The case involves Salernitana Calcio 1919 S.p.A., an Italian football club, appealing a disciplinary decision by FIFA for failing to comply with a financial obligation ordered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute originated from a 2009 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision requiring Salernitana to pay EUR 280,000 to Club Atlético River Plate, an Argentinean club. CAS later reduced the amount to EUR 145,000 with interest in 2010. When Salernitana failed to pay, FIFA initiated disciplinary proceedings in November 2010, warning of potential sanctions, including fines, point deductions, or relegation. Despite repeated warnings, Salernitana neither paid nor responded, leading FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee (FDC) to impose a CHF 15,000 fine and a 30-day grace period in January 2011, with failure to pay triggering automatic point deductions and possible relegation.
Salernitana appealed the FDC decision to CAS in March 2011, requesting a stay of execution, which FIFA did not oppose. River Plate sought to intervene, arguing the sanctions were not enforced, but CAS denied their request and stayed the FDC decision pending arbitration. The parties waived a hearing, and the Panel proceeded based on written submissions. The CAS Panel addressed three key legal issues. First, it ruled that Salernitana’s appeal brief, which sought remanding the case for reconsideration, was admissible as it did not materially differ from its initial appeal. Second, it found no violation of due process, as Salernitana had multiple opportunities to respond but chose silence. Third, it clarified that FIFA’s role under Article 64 of its Disciplinary Code is to enforce decisions, not reassess their merits or mediate settlements.
The Panel upheld the FDC’s decision, emphasizing that Salernitana’s procedural rights were respected and that FIFA acted within its authority to enforce compliance. The case underscores the binding nature of CAS awards and FIFA’s disciplinary mechanisms to ensure adherence to financial obligations in football. The Panel also dismissed Salernitana’s argument that FIFA failed to consider its financial situation, noting the club did not provide any financial details or alternative payment proposals to the FDC. Furthermore, the Panel clarified that the FDC’s role was not to modify or renegotiate the original decision but to enforce compliance with it. The decision reinforces the importance of parties actively participating in legal proceedings and adhering to established deadlines and requirements.
Ultimately, the CAS ruling dismissed all further appeals and upheld the original decision in full, reinforcing the enforceability of FIFA’s disciplinary measures. The case highlights the limited scope for challenging sanctions once they are imposed and the necessity for clubs to comply with financial decisions issued by governing bodies. The Panel’s decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance and the procedural obligations of all parties involved in disciplinary proceedings.