CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2017/A/5401 — Clube Atlético Mineiro v. FIFA

"Atlético Mineiro v. FIFA" · CAS upheld FIFA's CHF 30,000 fine and six-point deduction threat against Atlético Mineiro for failing to pay USD 1,500,000 awarded in CAS 2014/A/3646.

What happened in Atlético Mineiro v. FIFA

Clube Atlético Mineiro (Brazil) was ordered by CAS in August 2015 (case 2014/A/3646) to pay USD 1,500,000 to Argentine club Atlético Boca Juniors, plus CHF 3,000 in legal costs and 90% of arbitration costs. Despite FIFA reminders, Atlético Mineiro made no payment whatsoever until 22 November 2017 — the very day it filed its appeal brief — when it paid USD 150,000. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee opened proceedings in April 2017 and on 9 June 2017 imposed a CHF 30,000 fine, granted a 90-day grace period, and warned that six league points would be deducted automatically if payment was not made. Atlético Mineiro appealed to CAS, arguing the sanctions lacked adequate reasoning, were disproportionate, and that its payment of other debts and submission of a payment plan constituted 'exceptional circumstances' warranting a 50% reduction. CAS dismissed the appeal in full, confirming the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision. The panel held that partial post-decision payments and payment plans do not constitute mitigating circumstances, that the fine and points deduction were consistent with FIFA's longstanding practice, and that CAS may only reduce a disciplinary sanction if it is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' — a threshold not met here. The case reinforces the strict enforcement mechanism of Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code and the limited scope of CAS review over association disciplinary discretion.

Procedural history of CAS 2017/A/5401

On 24 August 2015, CAS issued its award in case 2014/A/3646, ordering Atlético Mineiro to pay USD 1,500,000 to Atlético Boca Juniors, bear 90% of arbitration costs, and pay CHF 3,000 in legal expenses. FIFA reminded Atlético Mineiro of its obligations on 2 June 2016. On 6 April 2017, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee opened disciplinary proceedings. On 17 May 2017, Atlético Mineiro was invited to pay by 30 May 2017. On 30 May 2017, the club requested a 150-day grace period and asked that any fine not exceed CHF 5,000. On 9 June 2017, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee rendered the Appealed Decision: guilty under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, CHF 30,000 fine, 90-day grace period, and threatened six-point deduction. Grounds were communicated on 18 October 2017. Atlético Mineiro filed its CAS statement of appeal on 8 November 2017, followed by its appeal brief on 22 November 2017. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 16 March 2018.

Key holdings in CAS 2017/A/5401

• A club that fails to pay any amount owed under a final and binding CAS award for almost two years, without justification, satisfies the conditions for disciplinary sanctions under Article 64(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
• The FIFA Disciplinary Committee's sole task under Article 64 is to determine whether the debtor complied with the final and binding decision; it has no authority to re-examine the merits of the underlying award.
• Partial payments and a payment plan submitted after the Appealed Decision was rendered do not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' capable of mitigating disciplinary sanctions.
• CAS may only reduce a sanction imposed by a sports association's disciplinary body if it is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' to the offence; a CHF 30,000 fine and six-point deduction threat for an outstanding debt exceeding USD 1,500,000 does not meet that threshold.
• The fact that a debtor paid other creditors while leaving the debt to the creditor in question unpaid does not mitigate liability; it rather demonstrates the debtor's capacity to pay.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel conducted a de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. On liability, it found the facts undisputed: Atlético Mineiro made zero payments to Atlético Boca Juniors from the August 2015 CAS award until the Appealed Decision of June 2017, and offered no valid justification. The panel confirmed that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee correctly limited its analysis to compliance, not the merits of the underlying award, citing CAS 2013/A/3323. On proportionality, the panel applied the 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' standard drawn from CAS 2009/A/1817 & 2009/A/1844 and CAS 2016/A/4595, holding that CAS deference to association disciplinary discretion is wide and intervention is reserved for extreme cases. The panel accepted FIFA's seven comparative decisions showing CHF 30,000 fines and six-point deductions for similar outstanding amounts, and rejected the single contrary decision submitted by the Appellant as insufficient to establish a different constant practice. The panel dismissed the 'exceptional circumstances' argument because the payments invoked were made after the Appealed Decision and paying other debts only confirmed the club's financial capacity. The deterrent purpose of the fine under Article 64(1) was also weighed in favour of maintaining the sanction.

Why Atlético Mineiro v. FIFA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the strict and largely automatic enforcement mechanism of Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, confirming that CAS will not second-guess FIFA's disciplinary discretion unless sanctions are evidently and grossly disproportionate. It establishes that post-decision partial payments and payment plans are not mitigating 'exceptional circumstances,' and that paying other creditors while ignoring a specific CAS-ordered debt actually evidences capacity to pay rather than hardship. The case also reaffirms that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's role under Article 64 is purely one of compliance verification, not substantive review.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2014/A/3646 CAS 2013/A/3323 CAS 2013/A/3358 CAS 2016/A/4595 CAS 2009/A/1817 & CAS 2009/A/1844 CAS 2007/A/1394

Frequently asked questions about Atlético Mineiro v. FIFA

What fine did FIFA impose on Atlético Mineiro for not paying the USD 1,500,000 CAS award?

The FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 30,000 on Atlético Mineiro by its decision of 9 June 2017. The club was also granted a final 90-day grace period to pay the outstanding debt, failing which six points would be deducted from its first team in the domestic league championship. CAS confirmed this decision in full on 12 July 2018.

Does paying other debts or submitting a payment plan count as 'exceptional circumstances' to reduce an Article 64 FIFA Disciplinary Code sanction?

No. The CAS panel in this case held that paying other creditors while leaving the specific CAS-ordered debt unpaid does not constitute an exceptional circumstance; it merely demonstrates the club's capacity to pay. Similarly, submitting a payment plan and making partial payments after the disciplinary decision was rendered were characterised as belated attempts to meet long-overdue obligations, not mitigating factors.

What is the standard for CAS to reduce a FIFA Disciplinary Committee fine under Article 64?

CAS will only reduce a sanction imposed by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee if it is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' to the offence. The panel cited CAS 2009/A/1817 & 2009/A/1844 and CAS 2016/A/4595 for this standard, emphasising that sports associations enjoy wide disciplinary discretion and CAS intervention is reserved for extreme cases. A CHF 30,000 fine and six-point deduction threat for an unpaid debt exceeding USD 1,500,000 did not meet that threshold.

Can the FIFA Disciplinary Committee review the merits of the underlying CAS award when enforcing it under Article 64?

No. The panel confirmed, citing CAS 2013/A/3323, that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's sole task under Article 64 is to determine whether the debtor complied with the final and binding decision. It has no authority to re-examine the correctness of the amount ordered or the substance of the underlying dispute. In this case, the CAS award in case 2014/A/3646 ordering payment of USD 1,500,000 was treated as final and binding without further review.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.