The case revolves around FC Spartak Trnava, a Slovak football club, appealing a decision by FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) for failing to comply with a prior ruling by FIFA's Players’ Status Committee (PSC). The dispute originated from a claim by FC Sheriff regarding the transfer of player Luis Antonio Rodriguez. The PSC ruled on May 18, 2011, that FC Spartak must pay FC Sheriff €90,000 plus interest and procedural costs within 30 days. The decision became final after FC Spartak failed to request its grounds within the stipulated 10-day period. When the club did not pay, FC Sheriff sought FIFA's intervention, leading the DC to open disciplinary proceedings. On February 7, 2012, the DC found FC Spartak guilty of non-compliance under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, imposing a CHF 15,000 fine and a final 30-day grace period. Failure to comply would result in a six-point deduction and potential relegation. FC Spartak appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the transfer was invalid under FIFA and national regulations. However, the CAS Sole Arbitrator, Mark Hovell, limited the review to the DC's decision, not the PSC's merits, and upheld the DC's ruling. The case highlights FIFA's procedural rigor and the binding nature of its decisions once appeal avenues are exhausted.
The dispute also involved the Slovak Football Association (SFA), which was reminded of its obligation to enforce FIFA's measures, with non-compliance risking expulsion from FIFA competitions. FC Spartak appealed to CAS, seeking annulment, arguing the PSC failed to properly assess evidence, including the validity of the transfer agreement. The club contended the PSC should have consulted FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS), though it was not mandatory at the time. FIFA requested CAS dismiss the appeal and order FC Spartak to cover legal costs. A hearing was held in Lausanne, with the arbitrator reserving judgment. The case underscores FIFA's disciplinary framework and enforcement mechanisms for financial obligations.
FC Spartak further argued that the TMS, though not mandatory initially, became so after SFA implementation, and the PSC should have investigated the transfer using TMS records. The club claimed the PSC's partial acceptance of FC Sheriff's claim was unlawful without TMS evidence. FIFA countered that FC Spartak missed the deadline to request the PSC decision's grounds, making it final. The FIFA DC's role was to enforce, not review, the decision, and FC Spartak's failure to participate or appeal timely weakened its case. The CAS confirmed jurisdiction under its Code, applying FIFA regulations and Swiss law. The Sole Arbitrator emphasized the appeal could only challenge the disciplinary sanction, not the PSC decision, and upheld the FIFA DC's ruling. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the finality of FIFA's legal processes and CAS's limited review scope in enforcement cases. The decision was issued on August 29, 2012.