The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on 7 August 2017 in a dispute between Sporting Club Olhanense and Gonzalo Mathias Borges Mastriani & FIFA. The case originated from the club's failure to fulfill financial obligations under an employment contract with the player, leading to proceedings before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and subsequent appeal to CAS. The contract, signed in August 2014, entitled the player to monthly salaries and performance bonuses. By February 2016, the player claimed unpaid amounts totaling EUR 25,500 and initiated proceedings before the FIFA DRC, which partially upheld his claim, ordering the club to pay EUR 13,000 plus interest and imposing a fine of CHF 6,000. The club appealed this decision to CAS, arguing procedural and substantive issues.
The CAS panel, composed of a sole arbitrator, addressed several legal questions. It clarified that under Article R57.3 of the CAS Code, the panel has discretion to exclude evidence that was available or could have been discovered before the appealed decision. However, the panel chose not to exclude certain documents submitted by the club, even if they were dated after the FIFA DRC's decision. The panel also ruled on the admissibility of untranslated documents, stating that non-translation does not automatically render evidence inadmissible if the panel can understand the content and the opposing party is not disadvantaged. The club had acted in good faith by requesting additional time to submit translations, which the panel accepted.
The panel emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the club's inability to comply with the FIFA DRC's payment order due to a court-approved creditor plan rested solely on the club. The club failed to substantiate this claim adequately. The panel upheld FIFA's authority under Article 12bis of its Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) to impose sanctions for overdue payables, noting that the DRC has broad discretion to consider factors such as the amount owed, the circumstances of the case, and the debtor's conduct. Repeated offenses were treated as aggravating circumstances, warranting stricter penalties.
The club argued that it was undergoing a "Special Revitalization Process" (PER) under Portuguese law, which included a court-approved "Recuperation Plan" binding all creditors. This plan stipulated that labor debts would be paid in 32 quarterly installments after a six-month grace period, starting from 1 July 2016, and canceled any overdue default interest. The club claimed it could not address the player’s claim earlier due to PER restrictions, which prohibited debt collection actions or unauthorized payments during the proceedings. However, the panel found the club's evidence insufficient to demonstrate how the PER would impact the case, noting that the player was not listed as a creditor and the club failed to provide comprehensive details about the PER procedure.
The panel also addressed the club's challenge to the fine imposed by the FIFA DRC, arguing that the DRC lacked authority to issue sanctions and that the relevant FIFA regulations were not in force at the time of the payment defaults. The panel rejected these claims, clarifying that the DRC has the authority to impose sanctions under FIFA Regulations and that the rules in question were effective when the defaults occurred. The panel upheld the fine, noting that the DRC had discretion in determining the sanction and that the club's repeated defaults justified the penalty. The panel dismissed all of the club's claims, affirming the original decision's validity and enforceability, while acknowledging that the PER might only affect the execution of the award, not its legal standing.
The case underscores the strict application of FIFA's financial regulations and the consequences of non-compliance, particularly for repeat offenders. The decision highlights the importance of thorough evidence in legal proceedings and the jurisdictional boundaries of sports arbitration bodies. The CAS ultimately confirmed the FIFA DRC's ruling, rejecting all appeals and motions for relief by the club.