F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 July 2020

Decision of the

DRC Judge

passed on 15 July 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Miroslav Prkic

BY: Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), DRC Judge

CLAIMANT:

Miroslav Prkic, Croatia

represented by Mr. Hrvoje Raic

RESPONDENT:

Bangladesh Police FC, Bangladesh

represented by Mr. Deep Ray

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 6 September 2019, the Croatian player, Miroslav Prkic (hereinafter: Claimant) and the Bangladeshi club, Bangladesh Police FC (hereinafter: Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract), valid as from 1 October 2019 until 30 June 2020 “with a mandatory provision to extend another three moth [sic] if the [Respondent] requires to do so abiding by the same terms and conditions contained in this contract”.

2. In accordance with Art. 2 of the contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) 238,000, payable on the 5th day of the following month.

3. Furthermore, as per Art. 2 of the contract, “at the time of signing the contract, the [Claimant] has received a one-month salary in advance”.

4. Art. 7 of the contract stipulated, inter alia, the following:

a) “[The Claimant] warrants and confirms that he has made a full and honest disclosure to the [Respondent] of his past and current medical history (including but not limited to all injuries, suffered medical conditions and treatments) that could in any way affect his fitness;

b) The parties declare that Niloy Biswas Jr. was involved in the negotiations leading to this Contract as agent.”

5. On 31 October 2019, the Claimant, inter alia, requested in writing the following from the Respondent:

a) “To reintegrate [the Claimant] as soon as possible in the training process of the senior team […];

b) To immediately extend [the Claimant’s] visa allowing him […] to return to Bangladesh and to perform all his duties and obligations […];

c) To register [the Claimant] without delay with the [Respondent].”

6. On 28 November 2019, the Claimant informed the Respondent in writing of, inter alia, the following: “[the Claimant] kindly asks the [Respondent] yet again, to comply with [the Claimant’s] requests from the letter dated 31 October 2019, all within the next 15 days. Should the [Respondent] fail to meet the aforementioned requests within the given deadline, then the [Claimant] reserves the right to unilaterally terminate the Employment Contract with just cause […]”.

7. On 24 December 2019, the Claimant informed the Respondent in writing of, inter alia, the following: “To this day, the [Respondent] has not complied with the aforementioned requests […] In addition […] the [Respondent] has failed to pay the [Claimant] remuneration for November 2019 in net amount of BDT 238,000 […]”.

8. Thus, in said correspondence, the Claimant requested the following within 15 days:

a) BDT 238,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the November 2019 salary;

b) “To reintegrate [the Claimant] as soon as possible in the training process of the senior team […];

c) To immediately extend [the Claimant’s] visa allowing him […] to return to Bangladesh and to perform all his duties and obligations […];

d) To register [the Claimant] without delay with the [Respondent].”

9. On 17 January 2020, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment contract with the Respondent in writing. In his termination letter, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to answer to any of his previous letters, adding, inter alia, the following: “In addition […] the [Respondent] has failed to pay the [Claimant] remuneration for December 2019 in net amount of BDT 238,000 […] which outstanding together […] add to net total of BDT 476,000 […]”.

10. On 12 March 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting:

a) BDT 606,516 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the following:

i) BDT 238,000 due on 5 December 2019;

ii) BDT 238,000 due on 5 January 2020;

iii) BDT 130,616 due on “17 January 2020”.

b) BDT 1,297,484 as compensation for breach of contract;

c) 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amounts as from the respective due dates;

d) The imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent.

11. In his claim, the Claimant firstly held that, after one month with the Respondent, he “learned that he was not duly registered with the [Respondent], while at the same time [the Respondent] excluded [him] and forced him to train alone”.

12. In addition, according to the Claimant, “the [Respondent] refused to extend a visa for [him] which was expiring on 31 October 2019 meaning that the [Claimant] was forced to leave the country”.

13. The Claimant then referred to his default letters dated 31 October 2019, 28 November 2019 and 24 December 2019 respectively, and stated that the Respondent had not provided an answer to any of them.

14. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to pay him his November 2019 salary, due on 5 December 2019, as well as his December 2019 salary, due on 5 January 2020.

15. Given the above, the Claimant maintained that he had a just cause to terminate the employment contract on 17 January 2020.

16. In reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Respondent held that on 17 October 2019 during a friendly match, the Claimant got injured. As per the Respondent, despite a recommendation from the Respondent’s physiotherapist, the Claimant refused to get an MRI.

17. According to the Respondent, prior to joining the Respondent, the Claimant had been injured and had surgery. In this context, the Respondent stated that the Claimant’s refusal to get an MRI allegedly demonstrated that he was trying to hide the extent of the previous injury. The Respondent was thus of the opinion that the Claimant breached Art. 7 of the contract by being dishonest.

18. The Respondent further held that, contrary to what the Claimant maintained, the Claimant had always been training with the rest of the team.

19. Subsequently, the Respondent underlined that during a meeting on 27 October 2019, the Claimant was requested once more to get an MRI. As per the Respondent, the Claimant requested to be authorized to go back to Croatia in order to get treatment there until a mutual termination could be drafted, requesting a one-month salary and a flight ticket. In this context, the Respondent maintained that it agreed with the requests made by the Claimant.

20. Given the above, the Respondent deemed that since the Claimant wanted to terminate the contract and had received the salary corresponding to October 2019, the Respondent did not have to pay him anything else. Consequently, the Respondent explained that on 30 October 2019, it drafted a mutual termination agreement entitled “Release Letter”.

21. Along these lines, the Respondent held that the termination had been orally agreed with the Claimant and that the termination letter had been signed by “an authorised representative” of the Claimant who, as per the Respondent, had also signed the employment contract. The Respondent further indicated that in accordance with Art. 7 of the contract, the agent was competent to sign the mutual termination agreement.

22. Having said this, the Respondent further argued that the Claimant had committed himself to signing the mutual termination agreement, but that he changed his mind in the hope of getting more money from the Respondent.

23. In continuation, the Respondent highlighted that it did not reply to the Claimant’s default notices “since it was evident that he was making false allegations with dishonest intentions”. Subsequently, the Respondent stated that it had tried to contact the Claimant through his agent rather than his legal counsel.

24. As regards the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent had not registered him, the Respondent counter argued that it had not registered him, because it had until 20 November 2019 to do so.

25. With regard to the Claimant’s position that he was excluded from the training sessions, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant did not provide any evidence and held that the Claimant was, in fact, allowed to participate in the training sessions.

26. With respect to the Claimant’s allegations that the Respondent had not provided him with a valid visa, the Respondent underlined that it started the visa extension process on 15 October 2019 and that the visa extension was granted on 21 October 2019.

27. Given the above, the Respondent requested that the Claimant’s claim be rejected in its entirety.

28. The Claimant informed FIFA that, following his contract termination with the Respondent, he remained unemployed.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC) JUDGE

29. First of all, the DRC Judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 March 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2020 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.

30. Subsequently, DRC Judge 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 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 Croatian player and a Bangladeshi club.

31. In continuation, the DRC Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2020) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 March 2020, the March 2020 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

32. The competence of the DRC Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts and arguments as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

33. In this respect, the DRC Judge firstly recalled that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract which was valid as from as from 1 October 2019 until 30 June 2020 “with a mandatory provision to extend another three [months] if the [Respondent] requires to do so abiding by the same terms and conditions contained in this contract”. Having said this, the DRC Judge acknowledged that both parties were of the opinion that the contract was prematurely terminated, albeit on different dates and in different fashions.

34. In particular, the DRC Judge firstly took into account the Respondent’s position, who declared that the contract had been terminated by mutual agreement on 30 October 2019 via the “Release Letter”. Similarly, the DRC Judge noted that, as per the Claimant, he terminated the contract unilaterally on 17 January 2020.

35. In light of the above, the DRC Judge established that the first issue at stake is determining on which date the contract was terminated and if it was terminated by mutual agreement or unilaterally by the Claimant. In this respect, the DRC Judge deemed it essential to make a brief recollection of the facts as well as the parties’ main arguments and the documentation on file.

36. In this context, the DRC Judge firstly noted that, according to the Respondent, the “Release Letter” was signed on 30 October 2019 by the Respondent and by the Claimant’s agent. In this context, the DRC Judge took into account the Respondent’s position who, referring to Art. 7 of the employment contract, had argued that the Claimant’s agent was empowered to sign on behalf of the Claimant. Moreover, the DRC Judge recalled that according to the Respondent, the Claimant had orally agreed to the termination.

37. Similarly, the DRC Judge referred to the Claimant’s position who, inter alia, held that he had unilaterally terminated the employment contract in writing on 17 January 2020, because the Respondent had failed to comply with his requests stipulated in his default letters.

38. Subsequently, the DRC Judge proceeded to scrutinizing the “Release Letter”, and concluded that said Letter was signed by the Respondent and the Claimant’s agent, but not by the Claimant himself. However, following an analysis of all the submissions provided by the Respondent, the DRC Judge determined that the Respondent had not provided a Power of Attorney, or any other form of evidence, demonstrating that the agent was empowered to sign a mutual termination agreement on behalf of the Claimant. Furthermore, the DRC Judge was of the opinion that the Respondent did not proof that the Claimant had orally agreed to the mutual termination.

39. In particular, the DRC Judge recalled that Art. 7 of the contract stipulated that “the parties declare that Niloy Biswas Jr. was involved in the negotiations leading to this Contract as agent.” Although the DRC Judge acknowledged that both the contract and the “Release Letter” were signed by the same agent, he did not agree with the Respondent’s argument that Art. 7 of the contract empowered the agent to sign any document on behalf of the Claimant. Indeed, as per the DRC Judge, to be “involved in the negotiations” cannot be interpreted that as meaning that the agent is empowered to act on behalf of the Claimant.

40. Given the above considerations, the DRC Judge determined that the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent was not terminated by mutual agreement on 30 October 2019. Having said this, the DRC Judge consequently concluded that the contract was terminated unilaterally by the Claimant on 17 January 2020.

41. Having established the above, the DRC Judge understood that the next issue at stake is determining as to whether the Claimant had a just cause to terminate the contract with the Respondent on 17 January 2020. Subsequently, the DRC Judge held that it would have to determine the consequences thereof.

42. In this context, the DRC Judge firstly referred to the Claimant’s arguments who, inter alia, held that the Respondent had never registered him, that the Respondent had failed to extend his visa, that the Claimant was forced to train alone, and that the monthly salaries for November and December 2019 had been outstanding on the date of termination.

43. In this context, the DRC Judge took note of the fact that on 30 October 2019, 28 November 2019 and 24 December 2019 respectively, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of not registering him and of not extending his visa. Moreover, the DRC Judge recalled that in his default letter of 24 December 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for BDT 238,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the November 2019 salary, setting a 20 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. Furthermore, the DRC Judge recalled that the Claimant had argued that his three default notices had remained unanswered.

44. Along these lines, the DRC Judge noted that it remained undisputed that the Claimant was never registered with the Respondent. What is more, the DRC Judge took into account that, as per the Respondent, it had until 20 November 2019 to do so, but established that the Respondent never did (cf. I.24). As such, the DRC Judge held the Respondent accountable for not registering the Claimant, given that it was the its responsibility to do so.

45. With regards to the Claimant’s statement that the Respondent had failed to extend the Claimant’s visa, the DRC recalled that, according to the Respondent, the visa had been extended on 21 October 2019 (cf. I.26). Having said this, the DRC pointed out that the Respondent provided no evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was duly informed vis-à-vis the visa extension. In fact, the DRC Judge evoked that the Claimant requested the Respondent to extend the visa by means of his correspondences of 31 October, 28 November and 24 December 2019, respectively, i.e. after the Respondent had allegedly extended the Claimant’s visa. Based on the above, the DRC Judge determined that the Respondent did not fulfil its obligation of adequately informing the Claimant that his visa had been extended.

46. Regarding the Claimant’s allegation that he was forced to train alone, the DRC Judge noted that the Respondent had had counter argued this by providing a statement from the coach in order to show that the Claimant was participating with the rest of the team. In this regard, the DRC Judge decided that although the value of such a document cannot be entirely disregarded it has, however, a limited importance, to the extent that it cannot constitute the decisive element in the midst of conflicting evidence, being a document commissioned by a party interested in the outcome of the proceedings. All things considered, therefore, the DRC Judge determined that the Respondent failed to provide convincing evidence that could demonstrate that the Claimant was training with the rest of the team.

47. In continuation, the DRC Judge turned his attention to the Claimant’s position that the monthly salaries for November and December 2019 had been outstanding on the date of termination. In this sense, the DRC Judge reiterated that on 24 December 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the November 2019 salary in the amount of BDT 238,000.

48. In this light, the DRC Judge placed particular emphasize on the fact the fact that the Respondent acknowledged not replying to said default notice, or any of the other default notices for that matter, “since it was evident that he was making false allegations with dishonest intentions” (cf. I.23).

49. The DRC Judge could not follow this line of argumentation. First of all, by not responding to the Claimant’s default notices, the Respondent did not dispute the content of them. Secondly, the DRC Judge wished to point out that if the Respondent was of the opinion that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement on 30 October 2019, then one would reasonably expect it to answer to the letters, informing the Claimant of, for example, the “Release Letter”.

50. Having said this, and given that the Respondent did not reply to the Claimant’s default letters, the DRC Judge concluded that it remained undisputed that the November 2019 salary was still due on 24 December 2019. Furthermore, the DRC Judge established that, in its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent did not contest the Claimant’s request for BDT 238,000 corresponding to the December 2019 salary, in addition to the November 2019 salary. As such, the DRC Judge concluded that on the date of termination, i.e. 17 January 2020, both the November 2019 and the December 2019 were still outstanding to the Claimant.

51. Given all of the above considerations, including the fact that the Respondent had not registered the Claimant, the fact that two monthly salaries were still outstanding, and the fact that the Respondent refused to respond to any of the Claimant’s default letters, the DRC Judge concluded that the Claimant terminated the employment contract unilaterally on 17 January 2020 with just cause.

52. As such, the DRC Judge concluded that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and should therefore bear the consequences of its unjustified breach of the employment contract.

53. Having established the above, and before entering the matter of the calculation of the compensation for breach of contract payable by the Respondent, the DRC Judge first proceeded to establish the amount of outstanding remuneration, if any, still due to the Claimant on the date of the decision.

54. In this light, the DRC Judge evoked that it remained undisputed that the Claimant had not received any remuneration from the Respondent for the months of November 2019, December 2019, as well January 2020 during which the Claimant provided his services to the Respondent for 17 days.

55. In other words, given that the Claimant was still employed by the Respondent for more than half of January 2020, the DRC Judge decided to award to the Claimant the entire month of January 2020 as outstanding remuneration.

56. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of BDT 714,000 corresponding to the monthly salaries of November 2019, December 2019 and January 2020.

57. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the DRC Judge decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of BDT 714,000 as of the day following the day on which each instalments fell due.

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

59. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC Judge held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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 DRC Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

60. As a consequence, the DRC Judge 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 DRC Judge 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 DRC Judge emphasized beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.

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

62. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC Judge proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the Claimant, i.e. 17 January 2020, until the expiry date of the contract. In this context, the DRC Judge noted that the employment contract was valid until 30 June 2020 “with a mandatory provision to extend another three” months. In other words, the DRC Judge understood that the expiry date of the contract was 30 September 2020.

63. In continuation, the DRC Judge concluded that the Claimant would have received BDT 1,904,000 in total as remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date of 30 September 2020. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of BDT 1,904,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

64. In continuation, the DRC Judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for termination of contract with just cause in connection with the Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. Having said this, the DRC Judge noted that according to the information on file, the Claimant remained unemployed for the period as from 17 January 2020.

65. Given the above considerations, the DRC Judge established that, in principle, the Claimant would be entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the amount of BDT 1,904,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract.

66. Having said this, the DRC Judge noted that in his claim, the Claimant had limited his request for compensation to an amount equal to the residual value of the contract with an expiry date of 30 June 2020. Therefore, taking into account the Claimant’s request for relief as well as the principle of non ultra petita, the DRC understood that he could not award more compensation to the Claimant than an amount equal to the residual value of the contract with an expiry date of 30 June 2020, i.e. BDT 1,190,000.

67. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of BDT 1,190,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract.

68. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 12 March 2020, until the date of effective payment.

69. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II.31. above, the DRC Judge 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.

70. In this regard, the DRC Judge established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, he has competence to impose a sanction on the club. More in particular, the DRC Judge 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.

71. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge 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.

72. Finally, the DRC Judge 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.

73. The DRC Judge concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.

III. DECISION OF THE DRC JUDGE

1. The claim of the Claimant, Mirosalv Prkic, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Bangladesh Police FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:

- BDT 714,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:

 5% interest p.a. on BDT 238,000 as from 6 December 2019;

 5% interest p.a. on BDT 238,000 as from 6 January 2020;

 5% interest p.a. on BDT 238,000 as from 6 February 2020.

- BDT 1,190,000 as compensation for breach of the contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 March 2020.

3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established 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 following consequences shall arise:

 1.

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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players). 2.

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

For the DRC judge:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:

FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland

www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777