The case involves Clube Atlético Mineiro (CAM) appealing a decision by FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) regarding overdue payments to FC Spartak Moscow. The dispute originated from a 2015 transfer agreement, which included a clause requiring CAM to pay Spartak additional compensation if the transferred player was later sold. CAM transferred the player in 2017 and agreed to pay Spartak $2.25 million in two installments. While the first installment was paid, the second was not, prompting Spartak to file a claim with FIFA. The PSC ruled in Spartak's favor, ordering CAM to pay the overdue amount plus interest and imposing a one-year registration ban, suspended for a probationary period. The ban would be enforced if CAM committed another violation during probation.
CAM appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanction was unpredictable and disproportionate. The CAS panel, composed of a sole arbitrator, rejected these claims. It noted CAM had violated FIFA's Article 12bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) seven times in three years, classifying it as a "repeated offender." The panel emphasized that predictability was not violated, as FIFA's consistent sanctions for repeated offenses meant CAM should have anticipated harsher penalties. The reasoning in the PSC's decision was deemed sufficient, as it allowed CAM to understand the basis for the sanction. The panel also found the sanction proportionate, as it was not the harshest available and could be avoided by complying with financial obligations.
CAM further argued that its financial difficulties, including Brazil's economic crisis, justified non-payment. However, the CAS ruled that financial hardship does not excuse contractual obligations, citing prior jurisprudence. CAM's claim of good faith was dismissed, as it failed to use transfer proceeds to settle debts. The Respondents, Spartak Moscow and FIFA, countered that CAM's appeal was a delay tactic, emphasizing that the debt was uncontested. They requested the appeal be dismissed, the original decision upheld, and CAM ordered to bear legal costs.
The CAS upheld the PSC's decision, confirming the payment order and the suspended registration ban. It emphasized deference to sports governing bodies' decisions unless they were arbitrary or grossly disproportionate. The ruling reinforced that repeated violations warrant stricter penalties and that clubs must adhere to financial commitments to avoid sanctions. The case underscores the importance of predictability and proportionality in disciplinary measures within football governance, as well as the consequences of recurrent non-compliance. The final decision dismissed CAM's appeal and confirmed the original FIFA ruling, with all other requests for relief rejected. The outcome highlights the principle that contractual obligations must be honored, and disciplinary measures for non-compliance are enforceable unless proven arbitrary or grossly disproportionate.