The case involves a dispute between A.C. Cesena S.p.A., an Italian football club, and Tokyo Football Club (FC Tokyo), a Japanese football club, over the payment of a transfer fee for a player. The dispute arose from a transfer agreement signed on 18 February 2011, where A.C. Cesena acquired the player from FC Tokyo after an initial loan period. The agreement stipulated that if the player was transferred to a third club for over €5,000,000 before 30 July 2011, A.C. Cesena would pay FC Tokyo €1,632,000 in installments. A.C. Cesena later transferred the player to FC Internazionale Milano for a fee exceeding the agreed amount but failed to make the payments to FC Tokyo. FC Tokyo filed a claim with FIFA in April 2012, leading to a decision on 10 December 2013, which ordered A.C. Cesena to pay the outstanding fee plus interest. A.C. Cesena did not contest the decision but sought a payment plan due to financial difficulties. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the FIFA decision, emphasizing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be honored). The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, rejected A.C. Cesena's request for a payment plan, stating the club had not provided sufficient legal justification for such relief. The final award, issued on 24 December 2014, confirmed A.C. Cesena's obligation to pay the full transfer fee plus interest. The proceedings highlighted procedural complexities, including failed mediation attempts and last-minute settlement discussions during the hearing. A.C. Cesena argued its financial distress warranted payment modifications, while FC Tokyo insisted on enforcing the original agreement. The panel determined the applicable law to be FIFA regulations supplemented by Swiss law and confirmed CAS jurisdiction. Ultimately, the panel dismissed A.C. Cesena's appeal, affirming the FIFA decision and rejecting all other requests for relief. The ruling reinforced the binding nature of contractual obligations in football transfers and the authority of FIFA and CAS in resolving such disputes. The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual terms and the limited scope for modifying agreed payments without valid legal grounds. The decision brings closure to the matter, leaving no further avenues for appeal.