What standard of proof is required in disciplinary hearings for FIFA agents?

In disciplinary hearings for FIFA agents, the standard of proof required is "comfortable satisfaction." This standard indicates that the decision-maker must be sufficiently persuaded of the facts to make a ruling, ensuring that there is a reasonable level of confidence in the outcome. Unlike "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a much higher threshold commonly used in criminal cases, or "clear and convincing evidence," which also suggests a significant level of certainty, the "comfortable satisfaction" standard offers a more flexible approach that requires a balance between the seriousness of the matter being adjudicated and the evidence presented. This standard is particularly suited to disciplinary contexts, where the focus is on whether the evidence leads to a sense of satisfaction regarding the club's conduct, rather than an absolute certainty.

The other options represent different standards of proof that are not employed in these specific hearings. For example, "clear and convincing evidence" implies a higher degree of certainty than what is necessary in this context. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is primarily used in criminal law to ensure that no reasonable person would question the guilt of the accused, and "preponderance of the evidence" is often the standard in civil cases, indicating that something is more likely true than not. Thus, while these standards have their