The case involves an appeal by ACS Poli Timisoara against decisions made by the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) and the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL) regarding an 8-point deduction imposed on the club for the 2016/2017 season. The deduction stemmed from the club's failure to meet the minimum 15-point threshold during the play-out phase of the 2015/2016 Liga I championship, as stipulated in Article 29(4) of the RFF Regulations. ACS Poli Timisoara finished the play-out phase with only 7 points, resulting in the penalty. The club challenged the decisions of the RFF's Emergency Committee and Executive Committee, which upheld the penalty, arguing that the rule was clear and aimed at preserving competition integrity by discouraging teams from underperforming. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the club contested the deduction on several grounds, including misinterpretation of the regulations, discrimination, and disproportionality of the sanction. The club argued that the 15-point threshold should apply to the total points accumulated across both the regular season and play-out phase, not just the latter, citing Article 27(1) of the RFF Regulations, which states rankings should reflect overall performance. The RFF and RPFL defended the decision, asserting that the rule was unambiguous and intended to ensure fair competition by preventing teams from deliberately underperforming in relegation matches. They also noted that another club, Petrolul Ploiesti, faced similar sanctions for failing to meet the threshold. The CAS examined the case, confirming its jurisdiction under Article 34(9) of the RFF Statutes and Article R47 of the CAS Code, which allow appeals against federation decisions after exhausting internal remedies. The Sole Arbitrator found the wording of Article 29(4) clear and upheld the RFF's interpretation, emphasizing that the promotion-relegation system falls within the autonomy of football associations, provided it complies with FIFA statutes. The Arbitrator rejected the club's claims of discrimination and violation of competition law, stating that CAS panels lack the authority to amend federation regulations unless they violate fundamental legal principles like good faith or non-discrimination. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decisions were confirmed, reinforcing the limited scope of judicial intervention in sports governance matters. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks in sports and respecting the autonomy of football associations.