The case involves Sport Luanda e Benfica FC, an Angolan football club, appealing a disciplinary sanction imposed by FIFA for failing to comply with a decision by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee (PSC). The PSC had ordered the club to pay €25,000 plus interest to AEL Limassol, a Cypriot club, in a transfer dispute, along with fines and costs totaling CHF 10,000. When Sport Luanda failed to pay, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) imposed an additional fine of CHF 5,000 and granted a final grace period, warning of potential point deductions if the debt remained unpaid. Sport Luanda appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was disproportionate. The CAS panel, led by a sole arbitrator, clarified that disciplinary proceedings focus solely on compliance with the final decision, not the merits of the underlying dispute. It emphasized that sanctions should only be overturned if "evidently and grossly disproportionate" and rejected Sport Luanda's arguments about currency fluctuations and lack of prior disciplinary record, stating compliance with FIFA decisions is mandatory. The panel also noted that late payments after the FIFA DC's decision do not justify reducing the sanction, as fines serve as deterrents. The CAS upheld the FIFA DC's decision, affirming the CHF 5,000 fine and reinforcing FIFA's authority to enforce compliance.
Sport Luanda filed its appeal in December 2016, requesting a stay of execution and a sole arbitrator. FIFA agreed, provided the arbitrator was selected from the "Football list," and the CAS confirmed the stay. The case was decided based on written submissions without a hearing. Sport Luanda argued the FIFA DC's decision was disproportionate, citing financial difficulties, Angola's economic crisis, and their first-time offense. They requested the fine be reduced to CHF 300. FIFA countered that disciplinary proceedings under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) were sanctions for breaching rules, not enforcement actions, and the fine was proportionate given the outstanding debt and the club's failure to participate in earlier proceedings. FIFA cited longstanding jurisprudence supporting its enforcement system, including point deductions for non-compliance.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator upheld FIFA's position, ruling the appeal groundless. The arbitrator noted Sport Luanda did not challenge the PSC decision within the allowed timeframe, making it final and binding. The FIFA DC's jurisdiction was limited to enforcing compliance, not re-examining the merits of the original decision. Claims about payments made before the PSC decision were irrelevant, as they should have been raised earlier. Sport Luanda's non-participation in FIFA's disciplinary process weakened its case. The arbitrator concluded the sanctions were legally justified and proportionate, referencing CAS precedents supporting FIFA's enforcement mechanisms. The decision reinforced the principle that disciplinary measures must escalate for continued non-compliance to uphold FIFA's judicial authority. The appeal was dismissed, the FIFA DC's decision confirmed, and Sport Luanda was ordered to bear all legal costs.
The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the finality of FIFA's judicial decisions. The arbitrator rejected Sport Luanda's mitigating circumstances, such as currency exchange issues and semi-amateur status, finding them insufficient to justify reducing the sanctions. The potential three-point deduction was deemed reasonable, as it could be avoided by timely payment. The arbitrator emphasized that accepting late payments as mitigating circumstances would undermine FIFA's enforcement system, as it could encourage delaying payments until the final stages of appeal. The ruling dismissed all other motions and reinforced the integrity of FIFA's dispute resolution framework. The case highlights the mandatory nature of compliance with FIFA decisions and the limited scope for challenging disciplinary sanctions on proportionality grounds.