The case involves a contractual dispute between Russian football player Sergei Serdyukov and FC Tyumen, along with the Football Union of Russia (FUR), concerning unpaid bonus payments following the club's promotion to a higher league. Serdyukov and FC Tyumen signed an employment contract in June 2013, which included bonus provisions tied to sporting achievements, such as promotion to the National Football League (NFL). After the club's promotion in the 2013/2014 season, FC Tyumen refused to pay the Promotion Bonus to Serdyukov and other departing players and staff. Serdyukov filed a claim with the FUR Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC), which initially dismissed his claim, but the FUR Players’ Status Committee (NPSC) later ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay the bonus and imposing a provisional measure preventing new player registrations. The club sought a review, but the NPSC upheld its decision, which became final. When the club failed to comply, Serdyukov requested enforcement.
Meanwhile, another FC Tyumen employee filed a claim in a Russian court, which dismissed the request for the Promotion Bonus. The club used this decision to request a review of the NPSC’s ruling, citing Article 64 of the FUR Regulations, which allows reconsideration based on new evidence. The NPSC accepted the court decision as new evidence, overturned its previous ruling, and referred the case back to the NDRC, lifting the registration ban. Serdyukov appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the reversal was unjustified. The CAS panel, consisting of a sole arbitrator, examined the applicable law, noting that under Swiss Private International Law, the parties’ choice of law could be tacit, such as through reference to CAS rules. The arbitrator clarified that Russian civil law provisions on transaction validity did not apply to labor agreements.
Serdyukov contended that the bonus regulations were governed by labor law, not civil law, and could not be invalidated under the cited provisions. He also argued the NDRC lacked competence to review its own decision and that the court decision did not bind him as he was not a party to those proceedings. FC Tyumen argued the bonus regulations were invalid because the club’s coach lacked authority to sign them, a point confirmed by a prior court decision. They claimed the appealed decision correctly referenced relevant provisions and that reviewing the NDRC decision was necessary to avoid conflicting judgments. The FUR did not participate in the proceedings.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on the FUR Statutes and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, as neither party disputed its authority. The sole arbitrator concluded the CAS was competent to decide the case. On the merits, the arbitrator examined whether newly discovered or post-decision evidence warranted revision under Article 64 of the FUR Regulations. The arbitrator found no basis for revision, noting labor relations are not considered transactions under Russian law, and the club failed to prove the court decision referenced an invalid transaction. The arbitrator emphasized the club had made several bonus payments during the season without providing alternative regulations, indicating payments were made under the existing Bonus Regulations.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld Serdyukov’s appeal, setting aside the NPSC’s June 2016 decision and reinstating the July 2015 ruling, which ordered FC Tyumen to pay the bonus. The decision reaffirmed the validity of the original ruling and clarified the inapplicability of invalid transaction doctrines to labor agreements in this context. The case highlights the complexities of sports-related contractual disputes, the autonomy of sports arbitration, and the importance of clear contractual terms and enforcement mechanisms within sports governance structures.