The case involves Club Mersin Idman Yurdu Spor Kulübü appealing a decision by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, which imposed a fine of CHF 30,000 for the club’s failure to comply with a prior FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision. The DRC had ruled that the club must pay player Spas Delev EUR 1.2 million plus interest for breach of contract. The club did not pay the amount and appealed the DRC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the appeal was terminated due to the club’s failure to pay the advance of costs. The DRC decision then became final and binding, prompting FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee to take action for non-compliance under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. The club argued that the fine was disproportionate and illegal, as it worsened their financial situation, but the CAS panel rejected these claims.
The CAS panel addressed three key issues. First, it determined that the player, Spas Delev, was not a necessary respondent in the appeal, as the disciplinary sanction was imposed by FIFA to protect its own interests, not the player’s. Second, it ruled that fines for non-compliance with FIFA decisions are not inherently illegal, provided they are proportionate and do not undermine the objective of enforcing financial obligations. Third, the panel found the CHF 30,000 fine reasonable, given the club’s failure to pay a substantial debt (over EUR 1 million plus interest) for nearly five years. The panel emphasized that the fine was not so severe as to prevent the club from fulfilling its obligations.
The background of the dispute traces back to a contractual conflict between the club and the player, leading to the DRC’s 2015 ruling. Despite multiple warnings and deadlines, the club did not comply, prompting FIFA’s disciplinary measures. The Disciplinary Committee’s decision included not only the fine but also provisions for further sanctions, such as point deductions and potential relegation, if the club continued to default. The CAS panel upheld the disciplinary measures, reinforcing FIFA’s authority to enforce compliance with its decisions.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed the club’s appeal, confirming the legality and proportionality of the fine. The decision underscores FIFA’s disciplinary framework and the importance of clubs adhering to financial obligations towards players. The ruling also clarifies that disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance are legitimate tools to ensure enforcement, provided they are proportionate to the underlying debt and the objective of upholding FIFA’s regulatory authority. The panel noted that the club’s financial hardship did not excuse non-compliance and that the fine was within the permissible range, even on the lower end given the substantial debt. The case highlights procedural complexities in sports arbitration, including jurisdictional disputes and cost allocation, ultimately resolved through CAS adjudication. The outcome reinforces the principle that clubs must meet their financial obligations to players and that FIFA’s disciplinary measures are justified when such obligations are ignored. The CAS panel’s decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with FIFA rulings and the role of CAS in ensuring fairness and proportionality in disciplinary actions.