The case involves a legal dispute between Club Atlético Colón and FIFA, stemming from Colón's failure to pay a debt to Club de Fútbol Atlante as ordered by FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) and upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The debt originated from a 2006 transfer agreement where Colón acquired 50% of a player's economic rights from Atlante for $600,000, with an option to buy the remaining 50% for another $600,000 by June 2008. Colón exercised this option in 2007 but failed to pay the amount due in 2008. Atlante filed a claim with FIFA's PSC, which ruled in its favor, ordering Colón to pay the debt plus interest. Colón appealed to CAS, which upheld the PSC decision. When Colón still did not pay, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine and granted a grace period for payment, threatening further sanctions, including a six-point deduction from Colón's national league standings and potential relegation, if the debt remained unpaid.
Colón argued that its financial situation, being under "concurso preventivo" (a reorganization proceeding under Argentine law), exempted it from paying the debt. However, the CAS panel distinguished between bankruptcy proceedings and "concurso preventivo," noting that the latter does not suspend debts incurred after the proceedings began. The panel emphasized that since the "concurso preventivo" proceedings had concluded, only creditor payments remained, making FIFA's disciplinary sanctions applicable. The panel rejected Colón's argument, stating that allowing such a defense would undermine financial fair play and unfairly enrich clubs that evade payment obligations by invoking reorganization proceedings.
The CAS upheld FIFA's decision, affirming that Colón was obligated to pay Atlante and that its financial reorganization status did not justify non-payment. The ruling reinforced the principle that clubs must honor financial commitments, even during reorganization, to maintain fairness in football transactions. The case highlights the distinction between bankruptcy and reorganization proceedings and underscores the importance of enforcing financial obligations in football to preserve the integrity of the sport's financial ecosystem.
Colón further contended that Argentinean bankruptcy law suspended all patrimonial judicial proceedings against the club once insolvency proceedings began, preventing it from paying debts as ordered by FIFA. The club argued that the principle of equity among creditors under Argentinean law required all claims to be consolidated in a single court, making it impossible for FIFA to enforce individual claims. However, FIFA maintained that its disciplinary actions under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code were meant to enforce binding decisions and protect creditors. It argued that Colón's bankruptcy proceedings predated the debt in question and that the club had not proven the debt's inclusion in those proceedings. FIFA also pointed out that Colón retained control over its assets and continued to operate normally, participating in competitions and engaging in transfers, which contradicted its claim of being unable to pay.
The CAS Panel examined Colón's legal status, noting that the "concurso preventivo" proceedings began in 2006, while the debt in question arose later, in 2007–2008, when Colón exercised the option to buy the player's economic rights. The Panel found that Argentine law only suspends claims arising before bankruptcy, not those incurred afterward. The Panel also distinguished Colón's case from prior CAS and FIFA decisions where proceedings were suspended, noting those involved pre-bankruptcy debts and formal bankruptcy declarations under Article 107(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, whereas Colón's situation involved a "concurso preventivo," which does not fall under the Code.
The Panel concluded that enforcing the Appealed Decision would not violate Argentinean public policy or State sovereignty, as the "concurso preventivo" proceedings were limited to paying verified and admitted credits, and Atlante’s claim arose after these proceedings. The Panel determined that Atlante’s only recourse to compel compliance with the PSC Decision was to request the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to impose sanctions on Colón, even if Colón remained under administration. Consequently, the Panel rejected Colón’s request to suspend or terminate FIFA’s enforcement proceedings until the "concurso preventivo" proceedings concluded. The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled to dismiss Club Atlético Colón’s appeal against the FIFA Disciplinary Committee Decision dated 20 November 2012, confirming the decision and dismissing all other claims. The