The case involves an appeal by Deportivo Petare FC against a decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, which found the club in violation of a prior ruling by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC had ordered the club to pay a sum to a player, E., with interest, within 30 days of notification. The player provided his bank details for the payment, but the club failed to comply, citing difficulties due to Venezuela's currency control laws, which restricted payments in foreign currency. The club claimed it had deposited the amount in local currency (VEF) with the Venezuelan Football Federation (FVF) and that the player refused to accept it. However, FIFA maintained that the debtor (Deportivo Petare) had the obligation to transfer the amount to the creditor's specified bank account, regardless of local restrictions. The case hinged on the standard of proof under Article 97 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, aligning with the "comfortable satisfaction" standard used by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This standard requires sufficient evidence to establish a violation but is less stringent than the criminal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." The CAS panel upheld FIFA's decision, emphasizing that the creditor (the player) had the discretion to determine the payment details, and the debtor (the club) was responsible for ensuring compliance. The panel rejected the club's arguments about currency controls, noting that the obligation to pay in the specified manner was binding. The case underscores the strict enforcement of FIFA's disciplinary decisions and the limited discretion debtors have in altering payment terms unilaterally. The award reaffirmed the principle that clubs must adhere to FIFA's rulings and make all necessary efforts to fulfill their financial obligations as directed. The panel also noted that the player was not domiciled in Venezuela when the FIFA decision was issued, making it unlikely he could obtain foreign currency there, as Venezuelan exchange regulations only apply to citizens or entities legally domiciled in the country. The panel emphasized that requiring the player to file administrative claims in Venezuela would be overly burdensome and contrary to the spirit of resolving international football disputes. Evidence showed that the club had previously made payments outside Venezuela in foreign currencies, including USD, and even proposed a USD payment to settle the dispute. The panel concluded that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s decision did not modify the original FIFA DRC decision but merely specified the payment terms. The club remained obligated to pay the amount in the foreign currency and at the exchange rate specified by the player. Consequently, the panel dismissed the appeal and upheld the FIFA decision, confirming the club’s payment obligation and rejecting any further claims. The decision was finalized with the dismissal of all other claims.