The case involves an appeal by Cruzeiro Esporte Club against a disciplinary decision by FIFA for failing to comply with a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) award. The CAS had ordered Cruzeiro to pay Tigres UANL compensation for a player transfer, including USD 1,000,000 plus interest and procedural costs. When Cruzeiro failed to meet these obligations, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 30,000 and a two-window transfer ban, warning of further sanctions if the debt remained unpaid. Cruzeiro appealed, arguing the sanctions were disproportionate and violated legal principles such as nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law) and predictability. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Jan Räker, upheld FIFA's decision, ruling that EU law did not apply as neither party was based in the EU. The panel rejected Cruzeiro's claims of legal uncertainty, stating FIFA's disciplinary rules clearly outlined consequences for non-compliance, including fines and transfer bans. The principle of nulla poena sine lege was deemed satisfied because the rules provided foreseeable sanctions, even if discretionary. The panel emphasized the need for flexibility in disciplinary measures to account for individual circumstances, such as offense severity and mitigating factors, while ensuring proportionality.
Regarding the fine, FIFA's degressive approach—where fines decrease over time to avoid crippling debtors—was found reasonable and aligned with disciplinary practices in other fields. The transfer ban, though severe, was justified as necessary to uphold football's competitive integrity. The panel noted that unpaid transfer compensation harms not only creditors but also competitive balance, as it allows clubs to gain unfair sporting and economic advantages. The sanction was deemed proportionate, directly addressing the harm caused by Cruzeiro's non-payment. The panel concluded that FIFA's disciplinary autonomy permitted sanctions within its discretion, provided they were not arbitrary. Since Cruzeiro's persistent non-compliance constituted a serious breach, the sanctions were upheld. The decision reinforced the importance of enforcing financial obligations in football to maintain fairness and integrity.
Cruzeiro further argued that the fine was inconsistent with past cases and that a points deduction would have been a milder alternative. The panel dismissed these claims, noting the fine was proportionate (just over 3% of the debt) and that Cruzeiro failed to prove a points deduction would be equally effective. The panel acknowledged the transfer ban's harsh impact on Cruzeiro's business model but stressed the severity of the offense justified the sanction. The ban would be lifted upon payment, placing resolution within Cruzeiro's control. The panel also clarified that any further sanctions would be decided by FIFA, not the creditor, and only if the debt remained unpaid after the ban. The appeal was dismissed, upholding FIFA's decision. The ruling underscored the necessity of adhering to financial obligations in football to preserve the sport's integrity and competitive fairness.