CAS 2019 A 6305
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 27 Feb 2020
Why it matters
This case reaffirms the CAS's deferential standard of review over FIFA disciplinary sanctions: the test is whether the sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' to the offence. It also clarifies that financial difficulties do not excuse non-compliance with FIFA payment orders, and that FIFA's unpublished 'well-established practice' is not a required benchmark for proportionality.
Summary
Club Raja Casablanca appealed a FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision that found it in violation of Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code for failing to pay USD 293,562 plus interest to Baniyas FC, as ordered by a prior CAS award. The FIFA DC imposed a CHF 15,000 fine and threatened a 6-point deduction if payment was not made within 60 days. Raja argued that the sanctions violated principles of legality, transparency, and proportionality because FIFA did not publish its disciplinary precedents, making it impossible to predict the penalty. The Sole Arbitrator rejected these arguments, applying the test from CAS 2016/A/4595: the sanction must be 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' to be reduced. He found the fine and potential points deduction proportionate given the long delay (over 16 months) and the amount owed. Raja's financial difficulties were not a valid excuse. The appeal was dismissed, and the FIFA DC decision confirmed.
The detail
Parties: Club Raja Casablanca v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2019 A 6305
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision confirmed; Club Raja Casablanca ordered to pay fine of CHF 15,000 and face 6-point deduction if payment not made within 60 days.
Quantum: CHF 15,000 fine; underlying debt USD 293,562 plus interest
Applicable law: FIFA Disciplinary Code (Article 64); FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP); CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case involved the principle of legality and transparency in disciplinary sanctions under FIFA rules, versus FIFA's discretion to enforce compliance with its decisions. The Appellant argued that the lack of published precedents violated due process, but the Sole Arbitrator held that the sanctions were not grossly disproportionate.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.