TAS 2024 A 10695 Club Atletico Banfield v. Montevideo City Torque & FIFA ES
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 27 May 2025
Why it matters
This case clarifies that Argentine currency control restrictions do not constitute force majeure excusing a football club's failure to make international transfer payments. The CAS reaffirmed that payment obligations are obligations of result, and that a debtor must prove the impossibility was unforeseeable and unavoidable. It also confirms FIFA's discretion to impose fines for late payment, considering recidivism as an aggravating factor, and that a fine of 18.2% of the debt is not grossly disproportionate.
Summary
Club Atlético Banfield (Argentina) and Montevideo City Torque (Uruguay) entered into a temporary transfer agreement for player José Ignacio Álvarez Medero in July 2022. Banfield failed to pay the agreed amounts, leading Torque to file a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). In January 2023, the parties signed a rescission agreement under which Banfield acknowledged its breach and undertook to pay USD 165,000 in seven installments from January to December 2023. Banfield made no payments. Torque initiated proceedings before the FIFA DRC, which on 15 May 2024 ordered Banfield to pay the full amount plus 5% annual interest on each installment from its due date, imposed a USD 30,000 fine under Article 12bis RSTP for late payment, and warned of a transfer ban if not paid within 45 days. Banfield appealed to the CAS, arguing that Argentine government currency controls (SIRASE system) prevented it from making international payments, constituting force majeure. It also argued the fine was arbitrary and disproportionate. The CAS sole arbitrator rejected the appeal. She held that Banfield failed to prove that the restrictions were unforeseeable or unavoidable; the rescission agreement was signed after the restrictions were in place, and Banfield did not provide sufficient evidence that it could not have paid through alternative means. The obligation to pay was one of result, not best efforts. The fine was not disproportionate: it was within FIFA's discretion, Banfield had a history of non-payment (fourth breach), and the amount (18.2% of the debt) was not grossly excessive. The CAS confirmed the DRC decision in full and ordered Banfield to pay CHF 5,000 toward Torque's legal costs.
The detail
Parties: TAS 2024 A 10695 Club Atletico Banfield v. Montevideo City Torque & FIFA ES
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; CAS confirmed FIFA DRC decision ordering Banfield to pay USD 165,000 plus interest and a USD 30,000 fine.
Quantum: USD 165,000 plus interest and USD 30,000 fine
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Swiss Code of Obligations (Art. 163.3), principle of pacta sunt servanda
Issues in play: Force majeure (Argentine currency controls) vs. pacta sunt servanda; Banfield argued government restrictions prevented payment, but CAS held that the obligation was one of result and Banfield failed to prove force majeure.
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.