The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on a dispute involving FC Lokomotiv, the Football Union of Russia (FUR), and FC Nika concerning a sell-on clause in the transfer of player Denis Glushakov. The case centered on whether FC Nika was entitled to a 15% share of the transfer fee when Glushakov was later sold by FC Lokomotiv to FC Spartak in 2013. The dispute arose from a 2005 transfer agreement between FC Lokomotiv and FC Nika, which included a sell-on clause. FC Lokomotiv argued that an earlier transfer of the player to FC SKA in 2006, which involved no fee, extinguished FC Nika’s rights under the clause. FC Nika contended the clause remained valid and was triggered by the subsequent transfer to Spartak.
The CAS panel examined whether the 2006 transfer to FC SKA was a permanent transfer or a loan, as this would determine the clause’s applicability. Evidence, including witness statements and public records, indicated the transfer was a disguised loan to circumvent league regulations on loan limits. The panel applied Swiss law to uncover the parties’ true intent, concluding the transfer was a simulated permanent transfer concealing a loan. Consequently, the sell-on clause was not triggered in 2006 but was activated by the 2013 transfer to Spartak.
FC Lokomotiv received €8 million from Spartak, payable in rubles due to Russian currency laws. The panel ruled FC Nika was entitled to 15% of the actual ruble amount received (RUR 53,287,740), not the euro equivalent, dismissing concerns about exchange rate fluctuations. Additionally, the panel overturned a RUR 50,000 penalty imposed by the FUR on FC Lokomotiv, finding it lacked justification and procedural fairness.
The decision clarified that sell-on clauses are triggered by permanent transfers, not loans, and emphasized the importance of examining contractual intent. It also reinforced that penalties must be properly justified and procedurally sound. The panel partially upheld FC Lokomotiv’s appeal, confirming FC Nika’s entitlement to the sell-on fee while annulling the penalty. The ruling highlighted the complexities of football transfers and the need for precise contractual language to avoid disputes. The case underscored CAS’s role in interpreting contractual terms and ensuring fair outcomes in sports disputes.