The case revolves around a dispute between Al-Ittihad FC, a Saudi Arabian football club, and FIFA, the international governing body of football, concerning the club's failure to comply with a financial obligation to a player. The conflict originated in 2009 when the player filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) for unpaid wages. The DRC partially accepted the claim in 2013, ordering the club to pay USD 150,000 plus interest. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which in 2015 increased the amount to USD 350,000 plus interest. Although the club made partial payments, a small outstanding amount remained unpaid.
In 2016, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings against the club for non-compliance with the CAS award. The club was fined CHF 1,000 and given a 30-day grace period to settle the debt. Failure to do so would result in an automatic deduction of three points from the club’s domestic league standings upon the player’s request. The club contested the point deduction, arguing that the decision was not properly communicated and that it had made the payment, albeit late due to an administrative error.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the Netherlands, the UAE, and the UK, ruled on several legal issues. It defined a decision as a unilateral act by a governing body intended to produce legal effects, communicated to the relevant party. The panel clarified that FIFA’s execution of a disciplinary decision qualifies as a decision, but subsequent responses to reconsideration requests do not extend appeal deadlines. The panel also held that once a points deduction is ordered, it becomes a binding sanction that cannot be suspended unless exceptional circumstances apply.
The tribunal dismissed the club’s appeal, upholding FIFA’s disciplinary measures. It emphasized that the club had multiple opportunities to comply but failed to settle the outstanding debt. The decision reinforced FIFA’s authority to enforce disciplinary sanctions, including point deductions, to ensure compliance with financial obligations in football. The ruling underscores the binding nature of CAS awards and FIFA’s disciplinary mechanisms in maintaining financial fairness in the sport.
FIFA maintained that the points deduction was automatic upon the player’s request and could not be reversed, even if the debt was later paid. The club argued that the player had withdrawn his request for sanctions after receiving payment, but FIFA insisted that the disciplinary process was separate from the enforcement of payment. The CAS panel agreed, noting that the club’s administrative error did not justify lifting the sanction. The panel also highlighted that the club had ignored multiple reminders from FIFA and only engaged after the points deduction was enforced.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of FIFA’s disciplinary measures and the limited scope for clubs to challenge sanctions once they are imposed. The CAS panel concluded that the club’s appeal was inadmissible because it did not challenge the initial decision within the required timeframe. Even if the appeal had been admissible, the panel found no grounds to overturn the points deduction, as the club’s failure to comply was entirely its own responsibility. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to financial obligations in football and the consequences of non-compliance.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld FIFA’s disciplinary actions, dismissing the club’s appeal and ordering it to bear all procedural costs. The ruling reinforces the principle that FIFA’s disciplinary mechanisms are binding and that clubs must promptly address financial disputes to avoid severe penalties. The case underscores the need for clubs to maintain transparency and accountability in their financial dealings with players.