The case involves Cruzeiro E.C., a Brazilian football club, appealing against disciplinary sanctions imposed by FIFA for failing to comply with a financial obligation to Atlético Atenas, as determined by FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) in November 2016. The PSC ordered Cruzeiro to pay $3.4 million plus interest to Atenas. Cruzeiro appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the appeal was dismissed in July 2017, upholding the PSC's ruling. When Cruzeiro failed to pay, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DC) imposed sanctions, including a CHF 30,000 fine, a 90-day grace period for payment, and a warning of a six-point deduction and potential relegation if the debt remained unpaid. Cruzeiro appealed to CAS, arguing that FIFA's decision was disproportionate, lacked predictability, and failed to account for Brazil's economic crisis, which they claimed made payment impossible.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator rejected Cruzeiro's arguments, emphasizing that financial difficulties do not absolve contractual obligations under the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The arbitrator found no evidence of genuine financial hardship or government-imposed restrictions preventing payment, noting that currency fluctuations are a standard business risk. The club's engagement in player transfers during the period it claimed financial impossibility further undermined its case. FIFA's reliance on "well-established practice" in imposing sanctions was deemed acceptable, referring to consistent jurisprudence in similar cases. The arbitrator upheld the predictability and proportionality of FIFA's disciplinary measures, citing prior CAS and Swiss Federal Tribunal rulings validating FIFA's sanction system.
Cruzeiro's request for a 150-day grace period was denied, as the arbitrator found the 90-day period reasonable and consistent with FIFA's precedents. The fine, amounting to less than 3% of the debt, was also deemed proportionate. The arbitrator highlighted Cruzeiro's prolonged failure to pay—spanning over two years—and its lack of effort to negotiate a payment plan or make partial payments as factors weakening its argument for leniency. The sanctions were upheld as lawful and necessary to enforce compliance with financial obligations in football governance.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Cruzeiro's appeal, reinforcing the enforceability of CAS awards and FIFA's disciplinary framework. The decision underscores the importance of accountability for clubs failing to meet financial commitments, even in challenging economic conditions, and affirms the principle that financial hardship alone does not justify non-compliance with contractual obligations. The ruling serves as a reminder of the strict adherence required to financial and disciplinary regulations in international sports disputes.