The case involves Club Raja Casablanca appealing a decision by FIFA's Disciplinary Committee, which imposed sanctions on the club for failing to comply with a prior FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision. The DRC had ordered the club to pay a former employee USD 54,000 plus 5% annual interest starting May 1, 2016. The club did not appeal this decision, making it final and binding. When the club failed to pay, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee opened proceedings and issued a decision on May 14, 2019, imposing a fine of USD 7,500 and additional sanctions, including a potential transfer ban and relegation to a lower division if the debt remained unpaid. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the sanctions were disproportionate and lacked transparency.
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Prof. Petros Mavroidis, examined the case based on written submissions and witness statements, deciding a hearing was unnecessary. The panel emphasized key legal principles, including transparency, predictability, and proportionality of disciplinary sanctions. It noted that transparency and predictability require the methodology for sanctions to be established beforehand, allowing parties to anticipate potential penalties. Discretion in imposing sanctions does not inherently violate predictability unless abused. Proportionality of fines should be assessed against the violation and prior cases, with CAS intervening only if sanctions are evidently and grossly disproportionate. The panel found FIFA's sanctions proportional and the process transparent, upholding the decision.
The club sought various forms of relief, including annulment of the decision, financial compensation, and access to FIFA’s disciplinary decision database, arguing FIFA’s lack of transparency violated principles of good governance, due process, and legal certainty under Swiss law, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the European Convention on Human Rights. FIFA countered that the appeal’s scope was limited to compliance with its decision, not its legality, and dismissed the club’s reliance on the TFEU and human rights principles as irrelevant, asserting the disciplinary process was governed by FIFA’s regulations and Swiss law.
The Sole Arbitrator rejected the club’s arguments, confirming the sanctions were lawful and proportionate. The arbitrator clarified that the applicable law was FIFA’s 2017 Disciplinary Code, with Swiss law serving a subsidiary role. The TFEU and ECHR rulings were deemed irrelevant, as FIFA’s organs are not obligated to observe them. The arbitrator also dismissed the club’s claim of a violated right to be heard, noting the club had ample opportunity to present its case. On proportionality, the arbitrator upheld the sanctions, finding them neither evidently nor grossly disproportionate, and consistent with FIFA’s disciplinary framework and prior cases.
The arbitrator further addressed the club’s request for access to FIFA’s disciplinary database, denying it as irrelevant and potentially breaching confidentiality. The ruling underscored the primacy of FIFA’s regulations in disputes involving its disciplinary actions, with Swiss law playing a supplementary role. The arbitrator concluded that the sanctions were lawful and proportionate, rejecting the club’s broader challenges to FIFA’s governance framework as beyond the scope of arbitral review. The decision reinforces the importance of compliance with FIFA’s rulings and the limited scope for challenging disciplinary sanctions unless they are manifestly unreasonable. The CAS affirmed the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s decision in its entirety, dismissing the club’s appeal.