The case involves Club Samsunspor, a Turkish football club, appealing against a decision by FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) for failing to comply with an earlier ruling by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC had ordered the club to pay USD 30,000 to a player, B., for an employment-related dispute. When the club failed to pay, the DC imposed a fine of CHF 5,000 and granted a final 30-day grace period, warning that further non-compliance could lead to point deductions, relegation, or sanctions against the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FIFA's decision lacked reasoning. However, the CAS panel ruled that the club had not formally requested the grounds for the DC's decision within the 10-day deadline stipulated under Article 116 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC). The panel emphasized that this requirement does not infringe legal principles and serves the legitimate purpose of managing FIFA's caseload efficiently. Since the club failed to request the reasoned decision within the deadline, the DC's decision became final and binding.
The club later made partial and eventually full payment, but FIFA upheld the points deduction, citing the missed deadlines. The club appealed to CAS, challenging the decision and requesting a stay of enforcement, arguing irreparable harm. FIFA opposed the appeal, questioning its admissibility. The CAS panel dismissed the club's request for provisional measures and proceeded with the arbitration. The club argued that the penalty was unnecessary after full payment, while FIFA maintained that the sanction was automatic under its regulations and that the appeal was inadmissible due to procedural non-compliance. The CAS panel agreed with FIFA, noting that the club failed to meet procedural requirements, including the 21-day deadline for lodging appeals with CAS. The panel upheld the DC's decision, confirming the points deduction as a legitimate enforcement measure under FIFA's regulations.
The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the binding nature of FIFA's disciplinary decisions. The club's financial difficulties and change in management were deemed irrelevant to the obligation to comply with FIFA's rulings. The CAS panel expressed sympathy for the club's situation but emphasized that the dismissal of the appeal was based solely on procedural non-compliance. The final ruling declared the appeal inadmissible and dismissed all other requests for relief, reinforcing the strict enforcement of FIFA's disciplinary framework. The outcome highlights the tension between regulatory enforcement and equitable considerations, with FIFA's authority prevailing in ensuring compliance with its decisions.