The case involves a legal dispute between professional football player Ruslan Aleksyeyevich Ajinjal and PFC Krylia Sovetov, a Russian football club, along with the Russian Football Union (RFU). The conflict arose from the termination of Ajinjal's employment contract, which he claimed was unjust and sought unpaid wages and compensation. The club suspended Ajinjal following a poor performance in a match, later asserting the contract was terminated. Ajinjal argued this violated the Russian Labour Code, which prohibits suspension without just cause and does not recognize poor performance as valid grounds for termination unless specified in the contract or after repeated disciplinary actions. The player had previously filed a claim with the RFU Dispute Resolution Chamber (RFU DRC) over unpaid wages, resulting in an order for the club to pay outstanding amounts. However, the club failed to meet its obligations.
The dispute escalated when the club informed Ajinjal of his suspension after a match loss, though public statements suggested termination. Ajinjal maintained the contract was wrongfully terminated, and the Federal Service for Employment confirmed the club unlawfully deprived him of work. The RFU DRC ruled in favor of Ajinjal regarding unpaid wages but denied his claim for additional compensation for early termination. Dissatisfied, Ajinjal appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting a de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code, which allows a full reassessment of facts and law. He sought annulment of part of the RFU DRC decision and additional compensation, including interest.
The CAS panel examined whether the club had just cause for termination under Russian law and the contract terms, concluding that poor performance alone was insufficient grounds without contractual provisions or repeated disciplinary issues. The club's failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures further weakened its case. The panel found the termination unjust, emphasizing the club's contractual and legal obligations. The decision reinforced that employers must adhere to labor laws and contractual terms when dismissing employees, particularly in sports, where performance fluctuations are common.
The jurisdictional aspect of the case was contentious, with the club arguing CAS lacked jurisdiction because Ajinjal had not exhausted internal RFU appeal procedures. However, the panel determined CAS had jurisdiction, citing FIFA statutes and previous CAS rulings that affirmed its authority in such disputes. The panel also considered the merits of the case, including whether the contract was terminated or merely suspended. The club claimed it was a suspension, while Ajinjal argued it was a termination, supported by public statements from the club's general manager. The panel concluded the suspension letter was effectively a termination, as it was unlimited in duration, offered no right to appeal, and stopped the player's salary.
The panel addressed multiple financial claims, adjusting calculations for average salary, performance bonuses, and contractual penalties. It awarded Ajinjal USD 899,740 in compensation, including interest at 5% per annum from the termination date. The ruling set aside the RFU DRC's earlier decision and held PFC Krylia Sovetov liable for the awarded amount, net of any prior payments. The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration and the importance of clear contractual terms and procedural adherence in employment disputes. The panel's decision underscores the protections afforded to employees under national labor laws and the enforceability of contractual agreements in professional sports.