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had on 5 October 2019 expressed to the player that the contract had become null and void on the basis of art. 9 par. 2 of the contract (cf. I.6 above), in view of the fact that the player had represented the National Team of Uzbekistan.

9. On the other hand, the DRC remarked that the player had requested during the month of September 2019 and on 1 October 2019 to be registered by the Respondent and to be paid his salary of August and September 2019.

10. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the player rejected the validity of the termination of the contract under art. 9 par. 2 and argued that the club terminated the contract without just cause. As such, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant, inter alia, requested the payment of compensation for breach of contract.

11. In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the parties’ position, was to determine as to whether the Respondent validly terminated the employment contract based on the provisions of art. 9 par. 2 or not, and to determine the consequences thereof.

12. In order to do so, the Chamber duly noted that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 1 August 2019, and that based on the evidence on file, the player provided his services continually from 1 August 2019 until 5 October 2019.

13. The Chamber also remarked that the club had requested the ITC and received it on 4 September 2019 via the UAEFA.

14. The DRC however remarked that the player had requested to be registered with the UAEFA by the Respondent on several instances, as well as putting the club in default of payment of his salaries for August 2019 and September 2019, to no avail.

15. What is more, the DRC noted that the club terminated the contract after finding out that the player had represented his national team, an element that made his registration apparently not possible.

16. In particular, the Chamber duly acknowledged the argumentation of the club in relation to the UAEFA regulations according to which, inter alia, each team has a limited number of foreign players having represented a national team at international level.

17. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the club stated that it had already reached its quota foreign players having represented a national team at international level prior to the registration of the player, and that the withholding of such information from the player’s side refrained the club from being able to register him.

18. In fact, the DRC remarked that the Respondent alleged that the player acted in bad faith, which led them to trigger the termination clause provided in art. 9 par. 2 of the contract.

19. Having paid particular attention to the contents of the termination letter of 5 October 2019, the DRC underlined that the club had signed an employment contract at its own will prior to receive a formal confirmation of the player’s international career, and did not act with utmost due diligence in this respect. What is more, the Chamber emphasised that by requesting and receiving the ITC of the player on 4 September 2019, the club had already started the registration procedure, an indication of its intention to register the player.

20. Above all, the Chamber duly noted that the club never registered the player despite his numerous requests and reminders, which led the player to remain unregistered after the closure of the registration period on 30 September 2019.

21. In view of the above, and before entering into the analysis of the contents of art. 9 par. 2 of the contract, the Chamber emphasised that it is one of the fundamental rights of a player to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow teammates and to be given the possibility to play competitive matches with his club.

22. In addition, the DRC, recalling its jurisprudence on the subject, highlighted that the validity of a contract cannot be dependable on the registration of the player or the fulfilment of other administrative formalities.

23. Consequently, the Chamber determined that, in principle, the club would not have had just cause to terminate the contract on 5 October 2019.

24. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC reviewed the contents of art. 9 par. 2 which gave the club the possibility to declare the contract null and void at any moment should it become aware that the player had represented the national team of any country prior to the signature of the contract.

25. Having paid particular attention to its contents, the DRC remarked that art. 9 par. 2 was shifting the club’s responsibility of due diligence to the player. In fact, the Chamber emphasised that it was of the club’s duty of due diligence to contact the UFA to ensure that the player had not represented any national team prior to the signing of the contract. What s note, the DRC underlined that it was part of the club’s duty of due diligence to ensure that the player could be registered under the UAEFA’s regulations even if he had represented a national team at youth level only.

26. In this respect, the DRC noted that based on the evidence on file, the player did not withhold any information regarding his international record, but the club rather appeared to have misinterpreted the rules and regulations of the UAEFA in relation to the registration of foreign players.

27. The Chamber deemed that, in other words, art. 9 par. 2 was protecting the Respondent of its own potential negligence without foreseeing any compensation, monetary or in kind, to the Claimant. The DRC underlined that such clause was clearly only in the club’s favour, and of potestative nature.

28. Therefore, the DRC, in line with its extensive jurisprudence on potestative clauses, determined that art. 9 par. 2 should be considered invalid.

29. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the club terminated the contract without just cause and is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract.

30. In continuation, the DRC focused his attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC established that the player is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

31. The DRC firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the employment contract. In this respect, the DRC concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.

32. In this respect, the DRC duly observed that the player acknowledged having received his salaries for August and September 2019 upon the termination of the club, but that he also requested USD 833.33 corresponding to the six days of October 2019 he worked prior to the club sending him a flight ticket to leave the country.

33. In view of the fact that the contract was terminated on 5 October 2019, the Chamber was of the opinion that the month of October 2019 was not fully worked and as such decided to reject the Claimant’s request for outstanding remuneration.

34. Then, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from the club.

35. In continuation, the DRC focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC 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.

36. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the employment contract does not contain any such clause.

37. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its termination and concluded that the player would have been entitled to receive USD 170,000 as remuneration had the employment contract been executed until its regular expiry date, i.e. 30 June 2022. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 170,000 should in principle serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

38. In continuation, the Chamber assessed 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. In this respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the first sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player signed a new contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the ”Mitigated Compensation”).

42. In respect of the above, and according to the information provided by the player, the Chamber recalled that, on 14 March 2020, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Portuguese club, Leixoes, valid as from 16 January 2020 until 30 June 2022, according to which, he would be entitled to earn a monthly of salary of EUR 635 which would corresponds to a total amount of USD 21,223 over the relevant period. On account of the above, such amount shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the amount of USD 148,777.

39. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations, and in view of the fact that the termination of the contract was not due to overdue remuneration, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 148,777 as compensation for breach of contract to the player.

40. What is more, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the compensation awarded as of the date of claim, i.e. 16 November 2019.

41. In line with its jurisprudence, the Chamber rejected the claim of the Claimant for compensation on the basis of specificity of sport.

42. Therefore, the DRC decided to partially accept the player’s claim and concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the player.

43. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, 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.

44. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

45. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

46. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban 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.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Abubakir Muydinov, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Al-Nasr FC, has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 148,777 + 5% interest p.a. as from 16 November 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount plus interest mentioned under point 2. above.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount plus interest 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).

6. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent 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).

7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount plus interest are paid.

8. In the event that the amount due plus interest in accordance with point 2. above are 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 related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

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. 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 (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer