TAS - CAS 2025-A-11835

Palais de Beaulieu Av. des Bergières 10 CH-1004 Lausanne Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 www.tas-cas.org

CAS 2025/A/11835 Club Atlético Independiente v. Club Red Bull Bragantino & FIFA

ARBITRAL AWARD

delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Mr Roberto Moreno Rodríguez Alcalá , Professor and Attorney -at-Law,

Asunción, Paraguay Co-arbitrator: Mr João Nogueira Da Rocha, Attorney-at-law in Lisbon, Portugal Co-arbitrator: Mr Kwadjo Adjepong OBE, Attorney-at law in London, United Kingdom

in the arbitration between

Club Atlético Independiente, Argentina Represented by Mr. Ariel Reck and Mr. Maximiliano Walker, Buenos Aires, Argentina

• Appellant –

Club Red Bull Bragantino, Brazil Represented by Mr. Pedro Henrique Mendonca and Mr. Guilherme Consul Charles, Attorneys-at-Law, São Paulo, Brazil

• First Respondent –

&

Fédération Internationale de Football Association, Switzerland Represented by Mr. Miguel Liétard Fernández-Palacios, Roberto Nájera Reyes and Cristina Pérez González, Zürich, Switzerland and Coral Gables, Florida, United States

• Second Respondent –

CAS 2025/A/11835

Pág. 2

I. PARTIES

1. Club Atlético Independiente (the “Appellant” or “Independiente”), is an Argentinian professional football club, affiliated to the Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (“AFA”), a

Pág. 2

I. PARTIES

1. Club Atlético Independiente (the “Appellant” or “Independiente”), is an Argentinian professional football club, affiliated to the Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (“AFA”), a member association of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

2. Club Red Bull Bragantino (the “First Respondent” or “Red Bull Bragantino”), is a Brazilian professional football club affiliated to the Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (“CBF”), which in turn is a member association of FIFA.

3. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (the “ Second Respondent” or “FIFA”), an association incorporated under Articles 60 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code , with headquarters in Zürich, Switzerland , is the international governing body of professional football.

4. Independiente and Red Bull Bragantino shall be jointly referred to as the “Clubs” where applicable; Red Bull Bragantino and FIFA shall be jointly referred to as the “Respondents” where applicable; and the Appellant and the Respondents shall jointly be referred to as the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The elements set out below constitute a summary of the main relevant facts of the case as established by the Panel , based on the Parties’ written and oral submissions and the evidence examined during these proceedings. It is made for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the dispute. Thus, additional facts or issues may be set out, where relevant, in the legal considerations contained in this award.

6. On 18 July 2024, the Clubs concluded a Loan Agreement with an option of a permanent transfer (the “Loan Agreement”) for the player Kevin Joel Lomónaco (the “Player”).

7. On 27 December 2024, the Clubs executed an agreement for the permanent transfer of the Player from Red Bull Bragantino to Independiente (the “Transfer Agreement”).

transfer (the “Loan Agreement”) for the player Kevin Joel Lomónaco (the “Player”).

7. On 27 December 2024, the Clubs executed an agreement for the permanent transfer of the Player from Red Bull Bragantino to Independiente (the “Transfer Agreement”).

8. As per Clause 5 of the Transfer Agreement, the Clubs agreed upon a fixed transfer fee of USD 3,000,000 (the “Fixed Transfer Fee”), to be paid in four different instalments:

(i) USD 750,000, payable on 30 June 2025 (the “First Instalment”); (ii) USD 750,000, payable on 31 January 2025 (the “Second Instalment”); (iii) USD 750,000, payable on 30 June 2025 (the “Third Instalment”); and (iv) USD 750,000, payable on 15 December 2025 (the “Fourth Instalment”).

9. In addition, Independiente and Bragantino agreed upon the following:

“7.2. If INDEPENDIENTE fails to timely pay any compensation agreed under [the] Agreement, INDEPENDIENTE shall be subject to the payment in favor of RBB of the amount due plus a fine equivalent to 10% (ten per cent) of the amount due andCAS 2025/A/11835 Pág. 3

INDEPENDIENTE shall be subject to payment of interest of 2% (two per cent) per month calculated from the date of default until actual payment.

7.2.1. In the event of INDEPENDIENTE continued default following written notification from RBB, all outstanding installments shall immediately become due and payable in full. INDEPENDIENTE shall be required to pay the entire Fixed Transfer Fee within ten ( 10) business days of the date of this Notice.”

10. On 21 July 2025, Red Bull Bragantino sent a notice putting Independiente in default (the “Default Notice”) for the First Instalment, with an additional penalty of 10% plus interest

business days of the date of this Notice.”

10. On 21 July 2025, Red Bull Bragantino sent a notice putting Independiente in default (the “Default Notice”) for the First Instalment, with an additional penalty of 10% plus interest of 2% per month, and further noting that , should the amount not be fully settled within 10 business days, all remaining instalments shall be automatically accelerated and become immediately due and payable. The Default Notice also observed that in such a case, a penalty of 10% and interest of 2% per month shall be applied to the total amount of the accelerated instalments.

11. On 20 August 2025, a fter exchanging messages (via WhatsApp), a representative from Independiente sent a message (also via WhatsApp) to a representative of Red Bull Bragantino, alleging that the club was making a partial payment of USD 400,000 ; the message included a screenshot of a printout copy of the relevant banking information (“SWIFT”) (included as Annexes 4 & 5 of the Appeal Brief). These allegations w ere however subsequently controverted by Red Bull Bragantino.

12. On 26 August 2025, Red Bull Bragantino lodged a claim against Independiente before the Players’ Status Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (“ PSC”) for outstanding remuneration in relation to the Transfer Agreement. Specifically, in its claim, Red Bull Bragantino asked for payment of the entire Fixed Transfer Fee (i.e., USD 3,000,000), plus the penalty of 10% and interest of 2% per month.

13. On 5 September 2025, pursuant to Article 20 of the FIFA Tribunal Procedural Rules, the FIFA General Secretariat proposed the Clubs to settle the matter (the “Proposal”):

“[…] The Respondent, Club Independiente, shall pay the Claimant, Red Bull BragantinoSP:

• USD 3,000,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 18 % interest p.a. as follows:

“[…] The Respondent, Club Independiente, shall pay the Claimant, Red Bull BragantinoSP:

• USD 3,000,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 18 % interest p.a. as follows:

• 18 % interest p.a. over the amount of USD 750,000 net as from 1 July 2025 until the date of effective payment; - 18% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,250,000 net as from 6 August 2025 until the date of effective payment;

• USD 300,000 net as contractual penalty.

Payment (including any applicable interest) shall be made within 45 days as from notification of the confirmation letter. […]”CAS 2025/A/11835 Pág. 4

14. In the Proposal, the FIFA General Secretariat informed the Clubs, inter alia, that (i) the deadline to accept or reject the Proposal was 22 September 2025, and (ii) that failure to respond within deadline would be deemed as an acceptance. Specifically, it stated that:

“In line with art. 20 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, the parties must either accept or reject the proposal by 22 September 2025. Such acceptance or rejection shall be filed exclusively via the procedure of reference within the Legal Portal (legalportal.fifa.com) in PDF format (cf., art. 10 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).

A party that fails to respond to a proposal is deemed to have accepted it.

If both parties accept the proposal, a confirmation letter shall be issued. The confirmation letter shall be considered a final and binding decision pursuant to the relevant FIFA Regulations. If the Claimant has paid an advance of costs in this matter, it is entitled to be reimbursed the full amount. The reimbursement shall be made to the same bank account from which the payment was made.

The Claimant may only accept or reject the proposal. They may not amend their claim.

reimbursed the full amount. The reimbursement shall be made to the same bank account from which the payment was made.

The Claimant may only accept or reject the proposal. They may not amend their claim.

If the Respondent rejects the proposal, it shall provide its response to the claim (including any exhibits duly translated, if need be into English, Spanish or French) in PDF format exclusively via the procedure of reference within the Legal Portal, within the same deadline cited above (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

Furthermore, in the event that an evidentiary request has been made, please be informed that such request is subject to art. 13 par. 5 and 6 of the Procedural Rules. […]”

15. On 23 September 2025, FIFA addressed the Clubs with the Confirmation Letter (the “Appealed Decision” or “Confirmation Letter”), which stated:

“The Respondent, Club Independiente, shall pay the Claimant, Red Bull Bragantino - SP:

• USD 3,000,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 18 % interest p.a. as follows: - 18 % interest p.a. over the amount of USD 750,000 net as from 1 July 2025 until the date of effective payment; - 18% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 2,250,000 net as from 6 August 2025 until the date of effective payment; - USD 300,000 net as contractual penalty.

Payment (including any applicable interest) shall be made within 45 days as from notification of the confirmation letter.”

16. The Appealed Decision was notified on 23 September 2025.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (“CAS”)

17. On 10 October 2025, the Independiente filed its Statement of Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”), pursuant to Article R48 et seq. of the Code of SportsIII. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (“CAS”)

17. On 10 October 2025, the Independiente filed its Statement of Appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”), pursuant to Article R48 et seq. of the Code of Sportsrelated Arbitration (the “Code”) (ed. 2025), against Red Bull Bragantino and FIFA, with respect to the Appealed Decision of 23 September 2025, requesting that the present caseCAS 2025/A/11835

Pág. 5

be submitted to a Sole Arbitrator, and that the language of the proceedings be Spanish or, in the alternative, the implementation of a bilingual procedure (English – Spanish).

18. On 17 October 2025, FIFA stated that i t agreed that the case be submitted to a Sole Arbitrator but expressed its disagreement with Spanish being the language of the proceedings, on the grounds that the Appealed Decision was issued in English.

19. On 20 October 2025, Red Bull Bragantino requested that the present proceedings be submitted to a Panel of 3 arbitrators and recalled that Clause 14 of the Transfer Agreement provides that the language used shall be English and requested an expedited procedure.

20. On the same date, the CAS Court Office, pursuant to Article R29 of the Code, informed the Parties that English will be the language of this procedure.

21. On 21 October 2025, FIFA r ejected the First Respondent’s request for an expedited procedure, as did the Appellant on 22 October 2025.

22. On 22 October 2025 , the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the present arbitration proceedings would not be conducted as an expedited procedure.

23. On 3 November 2025, the Appellant nominated Mr. João Nogueira da Rocha, from Portugal, as arbitrator.

24. On 7 November 2025, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief, in accordance with Article

23. On 3 November 2025, the Appellant nominated Mr. João Nogueira da Rocha, from Portugal, as arbitrator.

24. On 7 November 2025, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief, in accordance with Article R51 of the Code.

25. On 10 November 2025, Red Bull Bragantino and FIFA nominated Mr. Kwadjo Adjepong OBE, from the United Kingdom, as arbitrator.

26. On 19 December 2025, the CAS Court Office, pursuant to Article R54 of the Code and on behalf of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, enclosed a “Notice of Formation of the Panel”, and informed the Parties that the Panel appointed to decide

the case had been constituted as follows:

President: Mr. Roberto Moreno, Attorney-at-Law and Professor in Asunción, Paraguay Arbitrators: Mr. João Nogueira Da Rocha, Attorney-at-law in Lisbon, Portugal Mr. Kwadjo Adjepong OBE, Attorney-at law in London, United Kingdom

27. On 7 January 2026, FIFA submitted its Answer to the Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R55 of the Code.

28. On 26 January 2026 , First Respondent submitted its Answer to the Appeal Brief, in accordance with Article R55 of the Code.

29. On 2 March 2026 , after duly hearing the Parties, the CAS Court Office informed that, pursuant to Article R57 of the Code, in view of the Parties’ availabilities, the Panel hadCAS 2025/A/11835

Pág. 6

decided to hold a hearing on this matter, to be held by videoconference (via Webex) on 17 April 2026 at 15h00 (Swiss time).

30. On 20 March 2026, the CAS Court Office enclosed the Order of Procedure.

decided to hold a hearing on this matter, to be held by videoconference (via Webex) on 17 April 2026 at 15h00 (Swiss time).

30. On 20 March 2026, the CAS Court Office enclosed the Order of Procedure.

31. On 23 March 2026, FIFA and on 27 March 2026, the Appellant and the First Respondent, respectively, returned the Order of Procedure duly signed.

32. On 17 April 2026 at 15h00 (Swiss time) , the hearing was held by videoconference (via Webex), the date and organization of which had been agreed upon between the CAS Court Office and the Parties, with the attendance, in addition to the Panel, of the CAS Head of Arbitration, Antonio de Quesada, as well as the following persons:

For Independiente:

• Ariel Reck; Attorney.
• Guido Jamer; Attorney.

For Red Bull Bragantino:

• Pedro Henrique Mendonca; Attorney
• Guilherme Consul Charles; Attorney
• Beatriz Kajihara; Attorney

For FIFA:

• Roberto Nájera Reyes, Head of Litigation;
• Cristina Pérez González, Senior Legal Counsel.

33. During the hearing, the Parties were given unrestricted opportunity to present their arguments, and all submissions and arguments were carefully considered by the Panel, including the statements of the Parties and the witnesses. When asked at the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objection to the constitution of the Panel, and at the conclusion of the hearing, they confirmed that they had no objection to either the conduct of the hearing or the proceedings as a whole, stating that their right to be heard, to equal treatment, and to present their case had been fully respected.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES1

34. The Appellant's submission s in its Appeal Brief can be summarized according to the following lines of factual and legal argumentation:

heard, to equal treatment, and to present their case had been fully respected.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES1

34. The Appellant's submission s in its Appeal Brief can be summarized according to the following lines of factual and legal argumentation: • The Appellant submitted that the appeal should be upheld and that the Appealed Decision be partially revoked with respect to the calculation of the outstanding amounts, interest and penalties arising from the Transfer Agreement concluded between the partie s for the permanent transfer of the Player. The Appellant did not dispute the principal debt as such,

1 Whilst the Panel has carefully considered all facts, arguments, and evidence submitted by the Parties, their respective submissions have been duly summarized in this section of the award.CAS 2025/A/11835 Pág. 7

provided that the First Respondent acknowledged the alleged partial payment of USD 400,000 made on 20 August 2025. • The Appellant explained that the transfer relationship originated from a prior Loan Agreement containing an option to purchase the player for USD 3,000,000 or USD 3,500,000 depending on the exercise date, payable in three instalments and without an acceleration clause. According to the Appellant, the definitive Transfer Agreement ultimately signed maintained the transfer fee at USD 3,000,000 but amended the payment structure into four instalments of USD 750,000 each, while introducing an acceleration clause in the event of persistent default following written notice. • The Appellant submitted that, after the First Instalment fell due, discussions took place between representatives of both clubs in light of restrictions imposed by the Argentine Central Bank allegedly affecting the transfer of funds abroad. According to the Appellant, it requested a short extension of time to make payment, as it expected incoming international funds that would facilitate payment without requiring central bank approval. The Appellant maintained that communications took place between Fernando Sciacaluga, on behalf of Independiente, and Felipe Solleiro, on behalf of Red Bull Bragantino. • Independiente further submitted that, on 21 July 2025, the First Respondent sent a notice

The Appellant maintained that communications took place between Fernando Sciacaluga, on behalf of Independiente, and Felipe Solleiro, on behalf of Red Bull Bragantino. • Independiente further submitted that, on 21 July 2025, the First Respondent sent a notice granting 10 days to pay the outstanding instalment together with the contractual penalty and interest. It maintained that, on 20 August 2025, it transferred USD 400,000 as a partial payment using international funds received by the club and informed the First Respondent accordingly. This payment was delayed due to the First Respondent’s failure to issue an invoice, which allegedly prevented the Argentine Central Bank from authori zing the transfer. The Appellant argued that, given the ongoing communications and the absence of objection to the partial payment, it believed in good faith that an agreement had been reached to defer the remaining balance of the first instalment. • The Appellant also argued that the First Respondent nevertheless initiated proceedings before FIFA and failed to acknowledge the alleged partial payment of USD 400,000, resulting in a FIFA Proposal that, in its view, did not reflect the actual outstanding debt. The Appellant submitted that the payment was made before FIFA issued its Proposal and that the First Respondent had sufficient time to inform FIFA of such payment but failed to do so. It further maintained that no special contractual formalities were required for notification of payment. On this basis, the Appellant argued that the outstanding principal should be reduced from USD 3,000,000 to USD 2,600,000. • As to the merits, the Appellant submitted that FIFA and the First Respondent incorrectly applied the contractual penalty and interest provisions to the entirety of the accelerated debt. It argued that Clauses 7.2 and 7.2.1 of the Transfer Agreement clearly distinguished between “amounts due” and “accelerated amounts”, with the 10% penalty and the agreed interest rate applying only to the instalment already due and not to future instalments rendered payable by operation of the acceleration clause. The Appell ant maintained that

between “amounts due” and “accelerated amounts”, with the 10% penalty and the agreed interest rate applying only to the instalment already due and not to future instalments rendered payable by operation of the acceleration clause. The Appell ant maintained that the wording of the clauses admitted no other interpretation and relied on CAS jurisprudence concerning contractual interpretation under Swiss law, emphasizing the primacy of the literal meaning of contractual terms. It further invoked the principle of contra proferentem, arguing that any ambiguity should be interpreted against the drafter of the agreement. • The Appellant also challenged the applicable interest rate, arguing that the 18% annual rate confirmed by FIFA exceeded the maximum interest accepted under Swiss law and CASCAS 2025/A/11835 Pág. 8

jurisprudence and should be reduced to 17% per annum. It submitted that such rate could only apply to the overdue First Instalment from 1 July 2025 until 20 August 2025 and thereafter over the outstanding balance of USD 350,000 following the partial payment. As to the accelerated amounts, the Appellant contended that no contractual penalty or special interest rate applied and that only the default statutory rate of 5% p.a. under Articles 73 and 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (the “SCO”) should be imposed. • In addition, the Appellant argued that the cumulative application of the acceleration clause together with an 18% annual interest rate constituted an excessive and disproportionate sanction contrary to Swiss law and public policy. According to the Appellan t, the acceleration of future instalments represented a form of “negative interest” that could not be cumulatively applied with a high contractual interest rate without resulting in usurious consequences. The Appellant submitted that the principle of pacta sunt servanda was limited by proportionality and reasonableness under Swiss law and referred to CAS jurisprudence concerning excessive penalties and the reduction of disproportionate contractual clauses. It further argued that the First Respondent had not suffered dama ge warranting such cumulative sanctions, particularly considering the alleged partial payment

limited by proportionality and reasonableness under Swiss law and referred to CAS jurisprudence concerning excessive penalties and the reduction of disproportionate contractual clauses. It further argued that the First Respondent had not suffered dama ge warranting such cumulative sanctions, particularly considering the alleged partial payment and the fact that subsequent instalments were not yet due at the time of acceleration. • In conclusion, the Appellant submitted that the First Respondent improperly sought penalties and interest over the entire transfer fee, failed to acknowledge the alleged partial payment of USD 400,000, and advanced an incorrect interpretation of the Transf er Agreement. Accordingly, the Appellant requested that the Panel partially revoke the Appealed Decision and determine that the correct amounts due were: (i) USD 2,600,000 as principal; (ii) a 10% penalty only over the first instalment, amounting to USD 75,000; (iii) interest at 17% per annum over USD 750,000 from 1 July 2025 until 20 August 2025 and over USD 350,000 thereafter; and (iv) interest at 5% per an num over the accelerated amount of USD 2,250,000 from 6 August 2025.

35. For its part, the First Respondent in its response makes the following arguments:

• Red Bull Bragantino submitted that the appeal should be dismissed in its entirety, primarily on procedural grounds and, subsidiarily, on the merits. It submitted that, after the Appellant exercised the purchase option contained in the prior Loan Agreement, the payment schedule had been amended at the Appellant’s request in order to provide more favorable payment conditions, postponing the first instalment and extending the payment schedule, and that the Appellant had the opportunity to review and negotiate the wording of the Transfer Agreement and had expressly agreed to its terms.

• The Appellant failed to pay the First Instalment due on 30 June 2025. Despite several amicable efforts to secure payment, including informal communications and a written notice sent on 21 July 2025, the Appellant neither complied with its payment obligations nor

• The Appellant failed to pay the First Instalment due on 30 June 2025. Despite several amicable efforts to secure payment, including informal communications and a written notice sent on 21 July 2025, the Appellant neither complied with its payment obligations nor responded to the notice. It further maintained that, after the A ppellant remained in default, the acceleration clause was triggered, rendering the remaining instalments immediately due and payable, together with contractual interest and penalties.

• The First Respondent further submitted that, following the Appellant’s failure to comply with its obligations, it filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal. FIFA’s General Secretariat issued a proposal pursuant to Article 20 of the FIFA Procedural Ru les, granting the Appellant the opportunity to reject it and submit a response, but the Appellant failed to do so. Consequently, FIFA issued a Confirmation Letter on 23 September 2025, confirmingCAS 2025/A/11835

Pág. 9

that the proposal had become final and binding and ordering the Appellant to pay the outstanding compensation, contractual penalty and interest.

• As a preliminary matter, the First Respondent argued that the Appellant was precluded from challenging the substance of FIFA’s Proposal before CAS. Article 20 of the FIFA Procedural Rules had been correctly applied, that the dispute did not involve prima facie complex factual or legal issues, and that FIFA was therefore entitled to issue a proposal capable of becoming final and binding in the absence of a response. In this respect, the First Respondent relied on several CAS precedents and submitted that the Appe llant’s silence amounted to tacit acceptance of the proposal, akin to a settlement agreement, thereby preventing both the Appellant and the Panel from revisiting the merits of the dispute.

• In support of the foregoing, it further contended that the Appellant had been duly notified of FIFA’s Proposal through the FIFA Legal Portal, had acknowledged awareness of the FIFA proceedings, and failed to substantiate any alleged technical impediment preventing access

• In support of the foregoing, it further contended that the Appellant had been duly notified of FIFA’s Proposal through the FIFA Legal Portal, had acknowledged awareness of the FIFA proceedings, and failed to substantiate any alleged technical impediment preventing access to the portal. It also submitted that any expectation of an amicable settlement could not justify the Appellant’s failure to respond within the prescribed deadline.

• Subsidiarily, should the Panel decide to examine the merits, the First Respondent submitted that the Confirmation Letter should be fully upheld. It argued that the accelerated amounts did not constitute a penalty or negative interest but merely represented the early maturity of amounts already contractually due, and that the acceleration clause could validly operate together with contractual penalties and interest. It further maintained that the 18% interest rate confirmed by FIFA was permissible under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence.

• The First Respondent additionally submitted that the interpretation of Clauses 7.2 and 7.2.1 of the Transfer Agreement necessarily led to the conclusion that accelerated instalments formed part of the “amount due” and were subject to both the contractual penalty and interest.

It rejected the Appellant’s reliance on the principle of contra proferentem, arguing that the relevant contractual provisions were neither ambiguous nor incapable of determination.

• Furthermore, the First Respondent argued that it had no contractual obligation to issue an invoice as a condition precedent to payment of the transfer fee, maintaining that the invoicing requirement invoked by the Appellant applied only to the sell-on fee mechanism. According to the First Respondent, the Appellant was fully aware of both the amount due and the relevant bank details and had never requested an invoice before the payment deadline.

• With regard to the alleged partial payment of USD 400,000, the First Respondent submitted that it had not identified effective receipt of such amount prior to filing the FIFA claim, that the alleged payment remained conditional and could be cancelled, and that no agreement regarding partial payment had ever been reached between the parties. It further denied that any settlement negotiations had taken place.

that it had not identified effective receipt of such amount prior to filing the FIFA claim, that the alleged payment remained conditional and could be cancelled, and that no agreement regarding partial payment had ever been reached between the parties. It further denied that any settlement negotiations had taken place.

• Finally, the First Respondent invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda, submitting that the Appellant was bound to comply with the obligations freely assumed under the Transfer Agreement and that contractual stability should be upheld.CAS 2025/A/11835

Pág. 10

36. Lastly, in its Answer, FIFA made the following legal and factual observations:

• FIFA submitted that the appeal should be rejected in its entirety and that the Appealed Decision be confirmed, arguing that the Appellant was precluded from challenging the substance of FIFA’s Proposal due to its failure to object within the prescribed deadline.

• Pursuant to Article 20 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal, the FIFA General Secretariat issued a proposal on 5 September 2025 in order to settle the dispute, setting a deadline until 22 September 2025 for the parties to either accept or reject it. FIFA emphasized that the Proposal expressly warned the parties that a failure to respond within the deadline would be deemed an acceptance and th at, if accepted, a confirmation letter would be issued and considered a final and binding decision. According to FIFA, the Appellant failed to reject the Proposal or file any response