The case involves a dispute between Turkish football club Mersin Idmanyurdu Spor Kulübü (Mersin) and Bulgarian football club PFC CSKA Sofia EAD (CSKA) over unpaid transfer fees for a player. On 12 January 2012, the clubs signed a transfer agreement for player S., with Mersin agreeing to pay CSKA €800,000 in four installments. When Mersin failed to pay the remaining €600,000, CSKA filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) on 25 April 2013. The PSC ruled in favor of CSKA on 2 October 2013, ordering Mersin to pay the outstanding amount plus interest. After Mersin did not comply, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 25,000 and a six-point deduction threat in the domestic league if the debt remained unpaid. Mersin appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 1 December 2014, arguing the PSC decision misinterpreted the transfer agreement and caused irreparable harm.
During the CAS proceedings, Mersin informed the court on 13 January 2015 that it had settled the debt, including interest, but did not formally withdraw its appeal. The CAS panel evaluated the case based on written submissions, focusing on whether CSKA had standing to be sued, as the sanctions were imposed by FIFA, not CSKA. The panel upheld prior CAS rulings that only FIFA, as the enforcing body, could be sued in disciplinary matters, not the creditor club. Mersin failed to demonstrate CSKA’s direct stake in the outcome, as the dispute centered on FIFA’s enforcement. The panel emphasized that while Mersin’s payment of the debt might be valid, it did not justify naming CSKA as a respondent.
The CAS dismissed Mersin’s appeal, confirming that disciplinary measures were FIFA’s prerogative and CSKA lacked standing to be sued. The ruling highlighted FIFA’s exclusive role in enforcing sanctions and the procedural limitations for creditors like CSKA in such cases. The decision reaffirmed that Mersin’s recourse was to address FIFA directly, not CSKA, and dismissed all other reliefs sought by Mersin, finalizing the matter. The case underscores the procedural framework of FIFA’s disciplinary system and the limited grounds for challenging sanctions before CAS.