The case involves a legal dispute between a professional football player and CJSC FC Krylia Sovetov, a Russian football club, concerning the termination of the player's employment contract. The player, who signed a contract with the club in March 2010, was loaned to another club in July 2010 but returned in January 2011. After failing to secure a transfer, the club instructed him to train individually rather than with the squad, leading to disagreements. The player contested this decision, arguing there was no agreement for individual training, and later filed a claim with the Russian National Dispute Resolution Chamber (Russian DRC) in February 2011. The club dismissed the player in March 2011, citing unauthorized absences, but the player argued the club had breached the contract by failing to register him for the season.
The Russian DRC partially ruled in the player's favor in April 2011, dismissing the club's termination order but finding the player's absences unjustified. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined whether the club breached the contract by excluding the player from team training and whether the termination was justified. The CAS panel concluded that while clubs may impose individual training under certain circumstances, the club's actions were disproportionate, and the termination was unjustified. The CAS upheld the player's appeal, annulling the dismissal and ordering compensation for unpaid salaries and damages.
The case also involved jurisdictional disputes, with the club arguing that internal remedies within the Russian Football Union (RFU) should have been exhausted before appealing to the CAS. However, the CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 50(6) of the RFU Regulations and Article 59 of the FIFA Statutes, referencing Swiss Private International Law, which grants arbitral tribunals authority to rule on their own jurisdiction. The panel emphasized the procedural complexities in sports arbitration and reinforced CAS's role in resolving disputes under FIFA and RFU regulations.
On the merits, the panel examined whether the player had a fundamental right to train with the team, concluding that while football is a team sport, contractual terms and specific circumstances must be considered. The player argued that individual training in harsh conditions was unreasonable, while the club maintained it had the authority to design training programs. The panel found discrepancies in the club's treatment of the player, including delayed wage payments and inconsistent training directives. It ruled that the player's absence from 1 to 18 February 2011 was justified, as he was pursuing a legitimate grievance procedure. The panel partially upheld the player's appeal, affirming his absence was valid and modifying the Russian DRC's decision accordingly.
The case highlights the balance between a club's disciplinary authority and a player's contractual rights, as well as the complexities of sports dispute resolution. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness, the interplay between contractual obligations and broader legal principles, and the role of arbitration in resolving such conflicts. The CAS's decision reinforced the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions and clarified jurisdictional pathways for appeals in sports disputes.