The case involves a dispute between FC ASA 2013 Targu Mures (the Appellant) and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) over a three-point deduction imposed on the club for failing to pay training compensation owed to Hungarian club Honved Budapest. The deduction was applied to the Appellant’s 2016/17 Liga 1 season standings under Article 46 of the National Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (NCL&FFPR), which mandates clubs to settle overdue payables by specified deadlines. The dispute originated from a 2015 transfer agreement for a player previously registered with Honved, who invoiced the Appellant for EUR 60,000 plus VAT in October 2015. The payment remained unresolved, leading the RFF Club Licensing Committee to impose the sanction. The Appellant appealed, arguing it did not owe training compensation because the player had not been properly registered with Honved and had not received a valid contract offer, thus nullifying Honved’s claim under FIFA regulations. The Appellant also noted that a prior FIFA decision ordering the payment was not yet final and that it had entered insolvency proceedings in 2016, complicating its ability to defend itself. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the Sole Arbitrator reviewed the arguments without a hearing. The Arbitrator upheld the RFF’s decision, confirming the three-point deduction as justified under the NCL&FFPR. The ruling emphasized that the Appellant failed to meet the payment deadline or provide valid justification for non-payment, making the debt overdue under the regulations. The Arbitrator dismissed the Appellant’s claims regarding the player’s registration and contract status, citing evidence from a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decision that confirmed the player’s registration with Honved. The decision underscored the strict enforcement of financial fair play rules and the importance of adhering to licensing regulations in professional football. The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the RFF’s sanction and rejecting all further claims, thereby reinforcing the consequences of failing to meet financial obligations in the sport. The case highlights the rigorous application of financial discipline in football and the legal mechanisms in place to address disputes over player transfers and compensation.