The case involves a dispute between Ukrainian football club FC Metallurg and player Tkachenko Sergey Viktorovich over unpaid payments under their employment contract and a supplementary agreement on disciplinary sanctions and bonuses. The player signed a three-year contract with the club in 2008, which included provisions for bonuses and disciplinary measures. Over time, the player's appearances for the first team decreased, leading to his transfer to the reserve team and a subsequent reduction in payments. The player claimed unpaid amounts for specific months in 2010 and 2011, arguing these were salary payments, while the club classified them as discretionary bonuses, justifying the reductions due to the player's diminished performance.
The player initially filed a claim with the Disciplinary Committee of the Association of Professional Football Clubs of Ukraine (PL DC), which rejected his claim, classifying the disputed sums as bonuses. He then appealed to the Football Federation of Ukraine Control and Disciplinary Committee (FFU CDC), which ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay the disputed amounts as unpaid salary. The club appealed to the FFU Appeals Committee (FFU AC), which upheld the FFU CDC’s ruling but maintained the classification of the payments as bonuses. Dissatisfied, the club took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the payments were bonuses and their reduction was justified.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, examined the contractual terms and the nature of the payments. The key legal issues were whether the payments should be classified as bonuses or salary and whether the club was entitled to withhold them based on the player’s performance. The panel determined that payments qualify as bonuses if the agreement explicitly states they are supplementary to the main contract and elaborates on specific criteria. A club may refuse bonus payments only if it provides evidence that the player failed to meet these criteria. The panel ruled in favor of the player, concluding the club had not sufficiently justified withholding the payments.
The club argued the bonuses were discretionary and contingent on exceptional performance, citing the player’s minimal match participation as justification. The player countered that the bonuses were contractually obligated and that the club failed to prove he violated the agreement’s terms. The panel found the club’s arguments unconvincing, ruling that reduced match participation alone did not justify withholding bonuses, as the player could have contributed in other ways. The panel upheld the FFU AC’s decision, ordering the club to pay $130,000 in outstanding bonuses for March-June 2010 and April-June 2011.
Additionally, the panel ruled in favor of the player regarding compensation for delayed payments, citing Ukrainian labor law. The compensation amounted to $36,821.96 for the 28-day delay period from July 20 to August 17, 2011. The final award partially upheld the appeal, amended the previous decision, and ordered the club to pay the outstanding bonuses and compensation while dismissing all other claims. The ruling emphasized the importance of clear contractual terms and the burden of proof in disputes over player remuneration, reinforcing the principle that clubs must provide evidence to support any reductions or refusals of payments. The case concluded with the club being required to fulfill these financial obligations.