The case involves a dispute between Danilyuk Mikhail, a professional football players' agent, and Football Club Shinnik, a Russian football club, concerning the payment of an additional remuneration fee as stipulated in their Agency Agreement signed on 10 August 2011. The agreement appointed Mr. Danilyuk to facilitate the transfer of a player to the club, with a basic remuneration of 50,000 USD and additional payments contingent on the player's participation in official games or a subsequent transfer. The player was successfully transferred, and the club acknowledged Mr. Danilyuk's services in an Act dated 16 August 2011, confirming the payment terms. However, the club failed to pay the additional 50,000 USD for the 2012–2013 season, despite the player participating in two official matches.
Mr. Danilyuk filed a complaint with the club, which went unanswered, leading him to escalate the matter to the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the Russian Football Union (RFU). The club contested the claim, arguing the agreement was a sham, that Mr. Danilyuk had not participated in the transfer, and that he was unlicensed. The NDRC ruled in Mr. Danilyuk's favor, ordering the club to pay the additional fee plus procedural costs. The club appealed to the RFU's Players' Status Committee (PSC), which upheld the NDRC's decision. The case was then brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where a sole arbitrator reviewed the dispute.
The arbitrator found no evidence that the agreement was a sham and confirmed Mr. Danilyuk, as a licensed agent, was entitled to the fees as per the contract. The club's failure to pay the additional remuneration was deemed a breach of contract. The CAS upheld the NDRC's decision, requiring the club to pay the outstanding amount plus interest and procedural costs. The ruling emphasized the enforceability of contractual terms agreed upon by licensed agents and clubs under FIFA and RFU regulations.
The club argued that the agreement was an "imaginary deal," claiming Mr. Danilyuk sought payment for services he did not perform. The club's Sports Director testified he handled the transfer negotiations and that Mr. Danilyuk was demanding double payment. The PSC initially dismissed Mr. Danilyuk's claim, citing violations of the Russian Civil Code, including the agent's failure to submit a required report and the absence of a completed work act. The PSC also noted the player was unaware of Mr. Danilyuk's involvement, suggesting the agreement might be fraudulent.
Mr. Danilyuk appealed to CAS, arguing FIFA and RFU regulations should take precedence over Russian law. He sought clarification on whether his services were rendered and whether the additional remuneration clause was valid. The club missed the deadline to submit its answer, leading the Sole Arbitrator to exclude its response. Both parties agreed to a written proceeding without a hearing. The case hinged on jurisdictional issues, the applicability of sports regulations versus national law, and the validity of the agency agreement's terms.
The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS's jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal. The applicable laws were determined to be the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations (2008) and the RFU Players’ Agents Regulations (2010), supplemented by Russian law. The arbitrator found the contract terms were clear and that Mr. Danilyuk had fulfilled his obligations, as evidenced by the player's employment agreement and participation in games. The additional remuneration was deemed valid as a bonus payment, consistent with FIFA regulations. The ruling emphasized the enforceability of contractual terms and ordered the club to pay the outstanding amount plus interest.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded the club was obligated to pay the bonus, regardless of whether Mr. Danilyuk had provided additional services or fulfilled RFU obligations, as these were irrelevant to the bonus payment. The amount was to be paid in rubles at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of Russia on the payment date, with 5% annual interest from 15 October 2013. The CAS upheld Mr. Danilyuk's appeal, set aside the RFU's decision, and ordered FC Shinnik to pay the specified amount plus interest. The ruling underscores the contractual obligation of the club to fulfill the bonus payment as agreed.