The case involves a legal dispute between professional football player Igor Sergeevich Strelkov and Russian football club CJSC FC Krylia Sovetov regarding the termination of Strelkov's employment contract and related compensation claims. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, comprising Mark Hovell, Mika Palmgren, and Lucio Colantuoni, issued an award on 1 February 2013. The central issue was whether the club unlawfully terminated Strelkov's contract and whether he was entitled to unpaid wages and damages. Strelkov signed a contract with the club on 1 March 2010, valid until 15 December 2012, with an appendix outlining additional obligations. In January 2011, the club allowed Strelkov to leave pre-season training to seek a transfer, but he later expressed his desire to stay. The club then instructed him to train individually, which Strelkov contested. He remained absent from training from 1 to 17 February 2011, after which the club authorized him to train elsewhere while seeking a new club.
An amendment to the contract was signed on 18 February 2011, stipulating a $60,000 compensation fee if Strelkov terminated the contract to join another club or if the club terminated it for disciplinary reasons. Strelkov later provided a medical certificate for sick leave from 3 to 10 March 2011. On 9 March, the club issued a dismissal order, which the Russian Football Union's Dispute Resolution Chamber (Russian DRC) invalidated because it was served during Strelkov's sick leave. The club issued a second dismissal order on the same grounds, which the Russian DRC also dismissed, citing an ongoing CAS appeal. Strelkov filed claims with the CAS, arguing that the club breached the contract by failing to register him for the 2011/12 season and sought compensation.
The CAS panel ruled that the club's termination of the contract was unlawful, entitling Strelkov to compensation as per the contract terms. The panel also noted that, under football industry customs, players should be paid during short-term illnesses, and Strelkov was entitled to wages for days he was willing to train but was excluded from the squad. The case highlights the importance of contractual obligations in football and the customary practice of paying players during short-term absences. The CAS decision reinforced that clubs must adhere to contractual terms and industry norms when handling player dismissals and wage disputes.
The dispute involved multiple appeals and decisions by various football dispute resolution bodies, including the Russian DRC, the Committee of the RFU for the Status of Players (RFU PSC), and the CAS. Strelkov appealed the initial DRC decision to the CAS, which partially upheld his appeal, ruling that his absence from the club in February 2011 was justified and not a breach of contract. The RFU PSC later ordered the club to pay compensation equivalent to three months' salary but rejected other demands, including back pay and full salary until the contract's end. Strelkov appealed this decision to the CAS, seeking further financial redress.
The panel ultimately determined that the club's second dismissal order terminated the contract, though the termination was unlawful. The club was required to pay Strelkov compensation equivalent to three average monthly salaries, amounting to 2,642,143 rubles, as previously awarded by the RFU PSC. Additionally, the panel ruled that Strelkov was entitled to unpaid wages for the period he was willing to train but excluded from the squad, totaling 721,316 rubles, minus any sick pay already provided. The CAS partially accepted Strelkov’s appeal, ordering the club to pay the awarded amounts and dismissing all other claims. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to contractual terms and industry practices in resolving disputes between players and clubs.