The case involves Daejeon Citizen Football Club appealing a decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (FDC) for failing to comply with a prior ruling by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC had ordered the club to pay USD 75,000 in compensation to a player, along with interest, within 30 days. When the club failed to meet this deadline, the FDC imposed a fine of CHF 10,000 and granted a final 30-day grace period, warning of further sanctions like point deductions or relegation if payment remained outstanding. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the fine was excessive and the DRC’s original decision flawed, requesting a stay of execution and a reduction of the fine. FIFA opposed this, asserting the fine was consistent with disciplinary jurisprudence and necessary for enforcement.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Israel, South Korea, and Italy, ruled that the FDC’s role was limited to enforcing final and binding DRC decisions, not reviewing their substance. The panel emphasized FIFA’s disciplinary framework prioritizes strict adherence to rulings, and Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code does not permit fine reductions based on late payments. The panel rejected the club’s arguments, upholding the CHF 10,000 fine as appropriate given the unpaid debt and the need to deter non-compliance. The decision reinforced FIFA’s enforcement mechanisms, ensuring disciplinary sanctions remain effective in upholding the integrity of its dispute resolution system.
The case highlights that disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance with FIFA decisions are not subject to substantive review once a ruling becomes final. The CAS affirmed that late payments do not justify reducing fines, as this would undermine FIFA’s regulatory framework. The club’s appeal was dismissed, and the original sanctions were upheld. The ruling underscores the importance of timely compliance with FIFA’s decisions and the limited scope for challenging disciplinary measures imposed for non-fulfillment. The club eventually paid the principal amount in August 2010, but the panel found this late payment insufficient to reduce the fine, as it was motivated by the player’s request for sanctions rather than voluntary compliance.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FDC’s decision, dismissing the club’s appeal and confirming the fine. The panel emphasized that disciplinary measures must ensure compliance with financial decisions in football governance. The case illustrates the consequences of failing to adhere to FIFA’s rulings promptly and the limited grounds for appealing enforcement-related sanctions. The decision reinforces the principle that FIFA’s disciplinary system prioritizes strict adherence to its decisions to maintain the integrity of football’s regulatory framework.