The case revolves around a dispute between professional football player Edik Sadzhaya and FC Volga Nizhniy Novgorod concerning unpaid relocation expenses under their employment agreement. The agreement, signed on January 1, 2010, stipulated that the club would compensate the player 4,500,000 roubles for relocation expenses by December 31, 2010. A subsequent guarantee letter from the club in January 2011 acknowledged an outstanding debt of 1,500,000 roubles, but only 500,000 roubles were paid, leaving a balance of 1,000,000 roubles. The player initially sought resolution through the Russian Football Union (RFU) Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and Players Status Committee (PSC), both of which rejected his claims. He then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the club was obligated to pay the remaining amount plus interest for late payment. The club contested, asserting the player failed to provide receipts for the expenses, which they claimed was necessary under tax regulations. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Mark Hovell, examined the contractual terms and applicable labor law, concluding the agreement referred to "compensation" rather than "reimbursement," meaning receipts were not required. The panel also ruled interest on late payments was applicable, as the contract did not specify otherwise and the club did not contest this point. The CAS overturned the RFU decisions, ordering the club to pay the outstanding 1,000,000 roubles plus 301,125 roubles in interest, and to bear the player's legal costs. The decision emphasized the obligation to compensate relocation expenses was distinct from tax-related reimbursement requirements, and the absence of receipts did not absolve the club of its contractual obligations. The award was issued on January 31, 2014, concluding the dispute in favor of the player. The case highlights the tension between contractual terms and legal obligations, with the player relying on the agreement's fixed payment clause and past practices, while the club cited tax compliance and labor law. The Sole Arbitrator's ruling underscored the binding nature of the Guarantee Letter and dismissed arguments about the illegality of payments or the expiration of the letter's terms. The final decision upheld the player's appeal, set aside the RFU's earlier ruling, and ordered the club to fulfill its financial obligations, including interest calculated at 8.25% from the due date until payment. All other claims were dismissed, marking the end of the legal dispute.