The case involves Club Kabuscorp do Palanca appealing a decision by FIFA's Disciplinary Committee, which found the club guilty of failing to comply with a prior ruling by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC had ordered the club to pay Rivaldo Vitor Borba Ferreira USD 750,000 plus interest for an employment-related dispute. Despite multiple reminders, the club failed to make the payment, leading FIFA to impose sanctions, including a fine of CHF 25,000, a 30-day grace period for payment, and potential further penalties such as point deductions or relegation if the debt remained unpaid. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing against the disciplinary measures, claiming the sanctions were disproportionate and citing financial hardship due to Angola's economic crisis.
The CAS panel addressed two key legal issues. First, it determined that the player, Rivaldo, had no standing to be sued in the appeal because he was not a party to the initial FIFA disciplinary proceedings and had no influence over FIFA's disciplinary powers. The appeal focused solely on the club's disciplinary infringement and FIFA's authority to sanction it, making the player irrelevant to the claim. Second, the panel clarified its scope of review regarding FIFA's disciplinary decisions. While CAS has the power to review cases de novo, it emphasized that it would only intervene if FIFA's disciplinary body acted arbitrarily or imposed a sanction that was evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offense. Mere disagreement with the sanction was insufficient grounds for amendment.
The club argued that the 30-day deadline for payment was unfair, comparing it to another case where a club was granted 180 days. It also claimed financial hardship and blamed its former legal representative for negligence. However, the panel rejected these arguments, noting that the club had over three and a half years to settle the debt and failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. FIFA maintained that the sanctions were proportionate and justified, as the club had repeatedly ignored its obligations despite warnings.
The CAS panel ultimately upheld FIFA's disciplinary measures, reinforcing the principle that associations like FIFA have broad discretion in disciplinary matters, and CAS would only overturn decisions in cases of clear abuse or excessive sanctions. The ruling underscored the importance of complying with binding FIFA decisions and the limited scope for challenging such decisions absent arbitrariness or disproportionality. The appeal was dismissed, and the sanctions were confirmed, including the fine and the 30-day deadline for payment. The decision highlights the strict enforcement of financial obligations in international sports disputes and the limited grounds for appealing disciplinary measures.