The case involves Clube Atlético Mineiro (the Club) and FIFA, centering on disciplinary sanctions imposed due to the Club's failure to fulfill financial obligations under a transfer agreement with FC Dynamo Kyiv (Dynamo). The dispute arose when the Club did not pay the final instalment of EUR 460,000 for the transfer of a player. Dynamo filed a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC), which ruled in Dynamo's favor, ordering the Club to pay the outstanding amount plus interest and a penalty fee. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the PSC's decision. When the Club still failed to pay, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) initiated proceedings, leading to sanctions including a fine of CHF 25,000 and a 60-day grace period to settle the debt. Non-compliance would result in a six-point deduction in the domestic league, with potential relegation if the debt remained unpaid.
The Club challenged the sanctions, arguing they lacked predictability, proportionality, and fairness, citing financial difficulties caused by tax authorities and third-party ownership restrictions. The Club also claimed the DC failed to consider exceptional circumstances, such as partial payments and ongoing financial struggles. FIFA maintained that financial hardships did not excuse non-compliance and emphasized the need for consistent disciplinary measures to uphold contractual obligations. The CAS Panel reviewed the case, confirming the sanctions were justified under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), which allows fines and sporting sanctions for non-payment. The Panel found the fine proportionate (approximately 4.2% of the debt) and noted the Club's prior violations as an aggravating factor. While the Club proposed alternatives like a transfer ban, the Panel upheld the points deduction as consistent with FIFA's practice.
The Panel acknowledged the Club's partial payments but rejected claims of exceptional circumstances, as the offered payment plan was not accepted by Dynamo. However, it extended the grace period until 31 December 2018 to allow the Club to settle the debt before sanctions took effect. The appeal was partially granted, modifying the grace period but upholding the DC's decision otherwise. The case underscores the balance between enforcing financial discipline in football and considering clubs' operational challenges. It reaffirms FIFA's authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance while highlighting the importance of proportionality and fairness in disciplinary actions. The outcome emphasizes the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and the role of CAS in resolving disputes within sports governance.