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 10 December 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

Passed on 10 December 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Marko Momcilovic

COMPOSITION:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

CLAIMANT:

Marko Momcilovic, Serbia

Represented by AFAN

RESPONDENT:

Fotbal Club FCSB, Romania

Represented by Mr Dan Idita

I. FACTS

1. On 10 February 2016, the player and the club concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 11 February 2016 until 31 December 2018.

2. According to clause J. of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly gross salary in the amount of:

• LEI 59,756 “(equivalent of 10.000 Euro net amount)” for the period as from 11 February 2016 to 31 December 2016;

• LEI 65,581 “(equivalent of 11.000 Euro net amount)” for the period as from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017;

• LEI 71,406 “(equivalent of 12.000 Euro net amount)” for the period as from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018.

3. Pursuant to clause L. b) and c), the “prior notice period in case of resignation is of 20 working days, according to the Law no.53/2003 – Labor Code or the collective labor agreement” and “the prior notice period in case of resignation is of 20 working days for employees and 45 working days for persons occupying administrative positions”.

4. Clause P. of the contract also provided for force majeure situations, as follows:

“Force majeure

A) None of the parties shall be held accountable for not fulfilling in due time or accordingly -fully or partially — its obligations, as long as the non-fulfillment or the delay was generated by an event that could not be foreseen at the date when the contract was signed and its consequences could not have been avoided, removed or remedied by the party that invoked the presumed event. The following could he considered force majeure: war, natural disasters, strikes, legal or governmental restrictions or any other event above the will of the party that invokes it.

B) The party invoking the force majeure shall notify the other party as soon as the situation appears, giving all the details about the situation, and will take all the possible measure in order to limit the consequences of such an event.”

5. The parties also signed a financial annex to the contract according to which, in addition to the monthly salary set out above, the player was also entitled to receive the following amounts:

• EUR 50,000 by no later than 20 January 2016;

• EUR 50,000 by no later than 31 July 2016;

• The bonus for qualifying in the UEFA Champions League groups will be 50.000 Euro, payable after receiving the bonus from UEFA, bonus which will be paid proportionally to the number of matches played in the 2015-2016 edition of the lu League, as well as in the preliminaries of UEFA Champions League;

• The bonus for qualifying in the UEFA Champions League groups will be 100.000 Euro; payable after receiving the bonus from UEFA, bonus which will be paid proportionally to the number of matches played in the 2016-2017 edition of the League, as well as in the preliminaries of UEFA Champions League;

• The bonus for qualifying in the UEFA Champions League groups will be 100.000 Euro, payable after receiving the bonus from UEFA, bonus which will be paid proportionally to the number of matches played in the 2017-2018 edition of the lst League, as well as in the preliminaries of UEFA Champions League;

• The financial annex further stipulated that all amounts were to be paid in LEI “at the exchange rate of the National Bank of Romania valid on the date when the payment is made”.

6. Finally, the parties also concluded a “Professional Annex” which listed all the obligations of the player and the club. According to art.3.2 of the Professional Annex, the player was forbidden from doing certain actions and penalties could apply as follows:

3.2. The player is forbidden:

a) To utilize on the sports equipment any other commercials than the ones of the club;

b) To attend any privately organized football matches, excepting those approved by the club STEAUA;

c) To dope;

d) To visit nights clubs, dance clubs or any other social night events without the clubs approval during training camps or before an official match;

e) To train or play training matches with other teams. This can only be done with the written approval of the club STEAUA.

f) To sign any legal document with another player agent, without notifying the club;

g) Not respecting any of the obligations provided at the letters a) — e) will draw upon the footballer sanctions according to the legal provisions or regulations, respectively:

- Written warning;

- Interdiction to play in official and friendly matches and to attend training sessions for a period between 1- 3 months;

- Sports penalty of maximum 25 % from the total of the contractual rights owed to the footballer for one competition year, gradually, depending on the gravity of the act and the type of guilt;

7. On 29 October 2019 , the parties concluded an amendment to the contract, whereby the monthly salary of the player was amended as follows:

I. 8.204 Lei gross amount, meaning 1.000 Euro net amount (including the amount if 500 Euro, rent) for the period 01.11.2019 — 31.12.2019;

2. 365.128 Lei gross amount, meaning 44.500 Euro net amount (including the amount of 500 Euro, rent) for the period 01.01.2020 — 31.01.2020;

3. 127.180 Lei gross amount, meaning 15.500 Euro net amount (including the amount of 500 Euro, rent) for the period 01.02.2020 — 30.06.2020.

8. On 16 March 2020, the club took a decision based on a Ministry Order whereby due to the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the salary of the player would constitute 75% of the average gross salary in the amount of LEI 4,072, until 14 April 2020. The decision further stated that the player had the possibility to lodge an appeal within 30 days with the “Bucharest Tribunal” and that the player would be informed 3 days in advance of the resumption of his activities. The decision was notified to the player on 8 April 2020.

9. In a press article dated 31 March 2020, the club’s president announced that 5 players, including the claimant, were put in technical unemployment whilst other player had their salaries reduced by 50%. In this regard the president announced that “They all accepted the salary reduction, well except for the one I didn’t propose to them. I put five in technical unemployment, Balgradean, Popa, Momcilovic, the “Bison” and Stan, ready goodbye.”

10. On 15 April 2020, the club notified the player of a new decision dated 14 April 2020, which amended the first decision to 31 March 2020 instead of 16 March 2020.

11. On 24 April, 14 May and 19 May, the player was informed by a club official via WhatsApp that he did not need to come and he should meet with the club’s president.

12. On 15 May 2020, the club notified the player of a new decision dated 15 May 2020, according to which the salary of the player would constitute 75% of the average gross salary in the amount of LEI 4,072, until 31 May 2020.

13. On 20 May 2020, the Association of Professional and Amateur Football Players (AFAN) wrote to the club on behalf of the player asking for “compliance of the contract” and “the ensurance for him of the training conditions equal with those ensured to the other players of the team”. As such, AFAN requested the club to immediately notify the player of the program and location of trainings and activities.

14. On the same day, the club replied referring to its decisions and affirming that the club paid all financial dues to the player and would fulfil all of its obligations.

15. On 1 June 2020, the club informed the player that the suspension of the employment contract ends with immediate effect and that “you will resume training after the medical visit to a specialized clinic where we will schedule an emergency, and will communicate in due time the date on which to present yourself in order to carry out the medical visit”. The club attached its decision dated 29 May 2020 to end the suspension of the employment contract.

16. On 2 June 2020, the AFAN asked the club to communicate in writing the training program, the protocols and instructions with regard to COVID-19, to schedule the medical visit and the testing for covid-19. On the same day, the club informed the player that he first had to take a covid-19 test and that on the condition that it was negative, a schedule for his medical visit would be made and he would then be able to join a training camp for 14 days.

17. On 3 June 2020, the club informed the player that he would be tested for covid-19 on 4 June 2020 and pass his medical visit on 9 June 2020.

18. On the same day, the player contested the above stating the club knew very well that he is “blocked in his native country and has not yet arrived in Romania” and “cannot earlier than tomorrow night”. The player further held that this is “an appointment made in bad faith” and that such behaviour by the club was harassment.

19. On 4 June 2020, the player informed the club that he had arrived in Romania and asked for a schedule for the covid-19 test.

20. On 9 June 2020, the club informed the player that he had to isolate completely at home for 14 days following the entry in Romania, as per the applicable legislation.

21. On the same day, the player contested this and requested a schedule for the covid-19 test and medical visit, such as it was done by the club for the other players of the team, based on the following:

“Order MTS 565 / 13.05.2020 provides in Annex no. 1, lit. C pt. 2 lit. a) smoothly. 2 that "- If it is necessary to resume training immediately, athletes and each person absolutely necessary for sports training will be tested RT-PCR for COVID-19 and medically examined three times, according to the following schedule: at the entrance to the base on the 7th and 14th of the training camp. The procedures described by the health authorities will be followed. During this period, the training will take place individually or in groups of up to four people, who will not change their composition during the 14 days."

22. On 18 June 2020, the player reminded the club that his self-isolation had ended and requested a covid-19 test as well as a reintegration into the team.

23. On 27 June 2020, the player reminded the club that the contract ended on 30 June 2020 and asked for someone to pick up his car as he will have to leave Romania on 30 June 2020 due to the expiry of his visa.

24. On 5 August 2020, the AFAN put the club in default to pay the following outstanding remuneration within 10 days:

EUR 7,750 for the remaining part of the salary of March 2020

EUR 15,020 for the remaining part of the salary of April 2020

EUR 15,020 for the remaining part of the salary of May 2020.

25. On 21 August 2020, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for outstanding remuneration.

26. In his claim, the player first stated that the club had only paid 50% of his salary for March 2020. In this regard, the player claimed that the club could not have passed the decision on 16 March 2020 given that the Ministry Order is dated 21 March 2020. However, the club tried to avoid paying half of the March salary to him. The club even admitted later that the decision was actually passed on 31 March 2020.

27. In April 2020, the player received a salary of LEI 2,382.

28. The player argued that the club did not comply with FIFA’s guidelines on COVID-19 since:

• The club did not undertake good faith negotiations first. It simply decided to reduce the player’s salary without any prior consultation;

• The decision to suspend contracts was only applied for 7 players of the club;

• The decisions of the club were not in good faith since it tried to reduce the salary retroactively (decision dated 16 March 2020, notified on 8 April but based on the Ministry Order dated 31 March 2020);

• The reduction was not proportionate. The player earned a monthly salary of EUR 15,500 and was only paid EUR 480 for the months of April and May 2020 (3% of his salary);

• The club never proved that it suffered financial loss.

29. In light of the above, the player requested the following:

• EUR 7,750 for half of the salary of March 2020 + 5% interest as from 1 April 2020;

• EUR 15,020 for the salary of April 2020 minus the amount EUR 480 paid + 5% interest as from 1 May 2020;

• EUR 15,020 for the salary of May 2020 minus the amount EUR 480 paid + 5% interest as from 1 June 2020;

• Impose a sanction as per art. 12bis on the club.

30. In its reply, the club held that the player had not played during 12 March and 14 June and that the club should not have to deal with the consequences of covid-19 alone.

31. On 12 March 2020, the Romanian FA suspended the league and on 16 March 2020, the state of emergency was declared in the country.

32. The club claimed to have discussed/negotiated with the players prior to the reduction. The captain of the first team was present in every negotiation. The players were informed that if they refused the 50% reduction the club would have to request technical unemployment benefits. A vast majority allegedly accepted the 50% reduction. The club had to apply the same solution to its entire staff.

33. The club then confirmed that the first decision to reduce the player’s salary was in fact taken on 31 March 2020 and took effect on the same day. The club explained that the decision dated 16 March 2020 was an error due to a confusion.

34. Then the club explained that as per Romanian law on COVID-19, contracts of players cannot be reduced less than “75% of the gross average revenue provided by the Public Social Security Act for 2020, i.e. RON 5,429.”

35. When the player resumed his activity on 15 May 2020, the club paid him his full remuneration. As such, the club considered that it had paid the full remuneration to the player, since even during the pandemic, he was paid as per the legal standard set out by the Romanian government.

36. Moreover, the club underlined that in a recent similar case, the Romanian NDRC decided in favour of the club, as follows:

“Finally, we inform (…) that, in a very similar case concerning a Romanian player, the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Romanian Football Federation (RFF DRC) recently decided in favor of the Club (the decision is final and binding, as it was not appealed). The RFF DRC considered, in essence, that Romanian law has established a special legal regime for the suspension of sport- related contracts during the COVID-19 pandernics, which allows for the unilateral suspension of contracts by the employer, with the possibility (but without any obligation) to discuss or negotiate a mutually-agreed solution with the employee. If no mutual solution is found, the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) No. 30/2020 apply insofar as the remuneration of the Player is concerned. Moreover, the unilateral decision takes effect since its adoption (and not since its communication to the Player), as a direct consequence of the law, because the employer merely transposes the imperative provisions of the special law. Finally, the Chamber decided that this solution was in compliance with the FIFA Circular Letter No. 1714 of April 7th, 2020”

37. According to the contract, Romanian law is applicable, thus including Decree no. 195/16.03.2020, Decree no. 240/14.04.2020, Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) No. 30/21.03.2020 and No. 32/30.03.2020, art. of the Public Social Security Act for 2020 (Law no. 6/2020), the Romania Labor Code amended as well as art. 2 of the Military Ordinance no. 1/17.03.2020 and art. 3 of Military Ordinance no. 2/21.03.2020, all declaring the state of emergency in the country and the applicable rules. The club further emphasised that this legislation was always referred to in the correspondence sent to the player.

38. With regard to compliance with FIFA Circular No. 1714, the latter was not a binding piece of legislation contrary to Romanian law and that in any case it was issued on 7 April 2020, after the Romanian legislation. Notwithstanding the above, the club considered to have complied with FIFA’s circular. In this regard, the club highlighted that FIFA’s circular clearly stated in lit. a) that “When unilateral decisions to suspend/modify employment contracts are made in accordance with national law (or are permissible within CBA structures of another collective agreement mechanism), such decisions shall be recognized by FIFA”.

39. The club then argued that covid-19 is a force majeure situation, thereby referring to FIFA’s declaration of 18 March 2020 and the wording used in the Circular 1714. The contract also set out a clause with regard to force majeure. However, since no text could have anticipated the situation of covid-19, once must turn to the applicable legislation, namely Romanian law on covid-19, which constitutes a lex specialis.

40. In this context, art. XV par. 2 of GEO No. 30/2020 “expressly and specifically allowed sport organizations to temporarily suspend sport-performance contracts (i.e. sport employment contracts) throughout the state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemics, in a unilateral manner”.

41. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the club decided the act more favourably towards its players, by undertaking discussions and consultations with all team members before deciding to reduce their salaries or requesting unemployment benefits.

42. In this respect, the club considered that the remuneration paid to the player and other staff members was an “adequate alternative income” in the sense of Circular 1714 p. 7 point (iv).

43. Alternatively, the club considered that the measure was reasonable and proportionate considering that it discussed with all its players before adopting it, that it necessary for the survival of the club, that the net income is proportionate and allows a middle class standard of living in Romania, and finally that the measure applied to entire staff.

44. Finally, the club highlighted that the player was perfectly aware of the covid-19 situation since Romania was in a state of emergency on 16 March 2020, was fully confined on 23 March 2020, making it impossible for the player to render his services and thereby triggering the application of clause P. of the contract (force majeure).

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 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.

2. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs, such as the present one, which involves a Serbian player and a Romanian club.

3. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the claim was lodged on 21 August 2020, the August 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.

4. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration on the basis of the employment contract concluded between them. In this respect, the Chamber took well note that, following an addendum concluded on 29 October 2019, the player’s remuneration was established, for the period between 1 February 2020 until 30 June 2020, in the amount of 127.180 Lei gross amount, meaning 15.500 Euro net amount (including the amount of 500 Euro, rent).

6. In particular, the Chamber noted that the player requested the payment of the following amounts:

- EUR 7,750 for half of the salary of March 2020, plus 5% interest as from 1 April 2020;

- EUR 15,020 for the salary of April 2020 minus the amount EUR 480 paid, plus 5% interest as from 1 May 2020;

- EUR 15,020 for the salary of May 2020 minus the amount EUR 480 paid, plus 5% interest as from 1 June 2020;

7. Conversely, the Chamber took note that the Respondent is however of the opinion that due to the suspension of the Romanian competition, the suspension of the player’s contract and the reduction of the player’s salary, it fulfilled all of its financial obligations towards the Claimant.

8. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber understood that the main issue at stake is to establish whether, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the club had a legal basis to reduce the player’s remuneration.

9. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that, following FIFA’s COVID-19 Regulatory Issues document, clubs are first supposed to try to find a (collective) agreement with their players, either on a club basis or within existing CBA structures.

10. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s argument, according to which the team’s captain was present in the negotiations and that a majority of the players agreed to a salary reduction.

11. Moreover, the Chamber observed that, according to FIFA’s COVID-19 Regulatory Issues document, unilateral decisions to vary the terms of an agreement are only allowed if they are made in line with national law or permissible within the CBA structures, and said allowance should be confirmed by an independent legal adviser. Thus, if the parties involved cannot reach an amicable settlement, or the issue is not addressed in national law and CBA’s with a players’ union are not an option, a variation can only be allowed if it is made in good faith, are reasonable and proportionate. Only if the aforementioned would not work, a suspension of the contract may be an option, provided that ‘proper income support arrangements’ can be found. I

12. In this respect, the Respondent provided a copy of the “Government Emergency Ordinance No. 30”, which in its art. XV stipulates the following:

“Throughout the state of emergency instituted by Decree No. 195/2020 declaring the state of emergency in Romania, during the temporary suspension of sport-performance contracts upon the sport organization’s initiative, as a consequence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemics, the persons mentioned in Art. 67 par. 1 lit. a) – c) of Sport and Physical Education Act 69/2000, as modified and supplemented, shall be retributed by an amount of 75% of the financial retribution to which they were entitled in counterpart to their sporting activity, but no more than 75% of the gross average revenue provided by the Public Social Security Act for 2020, Law No. 6/2020. Such retribution shall be borne by the public consolidated budget.”

13. Keeping the above in mind, the Chamber took note that, within this context, the club took the following decisions:

- On 16 March 2020, the club took a decision based on a Ministry Order whereby due to the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the salary of the player would constitute 75% of the average gross salary in the amount of LEI 4,072, until 14 April 2020. The decision further stated that the player had the possibility to lodge an appeal within 30 days with the “Bucharest Tribunal” and that the player would be informed 3 days in advance of the resumption of his activities. The decision was notified to the player on 8 April 2020.

- On 15 April 2020, the club notified the player of a new decision dated 14 April 2020, which amended the first decision to 31 March 2020 instead of 16 March 2020.

14. In relation to the aforementioned decisions, the Chamber remarked that the first decision was only notified to the player on 8 April 2020. Thus, the Chamber considered that the club was not in a position to apply any reduction prior to said date, i.e. until 7 April 2020. Therefore, the Chamber established that no reduction for the months of March and part of April (until 7 April 2020) can be accepted.

15. Therefore, for this period, the Chamber established that the player is entitled to the following amounts:

- EUR 15,500, corresponding to the entire remuneration of the month of March 2020;

- EUR 4,133, for the first 8 days of April 2020 (i.e. EUR 15,500 /30 * 8)

16. However, for the reductions of the player’s remuneration after the considered date of 8 April 2020, the Chamber considered that, in the matter at stake, there is not specific evidence from the parties whether there was an offer to reduce the salary by 50%.

17. In addition, the Chamber further noted that, in this matter, there is no evidence that the player was treated in an unequal manner when compared with his teammates.

18. With this consideration in mind, the Chamber noted that the government decree clearly states that salary can be reduced by 75%. Yet, in order to ensure the applicability of equal treatment, the Chamber understood that under no circumstance the player could be put in a worse situation than others who were offered 50%. Therefore in order to have equal treatment, the Chamber accepted the applicability of a deduction in the rate of 50%, as it was apparently performed with the rest of the team.

19. Therefore, the Chamber established that the player is also entitled to receive 50% of his remuneration for the remaining part of April 2020 (i.e. EUR 15,500 / 2 = EUR 7,750 / 30 * 22 EUR 2,066), as well as for 50% of his remuneration for May 2020 (i.e. 15,500 / 2).

20. In other words, the Chamber summarized the player is entitled to the following amounts:

- EUR 15,020 as outstanding remuneration and corresponding to the entire salary of March 2020;

- EUR 6,199 as outstanding remuneration and corresponding to his entitlements for the months of April, after performing the applicable deductions. Yet, given that the player acknowledged having received a partial payment during the course of the investigation, the Chamber determined that the outstanding amount for said period corresponds to EUR 5,719;

- EUR 7,750 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to 50% of his remuneration for the month of May 2020, after applying the relevant deductions.

21. In addition, following the longstanding jurisprudence of the DRC in this respect, the Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates over the aforementioned amounts.

22. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution 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.

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

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

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

III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Marko Momcilovic, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Fotbal Club FCSB, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:

- EUR 15,020 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- EUR 5,719 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.

- EUR 7,750 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment.

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 amounts.

5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts 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 amounts due, plus interest as established 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 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 amounts are paid.

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

2.

In the event that the payable amounts 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

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