Ittihad Club of Saudi Arabia v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the parties’ written submissions and the evidence examined in the course of the present appeals arbitration proceedings and at the hearing. This background is made for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal analysis.

A. Proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

4. On 22 November 2009, the football player Mr D (the “Player”), filed a claim against the Club before the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA (the “FIFA DRC”), claiming an amount of USD 1,480,000, plus interest.

5. The Club disputed the Player’s claim.

6. On 12 December 2013, the FIFA DRC issued a decision (the “FIFA DRC Decision”), with inter alia the following operative part:

“1. The claim of the [Player] is partially accepted.

2. The [Club] has to pay to the [Player], within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 150,000 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 12 December 2013 until the date of effective payment.

3. If the amount plus interest due in accordance with point 2 is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

4. Any further claims lodged by the [Player] are rejected”.

7. On 19 March 2014, the grounds of the FIFA DRC Decision were communicated to the parties.

8. On 8 April 2014, the Player lodged an appeal against the FIFA DRC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”).

9. On 29 January 2015, CAS issued an arbitral award (the “CAS Award”), with the following operative part:

“1. The appeal filed by [the Player] on 8 April 2014 is partially upheld.

2. The Decision issued by the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA on 12 December 2013 is partially set aside.

3. [The Club] shall pay [the Player] an amount of USD 350’000 (three hundred and fifty thousand US dollars) plus interest of 5% from 4 March 2010.

4. […].

5. […].

6. All other prayers for relief are dismissed”.

10. On 27 April 2015, the Player informed the FIFA Players’ Status and Governance department that, to such date, the Club had not made any payment of the amount due and requested the opening of expedited disciplinary proceedings.

11. On 8 May 2015, FIFA’s Players’ Status and Governance department informed the Club that it should immediately pay the relevant amount to the Player and to provide it with a copy of the payment receipt of the relevant amount by 19 May 2015, in the absence of which the file would be forwarded to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

12. On 18 May 2015, the Club requested to be provided with a one-month extension of the relevant deadline.

13. On 20 May 2015, the Player informed FIFA’s Players’ Status and Governance department that he had not received any payment and requested the matter to be forwarded to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

14. On 10 June 2015, FIFA’s Players’ Status and Governance department indicated to the parties that it would proceed to forward the entire file to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

15. On 19 October 2015, the Player informed the FIFA Players’ Status and Governance department that the Club had paid him a total amount of USD 475,709, but that, since the Player’s total claim amounted to USD 484,988 (comprised of an amount of USD 350,000 awarded by CAS, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over such amount accruing as from 4 March 2010 until 9 October 2015, a contribution of USD […] (CHF […]) towards his legal costs and other expenses incurred in connection with the arbitration, as well as USD […] (CHF […]) related to the arbitration costs), a payment of USD 9,279 remained outstanding.

16. On 12 January 2016, the Player informed the FIFA Players’ Status and Governance department again that the Club had failed to comply with the CAS Award as the amount of USD 9,279 was still outstanding.

B. Proceedings before the FIFA Disciplinary Committee

17. On 22 June 2016, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee opened disciplinary proceedings against the Club. The Club was urged to pay the outstanding amount to the Player immediately, in which case the disciplinary proceedings would be closed.

18. On 10 July 2016, the Club informed the SAFF that it “paid all the amounts enumerated in the judgment”. No evidence was presented that the SAFF forwarded such letter to the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

19. On 13 July 2016, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee informed the Club that the case would be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for evaluation on 9 August 2016. The Club was again urged to pay the outstanding amount to the Player immediately, in which case the disciplinary proceedings would be closed.

20. The Club did not respond to the letters of the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

21. On 9 August 2016, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee issued its decision (the “FIFA DC Decision”), with the following operative part:

“1. The [Club] is pronounced guilty of failing to comply with the [CAS Award] and is, therefore, in violation of art. 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

2. The [Club] is ordered to pay a fine to the amount of CHF 1,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision (…).

3. The [Club] is granted a final period of grace of 30 days as from the notification of the present decision in which to settle its debt to the [Player].

4. If payment is not made by this deadline, the creditor may demand in writing from the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that three (3) points be deducted from the debtor’s first team in the domestic league championship. Once the creditor has filed this request, the points will be deducted automatically without a further formal decision having to be taken by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. The order to implement the points deduction will be issued on the association concerned by the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

5. If the [Club] still fails to pay the amount due even after the deduction of the points in accordance with point 4 above, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee will decide on a possible relegation of the debtor’s first team to the next lower division.

6. As a member of FIFA, the [SAFF] is reminded of its duty to implement this decision and, if so requested, provide FIFA with proof that the points have been deducted. If the [SAFF] does not comply with this decision despite being ordered to do so, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee will decide on appropriate sanctions on the member. This can lead to expulsion from all FIFA competitions.

7. The costs of these proceedings amounting to CHF 500 are to be borne by the [Club] and shall be paid according to the modalities stipulated under point 2 above.

8. The creditor is directed to notify the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee of every payment received”.

22. On 22 August 2016, the terms of the FIFA DC Decision were duly notified to the Club, via its legal representative, to the Player, via his legal representative, and to the SAFF. None of the parties requested the grounds of the FIFA DC Decision, as a consequence of which it became final and binding.

23. On 10 November 2016, the Player informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that the Club had failed to pay the amount due towards him and requested that 3 points be deducted from the first team of the Club.

24. On 14 December 2016, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee asked the SAFF to implement point 4 of the FIFA DC Decision and to deduct 3 points from the Club’s first team in the domestic league championship.

25. On 16 December 2016, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that its letter dated 14 December 2016 was “totally inadequate and you must annul your request as the payment of all the debts were made much before the letter of [the Player’s lawyer]”.

26. On 19 December 2016, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that it had provided it on 16 December 2017 with proof of the fact that all pending amounts had been settled in full “before the decision was taken by the FIFA Disc. Co, being the sole problem, that your most esteemed services were not informed in due time by the Player”.

27. On 19 December 2016, the Player requested the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to suspend the execution of the sanction imposed until 5 January 2017.

28. On 21 December 2016, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee as follows:

“Please find herein attached a communication dated 19 December 2016 from the Player’s lawyer requesting the suspension of the sanction imposed by your most esteemed services over [the Club] until the 5th of January 2016 [sic].

(…)

In the meantime we are confident said issue will be clarified, as the relevant amount to the Player were transferred to the bank details he provided by means of his letter dated 2nd of March 2015”.

29. On 21 December 2016, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee as follows:

“The date indicated in the documents herein attached as proof of payment is the 17th of October 2015.

Only the amount of USD 9,279 is allegedly outstanding according to the Player himself.

As per the above, it is crucial that the sanction is suspended until the 5th of January 2017 as demanded by the Player’s legal representative in his latest correspondence to your most esteemed services”.

30. On 22 December 2016, the Club provided the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee with proof of payment of an amount of USD 9,279 to the Player and requesting it to “declare the annulment of the relevant FIFA Disc. Co. sanction ordered against our client and inform accordingly the [SAFF]”.

31. On 23 December 2016, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee noted from the Club’s correspondence dated 22 December 2016 that the outstanding amount due to the Player had been paid on such date. With reference to the content of points 3 and 4 of the FIFA DC Decision, FIFA recalled that “if the relevant payment is not made within the final deadline granted by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee and once the creditor has filed the request for the deduction of three (3) points, the points will be deducted automatically without a further formal decision having to be taken by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee”. As a consequence, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee “once again kindly ask[ed] the [SAFF] to implement point 4 of the [FIFA DC Decision] and to deduct three (3) points from the first team of the club Al-Ittihad Club”.

32. On 23 December 2016, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, inter alia, as follows:

“The amount which was outstanding in favour of the Player had been paid by our client in due time, however to the erroneous bank account.

This was due to a clerical mistake which has been duly acknowledged by the Player and accepted by the latter. In fact, the Player’s legal representative will confirm the above to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee within the shortest deadline.

Accordingly, we herein urge the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to withdraw its order to the [SAFF]”.

33. On 23 December 2016, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee informed the Club, the Player and the SAFF as follows:

“[W]e take note that according to the legal representative of the [Club] “the amount which was outstanding in favour of the player had been paid by our client in due time, however to the erroneous bank account”.

In this respect, we wish to emphasise that we have not been provided with any evidence regarding such alleged payment.

In line with our previous correspondence (herewith attached), we kindly ask the [SAFF] to implement point 4 of the [FIFA DC Decision] and to deduct three (3) points from the first team of the club Al-Ittihad Club”.

34. On 23 December 2016, the Club reiterated its request and provided proof of payment of the amount of CHF 9,594 to CAS on an unknown date (as was already provided on 16 December 2016) and that only by mistake it was remitted to a wrong bank account.

35. On 2 January 2017, the SAFF informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee of the enforcement of the three point deduction from the Club in the Saudi Professional League.

36. On 4 January 2017, the Player informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that the outstanding payment was received and that the payment of CHF 9,594 was made before his request for the points deduction and that only due to an administrative error it was not received by him.

37. On 11 January 2017, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that the Player himself stressed that he should not have asked for the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the Club. The Club asked the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to contact the SAFF and order the latter to lift the 3-point deduction.

38. On 16 January 2017, the Club demanded reconsideration of the deduction of the three points from the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, arguing that the Club had good faith in paying a large part of the Player’s entitlements, but that this incorrect procedure occurred because of the death of the former president of the Club and a misunderstanding between the outstanding amount and the similar amount to be deposited to CAS.

39. On 18 January 2017, the SAFF forwarded the Club’s letter dated 16 January 2017 to the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

40. On 20 February 2017, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee repeated the considerations it communicated before to the Club, the Player and the SAFF on 23 December 2016, adding that the disciplinary proceedings against the Club were closed, since all financial duties had been fulfilled.

41. On 21 February 2017, the Club informed the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee as follows:

“[A]ccording to your communication, you merely follow the request of the creditor. But, on the 16th of December 2016, we have proven that non-payment was due to an error and, moreover THE VERY SAME CREDITOR sent a fax requesting the WITHDRAWAL of his previous request of deduction the points [sic].

Thus, if it is a mere administrative issue, you should have followed the latest request of the creditor of no deduction of the points.

I therefore request AN URGENT DECISION BY THE DISCO stating that the point must be returned.

Such a decision must be urgent as the season of the Saudi Premier League finishes in the next month and a half and in order to protect [the Club’s] rights of a possible appeal before CAS”.

42. On 7 March 2017, the Club reiterated its request for an urgent decision.

43. On 17 March 2017, the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee informed the Club, the Player and the SAFF as follows:

“We refer to the above-mentioned matter and acknowledge receipt of the correspondences from the legal representative of the [Club] dated 21 February 2017 and 7 March 2017, the content of which has received our full attention and copies of which we hereto enclose for the other party’s perusal.

In this regard, we wish to refer you once again and, in particular, to the content of point 4 of the [FIFA DC Decision] which establishes that “the points will be deducted automatically without a formal decision having to be taken by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee”.

Bearing in mind the foregoing, as well as in line with our letters dated 23 December 2016 and 20 February 2017, the deduction of three (3) points from the first team of the [Club] shall be maintained”.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

44. On 31 March 2017, the Club lodged a Statement of Appeal against the decision/letter rendered/issued by the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee dated 17 March 2017, pursuant to Article R48 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (edition 2017) (the “CAS Code”), naming FIFA as the sole respondent. In this submission, the Club nominated Mr Saleh Al Obeidli, Attorney-at-Law in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, as arbitrator. The Club also applied for a stay of execution of the Appealed Decision.

45. On 12 April 2017, FIFA challenged the admissibility of the appeal and requested for a preliminary decision on the admissibility of the appeal. FIFA expressed the view that its letter dated 17 March 2017 cannot be considered as a final decision passed by one of FIFA’s judicial bodies. Finally, although accepting that the proceedings would be conducted in English, FIFA proposed that there would be no need to translate any written evidence filed in Spanish.

46. On 19 April 2017, upon being invited to do so by the CAS Court Office, the Club filed a written submission on admissibility, arguing that FIFA challenge was to be dismissed and objecting to FIFA’s request for a preliminary decision on admissibility.

47. On 20 April 2017, FIFA nominated Mr Mark Hovell, Attorney-at-Law in Manchester, United Kingdom, as arbitrator.

48. On 25 April 2017, the Club filed its Appeal Brief, pursuant to Article R51 of the CAS Code. This document contained a statement of the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal. The Club challenged the Appealed Decision, submitting the following requests for relief:

“A. Reject the request from FIFA to limit the present procedure to the issue of admissibility.

B. Reject the request of FIFA to consider the letter a mere measure of execution. — C. To set aside the Decision rendered by FIFA on the 17th of March 2017.

D. Condemn the Respondent to the payment of the whole CAS administration costs and Panel fees;

E. Fix a sum to be paid by the Respondents to the Club in order to cover its defence fees and costs in the amount of CHF 15,000”.

49. On 2 May 2017, FIFA filed its answer to the Club’s request for stay, requesting it to be dismissed.

50. On 4 May 2017, the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division of CAS rendered an Order on Request for Stay, with the following operative part:

“1. The request for a stay filed by Al-Ittihad FC on 31 March 2017 in the matter CAS 2017/A/5058 Al-Ittihad FC v. FIFA is rejected.

2. The costs deriving from the present order will be determined in the final award or in any other final disposition of this arbitration”.

51. On 29 May 2017, pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code, and on behalf of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the parties were informed that the arbitral tribunal appointed to decide the present matter was constituted by:

– Mr Hendrik Kesler, Attorney-at-Law in Enschede, the Netherlands, as President; – Mr Saleh Al Obeidli, Attorney-at-Law in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and – Mr Mark Hovell, Solicitor in Manchester, United Kingdom, as arbitrators

52. On 13 June 2017, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the Panel had decided to rule on the admissibility of the appeal in the final award.

53. On 17 July 2017, Dr Jan Kleiner informed the CAS Court Office that he had taken over the legal representation of the Club from its previous counsel.

54. On 31 July 2017, FIFA filed its Answer, pursuant to Article R55 of the CAS Code. FIFA submitted the following requests for relief:

“1. Primarily, to declare inadmissible the appeal lodged by the Appellant.

2. Subsidiary, should the Panel decide not to the [sic] declare the appeal inadmissible, quod non, to reject the Appellant’s appeal in its entirety.

3. To order the Appellant to bear all the costs incurred with the present procedure and to cover all legal expenses of the Respondent related to the present procedure”.

55. On 2 and 3 August 2017 respectively, upon being invited by the Panel to express their opinion in this respect, FIFA indicated that it did not require a hearing to be held, whereas the Club requested a hearing to be held.

56. On 16 and 18 August 2017 respectively, FIFA and the Club returned duly signed copies of the Order of Procedure to the CAS Court Office.

57. On 2 November 2017, a hearing was held in Lausanne, Switzerland. At the outset of the hearing, both parties confirmed that they had no objection to the constitution and composition of the Arbitral Tribunal.

58. In addition to the Panel, Mr Antonio de Quesada, Counsel to the CAS, and Mr Dennis Koolaard, Ad hoc Clerk, the following persons attended the hearing:

For the Appellant:

– Dr Jan Kleiner, Counsel;

For the Respondent:

– Mrs Alejandra Salmerón García, Legal Counsel in the FIFA Disciplinary department; – Mrs Karin Schöneberger, Legal Counsel in the FIFA Disciplinary department.

59. No witnesses or expert witnesses were heard. The parties had full opportunity to present their case, submit their arguments and answer the questions posed by the Panel.

60. Before the hearing was concluded, both parties expressly stated that they did not have any objection with the procedure adopted by the Panel and that their right to be heard had been respected.

61. The Panel confirms that it fully reviewed and took into account in its discussion and subsequent deliberations all of the submissions, evidence, and arguments presented by the parties, even if they have not been specifically summarised or referred to in the present award.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

62. The Club’s submissions on the merits of the case (the submissions in respect of the admissibility of the appeal are set out separately below), in essence, may be summarised as follows:

- The Club maintains that FIFA is of the view that the deduction of points is a mere measure of execution which may only be imposed after a request made by the creditor. The Club disagrees with this position and submits that such request from the creditor would then be a potestative decision of the creditor and not a FIFA decision. However, in this case the creditor asked FIFA not to impose such sanction, because the payment was made before the request.

- FIFA’s decision to reject such request “has been taken without any kind of basis and against the general principles of law qui potest majus potest et minus (he who can do more can do less) or Non debet, cui plus licet, quod minus est, non licere (He who is permitted to do the greater, may with greater reason do the less)”.

- It is obvious that if a creditor has been empowered to request the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to sanction a debtor, FIFA, once the request to sanction has been filed, cannot remove from the creditor the power to request the sanction to be withdrawn. The laws and regulations of FIFA and the laws of Switzerland do not prevent the creditor to withdraw a request for a sanction. Not being a decision to be taken by FIFA ex officio, the request to withdraw the deduction shall be processed.

63. FIFA’s submissions on the merits of the case (the submissions in respect of the admissibility of the appeal are set out separately below), in essence, may be summarised as follows:

- FIFA submits that the spirit of Article 64 FIFA Disciplinary Code (“FDC”) is to enforce decisions that had been rendered by a body, a committee or an instance of FIFA or CAS in a subsequent appeal decision, which are final and binding. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee could be regarded as acting similarly as an “enforcement authority”. Nonetheless, proceedings under Article 64 FDC are to be considered not as an enforcement but rather as the imposition of a sanction for breach of the association’s regulations and under the terms of association law.

- The FIFA Disciplinary Committee, equal to the competence of any “enforcement authority”, cannot review or modify as to the substance a previous decision, which is final and binding and thus has become enforceable. Consequently, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee has as a sole task to analyse if the debtor complied with the final and binding decision of the relevant body. If the FIFA Disciplinary Committee is not provided with a proof that the payment has been executed or the parties agreed upon a payment plan, it will render a decision imposing a fine on the debtor for failing to comply with a decision and will grant the debtor a final period of grace as from notification of the decision in which to settle its debt to the creditor and/or to FIFA. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has to and can only take into consideration all possible facts arising after the date on which the decision had been rendered.

- In the matter at hand it remained undisputed that the Club failed to pay the Player the total amount due and that USD 9,279 was still outstanding.

- Notwithstanding the multiple possibilities provided by FIFA, the Club decided not to pay the outstanding amount to the Player, without even bothering to reply to any of the correspondences of FIFA in which it was directly invited to submit its position regarding the situation in which it was involved. Not only did the Club blatantly disrespect a final and binding arbitral award of CAS, but it also decided not to participate at all in the disciplinary proceedings until the moment in which it realised that the sanctions imposed within the FIFA DC Decision had been duly executed.

- Should the Club have wished to contest the decision taken by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, in particular the possibility given to the creditor to request the point deduction if the debtor failed to execute the payments within the deadline given, it would have had to first request the grounds of the decision in line with the express and unambiguous wording of Article 116(1) and (2) FDC. For this reason, the admissibility of an appeal against the implementation of said decision would create a flagrant legal uncertainty as well as to undermine the spirit of the proceedings of Article 64 FDC.

- Point 4 of the FIFA DC Decision does not leave room for interpretation, in the sense that it stipulates that “[i]f payment is not made by this deadline, the creditor may demand in writing from the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that three (3) points be deducted from the debtor’s first team in the domestic league championship. Once the creditor has filed this request, the points will be deducted automatically without a further formal decision having to be taken by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. The order to implement the points deduction will be issued on the association concerned by the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee”.

- There is no doubt that the Club was well aware of the risks it was incurring by not executing the payment of the total amount due or negotiating and agreeing a payment plan.

- Consequently, the Player formally requested on 10 November 2016 the deduction of three points, which was duly implemented by the SAFF on 2 January 2017 following FIFA’s letters dated 14 and 23 December 2016.

- The correspondence of points deduction is only sent in the event that i) the amount due has not been paid within the final deadline granted (in casu, 30 days) and ii) upon express request of the creditor. In this case, as the outstanding amount due had not been paid to the Player, on 10 November 2016 he demanded the points deduction, and due to the fact that both elements were met, the secretariat requested the SAFF the deduction of points without a formal decision having to be taken.

- FIFA agrees with the Player that “it is therefore a potestative decision of the Creditor, not a FIFA decision, to request to sanction the debtor, if the Creditor, and only the creditor, decides to on top of the economic consequences of a Decision, if the latter is not fulfilled within the granted deadline, request FIFA to impose a sanction, it can decide it”. FIFA never denied the above, nor did it attempt to execute the deduction of points ex officio.

- The Club’s statement that the request of the points deduction was a mistake because the payment was made before the Player’s request, is false. From the proof of payment provided by the Club on 22 December 2016 it is clear that the respective payment was only executed on that same day. On 4 January 2017, the Player confirmed having received the payment.

- The Club is bringing false arguments in order to try to confuse the Panel with the payment that it made to the CAS. Indeed, the Club paid the amount of CHF 9,594 to CAS, corresponding to the arbitration costs arising from the procedure CAS 2014/A/3573, which fact has never been disputed by FIFA. However, the fact of having paid such amount does not mean that the one due to the Player had been paid, which did not occur until 22 December 2016 (i.e. after the request of the points deduction). It is incontestable that the Club still owed the outstanding amount when the Player requested the points deduction (i.e. on 10 November 2016).

- FIFA points out that it is completely aware of the meaning of the principles “qui potest majus potest et minus” and “Non debet, cui plus licet, quod minus est, non licere”, and it can affirm that neither the decision rendered on 9 August 2016 nor the following correspondences from the secretariat to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee are contrary to said principles nor to any general principle of law. The Player knew that if he requested the deduction of the points those would be indeed deducted. The Player is nevertheless not entitled to withdraw the use of a right that was already employed and that had already deployed its effects. Should this be possible, the system would no longer be effective as the Club would know that, in reality, the deduction of points would never be de facto implemented.

- The arguments brought forward by the Club – that the Player’s letter requesting the points deduction was sent by mistake – besides being incorrect, are not pertinent to justify a prolonged and intentional absence of non-compliance.