The case involves a dispute between Clube Atlético Mineiro (CAM), a Brazilian football club, and Udinese Calcio S.p.A., an Italian football club, over unpaid transfer fees for a player, with FIFA as the second respondent. The conflict arose from a Transfer Agreement signed on 1 May 2014, under which CAM agreed to pay Udinese EUR 3,315,000 in four instalments. Due to financial difficulties, CAM failed to meet the deadlines for the first two instalments, leading to an Amendment Agreement in June 2015 that rescheduled these payments into twelve monthly instalments. However, CAM only paid the first two rescheduled instalments, prompting Udinese to initiate proceedings before FIFA’s Single Judge, who ruled in Udinese’s favor, ordering CAM to pay the outstanding amount plus interest. CAM appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the ruling. Separately, CAM also failed to pay the third and fourth instalments under the original Transfer Agreement, leading to further legal action. FIFA’s Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee ruled in Udinese’s favor, ordering CAM to pay the overdue amounts with interest and threatening sanctions, including a ban on registering new players. CAM complied partially but disputed the allocation of payments, arguing that a payment made on 5 June 2017 was intended for the fourth instalment, while Udinese claimed it was for the third. The case was brought before CAS, which applied Swiss law, particularly Articles 86 and 87 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, to determine the payment’s allocation. The Panel concluded that CAM’s payment was clearly intended for the fourth instalment, as evidenced by the amount and context, despite CAM’s failure to directly inform Udinese. The Panel ruled in CAM’s favor regarding the fourth instalment but noted that CAM had not paid the final costs of the FIFA proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of contractual compliance and clear communication in international football transfers, while also highlighting the role of FIFA and CAS in resolving such disputes. The case demonstrates the legal mechanisms available to clubs to enforce financial obligations and the application of Swiss law in interpreting contractual disputes. The Panel’s ruling confirmed CAM’s compliance with the fourth instalment payment but dismissed other relief requests, emphasizing the narrow scope of the decision.