The case involves a legal dispute between Ipatinga FC, a Brazilian football club, and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from Ipatinga FC's failure to comply with a prior decision by FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC), which ordered the club to pay €180,000 plus interest to the Portuguese club Desportivo Nacional de Madeira (Nacional) and CHF 9,000 in procedural costs to FIFA. Ipatinga FC argued it intended to settle the debt through a set-off, claiming Nacional owed it €150,000. However, FIFA rejected this approach, insisting on direct payment.
FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (FDC) found Ipatinga FC guilty of non-compliance under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, imposing a CHF 15,000 fine and granting a final 30-day deadline for payment. Failure to comply would result in further sanctions, including point deductions, relegation, or a transfer ban. Ipatinga FC appealed to CAS, arguing the FDC should have considered the set-off claim. The CAS panel, comprising Lars Hilliger, Rui Botica Santos, and Emilio García Silvero, ruled that the appeal's scope was limited to reviewing the disciplinary sanction, not re-examining the underlying debt. It affirmed the FDC's role was to enforce, not modify, binding decisions.
The panel noted that under Swiss law, the burden of proving a valid set-off rested on Ipatinga FC, which failed to provide sufficient evidence. Ipatinga FC submitted documents, including a letter from Cruzeiro Esporte Clube and player transfer agreements, but Nacional denied any debt, and no legal proceedings or binding decisions supported the claim. The CAS panel concluded Ipatinga FC had not sufficiently proven the existence, assignment, or validity of the set-off claim. As no cash payment had been made, the panel upheld the FDC's decision, finding Ipatinga FC still in breach of its payment obligation.
Regarding the fine and grace period, the panel found the CHF 15,000 penalty proportionate, considering the outstanding amount and prior payment requests. It declined to extend the 30-day grace period, noting Ipatinga FC had already been granted time to settle the debt. The panel emphasized its ruling did not determine the validity of the set-off claim itself but only assessed whether sufficient evidence had been presented to overturn the FDC's decision. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the FDC's decision was confirmed.
The case underscores the importance of adhering to FIFA decisions and the limited grounds for challenging disciplinary measures. It also highlights the enforcement mechanisms within FIFA's disciplinary framework and the role of CAS in resolving disputes between clubs and governing bodies. The ruling reinforced FIFA's authority to impose sanctions for non-payment and clarified that set-off claims must meet strict legal conditions to be valid in such contexts. The decision serves as a reminder of the need for conclusive evidence to support claims in legal disputes before sports arbitration bodies.