The case involves a legal dispute between Fulham FC (1987) Limited and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict originated from Fulham's failure to pay the final installment of a transfer fee to Juventus FC for a player, as stipulated in a 2001 agreement. Fulham withheld payment, demanding additional information from Juventus regarding alleged breaches by its former manager, which Juventus refused to provide. FIFA's Players’ Status Committee ruled in October 2003 that Fulham had no valid reason to withhold payment and ordered them to pay the outstanding amount plus interest. Fulham's appeal to FIFA's Executive Committee was dismissed in February 2004, prompting them to take the case to CAS. Fulham argued that Juventus was obligated to provide the requested information under FIFA's regulations and that FIFA should not enforce payment without addressing this issue. In May 2005, CAS ruled that no FIFA statutes or transfer agreement clauses required Juventus to comply with Fulham's information request, upholding FIFA's decision and ordering Fulham to pay the transfer fee plus interest.
When Fulham failed to comply with the CAS award, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings under Article 70 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which allows sanctions for non-compliance. The Committee fined Fulham CHF 60,000 and warned of a potential six-point deduction if payment was not made within 30 days. However, this decision was later voided due to procedural issues, as Fulham had not received prior notices. The case underscores the autonomy of sports associations under Swiss law to impose sanctions, provided there is a clear statutory basis and fair procedure. It also confirms FIFA's disciplinary jurisdiction over clubs and the justification of sanctions to uphold regulatory authority. CAS emphasized that sanctions must be proportionate and that only grossly disproportionate penalties would be deemed abusive under Swiss law.
Fulham appealed the disciplinary sanctions, arguing that FIFA's disciplinary code did not apply to contractual disputes between clubs and that only FIFA's direct members, not clubs, were bound by its statutes. FIFA countered that its disciplinary jurisdiction extended to ensuring compliance with its decisions, including contractual disputes, to maintain football's integrity. The CAS panel rejected Fulham's arguments, citing FIFA's broad discretion to impose sanctions under its statutes and disciplinary code. The panel affirmed that FIFA's disciplinary measures were binding on clubs and that non-compliance with CAS awards was sanctionable under Article 70 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
The panel also addressed Fulham's claim that the sanctions were an abuse of FIFA's dominant position, concluding that FIFA acted as a regulatory body enforcing rules for the sport's benefit, not as a competitor. The sanctions were deemed proportionate and necessary to ensure compliance with FIFA's regulations, which all members, including Fulham, had accepted. The panel upheld the fine and potential points deduction, noting that intentional non-payment was a serious offense and that Fulham's conditional payment proposal did not justify mitigation. The ruling reinforced FIFA's authority to enforce its regulations and maintain fairness in football governance, dismissing Fulham's appeal and confirming the validity of the sanctions. The case highlights the tension between contractual disputes and FIFA's disciplinary powers, with implications for how such matters are adjudicated within football's governing structures.