The case revolves around Panthrakikos FC, a Greek football club, appealing a disciplinary decision by FIFA for failing to comply with a financial obligation under a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) award. The dispute originated from a 2014 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruling, which required Panthrakikos to pay training compensation to Dauphins FC for a player. Panthrakikos appealed to CAS, resulting in a December 2014 settlement agreement where the club agreed to pay €70,000 in installments. However, Panthrakikos only paid the first installment, defaulting on subsequent payments, citing financial difficulties and Greek government-imposed capital controls on international transfers as reasons for non-compliance.
FIFA's Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings in July 2015, rejecting Panthrakikos' argument that Greek banking regulations constituted force majeure. The Committee ruled in September 2015 that the club violated Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), imposing a fine of CHF 7,500 and a 30-day grace period to settle the debt. Failure to comply would result in a six-point deduction and potential relegation. Panthrakikos appealed to CAS, contesting the sanctions, but the panel upheld FIFA's decision, emphasizing that financial constraints and regulatory hurdles did not absolve the club of its obligations. The panel noted that Greek banking restrictions, enacted after Panthrakikos' default, did not entirely prohibit international transfers and could be navigated with proper authorization.
Panthrakikos further argued that unforeseen events, including a burglary at the club's offices and capital controls, prevented compliance. However, the club failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as official burglary reports or proof of denied payment authorization. The CAS panel found that capital controls did not entirely block international payments, as transfers could still be executed with approval from Greek authorities. Additionally, Panthrakikos could have proposed alternative payment arrangements but did not. The panel concluded that the club did not meet its burden of proof to justify non-compliance and that FIFA's disciplinary proceedings were valid under Article 107 of the FDC.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on mutual agreement to arbitration and dismissed Panthrakikos' appeal, upholding FIFA's sanctions as proportional. The ruling emphasized the strict enforcement of financial obligations in football, rejecting financial hardship as a valid defense unless extraordinary circumstances were proven. The case underscores the limited exceptions for non-compliance under sports arbitration frameworks and the importance of adhering to contractual obligations, even in challenging financial or regulatory conditions. The sanctions remained in effect, and Panthrakikos was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.