The case involves a dispute between Qatar Sports Club and FIFA over the club's failure to comply with a decision issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS had partially upheld an appeal against a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision, ordering the club to pay a player specific amounts, including compensation for breach of contract and interest. The club failed to meet these obligations, prompting FIFA to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which addresses non-compliance with decisions. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee found the club guilty and imposed sanctions, including a fine of CHF 30,000 and a 90-day deadline for payment. Failure to comply would result in additional penalties, such as a six-point deduction, a four-registration-period transfer ban, and potential relegation. The Qatar Football Association (QFA) was tasked with enforcing these sanctions and faced possible expulsion from FIFA competitions if it failed to do so.
The club appealed the decision, arguing that force majeure—financial difficulties, loss of sponsorship, and relegation—prevented compliance. However, the CAS panel rejected this defense, stating that force majeure requires unforeseeable and uncontrollable events, and financial setbacks do not qualify. The panel emphasized that the club's financial struggles were foreseeable and within its control, and it failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. The CAS upheld FIFA's decision, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the imposed sanctions. The ruling reinforces the principle that clubs must adhere to financial obligations and that financial hardship does not excuse non-compliance.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of FIFA's disciplinary framework and the limited applicability of force majeure in disciplinary disputes. It underscores the binding nature of CAS awards and FIFA's authority to enforce compliance through disciplinary measures. The outcome reaffirms the importance of honoring contractual and regulatory commitments in sports governance, ensuring the integrity of the disciplinary process. The club's appeal was ultimately dismissed, and all other requests for relief were rejected, leaving the original decision in full effect.