The case involves a dispute between Clube de Futebol União da Madeira (the Appellant), FIFA, and Club Renaissance Sportive de Berkane (the Second Respondent) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the Appellant's failure to pay a debt to the Second Respondent, as previously determined by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC). The FIFA DRC had ruled that the Appellant was jointly and severally liable for a compensation payment owed by a player to the Second Respondent. When the payment was not made, the matter was escalated to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DisCo), which imposed disciplinary sanctions, including a fine of CHF 20,000 and a potential points deduction, with the threat of relegation if the debt remained unpaid. The Appellant appealed this decision to CAS, seeking to overturn the sanctions and proposing mediation or a payment plan due to its financial difficulties.
The CAS panel, consisting of a sole arbitrator, addressed several key issues. First, it ruled that a hearing was unnecessary, as the written submissions provided sufficient information to resolve the dispute. The panel emphasized that a hearing is not mandatory under CAS rules if the arbitrator deems the written record adequate. The Appellant's request for a hearing to discuss its financial constraints and potential settlement was denied, as these issues were deemed irrelevant to the disciplinary sanctions under review. The panel also noted that the Appellant had abandoned its initial request to set aside the sanctions, meaning any such action would violate the principle of ne ultra petita (not beyond what is asked). The panel further clarified that disciplinary sanctions should only be reassessed if they are evidently and grossly disproportionate, which was not the case here. The Appellant's financial hardships were not considered a valid justification for non-payment, as the debt had been outstanding for nearly two years.
FIFA and the Second Respondent opposed the Appellant's arguments, asserting that the sanctions were proportionate and consistent with established jurisprudence. FIFA maintained that the Appellant had no valid reason for non-compliance and that financial difficulties do not excuse the failure to meet obligations. The Second Respondent highlighted the Appellant's lack of engagement in prior negotiations, making its claims of openness to settlement unconvincing. The panel agreed that disciplinary measures imposed by FIFA cannot be mediated, as they are sanctions for non-compliance with regulations, not a financial dispute between parties. Additionally, the panel ruled that the Appellant could not challenge its joint and several liability in these proceedings, as it had failed to appeal the original FIFA DRC decision, which was now final and binding. The panel also noted it lacked jurisdiction to issue orders against the player, who was not a respondent in the appeal.
Ultimately, the Sole Arbitrator dismissed all of the Appellant's requests for relief, upholding the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision. The panel concluded that the sanctions were lawful and proportionate, emphasizing the finality of the FIFA DRC ruling and the limited scope of review for disciplinary measures. The Appellant's arguments did not justify overturning the sanctions, and the appeal was rejected in its entirety. The case underscores the rigidity of FIFA's disciplinary framework and the limited grounds for challenging finalized decisions, even in cases of alleged financial distress. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of compliance with FIFA regulations and the enforceability of its disciplinary measures.