The case involves an appeal by FK Olimpik Sarajevo against a disciplinary decision by FIFA, which found the club guilty of failing to comply with a previous FIFA ruling requiring payment of training compensation to NK Sesvete. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 7,500 and granted a final grace period for payment, with the threat of a six-point deduction if the debt remained unpaid. The key legal principles addressed include the standing to be sued in disciplinary matters, the limited scope of review for disciplinary sanctions, and the irrelevance of financial difficulties as a justification for non-compliance. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) emphasized that FIFA disciplinary proceedings aim to ensure compliance with its rules and decisions, and only FIFA has standing to be sued in such appeals. The CAS panel noted that its review is confined to assessing the legal basis and proportionality of the sanction, with deference given to FIFA's disciplinary decisions unless they are evidently disproportionate. The panel also clarified that financial hardships, even those caused by sporting conditions, do not excuse non-compliance with payment obligations, and force majeure requires an unforeseeable and uncontrollable event rendering performance impossible. The case underscores the importance of adhering to FIFA's decisions and the limited grounds for challenging disciplinary sanctions.
The dispute originated from FK Olimpik Sarajevo's failure to pay a debt of EUR 60,000 plus interest to NK Sesvete, as ordered by a FIFA Single Judge in April 2016. By the time of the disciplinary proceedings, Olimpik had only paid EUR 9,000, citing financial difficulties due to relegation to a lower division and loss of sponsors. The club argued these circumstances constituted force majeure and requested the CAS to either abolish or reduce the fine. FIFA and the other respondents countered that financial struggles do not qualify as force majeure and emphasized that the disciplinary committee's role was to enforce final and binding decisions, not to review their substance. They maintained that the sanction was proportionate and aligned with FIFA's disciplinary practices.
The CAS proceedings involved responses from FIFA, the Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina, NK Sesvete, and the Croatian Football Federation, with the latter disputing its involvement in the case. The CAS ultimately proceeded with the arbitration, appointing a sole arbitrator to resolve the matter. Olimpik attempted to submit additional documentation regarding its financial situation, but this was dismissed as inadmissible due to late filing and lack of justification. The sole arbitrator decided to proceed based on written submissions without a hearing, as none of the respondents requested one. Olimpik's primary argument was that the fine was disproportionately high given its financial difficulties and good-faith efforts to negotiate a settlement. However, the arbitrator found no evidence that the fine was disproportionate compared to similar cases, as demonstrated by FIFA's submission of 12 comparable decisions.
The CAS upheld the FIFA decision, reinforcing the principle that clubs must fulfill their financial obligations regardless of their financial situation. The arbitrator emphasized that disciplinary measures must have a deterrent effect to enforce compliance with FIFA's rulings. The appeal was dismissed, and all other claims and requests for relief were rejected. The case highlights the enforcement mechanisms within FIFA's disciplinary framework and the potential repercussions for clubs and associations that fail to adhere to financial regulations. The final decision underscored the binding nature of FIFA's disciplinary measures and the limited scope of CAS review in such matters.