The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 11, 2013, in a dispute between Le Mans FC and FIFA involving Olympique Bamako, centered on disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance with a prior CAS decision. The case originated from a 2009 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ruling that Le Mans FC owed Olympique Bamako €480,000 in training compensation for a player, A., who had previously played for Olympique Bamako before joining Le Mans FC. The dispute hinged on whether A. had been an amateur or professional during his time in Mali, which determined the compensation owed. The 2010 CAS decision upheld FIFA's ruling, but Le Mans FC failed to pay, prompting Olympique Bamako to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Le Mans FC sought to delay the disciplinary process, arguing that new evidence suggested documents used in the original case were forged and that A. had been trained by another club, AS Kolais, rather than Olympique Bamako. The club filed a civil revision request with the Swiss Federal Tribunal and a criminal complaint in France for forgery and fraud. The CAS panel rejected these arguments, ruling that the principle of suspending civil proceedings pending criminal outcomes is discretionary, not mandatory, under French and Swiss law. The panel also found that Le Mans FC's financial difficulties did not justify non-compliance, as there was no direct causal link between the club's financial state and its obligation to pay.
The case highlighted tensions between sports disciplinary procedures and parallel legal proceedings. Le Mans FC argued that the arbitral award was obtained fraudulently and thus had no legal value, invoking the principle "fraus omnia corrumpit" (fraud corrupts everything). The club also contended that FIFA's disciplinary actions violated Swiss and French law, including the principle that criminal proceedings should take precedence over civil matters. FIFA countered that its disciplinary measures under Article 64 of its Disciplinary Code were enforceable and that the disciplinary commission's role was limited to verifying compliance, not reassessing the merits of the case.
The CAS upheld FIFA's disciplinary measures, emphasizing that procedural delays were unwarranted and that Le Mans FC's failure to pay was unjustified. The ruling reinforced the enforceability of CAS decisions and clarified that financial hardship does not exempt clubs from fulfilling their obligations under FIFA regulations. The CAS also dismissed Le Mans FC's argument that the disciplinary decision violated its economic freedom, distinguishing the case from the Matuzalem precedent, where a player faced a football ban for unpaid damages. The panel noted that Le Mans FC, as a club, was not barred from football activities, and its financial struggles were not solely caused by the disciplinary decision.
Ultimately, the CAS rejected all of Le Mans FC's claims, confirming the original decision in its entirety. The case underscored the complexities of legal disputes in sports, particularly when allegations of fraud intersect with contractual and disciplinary obligations, and reaffirmed the importance of procedural discipline in international sports arbitration. The ruling emphasized the limited grounds for challenging disciplinary decisions and the binding nature of CAS rulings within FIFA's regulatory framework.