The case of Londrina Esporte Clube v. FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2018, centered on the club's failure to comply with a financial obligation mandated by a prior FIFA decision. The dispute arose from a 2011 transfer agreement involving Londrina, ASB FC, and a player, which led to a 2016 FIFA ruling requiring Londrina to pay ASB FC a portion of a subsequent transfer fee. When the club failed to meet this obligation, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee imposed sanctions, including a fine of CHF 15,000 and a 30-day grace period for payment, with the threat of a six-point deduction and potential relegation if the debt remained unpaid. Londrina appealed to the CAS, arguing that its status under judicial administration in Brazil exempted it from sanctions, as it lacked the legal capacity to pay without judicial approval. The club also contended that FIFA's decision lacked proportionality and violated principles of predictability and legality under the FIFA Disciplinary Code and Swiss law.
The CAS panel, composed of Lars Hilliger, José Juan Pinto, and Petros Mavroidis, rejected these arguments. It emphasized that judicial administration did not equate to bankruptcy under FIFA's Disciplinary Code and thus did not absolve the club of its financial responsibilities. The panel noted that Londrina had continued operations, including entering into transfer agreements, without seeking judicial authorization for payments, undermining its claim of legal incapacity. The panel upheld the principle of pacta sunt servanda, stating that financial difficulties did not justify non-compliance with contractual obligations. It also affirmed FIFA's disciplinary framework, ruling that the sanctions were proportionate and aligned with established jurisprudence. The panel highlighted that the disciplinary system's predictability did not require exact knowledge of sanctions in advance, only that the rules were transparent and sanctions fell within a reasonable framework. The fine and potential point deduction were deemed appropriate, given the club's failure to address the debt since 2015 or propose a payment plan.
The CAS decision reinforced FIFA's authority to enforce disciplinary measures, emphasizing the balance between association autonomy, legal predictability, and proportionate sanctions. It dismissed Londrina's appeal, confirming the original FIFA decision and underscoring the importance of adhering to financial obligations in football governance. The ruling clarified that judicial administration did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting exemption from sanctions and that FIFA's graduated penalty system—allowing less severe measures for initial violations and harsher ones for continued defiance—was lawful and fair. The case highlighted the intersection of sports governance and national legal systems, particularly in disputes involving financial sanctions, and affirmed the legitimacy of FIFA's disciplinary processes. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the sanctions, ensuring Londrina remained liable for the fine and debt, with sporting consequences if unpaid. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the enforceability of financial obligations in football and the role of CAS in resolving such disputes.