Club X. v. C., Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

9. The following is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written and oral submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced. Additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ submissions, pleadings and evidence may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion which follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present

proceedings, he refers in this Award only to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain his reasoning.

10. The Coach and the Club entered into a “Coach Employment Contract” (the “Employment Contract”), “effective from 1 July 2019 and […] valid 1 July 2020 (End of season 2020- all competition and group stage of ACL [ACF Champions League])” (Article 1 – “TERMS AND DURATION OF CONTRACT” – of the Employment Contract).

11. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 (“VALUE OF THE CONTRACT- SALARY REMUNERATION AND BONUSES”) of the Employment Contract, the salary of the Coach was fixed as follows:

“The total value of this contract for Season 2019-2020 is amount of net USD 140,000 (one hundred forty thousand dollars).

first season starts on 1 July 2019 and ends on 1 July 2020.

Payments:

USD 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) of the contract salary will be paid to the Coach by the club not later than 2 weeks after the signature of the contract.

USD 50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) of the contract salary will be paid to the Coach in mid-season (December 2019).

USD 40,000 (forty thousand dollars) of the contract salary will be paid to the Coach the end of the season 2019-2020 (May 2020)”.

12. In addition, the Coach was entitled to the following bonuses in accordance with Article 4-1 (“Bonuses”) of the Employment Contract:

“In recognition of exemplary performance and the additional work that is required for CLUB’s success and as an incentive for COACH to achieve the goals described below, the CLUB agrees to pay to the coach, within 30 days after the game or the achieved result as following:

A: In case of the club championship in the AA.-League 2019-2020, the Coach is entitled to receive USD 14,000 (fourteen thousand dollar).

B: In case of the club championship in the Country Y. Cup ([…] Cup) 2019-2020, the Head coach is entitled to receive USD 10,000 (ten thousand dollar).

C) For each win in Derby Matches (Match against […] FC), the amount of USD 5,000 (five Thousand Dollars) will be paid to the Head coach as his bonus.

Note: bonus for every win in every official match such as league, Country Y. cup or ACL will be allocated to the head coach, according to the decision of Club X. Board and in respect of the Bonus Regulation of the club

Note: all bonuses will be paid by Club X. to the coach 30 days after the last official match”.

13. The Employment Contract further provided that the Club shall provide the Coach with “[t]hree air tickets […]- Madrid-[…] during the contract (one year)”.

14. Article 8 (“TERMINATION”) of the Employment Contract provided, in particular, for the following termination conditions:

“[…]

Note 1: in case during the first mid-season by the request of the club the contract is terminated, the coach is entitled to receive the amount of USD 50,000 (one hundred fifty thousand dollars (sic!)) as the mid-season remuneration and in addition coach can keep the signing fee of USD 50,000 which has been given to him the beginning of the season.

Note 2: in case during the first mid-season, coach requests for the contract termination, he has to pay back to the club, 50% of all the amounts he has received from the club.

Note 3: the coach does not have any termination rights before the first 10 AA.-League Matches.

Note 4: in case during the second mid-season by the request of the club the contract is terminated, the coach is entitled to receive the 50 % of the contract values and he can keep all the received amount which he has received till the termination date, i.e. he can keep the signing fee of USD 50,000 and the mid-season payment of USD 50,000 and receives in addition a compensation of USD 20,000.

Note 5: in case during the second mid-season, coach requests for the contract termination, he has to pay back to the club, 30% of all the amounts he has received from the club till the date of the termination and the last installment of the contractual value and remuneration will not be paid to the head coach.

Note 6: if a party announces the request of the contract termination, 20 days should be given to the other party and then the termination will be enforceable”.

15. On 21 October 2019, the Coach sent to the Club a first default notice in which he indicated that only EUR 10,000 and EUR 15,000 out of the first salary instalment were paid to him and gave to the Club a 20-day period to pay the outstanding amount of the first contractual installment, in addition to the bonus in the amount of USD 5,000 “for the last Derby won against […] FC”.

16. In his Answer to the Appeal, the Coach admitted that “as a consequence [following the default notice of 21 October 2019], the club paid the outstanding amount of his first salary payment” (para. 23 of the Answer to the Appeal Brief).

17. On 21 December 2019, the Coach sent to the Club a second default notice requesting the Club “to settle all outstanding dues […] (outstanding salaries, air ticket costs and bonuses) by 27 December 2019”, failing which the Coach would consider terminating the Employment Contract. Furthermore, the Coach indicated that the “deadline of 20 days stipulated in clause 8 of the employment

contract shall be considered as met due to repeated failure of Club X. to comply with the presently agreed contractual terms”.

18. On 25 December 2019, the Club replied by a letter of the same date, indicating, in particular, that (i) “all contractual remunerations, salaries, bonuses and other payment such as air ticket costs have been paid to the coach”, and (ii) taking into account that “the beginning of the second half season of 2019 – 20 will be on 1st Feb 2020”, the Coach’s second part of the salary will be paid to him in due time.

19. On 28 December 2019, in a letter sent to the Club on the same date, the Coach contested the Club’s allegations, in particular, those concerning the starting date of the mid-season and insisted that “the total outstanding remuneration (salary and bonuses)” be paid to him by 31 December 2019, failing which he will consider terminating the Employment Contract “without further notice and with immediate effect”.

20. On 30 December 2019, by a letter of the same date sent to the Club, the Coach indicated that the outstanding remuneration mentioned in his letter of 28 December 2019 consisted of “the 2nd salary payment of USD 50,000 and the bonuses for the following matches won: 7x AA.-League, 1x Country Y. Cup and 1x derby”. In addition, the Coach requested that the said outstanding amount be transferred by the deadline fixed in his letter of 28 December 2019, to the bank account of the Head Coach, Z., held in a Qatari bank.

21. On 1 January 2020, in the absence of the payment of the outstanding remuneration from the Club to the Coach, the latter sent another notice to the Club, providing it with additional “48 hours” to proceed with the payment of such outstanding amounts to the bank account of the Head Coach.

22. On 5 January 2020, the Coach sent a letter to the Club, by which the Coach terminated the Employment Contract “with immediate effect” indicating that he could not “reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship under these circumstances” and mentioning his total outstanding remuneration to be in the amount of “more than USD 50,000”.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA PLAYERS’ STATUS COMMITTEE

23. On 4 February 2020, the Coach lodged a claim with FIFA against the Club, arguing that he had terminated the Employment Contract with just cause with effect on 5 January 2020, based on the breach by the Club of its contractual obligations. The Coach requested for the following relief:

“1. Club X. shall be obliged to pay to C. the amount of USD 50,000, as outstanding salary, plus interest of 5% per year, as of 16 December 2019 until the date of effective payment.

2. Club X. shall be obliged to pay to C. the amount of USD 5,000, as bonus for the derby won on 22 September 2019 against […] FC, plus interest of 5% per year, as of 6 January 2020 until the date of effective payment.

3. Club X. shall be obliged to pay to C. the amount of USD 3,600, as bonus for 7 A. League matches won and for 1 Country Y. Cup match won, plus interest of 5% per year, as of 6 January 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Club X. shall be obliged to reimburse C. the costs for the flight ticket of EUR 380.70, in accordance with clause 6.1 of the employment contract.

5. Club X. shall be obliged to pay to C. the amount of USD 40,000 (alternatively the amount of USD 20,000) as compensation for the breach of the employment contract, plus interest of 5% per year, as of the date of the present submission until the date of the effective payment”.

24. On 23 March 2020, FIFA has informed the Coach that the Club had filed its counterclaim against the Coach’s claim on 7 March 2020. In its submission the Club requested for the following relief:

“a) Club X. shall not be obliged to pay the coach the amount of USD 35,000, as outstanding salary, plus interest of 5% per year, as of December 16, 2019. Instead, because the head coach did not observe its basic obligations under the contract and gravely violates its contractual duties.

b) Club X. shall not be obliged to pay the coach the amount of USD 5,000, as bonus for Derby won, plus interest of 5% per year because mostly it was paid.

c) Club X. shall not be obliged to pay to the coach the amount of USD 3,600, as bonus for 8 matches won, plus interest of 5% per year. Instead, the club’s Board of Directors decided about future matches won which can be applied only for second mid-season when the coach avoided his contractual obligations in front of the club.

d) Club X. shall not be obliged to pay to the coach the amount of USD 30,000 (alternatively the amount of USD 15,000) as compensation for the breach of the employment contract, plus interest of 5% per year. Instead, under second Note of Article 8 of the contract, the head coach has to pay back the club, 50% of all he has received based on the employment relationship. Alternatively, according to fifth Note to Article 8 of the contract, the head coach will not be entitled to receive the last instalment and has to pay back the club, 30% of all he has received based on the contract.

e) due to grave violations of public policy, break of governing law of Football Federation of Country Y., and breach of numerous Articles of the contract, the coach shall be considered deprived from the rest of the contract value and has not any ground to claim the amounts”.

25. On 30 June 2020, following the written submissions filed by the Coach and the Club, the Single Judge of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee (the “FIFA PSC”) rendered the following decision:

“1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, C., is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club X., is rejected.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the following amounts:

- Outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 55,380.70, plus interest until the date of effective payment as follows:

• 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 50,000 as from 1 January 2020;

• 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 5,000 as from 6 January 2020.

- Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 40,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

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

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

7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 30 days, as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the following consequences shall arise:

In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is not paid within the granted deadline , the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

8. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 2,000 are to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to FIFA (cf. note relating to the payment of the procedural costs below)”.

26. On 23 July 2020, the grounds of the Appealed Decision were communicated to the parties.

IV. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

27. On 12 August 2020, pursuant to the provisions of Articles R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”), the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) with respect to the decision rendered by the Single Judge of the FIFA PSC on 30 June 2020 (the “Appealed Decision”).

28. On 14 August 2020, the CAS Court Office requested the Appellant to supplement the Statement of Appeal, in accordance with Article R48 of the CAS Code, with “the Appellant’s specific request for relief”, “the nomination of the arbitrator chosen by the Appellant from the CAS list, unless

the Appellant requests the appointment of a sole arbitrator” and “a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to CAS”.

29. On 15 August 2020, the Appellant provided the CAS Court Office with the requested information and, in particular, expressed its request for the nomination of a sole arbitrator in present proceedings.

30. On 19 August 2020, by its letter of the same date, the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that its Statement of Appeal was to be considered as its Appeal Brief.

31. On 20 August 2020, the CAS Court Office provided the Respondents with a copy of the Statement of Appeal served as the Appeal Brief, together with its enclosures, set the deadline for the submission of their Answers and informed them that the language of the proceedings chosen by the Appellant shall be English, unless they objected within the set deadline. In addition, the CAS Court Office reminded the Parties of the possibility to submit their dispute to the CAS mediation and invited the Respondents to inform it whether they agree that the present matter be decided by a sole arbitrator. Furthermore, the Respondents were invited to inform the CAS Court Office whether they agreed that the present proceeding and the procedures set out below be referred to the same Panel according to Article 50 of the CAS Code:

“- CAS 2020/A/7341 Club X. v. Z. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA);

- CAS 2020/A/7343 Club X. v. D. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)”.

32. On 25 August 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties of the Appellant’s and the First Respondent’s agreement to submit the cases mentioned above to the same Panel/Sole Arbitrator and of the Appellant’s interest in mediation.

33. On 26 August 2020, the Second Respondent requested to be excluded as a party from these proceedings, following which the CAS Court Office, by a letter of the same date, invited the Appellant to express its position with regards to the Second Respondent’s request.

34. On 31 August 2020, the First Respondent informed the CAS Court Office that he had no interest to submit the matter at hand to mediation and confirmed its preference that it be decided by a sole arbitrator.

35. On 1 September 2020, by a letter of the same date, the Appellant objected to the exclusion of the Second Respondent as a party to the present proceedings.

36. On 4 September 2020, the Second Respondent reiterated its request to be excluded as a party from these proceedings.

37. On 7 September 2020, the Second Respondent informed the CAS Court Office that in the event that it remained a party in these proceedings, it agreed that the language of the arbitration be English and that the matters CAS 2020/A/7341, CAS 2020/A/7342 and CAS 2020/A/7343 be submitted to the same Sole Arbitrator. In addition, the Second Respondent

requested that the time limit for it to file its Answer be set aside and fixed upon Appellant’s payment of its share of the advance of costs in accordance with Article 64.2 of the CAS Code, which was confirmed by the CAS Court Office in its letter of the same date.

38. On 8 September 2020, the First Respondent requested that the time limit for it to file his Answer be set aside and fixed upon Appellant’s payment of its share of the advance of costs in accordance with Article 64.2 of the CAS Code.

39. On 9 September 2020, the Appellant reiterated its objection to exclude the Second Respondent as a party to these proceedings.

40. On the same date, the CAS Court Office confirmed that the time limit for the First Respondent to file his Answer would be set after the payment by the Appellant of its share of the advance of costs.

41. On 30 September 2020, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s payment of its share of the advance of costs for the present proceedings and for the proceedings in the case CAS 2020/A/7341 and set a time limit for the Respondents to submit their Answers in the said cases.

42. On 7 October 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that, in accordance with Article R54 of the CAS Code and on behalf of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, Mr. Alain Zahlan de Cayetti was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in these proceedings.

43. On 12 October 2020, the case CAS 2020/A/7343 was terminated.

44. On 13 October 2020, in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code, the First Respondent filed its Answer to the Appeal Brief.

45. On 20 October 2020, in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code, the Second Respondent filed its Answer to the Appeal Brief.

46. On 26 October 2020, the CAS Court Office acting on behalf of the Sole Arbitrator, requested FIFA to produce a copy of the complete case file related to these appeal proceedings.

47. On 6 November 2020, FIFA produced a copy of complete case file.

48. On 11 November 2020, after consultation with the Parties, the CAS Court Office informed them that, pursuant to Articles R57 of the CAS Code, the Sole Arbitrator had decided to hold a hearing in these proceedings.

49. On 30 November 2020, the CAS Court Office issued the Order of Procedure in these proceedings, which was duly signed by the Respondents and by the Appellant respectively on 2 and 3 December 2020.

50. On 8 December 2020, a hearing was held by videoconference via Cisco Webex in accordance with Article 44.2 of the CAS Code. The following persons attended the hearing:

- For the Appellant:

Mr […], Legal Counsel

Mr […], Assistant to Legal Counsel

Ms […], International Affairs Manager

- For the First Respondent:

Ms Melanie Schärer, Attorney-at-law of MS International Law, Switzerland

Mr Gaudenz Koprio, Attorney-at-law of MS International Law

- For the Second Respondent:

Ms Marta Ruiz-Ayucar, Senior Legal Counsel

Mr Roberto Nájera Reyes, Senior Legal Counsel

In addition, Ms Delphine Deschenaux-Rochat, Counsel to the CAS, assisted the Sole Arbitrator at the hearing.

51. At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objections with regard to the constitution and composition of the Arbitral Tribunal. During the hearing, the Parties had the opportunity to present their cases, submit their arguments and answer all the questions posed by the Sole Arbitrator. At the end of the hearing, the Parties and their counsels expressly declared that they did not have any objections with respect to the procedure adopted by the Sole Arbitrator and that their right to be heard had been fully respected.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

52. The following summary of the Parties’ positions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise each contention put forward by them. However, in considering and deciding the Parties’ positions, the Sole Arbitrator has carefully considered all the submissions made and evidence adduced by the Parties, even if there is no specific reference to those submissions in this section of the award or in the legal analysis that follows.

A. Submission of the Appellant

53. The submissions of the Appellant, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

54. The Appellant sustains that the Coach has terminated the Employment Contract without just cause.

55. Firstly, the Appellant claims that the Coach has failed to submit a due termination notice. The Club refers to Article 8 of the Employment Contract which provides for the obligation of a Party willing to terminate the contract, to give a 20-day termination notice to the other Party. The Club sustains that “contrary to the contents of the letters dated October 21, and December 21, 2019 the deadlines of 20 days will be calculated only when it is adjoined to the actual contract termination. This the statements reflected in the mentioned letters cannot be legally considered founded and reliable”.

56. Secondly, the Club insists that the second salary instalment was not outstanding on the date of the termination of the Employment Contract by the Coach. The Club confirms that the contract provides for the payment of the second instalment in mid-season. However, the Club argues that based on the Committee of Competitions’ instructions, the first half of the season has been extended “until the end of 17th match” (i.e. “mid-season occurred from December 27, 2019 until January 31, 2020”). The Club, therefore, alleges that the “period of payment for the second instalment had not expired” on the date of the termination of the Employment Contract by the Coach.

57. Thirdly, the Appellant argues that “Delay of payment attributed to the club does not provide the right to termination for the coach due to several just excuses on behalf of the club” (Statement of Appeal par. 14) and refers to the strict financial sanctions which were imposed on Country Y. in May 2018 and made it complicated for the Club to proceed with bank transfers. The Club insists that the first instalment of the Coach’s salary has been paid by the Club progressively (in several consecutive transfers) and that the Coach was aware of and accepted, such conditions.

58. Fourthly, the Club refers to certain alleged violations of the Employment Contract’s provisions by the Coach. In particular, the Club argues that the Coach failed to develop the grassroots program, “gave up the Club in the critical time in the mid-season”, did not supervise over the Club’s youth team and made several denigrating comments in media with regards to the Club, all of which is considered by the Club to be a breach of the Coach’s contractual obligations.

59. The Club considers that the Coach has terminated the Employment Contract without just cause and taking into account his alleged violations of his contractual obligations, the Club asserts that it should be compensated by the Coach for breach of the contract. Accordingly, the Club considers that the Coach’s right for compensation for the termination of Employment Contract with just cause should be declined.

60. Based on its above-mentioned allegations, the Appellant requests the CAS for the following relief:

“1. The Claimant Club X. shall not be obliged to pay to the Respondent, the following amounts:

Outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 55,380.70, plus interest until the date of effective payment as follows:

5% p.a. on the amount of USD 50,000 as from 1 January 2020;

5% p.a. on the amount of USD 5,000 as from 6 January 2020.

2: - The Claimant, Club X. shall not be obliged to pay, Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 40,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.

3: due to grave violations of public policy, break of governing law of the Football Federation of Country Y. and breach of numerous articles of the contract, the coach shall be considered deprived from the rest of the contract value and has not any ground to the claim the amount”.

B. Submission of the First Respondent

61. The submissions of the First Respondent, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

62. In his Answer to the Appeal Brief, the First Respondent replies to the Club’s affirmations and sustains that he has terminated the Employment Contract with just cause based on the breach by the Club of its payment obligations.

63. In particular, the Coach highlights that the Club has not contested the fact that on the date of the termination of the Employment Contract, the bonuses due by it to the Coach, as well as the reimbursement of his flight ticket, were outstanding.

64. Furthermore, the Coach points out that the Club’s admission that the first salary was paid by it to the Coach “in several partial payments” (and not in one instalment as per the Employment Contract) and that such “partial payments were made late”.

65. In addition, the Coach denies the Club’s allegations with regards to the definition of the terms of “mid-season”. The Coach insists that mid-season has occurred after the fifteenth match (i.e. “the last match of the first half of the 2019/2020 season”) played by the Club on 14 December 2019 and before the sixteenth match played by it on 17 December 2019. The Coach further argues that such determination of a “mid-season” is in line with FIFA’s regulations with regards to the second registration period which commences at the beginning of the second half of the season, fixed by FIFA in respect of the season in question for 17 December 2019. Furthermore, the Coach contests the Club’s allegations concerning the postponement of the mid-season until the end of January 2020, given that (i) such postponement does not change the fact that half of the matches for 2019/2020 season were played in December 2019, (ii) the Club has not provided any evidence in that regards at the time, and (iii) the Coach has never been notified of such postponement. Finally, the Coach refers to the wording of the relevant contractual clause which specifies that the second salary instalment is to be paid to the Coach “in mid-season (December 2019)”. In view of the above, the Coach sustains that on the date of the termination of the Employment Contract, the bonuses and full second salary instalment (representing in total more than 3 months’ salaries) were due and outstanding.

66. Furthermore, the Coach contests the Club’s allegations concerning his failure to provide the Club with a due termination notice (i.e. sufficient deadline for remedy). In that respect, the Coach refers to the default notices which were sent to the Club in October and in December 2019, first of which provide for 20-day deadlines. The Coach insists that in his final notice he has requested for immediate (i.e. “within 48 hours”) payment of all his outstanding salary and bonuses, as he has “sent more than enough warnings” to the Club. Furthermore, the Coach asserts

that the contractual clause providing for a 20-day termination notice concerns the “ordinary termination” of the contract “without just cause” and does not apply to the present case where, based on the breach by the Club of its payment obligations, the Coach had just cause to terminate the Employment Contract.

67. In respect of the Club’s reference to the financial sanctions which were imposed on Country Y. and, therefore, prevented the Club from processing bank transfers, the Coach highlights that on many occasions he provided the Club with the details of the bank account in Qatar held by the Head Coach, Z., to which the Club transferred the Head Coach’s salary, and requested it to proceed with the transfer of his salary to the same bank account. Therefore, the Coach considers that the Club’s relating allegations are irrelevant and should be disregarded.

68. The Coach further insists that he never agreed on nor approved any progressive payment plan and that his numerous reminders and default notices may not be considered as accepting such alleged progressive payment plan.

69. Finally, the Coach denies any allegations with regards to the violation of his contractual obligations based on (i) the absence of any evidence in that regards, (ii) the fact that the Club never notified him of such violations, (iii) the success of the Club at the end of the first half of the season which allegedly confirms the Coach’s dedication to his work and fulfilment of his obligations. Concerning the interviews in media allegedly given by the Coach and their conflicting comments with regards to the Club, the Coach argues that he has never participated in such interviews.

70. In view of the above, the First Respondent requests the CAS for the following relief:

“1. To reject the Appellant’s appeal and to confirm the decision passed by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (Single Judge PSC) on 30 June 2020.

2. To order the Appellant to bear all costs incurred through the present procedure, as well as legal costs incurred by the Respondent”.

C. Submission of the Second Respondent

71. The submissions of the Second Respondent, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

72. In its Answer to the Appeal Brief, the Second Respondent denies its standing to be sued in the present cases. FIFA insists that (i) the dispute at hand is of a purely “horizontal” nature and FIFA does not have any stake in it, (ii) none of the Parties’ requests for relief concern FIFA as a party, and (iii) the issues considered in these appeal proceedings are not of disciplinary nature.

73. In view of the above, the Second Respondent requests the CAS for the following relief:

“(a) rejecting the reliefs sought by the Appellant;

(b) confirming the Appealed Decision;

(c) ordering the Appellant to bear the full costs of these arbitration proceedings; and

(d) ordering the Appellant to make a contribution to FIFA’s legal costs”.