FIFA Disciplinary Code practice questions

All 45 questions in set A, from the September 2025 edition, with the answers and explanations shown.

To work through them one at a time, with scoring, use the interactive version. The quiz bank holds all 1,215 questions across the nine documents. Every article in this regulation is listed on the article index.

1. Teodor Albulescu, a Romanian football agent licensed by FIFA, is alleged to have breached the FIFA Football Agent Regulations in a transfer he handled in November 2025. In March 2026 he lets his licence lapse and leaves football. When the secretariat of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings against him in May 2026, he replies that he is no longer a licensed agent and that FIFA therefore has no power over him. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The proceedings will be abandoned because Teodor let his licence lapse, as article 4(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code looks to his status on the day proceedings are opened.
  2. Teodor was subject to the Code in November 2025, as article 3(f) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lists football agents licensed by FIFA among the persons subject to it. (Articles 3 and 4(3), study pack pp. 55-56) Correct
  3. Teodor can no longer be sanctioned, as article 3 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers football agents while they hold a FIFA licence, and his licence has lapsed.
  4. The proceedings will not be abandoned merely because Teodor let his licence lapse, as article 4(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code looks to his status on the day of the alleged offence. (Articles 3 and 4(3), study pack pp. 55-56) Correct

Article 3(f) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lists football agents licensed by FIFA among the persons subject to the Code, and Teodor held his licence when the alleged breach occurred in November 2025. Article 4(3) provides that proceedings against someone who was under FIFA’s jurisdiction on the day of the alleged offence shall not be abandoned by the FIFA judicial bodies solely because that person is no longer under FIFA’s jurisdiction. The statements that the proceedings will be abandoned, and that article 3 reaches only agents who currently hold a licence, look to the wrong date: the Code asks whether he was subject to it on the day of the offence, not on the day proceedings open.

2. Following a complaint by Tervola FC, a Finnish club, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee finds that Wanjiru Kamande, a Kenyan football agent licensed by FIFA who works on her own account rather than through a company, breached the FIFA Football Agent Regulations when she negotiated a player’s transfer to the club. Before deciding on the sanction, the committee reviews which disciplinary measures it may impose on her. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The committee may fine Wanjiru, as article 6(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes a fine available against natural and legal persons alike. (Articles 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3), study pack p. 56) Correct
  2. The committee may ban Wanjiru from registering new players, as article 6(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes that measure available against natural and legal persons alike.
  3. The committee may suspend or withdraw Wanjiru’s football agent licence, as article 6(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that measure for natural persons. (Articles 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3), study pack p. 56) Correct
  4. The committee may ban Wanjiru from taking part in any football-related activity, as article 6(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that measure for natural persons. (Articles 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3), study pack p. 56) Correct

Article 6(1)(c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lists a fine among the measures that may be imposed on natural and legal persons, so Wanjiru may be fined. Article 6(2) lists the measures for natural persons only, among them a ban on taking part in any football-related activity (6(2)(c)) and the suspension or withdrawal of a football agent licence (6(2)(e)), so both are open to the committee. A ban on registering new players appears in article 6(3)(a), among the measures for legal persons only, and not in article 6(1), so it cannot be imposed on Wanjiru as an individual.

3. Renji Okabayashi, a Japanese midfielder at Estrela do Vale FC, a Portuguese club, is one caution away from a one-match suspension in a competition governed by the FIFA Disciplinary Code. His agent, Caio Brandão Lessa, a Brazilian football agent, has agreed Renji’s transfer to a new club and tells him to get booked on purpose in a match his team is already winning, so that he serves the suspension before he leaves. Renji kicks the ball away after the whistle and is cautioned, and their messages later reach the disciplinary body. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Renji may be suspended for at least one match, as article 14(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers deliberately receiving a caution in order to be suspended for an upcoming match. (Articles 8(3) and 14(1), study pack pp. 58-62) Correct
  2. Caio cannot be sanctioned, as article 14(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies to players and officials, and an agent who took no part in the match falls outside it.
  3. Caio may be sanctioned as an instigator, as article 8(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers anyone who induces someone else to commit an infringement. (Articles 8(3) and 14(1), study pack pp. 58-62) Correct
  4. Renji escapes sanction because he followed his agent’s instructions, as article 8(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code holds the instigator answerable in place of the person who acts.

Article 14(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides a suspension of at least one match for deliberately receiving a yellow or red card, including in order to be suspended for an upcoming match or to have a clean record, so Renji may be sanctioned. Article 8(3) adds that anyone who takes part in an infringement or induces someone to commit one, as instigator or accomplice, may also be sanctioned, so Caio is exposed even though he did not play and article 14(1) itself names players and officials. The word ‘also’ means the instigator’s liability is added to the player’s, not substituted for it, so Renji cannot shelter behind his agent’s instructions.

4. Nesrin Karadağlı, a Turkish football agent, handled the transfer of an adult Swedish defender from a club in Türkiye to a club in Sweden. Talks between the clubs began in August, and the following March Nesrin used a falsified document to complete the deal. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings against her four years and six months after she used the document, and she argues that the case is time-barred. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The case is time-barred, as article 10(1)(c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows four years to prosecute an offence of this kind.
  2. The case is not time-barred, as article 10(1)(c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows five years to prosecute an offence of this kind. (Articles 10(1) and 10(2), study pack p. 58) Correct
  3. The case is not time-barred, as article 10(1)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows ten years to prosecute any offence connected with a player’s transfer.
  4. The case is time-barred, as under article 10(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code the period ran from the day the transfer talks began, more than five years earlier.

Using a falsified document in the transfer of an adult player is neither a match infringement nor one of the offences listed in article 10(1)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which reaches international transfers involving minors, not every international transfer, so the five-year period in article 10(1)(c) applies. Under article 10(2)(a) that period runs from the day the perpetrator committed the infringement, here the day Nesrin used the document, so proceedings opened four and a half years later are in time. The Code has no four-year period, and the start of the talks is irrelevant because no infringement was committed until the document was used.

5. Hélène Maréchal-Diouf, a French football agent, was owed a service fee by Szentvár FC, a Hungarian club, which fell due on 1 July 2025 and was never paid. She won her claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal, whose decision ordering the club to pay became final and binding on 4 February 2026 after no appeal was lodged with CAS. The club still does not pay, and Hélène asks from which day the limitation period for prosecuting its failure to respect the decision runs. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The period runs from 1 July 2025, as article 10(2)(a) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code starts it on the day the club first failed to pay the fee.
  2. The period runs from the day the Football Tribunal notified its decision, as article 10(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code starts it when the club learned of its duty to pay.
  3. The period runs from the day Hélène asks FIFA to open disciplinary proceedings, as article 10(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code starts it with the creditor’s request.
  4. The period runs from 4 February 2026, as article 10(2)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code starts it on the day the Football Tribunal decision became final and binding. (Article 10(2), study pack p. 58) Correct

Article 10(2)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that the limitation period runs from the day on which the decision of the Football Tribunal or CAS becomes final and binding, so for the club’s failure to respect the decision it runs from 4 February 2026. The date the fee fell due concerns the underlying debt, not the disciplinary offence of disregarding the decision, so article 10(2)(a) does not fix the start. Neither the notification of the decision nor the creditor’s request to open proceedings starts the period.

6. FIFA’s administration is investigating payments made in a transfer handled by Kasper Mørch-Ellingsen, a Norwegian football agent licensed by FIFA. Over six weeks it writes to him three times asking for his representation agreement with the player and the invoices he issued. Kasper does not reply, telling a colleague that no disciplinary proceedings have been opened against him and that it is for FIFA to prove any breach. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Kasper may ignore the requests for now, as the duty in article 12 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code arises once disciplinary proceedings have been opened, which has not yet happened.
  2. Kasper must answer the requests, as article 12(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires persons subject to it to comply with requests for information from the FIFA administration. (Articles 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4), study pack p. 59) Correct
  3. Kasper’s failure to provide the documents may itself be sanctioned, as article 12(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows sanctions for any breach of the duty to collaborate. (Articles 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4), study pack p. 59) Correct
  4. Kasper need hand over just the documents that clear him, as article 12(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code asks persons subject to it to help clarify the facts in their own favour.

Article 12(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires the parties or the persons subject to the Code to collaborate in establishing the facts and, in particular, to comply with requests for information from a FIFA body or the FIFA administration, and article 12(3) requires them to provide any evidence requested. The duty therefore binds Kasper as a licensed agent before any proceedings are opened, and it covers the evidence requested, not only what helps him. Under article 12(4), any breach of the article may lead to sanctions, so his silence can itself be punished.

7. Ignacy Porębski-Lis, a Polish football agent, spends weeks negotiating his client’s move to Björkvik IF, a Swedish club, before the club’s sporting director, Freja Ahlqvist, pulls out on deadline day. That evening Ignacy posts on his public social media account that Freja is ‘a spineless liar’ and that the club is ‘run by clowns’. The post is widely shared, and the club reports it to FIFA. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Ignacy may face disciplinary measures, as article 13(2)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers insulting a natural or legal person in any way, including by offensive language. (Article 13(2), study pack p. 61) Correct
  2. Ignacy may not face disciplinary measures, as article 13(2)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers insulting a natural or legal person at a match or in a stadium.
  3. The remark about Freja may be sanctioned but the remark about the club may not, as article 13(2)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code protects individuals from insults but not clubs.
  4. Ignacy’s post can be pursued solely on a complaint by Freja herself, as the FIFA Disciplinary Code leaves the protection of a person’s honour to that person’s own initiative.

Article 13(2)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that anyone who insults a natural or legal person in any way, especially by using offensive gestures, signs or language, may be subject to disciplinary measures. The provision is not confined to matches or stadiums, so a public social media post is covered, and it protects legal persons such as the club as well as natural persons such as Freja. Nothing in the Code makes proceedings depend on a complaint by the person insulted.

8. In a FIFA Club World Cup quarter-final, three players of Quebrada Honda CD, a Chilean club, clash with the match officials. Anselmo Quilodrán mockingly applauds the referee in his face after a decision, Felipe Ancamil tells the assistant referee that he will ‘find him after the match’, and Bruno Etcheverry-Paz spits at the fourth official. Their agent, Mireya Toloza, a Chilean football agent, is negotiating moves for two of them and wants to know the minimum suspensions. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Bruno’s minimum suspension is three matches or an appropriate period of time, as article 14(1)(i) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers assault, including spitting, of the kind he committed.
  2. Anselmo’s minimum suspension is one match or an appropriate period of time, as article 14(1)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers unsporting behaviour towards any person at the match.
  3. Felipe’s minimum suspension is ten matches or an appropriate period of time, as article 14(1)(k) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers intimidating or threatening a match official. (Article 14(1), study pack p. 62) Correct
  4. Bruno’s minimum suspension is 15 matches or an appropriate period of time, as article 14(1)(l) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers assaulting a match official, including spitting. (Article 14(1), study pack p. 62) Correct

Article 14(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code scales the minimum suspension to the conduct. Threatening the assistant referee falls under article 14(1)(k), at least ten matches or an appropriate period, and spitting at the fourth official is assault on a match official under article 14(1)(l), at least 15 matches or an appropriate period. Article 14(1)(i), at least three matches, covers assault on an opponent or a person other than a match official, so it does not fit Bruno. Mocking the referee is unsporting behaviour towards a match official under article 14(1)(j), at least four matches; article 14(1)(b), at least one match, covers only opponents and persons other than match officials.

9. Tancredi Olivo, an Italian forward at Pievesanta Calcio, an Italian club, must serve a three-match suspension under the FIFA Disciplinary Code in his club’s official matches. His club plays on 7 February, when he is injured and left off the team sheet; its match of 14 February is postponed because of a frozen pitch; and it then plays on 21 and 28 February and 7 March. A club that wants to sign him in the summer asks his agent when he can next play. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The match on 7 February counts towards the suspension even though Tancredi was left off the team sheet, as article 14(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires only that his team played it. (Article 14(3), study pack p. 62) Correct
  2. The postponed match does not count, as article 14(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code counts only matches actually played by the team, so Tancredi can next play on 7 March. (Article 14(3), study pack p. 62) Correct
  3. The postponed match counts on its original date, as article 14(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code counts every fixture scheduled for the team, so Tancredi can next play on 28 February.
  4. The match on 7 February does not count towards the suspension because Tancredi was left off the team sheet, as article 14(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires that he is named for it.

Article 14(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that, where a suspension is served in matches, only those actually played by the team count, and that the player need not be included on the team sheet for a match to count. The 7 February match therefore counts although Tancredi was injured and not named, while the postponed 14 February fixture does not count until it is played. The three matches are those of 7, 21 and 28 February, so he can next play on 7 March; counting the postponed fixture, or discounting the match he missed through injury, misreads article 14(3).

10. Jörg Wendelin Aust, a German football agent licensed by FIFA, visits the training ground of FC Rheinfurt, a German club, to watch a trialist. When the assistant coach, a Ghanaian national, asks him to leave the side of the pitch, Jörg mocks his accent and nationality with contemptuous remarks in front of the squad and staff. Disciplinary proceedings are opened against Jörg. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Jörg falls outside article 15 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, as the provision reaches players and officials who discriminate during a match, not agents at a training ground.
  2. Jörg faces a suspension of at least five matches or a specific period, as article 15(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets that minimum for discriminatory words by any person.
  3. Jörg faces a suspension of at least ten matches or a specific period, or another appropriate measure, as article 15(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies to any person. (Article 15(1), study pack p. 63) Correct
  4. Jörg may be fined but not suspended, as article 15(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code reserves suspensions for players and officials, and he holds no role at the club.

Article 15(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies to any person who offends the dignity or integrity of a person through contemptuous, discriminatory or derogatory words or actions on account of, among other grounds, nationality, and it is confined neither to matches nor to players and officials. The sanction is a suspension lasting at least ten matches or a specific period, or any other appropriate disciplinary measure, so a five-match minimum is wrong and a suspension for a specific period is open against Jörg as a licensed agent.

11. During a FIFA Women’s Champions Cup match, Maëlle Ondoua, a Cameroonian forward playing for a French club, is racially abused by an opponent. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings against the opponent. Maëlle’s agent, Livia Santangelo, an Italian football agent, asks what part Maëlle can play in the case even though she is not the accused. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Maëlle may be invited by the Disciplinary Committee to make an oral or written victim impact statement, under article 15(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 15(8) and 53(7), study pack pp. 63-87) Correct
  2. Maëlle may request the motivated decision, as article 15(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code gives that right to a victim of potential discriminatory behaviour. (Articles 15(8) and 53(7), study pack pp. 63-87) Correct
  3. Maëlle may require the Disciplinary Committee to hold its hearing in public, as article 15(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code gives that right to a victim of discrimination.
  4. Maëlle may lodge an appeal and act as a party in the appeal proceedings, as article 15(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a victim of discriminatory behaviour to do so. (Articles 15(8) and 53(7), study pack pp. 63-87) Correct

Article 15(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that persons bound by the Code who have been the victim of potential discriminatory behaviour may be invited to make an oral or written victim impact statement, and have the right to request the motivated decision, to lodge an appeal and to act as a party in the disciplinary appeal proceedings. It gives the victim no right to a public hearing: under article 53(7), hearings of the FIFA judicial bodies are not open to the public, save in the anti-doping and match manipulation cases that paragraph mentions.

12. Fjellvik FK, a Norwegian club, hosts a friendly against a Mexican club that falls under FIFA’s jurisdiction. Before kick-off, a group of people with no connection to either club forces a side gate and runs onto the pitch, delaying the match. In the disciplinary proceedings, Fjellvik shows that it assessed the risk, followed every safety rule, briefed the police and staffed the gate as planned. Separately, some of Fjellvik’s own supporters lit fireworks in the second half. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Fjellvik is liable for the gate incident whatever its care, as article 17(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes a host club answerable for every incident in and around the stadium.
  2. Fjellvik escapes liability for the gate incident only if the police accept responsibility for it, as article 17(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code shifts liability to the local authorities.
  3. Fjellvik escapes liability for the gate incident and the fireworks alike, as article 17(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code excuses a host club that proves it was not negligent in any way.
  4. Fjellvik escapes liability for the gate incident, as article 17(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code excuses a host club that proves it was not negligent in any way in organising the match. (Article 17(1), study pack p. 66) Correct

Article 17(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes host clubs responsible for order and security in and around the stadium and liable for incidents of any kind, unless they prove that they were not negligent in any way in organising the match. Fjellvik has proved that for the gate incident, so it escapes liability for it, and the police’s position is not decisive. The same paragraph applies without prejudice to a club’s responsibility for the inappropriate behaviour of its own supporters, so proof of careful organisation does not clear Fjellvik for the fireworks its supporters lit.

13. In a FIFA Club World Cup group match, the referee sends off a midfielder of Ciervos Azules FC, a Paraguayan club, after a second caution. The club lodges a protest in time and pays the fee. It argues, first, that the midfielder’s first caution was given for a foul committed by a teammate whom the referee mistook for him and, second, that video shows the tackle that led to the second caution was fair. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The complaint about the second caution is admissible, as article 18(4)(c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a protest against an obvious error by the referee shown on video.
  2. The complaint about the first caution is admissible, as article 9(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a protest against a caution where the referee mistook the player’s identity. (Articles 9(3) and 18(4), study pack pp. 58-67) Correct
  3. Neither complaint is admissible, as article 9(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes every decision the referee takes on the field of play final and beyond review.
  4. Both complaints are admissible, as article 9(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets the judicial bodies review the disciplinary consequences of any referee decision.

Article 9(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code admits a protest against a caution, or a sending-off after two cautions, only if the referee’s error was to mistake the identity of the player, and article 18(4)(c) confines protests about referee errors to the disciplinary consequences of an obvious error as defined in article 9. The complaint that the midfielder was booked for his teammate’s foul fits that exception, so it is admissible. The complaint that the second tackle was fair challenges the referee’s judgement, which article 9(1) makes final, so video does not make it admissible, and article 9(2) opens review only for obvious errors, not for any decision.

14. Draa Valley SC, a Moroccan club, fields Seif Galal-Rostom in a FIFA Intercontinental Cup match, although his registration for the competition had not been completed under its regulations. The opposing club, Deportivo Talamanca, a Costa Rican club, lodges a protest, and the Disciplinary Committee declares Seif ineligible. Seif’s agent asks what follows for the club and for his client, and whether the case could have been opened without the protest. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Draa Valley forfeits the match and pays a fine of at least CHF 6,000, and Seif may also be sanctioned, under article 19(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 19(2) and 19(3), study pack p. 67) Correct
  2. Draa Valley forfeits the match and pays a fine of at least CHF 6,000, but Seif cannot be sanctioned, as article 19(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code punishes the team alone.
  3. The Disciplinary Committee could not have opened the case without the protest, as article 19 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires a protest before it may act.
  4. The Disciplinary Committee could have opened the case without the protest, as article 19(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows it to act ex officio. (Articles 19(2) and 19(3), study pack p. 67) Correct

Article 19(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that, where a fielded player is declared ineligible following a protest, his team is sanctioned by forfeiting the match and paying a minimum fine of CHF 6,000, and the player may also be sanctioned, so the statement that Seif cannot be sanctioned misreads the paragraph. Article 19(3) allows the Disciplinary Committee to act ex officio, so a protest is one way into such a case but not a precondition for it.

15. Wiktor Żmudziński, a Polish football agent, is approached in a hotel bar by a man who offers him EUR 50,000 if Wiktor’s client, a goalkeeper, concedes at least three goals in a FIFA competition match. Wiktor refuses at once, never speaks to the man again and tells no one. Months later police arrest a betting syndicate, and the man’s messages reveal the approach. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Wiktor committed no offence, as article 20 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sanctions those who manipulate a match or conspire or attempt to do so, and he refused the offer.
  2. Wiktor breached his duty to report and faces a ban of at least five years and a fine of at least CHF 100,000, as article 20(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides.
  3. Wiktor breached article 20(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code by not reporting the approach, and faces a ban of at least two years and a fine of at least CHF 15,000. (Article 20(3), study pack p. 68) Correct
  4. Wiktor would have met his duty by telling his client’s club, as article 20(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code is satisfied by a report to someone in authority at the club.

Article 20(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires persons bound by the Code to report immediately and voluntarily to the secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee any approach connected with the possible manipulation of a match, and sanctions a breach with a ban of at least two years on taking part in any football-related activity and a fine of at least CHF 15,000. Refusing the offer does not discharge the duty, and telling the club is not a report to the secretariat. The minimum five-year ban and CHF 100,000 fine in article 20(1) apply to manipulation itself, not to a failure to report.

16. Inês Barroqueiro, a Portuguese football agent, wants to show Vila Serrana FC, a Portuguese club, that she represents Tiago Mourisca, a 22-year-old winger. Tiago has not signed her representation agreement, so her assistant copies his signature onto it from another document. Inês knows this and hands the agreement to the club’s sporting director during negotiations. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Inês cannot be sanctioned under article 22(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, because she did not falsify the signature herself.
  2. Inês may be sanctioned under article 22(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code for using the falsified document, even though she did not falsify the signature herself. (Article 22(1), study pack p. 72) Correct
  3. The sanction under article 22(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code is a fine and a ban of at least six matches or for a period of no less than 12 months. (Article 22(1), study pack p. 72) Correct
  4. The sanction under article 22(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code is a fine and a ban of at least six months, with no minimum number of matches.

Article 22(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sanctions anyone who, in football-related activities, forges a document, falsifies an authentic document or uses a forged or falsified document. Inês used an agreement she knew bore a copied signature, so she is caught although her assistant made the copy. The sanction is a fine and a ban of at least six matches or for a specific period of no less than 12 months; a six-month minimum is not in the provision.

17. The FIFA Football Tribunal orders Deportivo Cordillera Blanca, a Peruvian club, to pay EUR 180,000 to Aurelio Benavente-Soto, a Peruvian football agent. The decision becomes final and binding, but the club pays nothing. At Aurelio’s request, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings for failure to respect the decision, and Aurelio asks what the club faces at this first stage. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The club may be fined now for failing to comply with the decision, as article 21(1)(a) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides. (Article 21(1), study pack p. 69) Correct
  2. The club receives a ban on registering new players at once, as article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies as soon as proceedings are opened.
  3. The club cannot be fined until a final deadline has passed, as article 21(1)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires the committee first to grant one.
  4. The club will be granted a final deadline to pay, and a registration ban follows only if that deadline is missed, under article 21(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Article 21(1), study pack p. 69) Correct

Article 21(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets the first stage for anyone who fails to pay a sum ordered by a FIFA body: under (a) the debtor may be fined and receive any pertinent additional measure, and under (b) it will be granted a final deadline to pay. A ban on registering new players under (d) comes only upon expiry of that final deadline with the debt still unpaid, so it is not imposed as soon as proceedings open, and nothing makes the fine wait for the deadline.

18. Olímpico Serra Verde, a Brazilian club, owes CHF 150,000 to Ruth Mensah-Addo, a Ghanaian football agent, under a final FIFA Football Tribunal decision. The Disciplinary Committee fines the club and grants it a 30-day final deadline, by which it pays only CHF 60,000. A ban on registering new players is then imposed, and the club asks how long it will last. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The ban lasts for a fixed period of one year and then lapses, as article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets a fixed term for every registration ban.
  2. The ban lasts until the complete amount due is paid, as article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code ties its end to full payment rather than to a fixed term. (Article 21(1), study pack p. 69) Correct
  3. The ban ends once the club has paid most of the debt and agreed a timetable for the rest, as article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires only substantial payment.
  4. The ban ends when the next registration period closes, as article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code limits a ban for non-payment to a single registration period.

Under article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, once the final deadline expires without full payment, a club receives a ban on registering new players until the complete amount due is paid. The ban has no fixed term, and it does not end on part payment, on a payment plan or at the close of a registration period; it ends when the CHF 90,000 still owed has been paid in full.

19. The FIFA Football Tribunal orders Grigor Stoyanov-Belev, a Bulgarian football agent, to repay CHF 45,000 to Strandzha Coast FC, a Bulgarian club. He ignores the decision. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee fines him and grants him a final deadline, which expires without any payment. The club asks what further measures Grigor now faces. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Grigor may be banned from taking part in any football-related activity for a specific period, as article 21(1)(f) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides for natural persons. (Article 21(1), study pack p. 69) Correct
  2. Grigor receives a ban on registering new players until he pays, as article 21(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides for anyone who fails to pay by the final deadline.
  3. Grigor cannot be sanctioned further, as article 21 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides measures after the final deadline only for clubs and member associations.
  4. Grigor’s football agent licence is withdrawn automatically when the final deadline expires, as article 21(1)(f) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires no further decision.

Article 21(1)(f) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that, in the case of natural persons, a ban on any football-related activity for a specific period may be imposed once the final deadline expires without full payment, and that other disciplinary measures may also be imposed. A ban on registering new players under article 21(1)(d) is reserved for clubs. Nothing in article 21 withdraws a licence automatically: any further measure is imposed by decision, and natural persons are expressly covered.

20. Soraya Benali, a Moroccan football agent, holds a final FIFA Football Tribunal decision ordering Rimal Sidi Boughaba SC, a Moroccan club, to pay her EUR 85,000 in commission. Two months after the payment date the club has paid nothing, and nothing has happened since. Soraya asks how disciplinary enforcement begins and what she will learn of its outcome. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings of its own motion once the payment date passes, so Soraya need take no step herself under article 21 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
  2. Soraya must first ask the club’s member association to open proceedings, as article 21(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code leaves the enforcement of such decisions to the association.
  3. Proceedings under article 21 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code may commence only at the request of the creditor or another affected party, so Soraya must ask for them. (Article 21(2), study pack p. 69) Correct
  4. Soraya is entitled to be notified of the final outcome and to receive the motivated decision if she requests it, as article 21(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides. (Article 21(2), study pack p. 69) Correct

Article 21(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that, for financial decisions of a FIFA body or CAS, disciplinary proceedings may commence only at the request of the creditor or any other affected party, who is entitled to be notified of the final outcome, including the motivated decision if so requested. FIFA therefore does not open such proceedings of its own motion, and the request is made to FIFA, not routed through the club’s association.

21. Sipho Mthembu-Dlamini, a South African football agent, wins a final Football Tribunal decision ordering Drakensberg City FC, a South African club, to pay him USD 120,000. Before any disciplinary proceedings begin, he and the club sign a private settlement under which the club will pay in four instalments. It pays the first instalment and then stops. Sipho asks whether the FIFA Disciplinary Committee can deal with the default. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The committee has no power over the default, as the private settlement replaced the Football Tribunal decision and is a matter for the national courts.
  2. Sipho has to bring a new claim on the settlement before the Football Tribunal first, as article 21 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers decisions of FIFA bodies and CAS, not private agreements.
  3. The committee is not competent to deal with the default, as article 21(10) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers only settlement agreements concluded in disciplinary proceedings, not private agreements made after a FIFA decision.
  4. The committee is competent to deal with the default, as article 21(10) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers private agreements made after a FIFA decision to settle the dispute. (Article 21(10), study pack p. 69) Correct

Article 21(10) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes the Disciplinary Committee competent to decide on failures to respect settlement agreements concluded in disciplinary proceedings on a final financial decision, and it expressly includes private agreements concluded after a decision of a FIFA body or CAS in order to settle the dispute. Sipho’s instalment settlement is such an agreement, so the committee can deal with the club’s default without a new Football Tribunal claim or recourse to the national courts.

22. Taebaek Highlanders FC, a South Korean club, owes CHF 90,000 to Minseo Yeom, a South Korean football agent, under a final FIFA Football Tribunal decision, and has not paid. The Disciplinary Committee opens proceedings for failure to respect the decision. Minseo’s lawyer consults the list of disciplinary measures annexed to the Code to predict the outcome. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The annexe indicates a fine of CHF 7,500 and a final deadline of 30 days, but the Disciplinary Committee may depart from it, as Annexe 1 to the FIFA Disciplinary Code is not binding.
  2. The annexe indicates a fine of CHF 10,000 and a final deadline of 10 days, but the Disciplinary Committee may depart from it, as Annexe 1 to the FIFA Disciplinary Code is not binding.
  3. The annexe indicates a fine of CHF 10,000 and a final deadline of 30 days, but the Disciplinary Committee may depart from it, as Annexe 1 to the FIFA Disciplinary Code is not binding. (Article 21(1), study pack p. 69) Correct
  4. The Disciplinary Committee must impose a fine of CHF 10,000 and a final deadline of 30 days, as Annexe 1 to the FIFA Disciplinary Code is binding.

Section I of Annexe 1 to the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which covers failures to respect financial decisions under article 21, indicates for an amount due of CHF 75,001-100,000 a fine of CHF 10,000 and a final deadline of 30 days to comply. CHF 7,500 is the figure for CHF 50,001-75,000, and the annexe gives no ten-day deadline. The annexe states that its list is neither exhaustive nor binding and is without prejudice to article 25, so the committee may depart from it in the individual case.

23. Anders Kjeldsen-Vig, a Danish football agent, is charged with breaching the FIFA Football Agent Regulations, a matter reserved for a single judge. The secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee sends him, on the basis of the file, a proposed sanction of a CHF 8,000 fine with a ten-day deadline to reject it. Anders is travelling, lets the deadline pass without responding, and now wants to contest the fine. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The proposed fine has become final and binding, as article 58 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code gives that effect to a proposal the party lets lapse without rejecting it. (Article 58, study pack p. 91) Correct
  2. The proposal has lapsed, so a single judge must now decide the case after hearing Anders, as article 58 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires a hearing once a proposal fails.
  3. The proposal has no effect until a single judge confirms it, as article 58 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code treats the secretariat’s proposal as advice to the judge.
  4. Anders may still reject the proposal at any time before a decision is notified, as article 58 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets no deadline for doing so.

Article 58 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows the secretariat, in matters reserved for the single judge, to propose a sanction on the basis of the existing file. The party may reject the proposal and submit its position by the stipulated deadline; in the absence of that, the proposed sanction becomes final and binding. Anders let the deadline pass, so the fine stands, with no confirming decision or hearing needed and no later chance to reject it.

24. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposes a ban on registering new players on Gauja Valley FK, a Latvian club, for failing to pay a sum it owes a player under a final FIFA Football Tribunal decision. The decision was passed under article 21 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. The club’s board believes the ban is wrong and asks where it can challenge it. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The club must declare its intention to appeal to the Appeal Committee within three days of notification of the grounds, as article 60(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires.
  2. The club cannot appeal to the Appeal Committee, as article 61(1)(e) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code excludes such decisions, so its route lies directly to CAS under article 52. (Articles 61(1) and 52, study pack pp. 86-93) Correct
  3. The club has no remedy at all, as article 61(1)(e) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code makes decisions passed under article 21 final and binding at every level.
  4. The club may appeal to the Appeal Committee, as a registration ban exceeds the thresholds for suspensions and fines in article 61(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

Article 61(1)(e) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code excludes from appeal to the Appeal Committee decisions passed in compliance with article 21, whatever the measure imposed, so the thresholds for suspensions and fines are irrelevant and the three-day declaration of appeal under article 60(3) does not arise. Article 52 provides that decisions of the Disciplinary Committee may be appealed before CAS, subject to the Code and the FIFA Statutes, so the club’s route lies directly to CAS rather than to no remedy at all.

25. Oluwaseun Adebanjo-Kalu, a Nigerian football agent, admits breaching the FIFA Football Agent Regulations. Before the decision, he gives FIFA’s investigators documents that help them establish a similar breach by another agent. He also shows that he acted on written advice from a club’s lawyer, and he points out that he earns little and that a rival agent was never prosecuted for similar conduct. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The rival agent’s escape from prosecution must reduce Oluwaseun’s sanction, as article 25(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires offenders to be treated alike.
  2. His help in establishing the other agent’s breach may reduce his sanction, as article 25(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code counts substantial cooperation in uncovering a breach. (Articles 25(1) and 25(3), study pack p. 73) Correct
  3. His modest income entitles him to a lower sanction, as article 25(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires every measure to be scaled to the offender’s earnings.
  4. His reliance on the lawyer’s written advice may reduce his sanction, as article 25(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code counts the circumstances and the degree of his guilt. (Articles 25(1) and 25(3), study pack p. 73) Correct

Article 25(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code has the judicial body set the type and extent of the measure by the objective and subjective elements of the offence, weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and article 25(3) requires it to take into account all relevant factors, including the offender’s assistance and substantial cooperation in uncovering or establishing a breach of any FIFA rule, the circumstances and the degree of his guilt. His cooperation and his reliance on legal advice fall within those factors. Nothing in article 25 ties his sanction to another person’s treatment or requires it to be scaled to his income.

26. Radek Chmelař, a Czech football agent, used a forged document in a transfer on 12 May 2023 and was banned for 12 months by a decision notified to him on 3 September 2024. On 15 March 2026 he uses another forged document in a different transfer. In setting the sanction for the second offence, the Disciplinary Committee considers whether he is a recidivist. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Radek is not a recidivist, as article 26(1)(b) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows two years from the previous offence, and more than two years have passed.
  2. Radek is not a recidivist, as article 26(1)(a) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows one year from the previous offence where it was sanctioned with a suspension.
  3. Radek is a recidivist, which counts against him, as article 26(1)(d) and (2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code cover a similar offence after notice and within three years. (Articles 26(1) and 26(2), study pack p. 73) Correct
  4. Radek is a recidivist, but this does not affect his sanction, as article 26 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code uses recidivism solely to decide whether a sanction may be suspended.

Article 26(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code defines recidivism as another offence of a similar nature and gravity committed after notification of the previous decision within set periods of the previous offence. Forgery is not an offence sanctioned with a suspension of up to two matches, an order and security offence or match manipulation, so the three-year period in article 26(1)(d) applies. The second forgery came after the first decision was notified and within three years of 12 May 2023, so Radek is a recidivist, and article 26(2) makes recidivism an aggravating circumstance.

27. In two FIFA Club World Cup group matches, Sportivo Quebrachal, an Argentine club, fields a player who is later declared ineligible. It won the first match 2-1 against Mistral Athletic, a New Zealand club, and lost the second 0-4 to Real Castañar, a Spanish club. The Disciplinary Committee sanctions Sportivo Quebrachal with a forfeit in both matches, and the other clubs ask how the results will be recorded. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Sportivo Quebrachal loses the first match 0-3, while the 0-4 result of the second stands, as article 28(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code keeps a result less favourable to the team at fault. (Article 28(1), study pack p. 74) Correct
  2. Sportivo Quebrachal loses both matches 0-3, as article 28(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code fixes the same score for every forfeit in 11-a-side football, whatever happened on the pitch.
  3. Sportivo Quebrachal loses the first match 0-5, while the 0-4 result of the second stands, as article 28(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets a 5-0 score for a forfeit in this competition.
  4. The 2-1 result of the first match stands, while Sportivo Quebrachal loses the second 0-3, as article 28(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code keeps a result more favourable to the team at fault.

Article 28(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that a team sanctioned with a forfeit is considered to have lost 3-0 in 11-a-side football, 5-0 being the futsal score, but that if the goal difference at the end of the match is less favourable to the team at fault, the result on the pitch is upheld. Sportivo Quebrachal’s 2-1 win therefore becomes a 0-3 defeat, while its 0-4 defeat, a worse goal difference than 0-3, stands. The rule never lets the team at fault keep a win.

28. Pieter van Oostrum, a Dutch football agent, lost a claim against SV Deltakwartier, a Dutch club, before the FIFA Football Tribunal, which found that the club owed him no commission for a transfer; that decision is final. Pieter then files a written complaint with the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, asking it to sanction the club for failing to pay him the same commission. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The Disciplinary Committee is bound to deal with the complaint, as article 30(9) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars a second decision by the same FIFA body, not by another one.
  2. The complaint is admissible if Pieter supports it with new arguments on the commission, as article 30(9) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars only repeated arguments.
  3. The complaint is admissible, as article 55(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows any person to report conduct considered incompatible with FIFA regulations.
  4. The complaint is inadmissible, as article 30(9) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars a case finally decided by another FIFA body between the same parties on the same cause. (Article 30(9), study pack p. 77) Correct

Article 30(9) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that the FIFA judicial bodies shall not deal with cases previously subject to a final decision by another FIFA body involving the same party or parties and the same cause of action, and that such a claim is inadmissible. The Football Tribunal, another FIFA body, has finally decided the commission dispute between Pieter and the club, so new arguments do not revive it. Article 55(2) lets anyone report conduct, but it does not override the bar in article 30(9).

29. Chiara Lodovisi, an Italian football agent, is told that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee will decide her case on 20 March. On 10 March she learns that the chairperson, who will preside, advised the club that reported her until last year. Chiara challenges the chairperson through the FIFA Legal Portal on 17 March. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The challenge is in time, as article 32(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a challenge up to two days before the date on which the body is called to decide. (Articles 32(2), 32(4) and 32(5), study pack p. 78) Correct
  2. The challenge is not in time, as article 32(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a challenge up to two days after the date on which the ground for it came to light.
  3. As the challenge concerns the chairperson, the deputy chairperson decides it or, in the deputy’s absence, the longest-serving member present, under article 32(5) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 32(2), 32(4) and 32(5), study pack p. 78) Correct
  4. The chairperson decides the challenge against herself, as article 32(5) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code gives the chairperson the decision on every challenge to a member.

Article 32(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code entitles a party to challenge a member where there are legitimate doubts over independence or impartiality at the latest two days before the date on which the body is called to decide; a challenge filed on 17 March for a decision on 20 March is in time, and the Code sets no limit running from the day the ground became known. Article 32(5) gives the decision to the chairperson, but where the objection concerns the chairperson, the deputy chairperson or, in their absence, the longest-serving member present decides.

30. Callum Rennick-Shaw, a Scottish football agent, is the subject of FIFA disciplinary proceedings for alleged breaches of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations. FIFA publishes a short notice that proceedings have been opened against him. Callum then gives two journalists a detailed account of the case, including the evidence FIFA has sent him, without asking anyone’s permission. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Callum was free to discuss the case once FIFA had announced it, as publication by FIFA under article 34 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lifts the duty of confidentiality.
  2. Callum breached his duty of confidentiality and may be sanctioned, as article 34(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code binds him unless the chairperson allows disclosure in writing. (Articles 34(2) and 34(3), study pack p. 79) Correct
  3. FIFA was entitled to announce that proceedings had been opened, as article 34(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows it to make the opening of proceedings public. (Articles 34(2) and 34(3), study pack p. 79) Correct
  4. FIFA breached article 34 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code by announcing that proceedings had been opened, as article 34(1) requires it to keep pending cases confidential.

Article 34(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires anyone subject to disciplinary proceedings to keep information about them confidential at all times, unless the chairperson of the judicial body explicitly stipulates otherwise in writing, and a breach may be sanctioned. Article 34(2) allows FIFA to make public the opening of proceedings and decisions already notified, so FIFA’s notice was lawful and did not release Callum from his own duty. Article 34(1) binds the members of the judicial bodies and does not restrict what FIFA may publish under paragraph 2.

31. Luana Pedrosa-Mattos, a Brazilian football agent based in São Paulo, is notified through the FIFA Legal Portal on Monday 9 February 2026 of a letter giving her ten days to submit her position in disciplinary proceedings. She opens it the next day and plans to file on the last possible day. In February, São Paulo is four hours behind Central European Time. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Her last day is 18 February, as article 38(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code counts the day on which the document was notified as the first day of the time limit.
  2. Her last day is 19 February, and her filing counts if it is completed by midnight São Paulo time, as article 38(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies the party’s local time.
  3. Her last day is 20 February, as article 38(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code starts a time limit on the day after the party first opens the document on the portal.
  4. Her last day is 19 February, and she must complete her filing by midnight Central European Time, 20:00 in São Paulo, under article 38(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Article 38(1), study pack p. 81) Correct

Article 38(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code starts a time limit on the day after notification of the document and treats it as met if the action is completed by midnight Central European Time on the last day. Notification on 9 February starts the ten days on 10 February, so the last day is Thursday 19 February, and midnight CET is 20:00 in São Paulo. The day of notification does not count, the time limit does not wait until she opens the document, and her local time is irrelevant.

32. FIFA charges Zoran Petkovski-Ilić, a North Macedonian football agent, with offering a club official a secret payment to secure a player’s transfer. The main evidence is a set of screenshots of messaging-app conversations supplied by the official. Zoran’s lawyer argues that screenshots are not acceptable evidence and that the Disciplinary Committee may sanction Zoran only if it is sure beyond reasonable doubt. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The screenshots may be used as evidence, as article 39(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows any type of proof to be produced. (Articles 39(1), 39(2) and 39(3), study pack p. 81) Correct
  2. The committee need only be comfortably satisfied that Zoran committed the offence, as article 39(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets that standard of proof. (Articles 39(1), 39(2) and 39(3), study pack p. 81) Correct
  3. The screenshots may not be used as evidence, as article 39(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows only proof certified by a forensic expert to be produced.
  4. The committee must be sure beyond reasonable doubt, as article 39(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies the criminal standard where a sanction may end a career.

Article 39 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that any type of proof may be produced (paragraph 1), that the competent judicial body has absolute discretion regarding the evaluation of evidence (paragraph 2), and that the standard of proof is the comfortable satisfaction of that body (paragraph 3). The screenshots are therefore admissible and their weight is for the committee to assess; the Code requires no expert certification and does not apply proof beyond reasonable doubt.

33. Aoife Dunleavy, an Irish football agent, must answer a disciplinary charge before the FIFA Disciplinary Committee but is not required to appear in person. Her lawyer submits a general power of attorney that Aoife signed in 2019, authorising him to act for her ‘in all legal matters’. The secretariat questions his authority to act in the case. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The lawyer is properly authorised, as article 45(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code accepts any duly signed power of attorney.
  2. Aoife cannot be represented at all, as article 45 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires a party charged with an offence to present her case in person.
  3. The lawyer is not properly authorised, as article 45(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires a specific, recent and duly signed power of attorney. (Articles 45(1) and 45(2), study pack p. 83) Correct
  4. The lawyer is properly authorised, and FIFA will bear his fees if Aoife is cleared, as article 45(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code covers the cost of representation.

Article 45(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code leaves parties free to have legal representation at their own cost, subject to the legal aid rules in article 46, provided a specific, recent and duly signed power of attorney is submitted. A general authority signed in 2019 for all legal matters is neither specific nor recent. Under article 45(2), a party who is not required to appear personally may be represented, so Aoife may use the lawyer once he files a proper power of attorney, but the cost of representation remains hers.

34. Tuomas Hiltunen-Vaara, a Finnish football agent, is a party to FIFA disciplinary proceedings. The decision against him is delivered through the FIFA Legal Portal, but he says he never saw it: he changed his email address a year earlier without updating his details, so he missed the portal’s alert. He argues that the time limit to request the grounds has not yet started. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The delivery is invalid, as article 48 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires FIFA to confirm every decision by post to the party’s registered address.
  2. The time limit runs only from the day Tuomas actually reads the decision, as article 48(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code looks to the party’s actual knowledge.
  3. Delivery through the FIFA Legal Portal is valid and binding and suffices to set the time limit running, under article 48(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 48(2) and 48(3), study pack p. 84) Correct
  4. Tuomas cannot rely on his outdated email address, as article 48(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires parties to keep their contact details up to date. (Articles 48(2) and 48(3), study pack p. 84) Correct

Article 48(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that all communications between FIFA and a party during proceedings are sent exclusively through the FIFA Legal Portal, that these communications are valid and binding, and that they are deemed sufficient to establish time limits and their observance. Article 48(3) requires parties to keep their contact details, including their email address, valid and up to date at all times. The time limit therefore runs from delivery through the portal, not from actual reading, and no postal confirmation is required.

35. At the trophy ceremony after a FIFA Women’s Champions Cup final, Rodrigo Estévez-Luna, president of Club Atlético Las Toscas, an Argentine club that has just won the final, grabs one of the club’s players and kisses her without her consent. In the following days, reports emerge that he is pressing her and her family to say publicly that she consented. Before any hearing, the chairperson of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee provisionally suspends him from all football-related activity. Rodrigo complains that he was not heard first. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The chairperson could suspend Rodrigo provisionally without hearing him first, as article 51(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code frees the chairperson from any duty to hear the parties. (Article 51(1), study pack p. 85) Correct
  2. The chairperson could not suspend Rodrigo provisionally without hearing him first, as article 51(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code obliges the chairperson to hear the parties.
  3. A provisional suspension was not open to the chairperson, as article 51(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows provisional measures only for reasons of safety and security.
  4. The suspension may be justified to ensure the proper administration of justice and to avoid irreparable harm, as article 51(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides. (Article 51(1), study pack p. 85) Correct

Article 51(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code entitles the chairperson of the competent judicial body, or their nominee, to issue provisional measures where these are necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice, to maintain sporting discipline or to avoid irreparable harm, or for reasons of safety and security, and states that they are not obliged to hear the parties. Pressure on the player while the case is pending bears on the administration of justice and on irreparable harm, so safety and security are not the only grounds, and Rodrigo had no right to be heard before the measure was imposed.

36. Mathis Vandeweghe, a Belgian football agent, faces disciplinary proceedings for breaching the FIFA Football Agent Regulations. Before the meeting at which the Disciplinary Committee will decide the case, he writes to accept responsibility and asks for a CHF 5,000 fine without any suspension. He then tells his client that the matter is settled on those terms. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The committee is bound to impose the fine Mathis asked for, as article 53(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code binds it once a party accepts responsibility and requests a specific sanction.
  2. The committee may decide on the basis of Mathis’s request or render the decision it considers appropriate, as article 53(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides. (Article 53(8), study pack p. 87) Correct
  3. The request comes too late, as article 53(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a party to accept responsibility only within ten days of the opening of proceedings.
  4. The committee may impose a lighter sanction than Mathis requested but never a heavier one, as article 53(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code caps the sanction at his request.

Article 53(8) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a party, at any time before the meeting set up to decide the case, to accept responsibility and request a specific sanction. The judicial bodies may then decide on the basis of that request or render the decision they consider appropriate under the Code. Mathis’s request was made in time, but it binds the committee neither to his figure nor to a ceiling, so the matter is not settled.

37. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee notifies NK Sava Donja, a Croatian club, of the terms of a decision suspending its head coach for six matches, without grounds. The club wants to appeal to the Appeal Committee. Its general manager proposes to email the committee’s chairperson for the reasons once the team returns from a tour in three weeks. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The club must ask for the motivated decision via the FIFA Legal Portal within ten days, or the decision becomes final and the club is deemed to have waived its appeal, under article 54(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Article 54(3), study pack p. 88) Correct
  2. The club may ask for the motivated decision by email to the chairperson at any time before the suspension ends, as article 54(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code sets no form or time limit for the request.
  3. The club has 21 days to ask for the motivated decision via the FIFA Legal Portal, after which the decision becomes final and the club is deemed to have waived its appeal, under article 54(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
  4. The club need not ask for anything, as the motivated decision is sent to it automatically, and the appeal period under article 54(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code runs only from its notification.

Article 54(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that the judicial bodies in principle notify only the terms of a decision, without grounds, and that the parties have ten days from that notification to request a motivated decision in writing via the FIFA Legal Portal. Failing such a request, the decision becomes final and binding and the parties are deemed to have waived their right to lodge an appeal. An email to the chairperson three weeks later misses both the channel and the ten-day limit, and the grounds are not sent unless requested.

38. Beatriz Olano-Etxeberria, a Spanish football agent, learns from two of her players that the sporting director of CD Arenal del Cantábrico, a Spanish club, demands cash from agents before the club will sign their clients. She wants to bring the matter to FIFA but is unsure whether an agent may do so, and how. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Beatriz may not report the conduct, as article 55 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets only FIFA bodies, match officials and the Disciplinary and Ethics Prosecutor set proceedings in motion against a club.
  2. Beatriz may report the conduct to FIFA by telephone, as article 55(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets any person report conduct in whatever form suits them, written or oral.
  3. Beatriz has to go through the Spanish association first, as article 55(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code reserves complaints about clubs to the member associations they belong to.
  4. Beatriz may report the conduct in writing to the FIFA judicial bodies, and FIFA may investigate and appoint a Disciplinary and Ethics Prosecutor, under article 55(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Article 55(2), study pack p. 90) Correct

Article 55(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows any person or body to report conduct considered incompatible with FIFA regulations to the FIFA judicial bodies, provided the complaint is made in writing, and FIFA may initiate investigations and appoint a Disciplinary and Ethics Prosecutor to investigate it. Beatriz therefore needs neither a FIFA body, a match official nor her association to act for her, but a telephone call is not a complaint in writing.

39. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee notifies Gulf Pearl SC, a Qatari club, of the grounds of a decision suspending its captain for eight matches on Monday 4 May 2026. The club files its declaration of appeal through the FIFA Legal Portal on 6 May and asks when its appeal brief is due and whether it may add evidence later. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The appeal brief is due by 11 May, as article 60(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows five days from the day on which the declaration of appeal was filed.
  2. The club had until 7 May to declare its intention to appeal, as article 60(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows three days from notification of the grounds. (Articles 60(3) and 60(4), study pack p. 93) Correct
  3. The appeal brief is due by 12 May, and the club may not add written submissions or evidence after that deadline, under article 60(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 60(3) and 60(4), study pack p. 93) Correct
  4. The appeal brief is due by 12 May, but the club may add written submissions and evidence until the Appeal Committee decides, under article 60(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

Article 60(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires a party to inform the Appeal Committee in writing via the FIFA Legal Portal of its intention to appeal within three days of notification of the grounds; with notification on 4 May, the time limit starts on 5 May under article 38(1) and ends on 7 May, so the declaration of 6 May was in time. Article 60(4) then allows five days from the expiry of that time limit, not from the day the declaration was filed, so the brief is due by 12 May, and the appellant may not produce further written submissions or evidence after that deadline.

40. After a FIFA Club World Cup match, a brawl breaks out in the tunnel involving people from Snowy Range FC, an Australian club. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee fines the club CHF 12,000, suspends one of its players for two matches and its team manager for three matches, and fines Aroha Tipene-Walsh, a New Zealand football agent who was in the tunnel, CHF 10,000 for insulting the match officials. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Aroha may appeal her CHF 10,000 fine to the Appeal Committee, as article 61(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars appeals against fines of up to CHF 7,500 on persons other than associations and clubs. (Article 61(1), study pack p. 93) Correct
  2. The club may appeal its CHF 12,000 fine to the Appeal Committee, as article 61(1)(d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars appeals only against fines of up to CHF 7,500, whoever pays them.
  3. The team manager may appeal his three-match suspension to the Appeal Committee, as article 61(1)(c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars appeals only against suspensions of up to two matches. (Article 61(1), study pack p. 93) Correct
  4. The player may appeal his two-match suspension to the Appeal Committee, as article 61(1)(c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code bars appeals only against suspensions of a single match.

Article 61(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows an appeal to the Appeal Committee against any Disciplinary Committee decision unless the measure is, among others, a suspension of up to two matches or two months (c), or a fine of up to CHF 15,000 on an association or club or up to CHF 7,500 in other cases (d). Aroha’s CHF 10,000 fine exceeds the CHF 7,500 limit for individuals and the manager’s three-match suspension exceeds two matches, so both may be appealed. The club’s CHF 12,000 fine is within the CHF 15,000 limit for clubs and the player’s two-match suspension is within the two-match limit, so neither may be appealed.

41. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee suspends Luka Škorić-Vranješ, a Bosnian midfielder at FK Pliva Gorica, a Bosnian club, for six matches for violent conduct in a FIFA competition. Luka and his club took part in the proceedings. His agent, who stands to lose a transfer commission, and the opposing club, whose player was injured, are both considering an appeal as well. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Luka’s agent may appeal in his own name, as article 62(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets anyone with a financial interest in the outcome lodge an appeal.
  2. Luka may appeal, as article 62(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a party to the proceedings with a legally protected interest to do so. (Articles 62(1) and 62(2), study pack p. 94) Correct
  3. The opposing club may appeal, as article 62(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets clubs appeal decisions concerning matches in which they played.
  4. FK Pliva Gorica may appeal, as article 62(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets clubs appeal decisions sanctioning their own players. (Articles 62(1) and 62(2), study pack p. 94) Correct

Article 62(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows anyone who was a party to the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee to appeal, provided it has a legally protected interest, so Luka may appeal. Article 62(2) adds that member associations and clubs may appeal decisions sanctioning their players, officials or members, so his club may appeal. His agent and the opposing club were not parties, and neither paragraph gives standing to someone with only a financial or sporting interest in the outcome.

42. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee suspends Stellan Brodin-Ek, a Swedish defender at Granholmen BK, a Swedish club, for five matches in a FIFA competition, and the club lodges an appeal with the Appeal Committee. The club’s next match is in four days, before the appeal can be heard, and Stellan’s agent asks whether he can play in it. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Stellan may play until the appeal is decided, as article 65(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code gives an appeal against a match suspension suspensive effect.
  2. Stellan may play only if the full Appeal Committee grants a stay after a hearing, as article 65(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code reserves stays to the full committee.
  3. Stellan’s suspension continues to apply during the appeal, but a stay of execution may be granted on a reasoned request under article 65 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 65(1) and 65(2), study pack p. 95) Correct
  4. Stellan cannot obtain a stay of execution, as article 65 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows a stay only where the decision orders the payment of a sum of money.

Article 65(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that an appeal has no suspensive effect except with regard to orders to pay a sum of money, so Stellan’s suspension keeps running while the appeal is pending. Under article 65(2), the chairperson, the deputy chairperson or, in their absence, the longest-serving member available may award a stay of execution on receipt of a reasoned request. A stay is therefore not confined to money orders and needs neither the full committee nor a hearing.

43. In a FIFA Club World Cup group match, Mirko Radovanić, a Serbian midfielder at Barra Norte AC, a Uruguayan club, is sent off in the 55th minute. In the 70th minute a floodlight failure forces the referee to abandon the match, which is ordered to be replayed in full at a later date. The club’s next fixture is its last group match, three days later, and Mirko’s agent asks whether he can play in it. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Mirko is automatically suspended from the next match, as article 66(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code attaches that suspension to the sending-off itself. (Articles 66(4) and 66(5), study pack p. 97) Correct
  2. Mirko must serve the suspension even though the match was abandoned, as article 66(5) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires. (Articles 66(4) and 66(5), study pack p. 97) Correct
  3. Mirko need not serve the suspension because the match was abandoned, as article 66(5) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code annuls it.
  4. Mirko is suspended only once the Disciplinary Committee confirms the red card in a decision, as article 66(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires a ruling first.

Article 66(4) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that a sending-off automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match, without any decision of the Disciplinary Committee, which may add further suspensions. Article 66(5) requires the automatic suspension and any additional one to be served even if the sending-off was imposed in a match later abandoned, annulled, forfeited or replayed. Mirko therefore misses the last group match, and the abandonment and replay do not wipe out his sending-off.

44. Gaspard Lemercier, a French defender, is sent off in his club’s final match of a FIFA competition and receives a two-match suspension that must be carried over to another competition. Before serving it, he retires and joins the coaching staff of AS Val-Sorin, a French club, as assistant coach. The club asks whether he may sit on its bench in its next official matches. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Gaspard need not serve the suspension, as article 69(6) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code lets it lapse when his status changes from player to official.
  2. Gaspard will have to serve the suspension if he returns to playing, and not before, as article 69(6) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code keeps it attached to his status as a player.
  3. Gaspard serves the suspension with his former club alone, as article 69(5) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code ties an official’s suspension to the club where it arose.
  4. Gaspard must serve the suspension, as article 69(6) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code applies it even when his status changes from player to official. (Articles 69(5) and 69(6), study pack p. 98) Correct

Article 69(6) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires match suspensions carried over to another competition to be served by the person concerned regardless of any change of status in the meantime, including from player to official, and article 69(5) provides that an official serves a match suspension with any club or association of which he is an official. Gaspard therefore serves the two matches as AS Val-Sorin’s assistant coach; retirement neither ends the suspension nor ties it to his former club or to a return to playing.

45. Edgars Kalniņš-Ozols, a Latvian midfielder, is banned for two years by his national association for forging his registration documents. Weeks later he signs for a club in another country. The association wants the ban to apply there too and prepares a request to FIFA. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. As forgery is a serious infringement, the association shall ask the Disciplinary Committee to extend the ban worldwide, as article 70(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides. (Articles 70(1) and 70(3), study pack p. 100) Correct
  2. The association may send the request by email to FIFA’s general secretariat with a copy of the decision alone, as article 70(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires nothing more.
  3. The request must enclose evidence that Edgars was properly cited and could state his case, and that he was told of the planned extension, under article 70(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. (Articles 70(1) and 70(3), study pack p. 100) Correct
  4. The association may request the extension only if Edgars agrees to it, as article 70(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code requires the sanctioned person’s consent to be enclosed.

Article 70(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code provides that, where the infringement is serious, in particular forgery and falsification, member associations shall request the Disciplinary Committee to extend their sanctions to have worldwide effect. Under article 70(3), the request is submitted in writing via the FIFA Legal Portal and encloses, among other things, a true copy of the decision, evidence that the party was properly cited and had the opportunity to state its case, evidence that the decision was duly communicated, and evidence that the party was informed that the sanction would be submitted for worldwide extension. The Code requires that he be informed, not that he consent, and an email with the decision alone is not enough.

Answers are taken from the official FIFA study materials. Where a question names an article, you can check it against FIFA's own text: the study materials page links every document.