The case involves Al-Hilal Club, a Sudanese football club, appealing against FIFA’s disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance with a prior ruling. The dispute originated from a 2017 FIFA Players’ Status Committee decision ordering Al-Hilal to pay outstanding remuneration to a coach, J. When the club failed to comply, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine and granted a final grace period, warning of a six-point deduction and potential relegation if payment was not made. Despite this, Al-Hilal did not settle the debt, leading the coach to request the point deduction. The club then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FIFA’s communication enforcing the deduction was an appealable decision. The CAS panel, however, ruled that the communication was administrative and lacked the intent to decide, making it non-appealable. The panel emphasized that debtors cannot repeatedly challenge enforcement of final decisions, as this would undermine FIFA’s disciplinary system. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the automatic enforcement of sanctions for non-payment and upholding FIFA’s authority.
Al-Hilal cited economic sanctions and banking difficulties in Sudan as reasons for delayed payments, proposing alternative arrangements, including a payment plan and requesting the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to facilitate payment. However, the coach denied agreeing to the plan, and CAF refused due to the club’s outstanding debts. The club eventually paid the coach $150,000 through a third-party account, though this was less than the total owed. The coach requested the closure of disciplinary proceedings upon receiving partial payment, but the Sudan Football Association (SFA) confirmed the six-point deduction. Al-Hilal appealed to CAS, challenging the decision and seeking to nullify the deduction. The club initially requested provisional measures but withdrew the request after finishing the season in first place despite the penalty. FIFA argued the appeal was inadmissible, as the club had not requested the grounds of the original decision within the stipulated timeframe, rendering it final and binding.
The CAS panel examined whether FIFA’s communication constituted an appealable decision under Article R47 of the CAS Code, which requires a unilateral act intended to produce legal effects. The panel concluded that the communication was merely an administrative enforcement request, not a new decision, and thus not subject to appeal. The panel highlighted that allowing appeals against enforcement actions would disrupt FIFA’s disciplinary system, which relies on automatic sanctions to ensure compliance. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining effective enforcement mechanisms in sports governance. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Al-Hilal’s appeal, upholding the points deduction and reinforcing the principle that disciplinary sanctions must be enforced as prescribed to preserve the integrity of FIFA’s regulatory framework. The ruling serves as a reminder of the limited scope for challenging the enforcement of final and binding decisions in international football.