The case involves a dispute between Mersin Idman Yurdu Sk, a Turkish football club, and Club Unité FC d’Obala, a Cameroonian football club, with FIFA as the governing body overseeing the matter. The conflict arose from Mersin's failure to pay training compensation to Unité for a player who transferred from Unité to Mersin. In 2014, FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that Mersin must pay Unité €6,774.26 plus interest, but Mersin did not comply. Following repeated warnings, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 2,000 on Mersin in 2016 and granted a final 30-day grace period to settle the debt. Failure to pay would result in a three-point deduction from Mersin's league standings and potential relegation.
Mersin appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the sanctions were disproportionate and citing financial hardships, including delayed payments from the Turkish Football Federation and revenue losses due to relegation. Unité and FIFA countered that Mersin's financial difficulties did not justify non-compliance and emphasized the disciplinary nature of the decision. The CAS panel upheld FIFA's ruling, stating that Mersin had ample opportunity to comply and failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. The panel affirmed that the sanctions were proportionate and aligned with FIFA's disciplinary framework, noting that point deductions and relegation were appropriate deterrents for non-compliance.
The CAS decision reinforced FIFA's authority in enforcing disciplinary measures and highlighted the importance of adhering to its rulings. The case underscored the balance between disciplinary enforcement and fairness, ensuring sanctions are tailored to the specific circumstances of each violation. Ultimately, the panel dismissed Mersin's appeal, upheld the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision, and ordered Mersin to bear the costs of the proceedings. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with FIFA's financial regulations and the principle of proportionality in disciplinary sanctions. The decision stands as final, with no further avenues for appeal.