CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2018/A/5838 — Clube Atlético Mineiro v. Huachipato SADP & FIFA

"Atlético Mineiro v. Huachipato" · CAS upheld FIFA's registration ban on Atlético Mineiro for repeatedly failing to pay EUR 600,000 transfer fee to Huachipato.

What happened in Atlético Mineiro v. Huachipato

Clube Atlético Mineiro (CAM), a Brazilian club, exercised an option on 31 March 2017 to permanently transfer player Rómulo Otero Vázquez from Chilean club Huachipato SADP for EUR 800,000, payable in two instalments. CAM paid only EUR 200,000 in February 2018, leaving EUR 600,000 outstanding. After formal default notice, Huachipato filed a claim before FIFA. On 4 July 2018, the Bureau of the FIFA Players' Status Committee ordered CAM to pay EUR 600,000 plus 5% p.a. interest and imposed a conditional registration ban for one transfer period if payment was not made within 30 days. CAM appealed to CAS, conceding the debt but arguing the sanction was disproportionate, insufficiently reasoned, and that the 'repeated offender' concept under Article 12bis(6) RSTP was legally uncertain. CAS dismissed the appeal in full, confirming the FIFA decision. The case matters because it reinforces that financial hardship does not excuse non-payment, that a club's status as a 'repeated offender' under Article 12bis(6) RSTP is cumulative and indefinite, and that CAS will defer to FIFA sanctions unless they are grossly and evidently disproportionate.

Procedural history of CAS 2018/A/5838

On 31 March 2017, CAM exercised a transfer option obliging it to pay Huachipato EUR 800,000 in two instalments (EUR 400,000 on 31 August 2017 and EUR 400,000 on 31 January 2018). CAM paid only EUR 200,000 in February 2018. On 8 March 2018, Huachipato formally put CAM in default, granting a ten-day cure period. On 28 March 2018, Huachipato lodged a claim before FIFA. On 4 July 2018, the Bureau of the FIFA Players' Status Committee ordered CAM to pay EUR 600,000 plus 5% p.a. interest, imposed CHF 20,000 in procedural costs, and provided for a conditional registration ban for one transfer period if payment was not made within 30 days. The grounds were notified on 11 July 2018. CAM filed its Statement of Appeal before CAS on 24 July 2018 and its Appeal Brief on 20 August 2018. A hearing was held in Buenos Aires on 10 January 2019. CAS was asked to set aside the sanction and remit the matter to FIFA for a proportionate measure.

Key holdings in CAS 2018/A/5838

• Huachipato has standing to be sued (legitimation passive) in a CAS appeal challenging a FIFA Players' Status Committee decision that accessorily foresees a disciplinary sanction, because annulment or modification of that sanction would directly affect Huachipato's ability to enforce its credit.
• The FIFA Bureau's decision was sufficiently reasoned under Article 14(4)(f) of FIFA's Procedural Rules because it identified that the Huachipato debt was the sixth occasion on which CAM had breached Article 12bis RSTP.
• Article 12bis(6) RSTP satisfies the principle of legality and the predictability test because it clearly warns that a repeated offence will be considered an aggravating circumstance leading to a more severe penalty.
• The lex mitior doctrine and the probationary-period provision in Article 12bis(7) RSTP do not limit the duration of a club's 'repeated offender' status to six months.
• A conditional registration ban for one transfer period is not grossly or evidently disproportionate for a club that is a confirmed repeated offender under Article 12bis RSTP, and financial difficulties do not excuse failure to make required payments.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied a de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code but gave deference to FIFA's sanctioning discretion, intervening only if the sanction was 'evidently and grossly disproportionate'. On reasoning adequacy, the Panel found the Bureau's reference to the sixth breach sufficient, noting that CAM itself had listed at least eight overdue-payment cases in its own submissions. On the 'repeated offender' concept, the Panel relied on the prior CAS award CAS 2016/A/4719 (Atlético Mineiro v. Udinese Calcio), which had already labelled CAM a repeated offender after three breaches, making the present case at least the third post-that-award breach. The Panel rejected the lex mitior argument, finding no textual or logical link between the probationary-period provision in Article 12bis(7) and the aggravating-circumstance rule in Article 12bis(6). On proportionality, the Panel noted FIFA had not imposed the maximum available sanction (two registration periods plus a fine) and that lighter prior sanctions had demonstrably failed to change CAM's conduct. The Panel also highlighted that CAM loaned the Player for EUR 4,650,000 in May 2018 yet prioritised other creditors over Huachipato, conduct it described as undesirable in football. Financial hardship was dismissed as a defence on established CAS authority.

Why Atlético Mineiro v. Huachipato matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates the principle that a club's 'repeated offender' status under Article 12bis(6) RSTP is cumulative and not time-limited by the probationary-period provision of Article 12bis(7). It also clarifies that Huachipato-type creditor clubs have standing to be sued in CAS appeals against FIFA Players' Status Committee decisions that include conditional disciplinary sanctions, distinguishing such proceedings from purely disciplinary FIFA cases where only FIFA holds respondent standing.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4719 Club Atlético Mineiro v. Udinese Calcio S.p.A & FIFA CAS 2016/A/4675 CAS 2016/A/4595 Al Ittihad Saudi v. FIFA CAS 2016/A/4387 CAS 2016/A/4402 CAS 2015/A/3879

Frequently asked questions about Atlético Mineiro v. Huachipato

Did Atlético Mineiro successfully argue that the Article 12bis registration ban was disproportionate at CAS?

No. The CAS Panel dismissed the proportionality challenge, finding the conditional ban for one registration period was not grossly or evidently disproportionate. The Panel noted that FIFA had not imposed the maximum available sanction of two registration periods plus a fine, and that lighter prior sanctions had failed to change CAM's conduct.

Does a club's 'repeated offender' status under Article 12bis(6) RSTP expire after six months under the lex mitior doctrine?

No. The Panel rejected CAM's argument that the six-month minimum probationary period in Article 12bis(7) RSTP should cap the duration of 'repeated offender' status. The Panel found no textual or logical connection between the probationary-period provision and the aggravating-circumstance rule in Article 12bis(6).

Can a creditor club like Huachipato be named as a respondent in a CAS appeal that only challenges the disciplinary sanction in a FIFA Players' Status Committee decision?

Yes, according to this Panel. The Panel distinguished the case from purely disciplinary FIFA proceedings, holding that Huachipato had standing to be sued because the conditional registration ban was a pressure measure obtained at its request, and any annulment or modification by CAS would directly affect its ability to enforce its EUR 600,000 credit.

Can a club avoid an Article 12bis sanction by pleading financial hardship or a national economic crisis?

No. The Panel reaffirmed the well-established CAS principle that financial difficulties do not excuse failure to make required payments, citing CAS 2016/A/4402 and CAS 2006/A/1008. The Panel also noted that CAM had loaned the player for EUR 4,650,000 in May 2018 yet chose to prioritise other creditors over Huachipato.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.