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 25 February 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2020,
in the following composition:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Stephane Burchkalter (France), member
Jerome Perlemuter (France), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Dionatan Machado De Oliveira, Brazil
represented by Mr Igor Gomes Ferreira
as Claimant
against the club,
Saham Sports Club, Oman
represented by Mr Alaimi Tarek
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 12 August 2018, the Omani club, Saham Sports Club (hereinafter: the Respondent or
the club), and the Brazilian player, Dionatan Machado De Oliveira (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the player), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract),
valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2019.
2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a total remuneration in
the amount of USD 50,000, payable as follows:
a) USD 5,000, payable after receipt of the international transfer certificate and the
player’s medical examination;
b) USD 5,000, payable on 31 January 2019;
c) “The rest of the amount pay as basic salaries ([USD] 4,000) for each month during
the contract period”.
3. Moreover, during the duration of the contract, the club undertook to provide the player
with the following:
a) A round trip ticket;
b) Accommodation;
c) A vehicle.
4. Pursuant to article 6 of the contract, the club further committed itself to pay a bonus of
USD 100 to the player “in the case of winning a match”.
5. According to article 20 of the contract, the parties agreed that the player’s agent would
be entitled to receive a commission in the amount of USD 2,000.
6. Lastly, according to articles 13, 14 and 15 of the contract, the parties agreed upon the
following:
“13. [The club] has the right to justify the fines in the event the [player] fails to fulfill
his obligations”;
14. In the case of player any wrongdoing such as delays dates for the exercises or lack
of follow-up treatment or lack of cooperation with the club regulations or internal
instructions club officials or defaults camps or delay timely or violate the terms of the
contract or something like that without an acceptable excuse applies Club one of the
following sanctions:
- Discount (10%) of the monthly salary in the first time.
- When redundancy for the second time deducted (20%) of the monthly salary.
- When more than one iteration club applied sanctions it deems appropriate.
15. If the player is absent from the official game without an acceptable excuse will
be [deducted] a full month’s salary in addition to other penalties”.
7. On 3 December 2018, the player sent a default letter to the club, granting a 15 days’
deadline to make the payment of USD 15,400, corresponding to the monthly salaries of
October, November and December 2018, as well as USD 1,000 pursuant to art. 2 of the
contract, i.e. part of the first instalment, USD 2,000 as the agent’s fee and USD 400 as
bonuses.
8. On 17 December 2018, the parties concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the 1st
agreement) according to which the player acknowledged having received the amount of
USD 4,000 on 17 December 2018. Additionally, the parties agreed upon the following:
a) The player is entitled to receive his monthly salary on 26 December 2018, as well
as USD 1,000 as the “remaining contract provider”
b) The club would pay the player’s agent commission, in the amount of USD 2,000,
on 4 January 2019;
c) The club acknowledged that his contract with the club will “continue until
contract period”
d) “If the [club does] not fulfill the obligations here agreed, the contract between
the parties shall be terminated with just cause and the [club] shall pay the allremaining
obligations towards the [player] as agreed in the contract signed
between them on 12 August 2018”.
9. On 6 January 2019, the player sent a second default letter to the club, granting a 10
days’ deadline to pay USD 1,100 as the outstanding amount as per art. 2 of the first
agreement, and USD 6,000 as per art. 3 of the first agreement.
10. On 16 January 2019, the player notified the club of the termination of the contract
(hereinafter: the termination letter) and informed the club that he would “charge [the]
club not only for the overdue payables but for all remaining obligations agreed on this
contract on a total amount of USD 32.100”.
11. It appears that the player then entered into negotiations with Al Dhaid Club, a club
from the UAE.
12. On 20 January 2019, the club contested the termination of the contract and raised the
following points:
a) The player claimed to be injured prior to the termination and did not participate in
trainings;
b) On 17 December 2018, the club asked the player to complete his resident card and to
open a bank account for the payment of his salary, without success;
c) On the same date, the player undertook to honor the contract for its entire
duration;
d) The player left Oman on 17 January 2019 without the club’s approval;
e) The club paid two months’ salary to the player on 17 January and 26 January 2019;
f) The player was fined in the amount of USD 4,000 for breaches of the contract.
13. In this context, according to the player, he sent a letter to the club on 20 January 2019,
stating the following: “I would like to terminate contract between me and Saham sports
club, and I hope you to agree for my request because I have family circumstances, and I
acknowledges that there are no financial dues on the club until 23 January 2019, and I
acknowledges that I received all my financial dues”.
14. At this stage, it is worth mentioning in relation to said document that the player alleged
that the club took his “signature on a receipt giving full clearance of all debts”.
15. On 23 January 2019, the parties concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the 2nd
agreement), named “terminate contract agreement”, according to which the player
acknowledged having received his “financial dues […] until 23 January 2019”.
Furthermore, according to clause 3 of said document, the club further committed itself
to deliver the player’s international transfer certificate (hereinafter: ITC) “to any club
out of Sultanate of Oman”.
16. On 24 January 2019, the club informed the player that it rejected his request to
terminate the contract. According to said letter, in the event that the player would want
to terminate the contract, he would have to “compensate the club financially for
Damage through termination of the contract, or […] return immediately to the club
within 24 hours of the date of this letter”. Finally, the club indicated that it would send
the matter to the FIFA DRC should the player sign any contract with another party
without the club’s consent.
17. On 30 January 2019, the club sent another letter to the player, asking him to explain his
departure from Oman without the club’s consent, his absence from training and the
three last matches, as well as the fact that he negotiated with Al Dhaid Club from UAE
even though the contract was still valid.
18. On 8 February 2019, the parties signed a document, named “Acknowledge”,
(hereinafter: the 3rd agreement), according to which the player acknowledged having
received the total amount of USD 6,000, corresponding to the following: (i) USD 4,000 as
the salary for December 2018; (ii) USD 2,000 as his agent’s fee. Moreover, the player
acknowledged that he received all his “financial dues from the club according to the
agreement till date of this acknowledge, and I do no mind the deduction of the amount
of the violations from the club during January from 17 January till returned for the club
on 6 February 2019”.
19. On 15 March 2019, the club sent a letter to the player to inform him that the club’s
board of directors decided to impose the following fines upon him:
“1. Discount days of absence from period 12 January 2019 to 29 January 2019 by
20% of the total salary for each day;
2. Discount days of absence for the period from 3 February 2019 and until 7 February
2019 by 40% of the total salary;
3. A fine of a monthly salary for the repetition of [the player’s] […], and [the player’s
negotiations] with other club during the term of the contract period and [the
player’s] absence from 3 official matches.
All this penalties will be deducted from your monthly financial dues”.
20. On 1 June 2019, the club sent a letter to the player informing him that his “remaining
financial dues as per contract after the settlement of the financial penalties” would be
paid to him, and asking him to confirm the validity of his bank details.
21. On 11 July 2019, the player sent a final default letter to the club, whereby he granted
the club a 10 days’ deadline to pay the amount of USD 21,600.
22. On 29 July 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent,
requesting a total outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 21,600, plus 5%
interest “as from the date the payment becomes due until the effective date of
payment”. The Claimant also requested that the club bear his attorney fees “at the rate
of 20% of the value of conviction”.
23. According to the player, he never received the payments allegedly made by the club on
17 and 26 January 2019, i.e. after the termination letter. The player also contested the
fines imposed upon him following the termination letter, as he considered that he
terminated the contract with just cause.
24. As per the player, by means of the 2nd agreement signed on 23 January 2019, the club
agreed to deliver the player’s ITC and TPO declaration to any club outside of Oman. On
24 January 2019, the club refused the contract termination of the player and asked the
player to remain at the club. According to the player, the club’s behavior precluded the
club Al Dhaid to pursue the ongoing negotiations.
25. Fearing unemployment, the player explained that he decided to return to the club on 7
February 2019 and signed the unilateral document whereby he acknowledged receipt of
USD 6,000 from the club and waived his right to salary for the period when he left the
club, i.e. 17 January to 6 February 2019.
26. In his claim, the player indicated that he accepted the waiver contained in the unilateral
document, but not the fines imposed by the club, the reasons being that he considered
to have terminated the contract with just cause and believed that the fines were
disproportionate, as they did not correspond to the maximum of 20% of a monthly
salary, set out at art. 14 of the contract.
27. Referring to the club’s letter dated 1 June 2019, the Claimant underlined that the club
mentioned the player’s “remaining financial dues”. According to the player, this is the
club’s acknowledgement that some amounts are still due to him.
28. Lastly, with regard to the payment of the salaries, the player alleged that the club
always paid the player in cash, “for which the claimant signed a receipt, not keeping with him any copy with”. In this regard, the player claimed that the club “has an
obligation to keep with them all the receipts signed by the claimant to prove to this
chamber all payments made if they object the player’s claim”.
29. In reply to the claim, the Respondent firstly disputed the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC), referring to article 17 of the contract, which
reads as follows: “In case of disagreement between the First Party and the Second Party,
the law of the Omani Football Association and FIFA shall be invoked”.
30. The club argued that article 17 of the contract obliges the parties to submit any dispute
to a preliminary arbitral procedure before the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Oman
Football Federation.
31. Moreover, the club affirms to have submitted a claim against the player in front of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Oman Football Federation.
32. As to the substance of the present matter, the club held that the player left his
workstation during 12 and 29 January, i.e. 18 days, and during 3 and 7 February 2019.
33. In addition, the club pointed out that the player had negotiated with another club, Al
Dhaid, without its previous consent.
34. The club highlighted that, on 20 January 2019, the player signed a document whereby
he confirmed that he had received all of his financial dues. Moreover, as per the
Respondent, on 23 January 2019, the parties signed the 2nd agreement, whereby the
player confirmed not having any financial claim until 23 January 2019.
35. Additionally, the club referred to the 3rd agreement, by means of which the player
confirmed having received the amount of USD 4,000, i.e. his monthly salary for
December 2018, and USD 2,000 as his agent’s fees.
36. In continuation, the club also made reference to the letter dated 15 March 2019 (cf.
point I.19. above).
37. In this context, referring to article 15 of the contract, the club explained that the player
shall be sanctioned with a full month salary in addition to other penalties if he is absent
from a game without an acceptable excuse. Given that the player was absent for 3
matches, the club applied a fine of three monthly salaries, i.e. USD 12,000. In support of
its statements, the club provided a letter from the Oman Professional League dated 30
September 2019, whereby it held that the player did not participate in 3 league matches
on 12 March, 5 April and 17 April 2019.
38. Furthermore, the club emphasised that the player and his agent both agreed to every
deduction made by the club. In support of its allegations, the club submitted the
following documents:
a) An agreement dated 2 June 2019 (hereinafter: the 4th agreement), according to
which the Respondent committed itself to pay to the Claimant “the remaining
amounts” on 3 June 2019.
b) A document named “Acknowledge” (hereinafter: the unilateral document), dated 2
June 2019, according to which the player’s agent confirmed having “received a letter
from [the club] about the [player’s] irregularities”. In this respect the player’s agent
allegedly indicated that he had “no objection to deducting those irregularities from
the player’s dues”.
39. Lastly, the club accused the player of not taking part in various games.
40. In his replica, the player first argued that FIFA was competent to decide on the present
matter as there are no contractual provision providing for the jurisdiction of another
jurisdictional body than FIFA.
41. The player reiterated his position that he had terminated the contract with just cause on
16 January 2019 given that the club had not paid his salary.
42. The player further claimed that the document of 23 January 2019 was concluded
between the parties “where the player would give clearance to the club for this mutual
termination” considering that “the club promised to pay outstanding debt towards the
player and that shall only deduct the fines imposed”. The player however contested the
fact that the club used said document to defend its position as it “refused to sign the
mutual termination and give an ITC for a new club”.
43. With regard to the fines, the player acknowledged that he signed the documents
imposing the fines but only with the hope of receiving any amount. However, the player
argued that the fines should be lifted given that he had just cause to terminate, and
even in the event that he did not, the fines should be considered as unreasonable and
disproportionate (20% of the salary per day and then 40%).
44. With regard to the club’s accusation that the player did not take part in various games,
the player stated that he was injured at that moment. In support of his allegations, the
player provided evidence of an injury on 30 March 2019.
45. In its duplica, the club reiterated its position already presented in its reply.
46. It further contested that the player was injured and reiterated that the player did not
have just cause due to his unexplained absences and that he acknowledged his
wrongdoings in the document signed on 8 February 2019, thereby accepting the
imposition of penalties and fines. As per the club, those fines and penalties were
justified as per article 13 of the contract.
47. Also, the club emphasised that the player had confirmed, once again, his acceptance of
the imposition of fines by the conclusion of the agreement dated 2 June 2019.
48. Given the acceptance of the fines and the penalties by the player, the club argued that
the player could not then consider them as disproportionate and/or unreasonable.
49. Moreover, the club contested the validity of the medical reports and the X-rays
presented by the player as they do not contain the player’s name, details, date or a valid
signature of the doctor.
50. Finally, the club reiterated that it had filed a complaint against the player before the
Omani FA.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
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 29 July 2019. Consequently,
the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is
applicable to the matter at hand.
2. With regard to the competence of the DRC, art. 3 of the Procedural Rules states that
the DRC shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020). In accordance with art. 24 par.
1 and par. 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations,
the DRC would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Brazilian player and an Omani club.
3. However, the DRC acknowledged that the club contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies on the basis of article 17 of the contract highlighting that any dispute
between the parties should be dealt by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Oman
Football Federation.
4. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted
that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
5. While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, first and
foremost, the Chamber deemed it of utmost importance to highlight that the article 17
of the contract does not consist in a choice of jurisdiction, but rather a choice of
applicable law which does not concern procedural matters. The members of the
Chamber therefore concluded that the contract does not contain any arbitration or
jurisdiction clause. Hence, article 17 of the contract clearly does not refer to a national
dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b)
of the aforementioned Regulations.
6. In this respect, the Chamber further took note of the fact that the Respondent did not
provide any evidences supporting that it had already submitted a claim against the
player in front of the NDRC of the Oman Football Federation.
7. In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to
the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to
the substance.
8. Subsequently, the DRC 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 Player (edition January 2020),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 July 2019, the June 2019
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
9. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC 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.
10. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that the parties entered into an employment
contract valid as 12 August 2018 until 31 May 2019, according to which the Claimant
was, inter alia, entitled to receive the amount of USD 50,000 (cf. point I.2. above).
11. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed that the Claimant put the
Respondent in default for the payment of his outstanding remuneration on 3 December
2018 (cf. point I.7. above) and thereafter the parties concluded the 1st agreement on 17
December 2018 (cf. point I.8. above).
12. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the Claimant addressed his second default
letter on 6 January 2019 (cf. point I.9. above), requesting the payment of his
outstanding remuneration.
13. The DRC noted that the player sent a termination letter to the club on 16 January 2019
(cf. point I.10. above).
14. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the fact that the parties concluded a further
agreement, the 2nd agreement (cf. point I.15. above), by means of which the player
acknowledged having received his “financial dues […] until 23 January 2019” and the
club committed itself to deliver the player’s ITC.
15. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC observed that, as per the player, the club “refused
to deliver his ITC to Al Dhaid Club”. In this context, according to the Claimant’s claim,
and due his “fear to become unemployed”, the members of the Chamber observed that
the player confirmed having returned to the club on 7 February 2019.
16. The DRC recalled that, on 8 February 2019, the player signed the 3rd agreement,
according to which he acknowledged having received the total amount of USD 6,000.
Furthermore, the Chamber turned its attention to the fact that the player further
accepted the following: “I do no mind the deduction of the amount of the violations
from the club during January from January 17 till returned for the club on 6 February
2019”.
17. On account of all the above, the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this
dispute was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally
terminated by the player on 16 January 2019. First, the DRC emphasised that the player
acknowledged having returned to the club on 7 February 2019. In continuation,
considering that the Claimant further confirmed that he “had to handle with
outstanding salaries until the end of his contract on 31 May 2019”, the members of the
Chamber considered that the player stayed at the club until the original date of
termination of the contract, i.e. 31 May 2019.
18. Also, the DRC concurred that the fines impose on the Claimant by the Respondent (cf.
point I.19 above) shall be disregarded since the total amount of the fines imposed on
the Claimant must be considered disproportionate.
19. Having established the above, the members of the DRC then turned to the claim of the
player, who maintained that the Respondent failed to pay him the amount of EUR
21,600.
20. First of all, taking into account the content of the 2nd agreement, according to which
the player waived all the amounts due before the date of signature of said document,
i.e. 23 January 2019, the DRC considered that the player should not be entitled to
receive any amount due prior to such date. As a result thereof, the Chamber decided
not to award the remaining amount of the first instalment (article 2 of the contract), as
said instalment was due on 12 August 2018.
21. Secondly, having analysed the content of the 4th agreement (cf. point I.38 above), dated
2 June 2019, the DRC observed that the club agreed “to pay the remaining amounts to
the player” on 3 June 2019. Therefore, the members of the Chamber determined that
the player was still entitled to receive his remuneration as from 8 February 2020.
22. With regard to the monthly salary for January 2019, the DRC observed that the player
confirmed having been absent as from 17 January 2019 until 6 February, and that he
had further accepted that the salary should be deducted for that period. Therefore, the
DRC considered that the player should only receive 1/3 of his salary for January 2019,
i.e. USD 1,333.
23. In continuation, with regard to the outstanding salaries for March, April and May 2019
and the second instalment (article 3 of the contract), the members of the Chamber
noted that the club did not submitted any proof regarding those payments. In this
context, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis
of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. In this regard, the DRC
deemed that the second instalment and the salaries for March, April and May 2019
remained outstanding to the player.
24. Consequently, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding
remuneration in the total amount of EUR 18,333.
25. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to
the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 18,333 as from the respective
due dates until the date of effective payment.
26. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
27. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./8. 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 amount of
outstanding remuneration in due time.
28. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amount 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.
29. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount 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.
30. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately
and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amount, in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
*****
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Omar Dionatan Machado De Oliveira, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3. The Respondent, Saham Sports Club, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding
remuneration in the amount of USD 18,333, plus interest as follows:
- USD 5,000, plus 5% interest p.a., as from 1 February 2019 until the date of
effective payment;
- USD 1,333, plus 5% interest p.a., as from 1 February 2019 until the date of
effective payment;
- USD 4,000, plus 5% interest p.a., as from 1 April 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
- USD 4,000, plus 5% interest p.a., as from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
- USD 4,000, plus 5% interest p.a., as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective
payment.
4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, 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
amounts mentioned under point III.3. above.
6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in
accordance with point III.3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly
translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French,
German, Spanish).
7. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with point III.3. above is 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).
8. The ban mentioned in point III.7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
9. In the event that the aforementioned sums 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 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. 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.
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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer