What Ronaldo’s ruling says (and what it leaves unsaid)

For more than two decades, Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro has amassed records in Portugal’s national team shirt. On 19 October, he added another, albeit of a different nature: his first disciplinary sanction while representing the national team. For leaving the training camp, he was handed a 30-day suspension and a €255.00 fine. The decision, however, draws attention for a legal reason: the fine amounts to half the statutory minimum prescribed for the offence.

The Non-Professional Section of the Disciplinary Council of the Portuguese Football Federation was responsible for handling these disciplinary proceedings, which it classified as urgent. Despite their names, the distinction between the two sections is not based on the athlete’s professional status. The Professional Section deals with offences committed in professional competitions (the First and Second Divisions and the League Cup). All other cases, including those involving the national team, fall within the remit of the Non-Professional Section.

The ruling’s central argument is straightforward: for a player who has been called up, representing the country is not a choice but a duty. Accordingly, the disciplinary regulations punish unjustified abandonment of the national team with a suspension ranging from one to six months and, in the case of professional players, a fine ranging from €510.00 to €1,020.00. Injury, illness or other unforeseeable circumstances amounting to force majeure may justify an absence, but the player’s claim that he was not in the right state of mind was not accepted as a valid justification.

To understand the final decision, it is necessary to examine the mitigating mechanisms applied in this case, which resulted in the applicable sanction ranges being halved twice. The first reduction stemmed from a mitigating circumstance: the absence of any disciplinary record during the previous four seasons, as acknowledged by the prosecution itself. The second resulted from the full and unconditional admission of the offence submitted in the proceedings on 16 October. The applicable range was therefore reduced to between 8 and 45 days of suspension and between €127.50 and €255.00 in fines.

These were not, however, the only favourable circumstances considered. The defence also invoked services of distinction rendered to football, a commendation for sporting merit, and a contribution to establishing the truth, all of which are provided for under the Disciplinary Regulations. The Council recognised only the first two, taking into account, among other factors, the player’s five Ballon d’Or awards. Since the regulations allow only one mitigating circumstance to reduce the limits of a sanction, these factors did not lead to a further reduction. They were, however, taken into account when determining the specific sanction to be imposed.

On 6 October, in a statement shared on his social media accounts, the player had written that the punishment should not be subject to any mitigating circumstances. Yet, during the disciplinary proceedings, his defence invoked the circumstances outlined above. Once the regulatory requirements had been met, the Council was required to take them into account, in accordance with the fundamental principles of legality and equality. At the same time, the sanction must always reflect the offender’s degree of culpability and the requirements of prevention.

On the basis of these criteria, the Council imposed a 30-day suspension, above the midpoint of the applicable range, and a €255.00 fine, at the maximum limit, taking into account the heightened responsibilities of a player wearing the captain’s armband. Of the 30-day suspension, 19 days had already been served on a precautionary basis, leaving 11 days still to be served.

It remains to be seen whether an appeal will be lodged with the Justice Council or the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In the meantime, the decision helps explain why the sanction does not correspond to the limits initially prescribed: between the offence and the punishment, mitigating rules and criteria for determining the appropriate sanction come into play. Above all, it shows that recognition of a distinguished career and the fulfilment of a duty can coexist within the same decision.