The case revolves around a dispute between Clube Atlético Mineiro and FIFA, stemming from the club's failure to comply with a financial obligation to Al-Gharafa as mandated by a prior Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision. The conflict began in 2014 when FIFA's Players’ Status Committee ordered Atlético Mineiro to pay €2.5 million plus interest and penalties related to a player transfer. The club appealed to CAS, which upheld the decision in 2015. When Atlético Mineiro did not fulfill the payment, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which addresses non-compliance with binding decisions. The club cited financial difficulties, partial payment, and a proposed payment plan as mitigating factors, but these were not accepted as exceptional circumstances justifying non-compliance.
In December 2016, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee found Atlético Mineiro guilty of violating Article 64, imposing a CHF 30,000 fine and granting a 90-day grace period to settle the debt. Failure to pay would result in an automatic six-point deduction in the domestic league and potential relegation. Atlético Mineiro appealed to CAS, arguing the sanctions were disproportionate. The CAS panel, in its 2018 ruling, emphasized that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate and assessed on a case-by-case basis, balancing deterrence with fairness. It clarified that FIFA's Disciplinary Committee could only evaluate compliance, not revisit the merits of the original decision. The panel rejected Atlético Mineiro’s arguments—financial hardship, partial payment, and a rejected payment plan—as insufficient to justify non-compliance. It also noted that disciplinary bodies have discretion in sanctions, which can only be overturned if grossly disproportionate.
The CAS upheld FIFA’s decision, reinforcing the principle that clubs must adhere to binding decisions and that financial difficulties do not exempt them from obligations. The ruling underscored the importance of compliance in maintaining disciplinary integrity within football governance. The case highlights FIFA's enforcement mechanisms, including fines, points deductions, and potential relegation for non-compliance, as well as the procedural steps in CAS appeals, such as arbitrator nominations and negotiated suspensions for settlement discussions.
During the proceedings, Atlético Mineiro argued that the sanctions were unfair, citing financial struggles and partial payments, while FIFA maintained that the measures were necessary and proportionate. The CAS panel concluded that the sanctions were justified, aligning with FIFA's established practice and previous CAS jurisprudence. The decision emphasized that partial payment does not negate the breach or qualify as "exceptional circumstances" under FIFA regulations. The Panel referenced CAS precedent, which limits review of sanctions to cases of gross disproportionality, finding no such issue in this case.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Atlético Mineiro’s appeal, confirming FIFA's disciplinary measures and ordering the club to bear all procedural costs. The ruling reinforced FIFA's authority to enforce financial obligations and the binding nature of CAS decisions, ensuring consistency and fairness in football governance. The case serves as a precedent for the enforcement of financial discipline in football, highlighting the consequences of non-compliance with binding decisions.