The case involves an appeal by Samsunspor FC, a Turkish football club, against a disciplinary sanction imposed by FIFA for failing to comply with a decision regarding unpaid debts to player Dejan Maksic. The dispute originated from an employment contract signed in 2006, under which Samsunspor agreed to pay Maksic a salary of USD 375,000. Due to financial difficulties and relegation to a lower division, the club failed to meet its payment obligations, leading Maksic to seek FIFA's intervention. A settlement agreement was reached in September 2006, but Samsunspor continued to default on payments. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in favor of Maksic on 10 August 2007, ordering the club to pay the outstanding amount with interest. When Samsunspor still did not comply, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 15,000 on 16 June 2008 and granted a final 30-day grace period for payment.
Samsunspor appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that its financial and sporting difficulties justified the non-payment and that the player had acted in bad faith by rejecting a proposed payment plan. The club sought to have the fine lifted and the debt reconsidered. The CAS panel, however, ruled that the scope of the appeal was limited to reviewing the disciplinary sanction, not the underlying debt. The panel emphasized that Article 71 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code imposes a duty on clubs to comply fully with FIFA decisions, and financial or sporting difficulties do not excuse non-payment. The panel found Samsunspor's arguments irrelevant to the disciplinary sanction, as the DRC's decision was final and binding.
The CAS upheld the CHF 15,000 fine, confirming that clubs must adhere to FIFA's decisions to maintain the integrity of the disciplinary system. The panel rejected Samsunspor's claims, stating that the fine was proportionate and that the club had failed to demonstrate any legal or factual grounds to overturn the sanction. The ruling reinforced the principle that enforcement of financial obligations cannot be revisited during disciplinary proceedings and that financial difficulties do not absolve clubs of their responsibilities. The CAS dismissed the appeal, confirming the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision in its entirety. The case underscores the binding nature of FIFA's rulings and the consequences of non-compliance, regardless of a club's financial situation.