The case involves a dispute between Eskisehir Spor Kulübü, a Turkish football club, and Ibrahim Sissoko, a professional footballer from Ivory Coast, under the jurisdiction of FIFA. The conflict arose when Eskisehir failed to pay Sissoko outstanding salaries and compensation as ordered by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in January 2016. The DRC had ruled that the club must pay Sissoko €233,549.87 in unpaid remuneration plus 5% annual interest, along with €60,000 in compensation for breach of contract. Despite multiple reminders and a final deadline, Eskisehir did not fulfill its payment obligations. Consequently, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) found the club guilty of non-compliance with the DRC decision, violating Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. The DC imposed a fine of CHF 20,000 and granted a final 60-day grace period for payment. Failure to comply would result in an automatic six-point deduction from Eskisehir's first-team league standings upon Sissoko's request, with further non-compliance potentially leading to relegation. The Turkish Football Association was reminded of its duty to enforce the decision.
Eskisehir appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), citing financial difficulties and arguing the sanctions were disproportionate. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Michele Bernasconi, upheld the DC's decision, emphasizing that financial hardship does not excuse non-payment unless proven. The panel also clarified that disciplinary sanctions must be evaluated case-by-case under the principle of proportionality, considering the severity of the offense and its impact. The CAS found the sanctions appropriate, as they fell within FIFA's discretionary authority and were not grossly disproportionate. The ruling reinforced FIFA's authority to enforce financial obligations in football contracts and highlighted that clubs cannot evade penalties by citing financial struggles without evidence. The decision also underscored that CAS intervention in disciplinary sanctions is limited to cases where sanctions are evidently excessive.
During the CAS proceedings, Eskisehir sought to annul FIFA's decision, claiming irreparable harm, including financial collapse, but provided no supporting evidence. FIFA defended its decision, stating the club had violated Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code by failing to pay despite repeated warnings. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS's jurisdiction and the appeal's procedural validity, applying FIFA's regulations supplemented by Swiss law. The key issues were whether FIFA's sanctions were correct and proportionate and whether Eskisehir had settled its debt. The arbitrator found no evidence to suggest the sanctions were disproportionate, stressing that clubs must comply with binding decisions regardless of financial hardship.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld FIFA's decision, rejecting Eskisehir's appeal and confirming the sanctions. The ruling reinforced the principle that disciplinary measures for non-compliance are justified when a club fails to meet its financial obligations as ordered by FIFA's judicial bodies. The case underscores the importance of adhering to FIFA's decisions and the limited grounds for challenging disciplinary sanctions. The fine, potential points deduction, and relegation were deemed appropriate, given the club's persistent non-compliance and lack of effort to settle the debt. The grace period for payment was clarified to begin upon notification of the CAS award. The appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA Decision was confirmed, aligning with established case law and maintaining the original disciplinary measures. The case highlights the enforcement mechanisms within FIFA's disciplinary framework and the procedural steps in CAS arbitration when parties fail to comply or participate fully.