The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a dispute between a Russian football player and his former club, FC X., regarding the termination of the player's contract during a period of injury-related incapacity. The case, decided on April 1, 2015, centered on whether the club's unilateral termination violated Russian labor law, which prohibits dismissing an employee during temporary incapacity. The player, referred to as S., signed a contract with FC X. in July 2012, later amended for salary and housing adjustments. In February 2013, he suffered a foot injury during a preseason match, initially diagnosed as a bruise but later found to be more severe, including arthrosis and joint damage. The club allegedly refused proper medical care, prompting the player to seek independent treatment. On April 5, 2013, the club demanded his return, threatening termination for unjustified absence. The player responded by requesting unpaid wages and medical reimbursement. The club dismissed him on April 25, 2013, without formal notification, which the player only discovered during legal proceedings.
The player filed a claim with the Russian Football Union’s dispute resolution chamber, which ruled the dismissal illegal under Russian labor law. CAS upheld this decision, emphasizing that the Russian Labor Code explicitly prohibits termination during temporary incapacity. The tribunal rejected the club's argument that sports regulations superseded labor protections, noting such exceptions must be explicitly stated. The club's failure to notify the player properly was deemed irrelevant, as he later acknowledged the termination. However, phone records alone were insufficient to prove conversations between the player and club officials. The ruling highlighted labor protections for athletes, especially during injuries, and upheld the player's right to compensation for unpaid wages and medical expenses.
The club appealed to the Russian Football Union’s Players' Status Committee, which overturned the initial ruling, citing the player's failure to prove he informed the club of his absence. The player then appealed to CAS, seeking annulment and compensation for unpaid wages, medical expenses, and damages. CAS found the club violated contractual obligations by terminating the contract during the player's injury, entitling him to unpaid wages, a three-month salary indemnity, and medical reimbursement. However, claims for additional damages due to the club's medical negligence were dismissed, as no direct harm to the player's career was proven. The panel also rejected the player's claim for apartment rental costs, as the club had already covered this.
The case underscored the balance between sports-specific regulations and general labor protections, affirming that professional athletes retain fundamental employment rights unless explicitly overridden. The club's dismissal was deemed unlawful, and it was ordered to pay specified compensations. The decision reinforced the importance of clubs fulfilling contractual and legal obligations, particularly regarding player health and fair employment practices. CAS partially admitted the appeal, annulled the URF’s decision, and ordered the club to pay outstanding salaries, three months' compensation, and medical expenses, while rejecting other claims. The ruling clarified that sports regulations cannot override labor protections without explicit legal provisions.