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 29 January 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 January 2020,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Alexandra Gómez (Uruguay / the Netherlands), member
Daan De Jong (the Netherlands), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Branislav Jovanović, Serbia
represented by Mr Hrvoje Raic
as Claimant
against the club,
Hapoel Ramat Gan Asi, Israel
represented by Mr Omri Applebaum
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 29 and on 31 July 2018, the Serbian player, Branislav Jovanovic (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the Israeli club (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) and its annex (hereinafter: the annex) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the contractual documents) valid “in respect of 2018/19 and 2019/2020 seasons, until May 31th, 2020”.
2. According to article 3 of the annex, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the following remuneration:
a. For the 2018/2019 season:
i. Israeli New Shekel (ILS) 135,000 as a salary payable in 10 monthly installments of ILS 13,500 each;
ii. ILS 7,500 as a maximum monthly accommodation contribution;
iii. 4 flight tickets “to travel to Serbia in the end and the beginning of every season”.
b. For the 2019/2020 season:
i. Israeli New Shekel (ILS) 144,000 as a salary payable in 10 monthly installments of ILS 14,400 each;
ii. ILS 7,500 as a maximum monthly accommodation contribution;
iii. 4 flight tickets “to travel to Serbia in the end and the beginning of every season”.
3. In accordance with the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the sporting season in Israel starts on 30 July of the relevant season and ends on 30 May of the consecutive year.
4. Article 3.5 of the annex provided, inter alia, that “[The club] will be responsible for renting a furnished 3 beds apartment for the player (…). [The club] will bear the fixed costs of the apartment till the amount of ILS 7,500, including municipality taxes, electricity (…) and [the player] will pay all variable expenses for, cables, phone etc. (…)”.
5. In addition, article 3.6 read as follows: “Any damages caused by [the player] or his acquaintances will be [the player] sole responsibility”.
6. On 29 December 2018, the player put the club in default to comply with its financial commitments and requested the payment of ILS 26,665, corresponding to outstanding salaries and monthly accommodation contributions as from August until November 2018. In addition, the player requested the reimbursement of EUR 1,075 corresponding to 3 flight tickets as well as his “reintegration in the training process of [the club]” since he was sent to train separately. The player set a 15 days’ deadline in order to remedy the default.
7. On 8 January 2019, the club replied to the player’s default by partially rejecting his request and referred to alleged breaches of the contract made by the player which allegedly led to the imposition of a fine in the amount of ILS 5,200. In addition, the club deemed that it had to pay management, gas and water costs amounting to ILS 6,713. As a consequence of said deductions, the club sustained that it owed the player the amount of ILS 11,282 which would be available to the player prior to the end of the current transfer window, as it had “announced the player that the contract is cancelled and [the player] is not included in the professional program of the club”.
8. On 10 January 2019, the player rejected the club’s position and acknowledged said position to be the club’s unilateral termination of the contract and its annex. As a consequence, the player put the club in default a second time requesting it to pay him outstanding remuneration corresponding to the outstanding salaries and monthly accommodation contributions as from August 2018 until 8 January 2019, the reimbursement of the flight tickets as previously requested as well as compensation for breach of contract, setting a 10 days’ deadline in order to remedy the default.
9. On 16 January 2019, the club requested the player’s bank details in order to pay him the undisputed sums according to its calculations, which the player provided the club with on 18 January 2019, however to no avail.
10. On 15 March 2019, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for breach of contract, requesting the following:
a. Outstanding remuneration:
i. ILS 42,165 composed of :
- ILS 165 as the residual salary for August 2018;
- ILS 13,500 as the salary for September 2018;
- ILS 1,500 as the residual salary for October 2018,
- ILS 3,500 as the residual salary for November 2018;
- ILS 13,500 as the salary for December 2018;
- ILS 10,000 as the accommodation contribution corresponding to five monthly amounts of ILS 2,000 each as from August until December 2018;
ii. EUR 1,075 as three flight tickets.
b. Compensation for breach of contract:
i. ILS 245,500 corresponding to compensation for breach of contract;
ii. EUR 1,500 as five return flight tickets.
11. In addition, the player further requested late payment interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned sums as of the respective due dates as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club.
12. According to the player, prior to his first default notice, the club excluded him from the training process of the senior team and failed to pay him his financial dues as per the contract and its annex.
13. In continuation, the player sustained that despite having simply requested to reintegrate the team and receive his outstanding dues, the club failed to fulfill said requests and “instead, with no intention of meeting [the player]’s requests, issued and delivered (…) a letter which stipulated that [the club] cancelled [the contract] and [the annex] due to the alleged [player]’s fundamental violations of [the contract] and [the annex] (…) and that [the club] imposed a fine on [the player]”.
14. Following the subsequent correspondence between the parties, the player underlined that the club failed to pay him any amount and, as a consequence, he held that he had no other choice than to lodge the present claim for breach of contract.
15. In its reply to the claim, the club firstly held that due to the fact that the player allegedly refused to live in the apartment offered to him by the club and expressed his desire to live in a “prestigious neighbourhood”, the club agreed to pay him the monthly rent up to ILS 7,500 but refused to pay him “the monthly management fee amounting to ILS 1,371”.
16. As a consequence, the club explained that it “rightfully” deducted said costs from his monthly salaries deeming that should the player have accepted the initial accommodation with a monthly rent amounting to ILS 5,000, the club would have been obliged to pay all extra sums up to ILS 7,500 as provided in the annex.
17. Moreover, the club sustained that the player intentionally arrived late and acted in bad faith before and during a match on 7 December 2018 where he got sent off by the referee after having insulted him. In support of its arguments, the club provided a copy of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Israeli Football Federation dated 12 December 2018 allegedly sanctioning him to a 3-match suspension.
18. In this respect, the club explained that due to the violation of two disciplinary rules, its Disciplinary Committee sanctioned the player by imposing him a fine in the amount of ILS 5,200 in accordance with the club’s internal disciplinary code, signed by the parties.
19. Furthermore, the club sustained that the player “intensively worked also as a car dealer while being employed by the club”, which according to the club constituted another “disciplinary code violation”. In support of its arguments, the club provided alleged screenshots of the player’s Facebook page supposedly proving said allegations.
20. What is more, the club held that the player left the club without its consent on 28 December 2018 sustaining that he left the rented apartment and returned the car provided by the club. As a consequence, the club deemed that the player was not entitled to any compensation due to the unilateral termination of the contract operated by him.
21. In continuation, the club argued that the player joined his new club, FK RAD Beograd, end January 2019 and provided evidence related to his transfer available on the internet as well as an email correspondence between the two clubs related to the issuance of the third-party ownership (TPO) documentation. However, the club deemed that it did not lodge a claim/counterclaim against the player and eventually his new club due legal expenses of such proceedings.
22. As to the outstanding salaries claimed by the player, the club provided various payment slips as well as a copy of allegedly uncashed checks in order to prove and justify what was effectively paid to the player, what was deducted from his salary as “damages” supported by the club and what the club potentially owed to the player.
23. In this respect, the club held that it owed the player a total amount of ILS 71,289 according to the contract and its annex. From said amount, the club sustained that it paid three salaries from August to November amounting to a total of ILS 35,320. As a consequence, out of ILS 35,320, the club deducted : ILS 12,147 as “unpaid apartment bills”, ILS 5,200 as the aforementioned fine imposed on the player and ILS 2,350 as “apartment damages”. The total amount due to the player being ILS 16,272.
24. What is more, the club argued that after agreement with the owners, it had to pay three monthly rents for the player’s apartment due to his early and unexpected leave amounting to ILS 22,500.
25. As a consequence, the amounts due to the player being less than the damages he allegedly caused, i.e. “- ILS 6,228”, the club requested the player’s claim to be rejected in full and its own legal costs to be reimbursed by the player.
26. In his replica, the player firstly rejected the club’s arguments as to any leave of the country without its consent and, as a consequence, that he terminated the contract without just cause.
27. In this respect the player reminded the content of the club’s reply to his first default notice which cannot be interpreted differently as a unilateral termination by the club.
28. Moreover, the player also argued that the disciplinary sanction imposed to him is a “typical sanction for football as a sport and as such does not indicate that [the player] did anything intentionally” and entirely contested any alleged bad faith or will to intentionally damage the team during the aforementioned match. In this respect, the player also underlined that the club did not raise said issue until the player sent his first default notice.
29. Furthermore, as to the apartment issue and the related facts by the club, the player rejected it entirely and deemed that it was “fabricated”. In addition, the player held that the rental agreement concluded between the club and the owners was unrelated with him and, as a consequence, had no link with the dues from the contract and its annex.
30. As to the alleged arguments as to any activity as a car dealer, the player denied such allegations entirely and pointed the lack of proof provided by the club.
31. In continuation, as to the outstanding amounts and the specification provided by the club as well as the payment slips in order to demonstrate that the club had no outstanding debts, the player sustained firstly that the club explicitly recognized having a debt which is contrary to the club’s position in its reply to the claim. In addition, the player held that the provided payment slips were unsigned and that the club did not prove anyhow that the player had actually refused to accept any checks nor that he had been requested to accept them.
32. What is more, the player held that all deductions applied by the club to the outstanding salaries were unjustified, arbitrary, invalid and void.
33. Finally, the player reiterated his initial claim and amended his request for compensation for breach of contract by requesting the amount of ILS 339,000 corresponding to the residual value of the contract as from 1 January 2019 until 30 May 2020.
34. In its duplica, the club contested the player’s arguments sustaining that he only rejected the club’s reply based on translated evidence which the player did not contest on the basis of his own evidence which he failed to provide.
35. This having been said, the club reiterated its position as to the applied sanction due to his behaviour on 7 December 2018 and the consecutive fine that was imposed to him.
36. Furthermore, as to the player’s comments as to the apartment issue, the club deemed that “the fact that the rental agreement between [the club] and a third party (…) does not make the player’s denial truthful” and reiterated all his previous arguments as to the rightful deductions operated on the player’s salaries.
37. What is more, the club explained that the player did not deny having left the country as from 28 December 2019 and, as a consequence, that the club cannot be held responsible for terminating the contract on 8 January 2019, i.e. “if 11 days earlier he already ended [the contract] by leaving Israel permanently”.
38. Moreover, the club sustained that its calculations as presented and sustained in his reply to the claim were correct, in contrary to the player’s assertions as well as all the deductions it rightfully applied.
39. In addition, the club deemed once again that the player failed to provide a copy of his new employment contract in order to mitigate any damage which, according to the club, proved his baseless position.
40. As a consequence, the club reiterated its position in full as expressed in its reply to the claim.
41. Finally, upon FIFA’s request, the player explained that on 24 January 2019, the player and the Serbian club, FC RAD Belgrade, signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2019, entitling the player to a monthly salary of Serbian Dinar (RSD) 30,000 (approx. ILS 1,031). Moreover, the player also signed another contract with the aforementioned club valid as from 21 June 2019 until 30 June 2020, entitling the player to a monthly salary of Serbian Dinar (RSD) 30,000 (approx. ILS 1,031) as well as “EUR 15,000 during the summer transition period of 2019” (approx. ILS 58,000).
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 March 2019. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the 2018 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 (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 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 Serbian player and an Israeli club.
3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (editions 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 March 2019, the June 2018 edition of said 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.
5. Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surroundings 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 DRC acknowledged that, on 29 and on 31 July 2018, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract and its annex valid for two consecutive sporting seasons until 31 May 2020.
7. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking, after having amended his claim, payment of the total amount of ILS 381,165 and EUR 2,575, asserting that the Respondent had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards him. More specifically, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent had terminated the contractual relationship on 8 January 2019 after having excluded him from the training process and failed to pay him several outstanding dues as per the contractual documents. In the Claimant’s opinion and despite his default notices by means of which he requested to be paid and to reintegrate the team, the Respondent relied on his alleged violations of the contract and the annex in order to impose him a fine and cancel the employment relationship.
8. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Respondent firstly insisted on several deductions made to the Claimant’s financial entitlements due to various unpaid rental costs which had been partially supported by the Respondent. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Respondent referred to various alleged violations of its internal disciplinary code, as well as to the specific disciplinary proceedings the Claimant underwent and to the consecutive fine which had been imposed on him. Finally, the Respondent deemed that, in its opinion, the Claimant left Israel without its consent on 28 December 2018 and, therefore, that the Claimant was not entitled to any compensation due to the unilateral termination of the contract operated by him.
9. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it had to examine whether the reasons put forward by the Respondent could justify the termination of the contract in the present matter.
10. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise 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. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
11. In view of the above, the Chamber first of all underlined that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence in support of its allegations as to the alleged termination of the contract (without just cause) by the Claimant in December 2018. As a consequence, due to the content of the Respondent’s letter of 8 January 2019 and the subsequent correspondence between the parties, the members of the Chamber deemed that the club terminated the contract on said date.
12. In addition, after a careful analysis of the arguments and the evidence provided by the parties, the Chamber held that there was no evidence provided that the Claimant had been duly informed of the aforementioned fine imposed on him prior to his first default notified to the Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber also underlined that no evidence nor information related to the above-mentioned disciplinary proceedings were communicated to the player on 8 January 2019 in order for him to exercise his right of defense. On the contrary, the Chamber sustained that the Respondent clearly acknowledged a partial debt recognition and, in addition, sustained that it it would not lodge a claim/counterclaim against the player and eventually his new club due legal expenses of such proceedings.
13. Moreover, the Chamber also held that, despite several elements and explanations provided by the Respondent as to the various rental issues related to the Claimant, no evidence had been provided in order to justify any violation of its disciplinary code and the deductions to be made to the Claimant’s financial dues, i.e. no evidence provided as to the payment of a “monthly management fee” linked to the first rental contract allegedly refused by the Claimant and to the alleged initial rent offered to the player, nor as to any unpaid costs related to the Claimant’s rental allegedly left at the Respondent’s charge. Finally, the Chamber also underlined that the Respondent failed to evidence the alleged payment of the Claimant’s monthly salaries from August to November 2018.
14. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had terminated the employment contract without just cause on 8 January 2019 and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause.
15. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Respondent.
16. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination considering that no salary deduction had been substantiated, i.e. the amount of ILS 42,165 as a consequence of the termination without just cause on 8 January 2019.
17. Furthermore, considering the player’s claim for interest and also taking into account the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence, the Chamber ruled that the club must pay 5% interest p.a. on the amount of ILS 42,165, as from the due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:
i. as from 1 September 2018 on the amount of ILS 2,165;
ii. as from 1 October 2018 on the amount of ILS 15,500;
iii. as from 1 November 2018 on the amount of ILS 3,500;
iv. as from 1 December 2018 on the amount of ILS 5,500;
v. as from 1 January 2019 on the amount of ILS 15,500.
18. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.
19. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant 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.
20. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
21. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
22. The Chamber then turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
23. 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 the date of termination with just cause by the Claimant until its natural expiration, bearing in mind that he would have received in total ILS 339,000 as remuneration for the period as from January 2019 until May 2020. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of ILS 339,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
24. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
25. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had found new employment with the Serbian club, FC RAD Belgrade, as from 24 January 2019 until 30 June 2020, which remuneration during the overlapping period shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the amount of ILS 264,504.
26. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request and the DRC’s well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of ILS 264,504 as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 15 March 2019, until the date of effective payment.
27. Moreover, in accordance with the practice of the DRC, the player is entitled to one flight ticket back to his country which’s price amounts to approx. USD 400 (approx. ILS 1,389).
28. The DRC concluded its deliberations by establishing that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted and by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Branislav Jovanović, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Hapoel Ramat Gan Asi, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of ILS 42,165, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows :
vi. as from 1 September 2018 on the amount of ILS 2,165;
vii. as from 1 October 2018 on the amount of ILS 15,500;
viii. as from 1 November 2018 on the amount of ILS 3,500;
ix. as from 1 December 2018 on the amount of ILS 5,500;
x. as from 1 January 2019 on the amount of ILS 15,500.
3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of ILS 264,504, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 15 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.
4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 400.
5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail addresses as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts plus interest mentioned under point 2, 3 and 4 above.
7. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts plus interest in accordance with point 2, 3 and 4 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).
8. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with point 2, 3 and 4 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 amounts plus interest are 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 sums plus interest 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 related to the appeal procedure:
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.
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