The case involves Mersin Idman Yurdu SK, a Turkish football club, appealing a disciplinary sanction imposed by FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DC) for failing to comply with a prior decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC). The FIFA DRC had ruled in favor of Milan Stepanov, a Serbian player, ordering the club to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract. When the club failed to pay, the FIFA DC imposed a fine of CHF 30,000 and warned of further sanctions, including point deductions and potential relegation, if the debt remained unpaid. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was disproportionate and that its right to be heard had been violated during the FIFA DC proceedings.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, examined the case and dismissed the club's claims. It found that any procedural flaws in the FIFA DC proceedings could be remedied by CAS's de novo review, as established by consistent jurisprudence. The panel also rejected the club's argument that the fine was disproportionate, noting that it amounted to approximately 2.7% of the total debt (EUR 920,000 and RSD 78,577, plus interest) and fell within the permissible range under FIFA regulations. The panel referenced similar cases where comparable fines were imposed for analogous debts, reinforcing the consistency of FIFA's disciplinary practices. Additionally, the panel upheld the potential for future sporting sanctions, such as point deductions or relegation, should the club continue to default on its obligations.
The CAS emphasized that disciplinary bodies have discretion in imposing sanctions, and its role was limited to intervening only if the sanction was evidently and grossly disproportionate. The panel concluded that the FIFA DC's decision was legally justified and proportionate, dismissing the club's appeal and confirming the original sanctions. The ruling underscored the binding nature of FIFA and CAS decisions, the importance of compliance with financial obligations in football governance, and the consequences of non-compliance, including fines and sporting penalties. The case highlights FIFA's authority to enforce financial decisions and the limited scope for overturning disciplinary measures unless they are clearly unreasonable. The club was also ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, amounting to CHF 3,000. The decision reinforces the principle that clubs must adhere to contractual and regulatory obligations in international football.