The case involves Al Arabi SC, a Qatari football club, appealing against disciplinary sanctions imposed by FIFA for failing to comply with a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) award. The dispute originated from a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision in 2016, which ordered Al Arabi to pay €950,000 plus interest to player Anouar Kali for unpaid wages. The club failed to meet this obligation, leading to further proceedings. Kali appealed to CAS, which upheld the original decision in 2017. Despite repeated warnings, Al Arabi did not settle the debt, prompting FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) to impose sanctions in 2018, including a CHF 30,000 fine, a six-point deduction, and a two-registration-period transfer ban if payment was not made within 90 days. The club appealed to CAS, arguing the sanctions were disproportionate.
The CAS panel, composed of Mark Hovell, Mikal Brøndmo, and Manfred Nan, reviewed the case and upheld FIFA’s sanctions. The panel emphasized that disciplinary sanctions can only be amended if they are evidently and grossly disproportionate. It rejected Al Arabi’s argument that financial difficulties justified non-payment, stating clubs must honor financial obligations regardless of their economic situation. The panel found the six-point deduction proportionate, given the significant amount owed and precedents where similar sanctions were applied. The transfer ban was also deemed appropriate, as the club had failed to make any payments over two years. The panel concluded the sanctions were not grossly disproportionate and served to enforce compliance with the original award.
The club requested modifications, including an extended grace period of 120 days, a reduced three-point deduction, and a one-registration-period transfer ban. The panel rejected these requests, noting the lack of evidence supporting the club’s financial hardship claims. It highlighted the club’s failure to demonstrate any effort to settle the debt, undermining its argument for leniency. The panel also dismissed comparisons to other cases, emphasizing each case must be evaluated individually.
FIFA defended its sanctions as lawful and proportionate, referencing prior CAS and Swiss Federal Tribunal decisions that upheld its disciplinary system. It stressed the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and the importance of enforcing financial obligations in football. FIFA argued the club had not demonstrated financial hardship or willingness to pay, despite the CAS award being final and binding.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and deemed the appeal admissible but lacking merit. It found no grounds to overturn FIFA’s decision, reinforcing the need for disciplinary measures to ensure compliance. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to financial obligations in football and the limited scope for appealing disciplinary sanctions unless they are clearly excessive. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the original sanctions were upheld. The decision reaffirms FIFA’s commitment to enforcing financial fair play and contractual obligations in football.