The case revolves around a dispute between Clube Atlético Mineiro (CAM) and Huachipato SADP, adjudicated by FIFA and later the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from CAM's failure to pay the full transfer fee of EUR 800,000 agreed upon for a player, with only EUR 200,000 paid and the remaining EUR 600,000 overdue. Huachipato filed a claim with FIFA, which ruled in its favor, ordering CAM to pay the outstanding amount plus interest and imposing potential disciplinary sanctions, including a transfer ban, if payment was not made within 30 days. CAM appealed the decision to CAS, arguing financial difficulties and contesting the proportionality of the sanctions.
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, including CAM's standing as a "repeated offender" under Article 12bis of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The panel found that CAM had breached payment obligations six times in three years, rejecting its argument that financial struggles excused non-payment. The panel upheld FIFA's decision, emphasizing the importance of financial discipline in football and the need to deter repeated non-compliance. CAM's appeal was dismissed, with the panel confirming the overdue payment and potential sanctions. The ruling reinforced FIFA's regulatory framework, stressing that financial hardship does not justify failing to meet contractual obligations.
During the proceedings, CAM claimed severe economic challenges, including frozen accounts by Brazilian tax authorities, and argued that the transfer ban would exacerbate its financial woes. However, the panel noted CAM's ability to engage in other financial transactions, such as a lucrative player loan, undermining its claims of inability to pay. Huachipato and FIFA countered that CAM's appeal was a delaying tactic, highlighting its history of payment defaults and the need for strict enforcement to uphold contractual integrity. The panel concluded that FIFA's sanction—a one-registration-period ban—was proportionate and necessary, given CAM's repeated violations and lack of good faith in resolving the debt.
The CAS decision underscored the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be honored) and affirmed FIFA's authority to impose disciplinary measures for payment delays. It also clarified that Huachipato had standing in the appeal due to its direct interest in the outcome. The ruling highlighted the broader implications for football governance, emphasizing the need for clubs to adhere to financial obligations to maintain fairness and stability in the sport. Ultimately, the CAS upheld FIFA's decision in full, dismissing CAM's appeal and reinforcing the consequences of repeated non-compliance with contractual and regulatory obligations in international football. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of financial accountability and the role of sanctions in deterring reckless financial behavior.