FIFA - Decisiones estatuto del jugador - Avila Gordon 08112022

REF FPSD-6734

Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber passed on 8 November 2022 regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player Gonzalo Avila Gordon BY: Julie JORGENSEN (Denmark)

CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:

Huddersfield Town FC, England Represented by Centrefield LLP

RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:

RCD Espanyol de Barcelona, Spain Page 2

REF FPSD-6734

I. Facts of the case

1. On 4 September 2022, the English club, Huddersfield Town FC (hereinafter: Huddersfield or Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Spanish club, RCD Espanyol de Barcelona (hereinafter: Espanyol or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the contract) regarding the player Gonzalo Ávila Gordon (hereinafter: the player).

2. Under the contract, Huddersfield undertook to pay Espanyol EUR 640,000 in 3 instalments, the third one amounting to EUR 340,000 and payable on 25 June 2022.

3. Clause 2 of the contact states as follows: “In addition to the sums potentially payable under clause 2 above and subject to and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, in the event that [Huddersfield] shall enter into a mutually agreed transfer to transfer the Player’s registration (whether on a temporary or permanent basis) to another football club (save in respect of any transfer to [Espanyol]) (the ‘Subsequent Transfer’), [Huddersfield] shall pay to [Espanyol] such sum or sums as represent 20% (twenty percent) of the compensation actually received by [Huddersfield] from the

Subsequent Transfer.”

4. Clause 5 of the contract reads as follows:

“It is acknowledged and agreed that [Huddersfield] shall deduct and distribute from each sum payable to [Espanyol] hereunder the requisite amount of Solidarity (if any) which is due under Article 21 and Annex 5 of the FIFA Regulations, or any replacement thereof, to any and all clubs (excluding [Espanyol]) and/or national associations which are entitled to be paid Solidarity under the FIFA Regulations following [Huddersfield]’s registration of the Player.”

5. Clause 9 of the contract reads inter alia as follows: “[Espanyol] hereby undertakes, represents and warrants to [Huddersfield] that: (…)

(d) it accepts the sums payable to it hereunder in full and final settlement of any and all claims it may have against [Huddersfield] in respect of [Huddersfield]’s registration of the Player; (e) no other football club, team, national association, league, individual, or any other legal entity shall be entitled to bring a claim against [Huddersfield] in respect of its registration of the Player”.

6. Clause 10 of the contract reads inter alia as follows: “It is acknowledged that [Huddersfield] has entered into this Agreement and has agreed to make payments to [Espanyol] under this Agreement in reliance on the representations and warranties

Page 3 REF FPSD-6734 given by [Espanyol] hereunder and [Espanyol] has entered into this Agreement in reliance on the representations and warranties given by [Huddersfield]. In the event of a breach of any representation or warranty hereunder, the breaching party shall indemnify the non-breaching party on demand against all liabilities, costs, expenses, damages and losses (including but not limited to any direct, indirect or consequential losses, loss of profit, penalties and legal costs (calculated on a full indemnity basis) and all other professional costs and expenses) suffered or

incurred by the non-breaching party arising out of or in connection with any breach of the representations and/or warranties given by the breaching party and in the case of [Espanyol], the foregoing indemnity shall also extend to any claim made against [Huddersfield] in respect of the Player’s registration with [Huddersfield].”

7. Clause 10 of the contract reads inter alia as follows: “Any failure or delay by [Huddersfield] to exercise any right or remedy provided under this Agreement or by law shall not constitute a waiver of that or any other right or remedy, nor shall it prevent or restrict any further exercise of that or any other right or remedy. A waiver by

[Huddersfield] of any right or remedy under this Agreement or by law is only effective if given in writing and shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default.”

8. In accordance with the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered with Huddersfield on 10 September 2020.

9. On 17 November 2020, Espanyol filed a claim in TMS against Huddersfield (ref. TMS 7218), seeking payment of training compensation with regards to the transfer of the player between the parties (hereinafter: the TC Claim).

10. On 8 December 2020, the FIFA general secretariat issued a proposal to settle the TC Claim and requested a position of the parties in this respect by 9 January 2021.

11. Huddersfield did not file any objection to the proposal or any rejection/statement of defense regarding the TC Claim within the stipulated deadline. Consequently, on 18 January 2021, the FIFA general secretariat issued a confirmation letter determining that the proposal had been accepted and as such it constituted a final and binding decision. Accordingly, Huddersfield was ordered to pay to Espanyol EUR 342,246.57 plus interest (hereinafter: the Confirmation

Letter).

12. After the Confirmation Letter was issued, Huddersfield filed a request for review as it deemed that an obvious mistake had occurred (hereinafter: the Review Request).

13. Subsequently, and because no payment was received by Espanyol, the latter requested the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to start disciplinary proceedings against Huddersfield for failing to comply with the Confirmation Letter.

Page 4

REF FPSD-6734

14. On 25 March 2021, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee rendered a decision whereby Huddersfield was ordered to comply with the Confirmation Letter and pay a fine of CHF 20,000

(hereinafter: the FDC Decision). Huddersfield subsequently appealed the FDC Decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), naming Espanyol and FIFA as respondents (hereinafter: the CAS Appeal). Contextually, it also addressed its Review Request and the Confirmation Letter, and asked CAS inter alia to determine that no training compensation was payable to Espanyol.

15. On 7 May 2021, Huddersfield allegedly paid EUR 29,260 to the Spanish club, Gimnastic de Tarragona as training compensation in respect of the player’s registration.

16. By Award dated 10 June 2022, CAS dismissed the CAS Appeal in its entirety.

17. On 7 July 2022, the player was registered with the Greek club, Olympiacos FC, following a transfer agreement executed between said club and Huddersfield on 23 June 2022

(hereinafter: the Subsequent Transfer). Contextually, Olympiacos undertook to pay to

Huddersfield: a. GBP 750,000 as fixed fee, payable in 2 equal instalments of GBP 375,000 each, due respectively on 31 October 2022 and 31 October 2023;

b. Other conditional payments in respect of the player’s performance; c. A sell-on fee of 25%.

18. On 25 July 2022, Espanyol put Huddersfield in default of payment of EUR 340,000 in

accordance with the contract and granted the latter 10 days to cure its default, to no avail.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

19. On 15 July 2022, Huddersfield filed a claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Claim of Huddersfield

20. Huddersfield filed a claim against Espanyol seeking the following: “131.1. [Huddersfield]’s claim is admissible and well-founded;

[Espanyol] acted in breach of the Clause 9(d) Representation and Warranty by commencing the FIFA TC Claim; 131.3. [Espanyol] has acted in breach of the Clause 9(e) Representation and Warranty by virtue of the Nastic Training Compensation Claim; Page 5 REF FPSD-6734 131.4. [Espanyol] must indemnify the Claimant for all losses suffered arising from its breaches of the aforementioned Representations and Warranties in the sum of EUR 589,022.45 – to be adjusted as appropriate in light of the currently undetermined CAS procedural fees and further liabilities and costs incurred as a result of these proceedings; 131.5. In the alternative, [Espanyol] must pay to [Huddersfield] damages for all losses suffered arising from its breaches of the aforementioned Representations and Warranties in the sum of EUR 589,022.4562 – to be adjusted as appropriate in light of the currently undetermined CAS procedural fees and further liabilities and costs incurred as a result of these proceedings; 131.6. In the further alternative, [Espanyol] must pay to [Huddersfield] such other compensation amount that the PSC deems appropriate in the circumstances; 131.7. Interest is payable on the compensation award at a rate of 5% per annum from 15 July 2022 (the date of this submission);

131.8. [Huddersfield] is entitled to set-off the compensation award granted to it against the sums owed to [Espanyol] pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, namely the Third Instalment of the Transfer Fee and [Espanyol]’s entitlement under the Sell-On Clause in respect of the Olympiakos Transfer; 131.9. That the consequences of Article 24 of the FIFA Regulations shall apply if [Espanyol] fails to make payment of the aforementioned sums; and; 131.10. [Espanyol] is liable to pay the procedural costs in relation to these proceedings”

21. Huddersfield argued that by lodging the TC Claim, Espanyol breached the contract as it directly contravened the obligations established therein and moreover the representation and warranties expressly given in the contract. As such, Huddersfield argued it incurred in damages, detailed as follows: Category of liability/cost/expense/damage/ loss Sum Training Compensation to the Respondent as per the Proposal EUR 342,246.57

Interest on Training Compensation payment as per the EUR 28,833.10 Proposal Training Compensation to [Gimnastic de Tarragona] EUR 29,260

FDC Fine CHF 20,000

CAS Court Office Fee CHF 1,000 CAS Advance of Costs CHF 46,000 Contribution to the Respondent’s expenses in CAS CHF 8,000 Proceedings The Claimant’s legal fees in connection with GBP 72,089.66 and arising from the FIFA Claim and CAS Proceedings Page 6

REF FPSD-6734

The Claimant’s legal fees in connection with and arising from GBP 19,289 the warranty claim from 21 June 2022 to 14 July 2022 FIFA Advance of Costs USD 5,000

TOTAL EUR 589,022.45

EUR 400,339.67 CHF 75,00050 GBP 91,378.6651

USD 5,00052

22. Huddersfield furthermore argued that the contract never stated that training compensation would be due in addition to the agreed transfer fee, and that the latter amounted to all monies payable to Espanyol for the transfer of the player.

b. Reply and counterclaim of Espanyol

23. Espanyol, for its part, filed a reply and a counterclaim against Huddersfield. In doing so, it strongly objected to the claim of Huddersfield. It underlined that the payments Huddersfield incurred in connection with the TC Claim can only be attributed to the same’s own behaviour, as it failed to respond to the FIFA general secretariat proposal. Espanyol accordingly referred to the CAS Award and deemed that the claim is affected by res judicata.

24. As to the substance, Espanyol denies that it has breached the contract on the basis that the player’s registration took place without problem, and argued that “the damages estimated arise in their vast majority from a claim that has already been decided by FIFA and CAS”.

25. Espanyol requested that the claim be dismissed and Huddersfield ordered to pay legal costs of CHF 5,000.

26. As to the counterclaim, Espanyol highlighted that it has an enforceable contact and credit against Huddersfield, who has failed to pay in contravention of art. 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Accordingly, it requested payment of EUR 340,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date, together with legal costs of CHF

3,000. c. Reply to the counterclaim by Huddersfield

27. In its reply to the counterclaim, Huddersfield argued that the claim is not affected by res judicata. It argued in this respect as follows: “[Huddersfield] therefore commenced an appeal against Espanyol and FIFA before the CAS (the

‘CAS Claim’), and requested the CAS determine whether FIFA acted in accordance with Article 14(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules and Article 15 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. [Huddersfield] also requested the CAS exercise its de novo powers to determine whether Espanyol acted in Page 7 REF FPSD-6734 breach of the Transfer Agreement by bringing a claim for Training Compensation against [Huddersfield]. The CAS ultimately refused to determine [Huddersfield]’s second request and only gave its determination on FIFA’s actions in respect of Article 14(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules and Article 15 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (as further addressed below) as set out in its award dated 10 June 2022 (the ‘CAS Award’). [Huddersfield] suffered further loss as a result of the CAS Claim, which [Huddersfield] was forced to commence as a result of the FIFA TC Claim.”

28. Huddersfield highlighted that the Panel in the CAS Award textually determined that its request for damages was deemed to be “outside of the mandate” of the Panel, and therefore no res judicata can exist. It further submitted that the claim at hand is not identical to the TC Claim and the CAS Appeal.

29. As to the substance, while reiterating its own position, it argued that Espanyol could not establish that Huddersfield failed to pay without prima facie justification. It requested that the counterclaim be dismissed.

III. Considerations of the Players’ Status Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

29. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 July 2022 and submitted for decision on 8 November 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the

October 2022 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

30. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. g) of the FIFA RSTP

(October 2022 edition), the Players’ Status Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a contractual dispute between clubs belonging to different associations.

31. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that Espanyol disputes the admissibility of Huddersfield’s claim on the grounds of res judicata. In this respect, the Single Judge was firmly persuaded that the argumentation of Espanyol must be upheld, since (a) Huddersfield is precluded from filing the claim at this time and (b) the matter is affected by res judicata.

32. In fact, the Single Judge found that the claim at stake is nothing more, nothing less than an attempt by Huddersfield to cure its own flaw of not having responded to the proposal issued by the FIFA general secretariat in the context of the TC Claim. In this respect, the Single Judge was not convinced by the argument of the breach of warranty advanced by Huddersfield,

Page 8 REF FPSD-6734 because its claim is in fact grounded on the fulfilment (or lack thereof) of the contract regarding the payment of training compensation, something which (a) it should have raised in its response to the TC Claim and (b) has already been examined by CAS, since its Award confirms the validity of the decision (i.e., the Confirmation Letter) issued in those proceedings.

33. The Single Judge highlighted that the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, in force at the time of the TC Claim and the

Confirmation Letter, in particular art. 9bis par. 3, and art. 9 par. 3 and 4, established (a) that communications would be done via TMS for claims such as the TC Claim, (b) that submissions received outside the time limit shall not be taken into account, and (c) parties shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their requests or their arguments, to produce new exhibits or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely after notification of the closure of the investigation. Against this background, the Single Judge underlined that Huddersfield never argued that the Proposal was not properly delivered to it.

34. The rules are therefore clear in the Single Judge’s view: in a matter where a party has already been summoned to the proceedings, any counterclaim (or parallel claim) must be filed within the time limit granted, otherwise it will be deemed late and the party in question will be precluded from submitting it later on.

35. Along these lines, the Proposal correctly indicated that absent any response from the parties, it would be considered as accepted and therefore the Confirmation Letter would be sent - as in fact it was - determining that the Confirmation Letter constituted a final and binding decision.

36. The Single Judge clarified that unlike for claims, which may be re-submitted (and subject to a new analysis afresh of their admissibility by the FIFA general secretariat), counterclaims must be filed within the same time limit for the response (or any extension or additional time thereto), under penalty of preclusion of the concerned party’s right to file it. Since Huddersfield failed to reply to the Proposal within the relevant time limit, or to file its counterclaim accordingly (be that in the same proceedings or by means of a parallel claim filed independently), the same cannot be now re-visited, in that Huddersfield has waived its right to file its position in the proceedings regarding the TC Claim and is now precluded from doing so.

37. Any different conclusion would render legal certainty moot, for parties would be able to file

independent claims as they pleased, which contravenes not only the principles of good procedural order and procedural economy, but would jeopardize due process and, ultimately, legal certainty within the FIFA dispute resolution system. The Single Judge underlined that this line of reasoning has been confirmed by CAS (see, for instance, CAS 2020/A/7455 Besiktas A.S.

1. FIFA & Victor Ruiz Torre).

Page 9

REF FPSD-6734

38. Additionally, Huddersfield admits in its reply to the counterclaim that it requested CAS to exercise its de novo powers to determine whether Espanyol acted in breach of the contract by filing the TC Claim. In particular, the Award outlined that one of the arguments raised by Huddersfield in the CAS Appeal was as follows (para. 76, penultimate and last items): “[Huddersfield] has relied upon the warranties given by [Espanyol] when entering into [the contract] and that in event of breach of a warranty, [Espanyol] would indemnify [Huddersfield] against all losses suffered arising out of the breach” “in particular, clause 10 of the [contract] explicitly stated that the indemnity extends to any claim made against [Huddersfield] in respect of the player’s registration.”

39. In other words, the duty of Huddersfield to pay training compensation has already been determined and cannot be re-examined by the Single Judge, even if Huddersfield frames it differently as a tort claim or by its petition seeking reparation of damages allegedly suffered.

Admitting the claim of Huddersfield would open a door entitling clubs to engage in attempts to circumvent decisions and duties of the same clubs to timely follow the required procedural steps in any FIFA or CAS proceeding. The Single Judge furthermore underscored that since CAS dismissed the Appeal in its entirety (and it confirmed that it could not entertain the damages request formulated by Huddersfield), Huddersfield request regarding the alleged

breach of contract has been already determined by CAS.

40. As such, the Single Judge found that that all requirements for res judicata are met in the case

at hand: a. Identity of persons – eadem personae, b. Identity of cause – eadem causa petendi. c. Identity of object – eadem res;

41. For the sake of completeness, even if that was not the case – i.e., even if the matter was not res judicata because of the Award, the outcome would already be the same since Huddersfield accepted to settle the TC Claim by means of the Proposal and the ensuing Confirmation Letter.

As such, Huddersfield cannot withdraw its consent now.

42. It follows that the claim of Huddersfield is inadmissible. This additionally confirms that the Single Judge cannot address any further requests, especially the set-off request filed.

43. Having established the above, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter (i.e. the counterclaim lodged by Espanyol). In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the FIFA RSTP (October 2022 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 July 2022, the March 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

Page 10

REF FPSD-6734

b. Burden of proof

44. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, she stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within TMS.

c. Merits of the dispute

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

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

46. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter, and determined that the issues to be examined are the following:

a. What amounts are owed by Huddersfield to Espanyol, if any? b. Does the case meet the criteria for art. 12bis of the Regulations?

47. She then proceeded to examine these matters in turn.

a. What amounts are owed by Huddersfield to Espanyol, if any?

48. The Single Judge observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the present case and in line with the counterclaim correspond to EUR 340,000 payable on 25 June 2022 under the contract.

49. The only justification from Huddersfield not to pay this amount was the breach of warranty claim, or the corresponding set-off. Since the claim has been ruled inadmissible, there is no other argument to support the position of Huddersfield.

50. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Sigle Judge decided that the counterclaim of Espanyol must therefore be partially accepted and Huddersfield should pay EUR 340,000.

Page 11

REF FPSD-6734

51. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge noted that it would appear, in principle, that Huddersfield could deduct from the cited amount the training compensation allegedly paid to Gimnastic de Tarragona. However, Huddersfield did not present the proper calculation and

evidence that it paid said amounts to said – the only evidence on file for payment of EUR 29,400 is a bank receipt of a transfer to The Football Association, without any other supporting documentation – for instance, an agreement with the training club, the relevant calculation, and the like. Consequently, the Single Judge found that that Huddersfield did not meet its burden of proof and therefore no deductions shall apply. b. Does the case meet the criteria for art. 12bis of the Regulations?

52. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. In doing so, the Single Judge noted that Espanyol has no standing to request the imposition of sanctions under art. 12bis of the Regulations, which shall be assessed ex officio and at FIFA’s discretion only.

53. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that on 25 July 2022 Espanyol put Huddersfield in default of payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the latter a 10-day deadline to cure such breach.

54. However, given the particularities of the dispute at hand and the very specific circumstances of the case at hand, including the Proposal, the Confirmation Letter, the Appeal, the Award, the breach of warranty claim and, most importantly, the contents of the contract, the Single Judge found that these justify as prima facie reason the lack of payment by Huddersfield. It should be noted nonetheless that this is not a requirement for payment (as argued by Huddersfield) but a requirement to be assessed under art. 12bis criteria. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the Regulations was not met in the case at hand. ii. Compliance with monetary decisions

55. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24 par. 1 and 2 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.

56. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted 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. The overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

Page 12

REF FPSD-6734

57. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that Huddersfield must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to Espanyol within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the latter, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.

58. Huddersfield make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account provided by Espanyol in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.

59. The Single Judge 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. 24 par. 8 of the Regulations.

d. Costs

60. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in disputes between clubs, costs in the maximum amount of USD 25,000 are levied. As per art. 25 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge will decide the amount that each

party is due to pay, in consideration of the parties’ degree of success and their conduct during the procedure, as well as any advance of costs paid.

61. Taking into account that the claim of Huddersfield has been found inadmissible, and the counterclaim of Espanyol accepted to a considerable extent, the Single Judge concluded that Huddersfield shall bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. According to Annexe 1 of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to USD 25,000.

62. In light of the above, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of USD 25,000 and concluded that said amount has to be paid by the Huddersfield in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. The amount of advance of costs paid by Huddersfield is included in such amount.

63. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded the deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.

Page 13

REF FPSD-6734

IV. Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Huddersfield Town FC, is inadmissible.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, RCD Espanyol de Barcelona, is partially accepted.

3. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant EUR 340,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claims of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant are rejected.

5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment

(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in