The case involves a contractual dispute between FC Shakhtar Donetsk and the player Olexandr Vladimirovich Zinchenko, with FC Ufa and FIFA also involved, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose when Zinchenko unilaterally terminated his contract with Shakhtar in 2014, citing safety concerns due to military conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region. Shakhtar contested the termination, arguing it was without just cause, and sought compensation for breach of contract, including lost transfer fees and sporting sanctions against Zinchenko and Ufa. The case was initially heard by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which partially accepted Shakhtar's claim, ordering Zinchenko to pay UAH 232,000 plus interest, with Ufa jointly liable. Dissatisfied, Shakhtar appealed to CAS, seeking higher compensation and sporting sanctions.
The CAS panel addressed several key legal issues, including the admissibility of new evidence, the scope of appeal proceedings, and the methodology for calculating compensation under Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The panel allowed new evidence submitted by Shakhtar, noting the absence of bad faith and the relevance of updated information. It emphasized that CAS reviews cases de novo but cannot exceed the issues raised in the original decision. Regarding compensation, the panel rejected rigid formulas, advocating for a case-by-case approach considering factors like salaries, contract duration, and whether the breach occurred during the protected period. It dismissed Shakhtar's claims for higher compensation based on Zinchenko's subsequent transfer to Manchester City, deeming it irrelevant as it occurred after the original contract would have expired. The panel also upheld the DRC's decision not to impose sporting sanctions, citing CAS jurisprudence that interprets "shall" in Article 17 as discretionary, allowing for contextual flexibility.
Shakhtar argued for the "positive interest" method to calculate compensation, aiming to restore the club to its pre-breach position by hypothetically replacing the player. However, the panel found this method inappropriate here, as sufficient information existed to assess compensation under Article 17 without speculative calculations. The panel also dismissed Shakhtar's claims related to alleged offers from Rubin Kazan and Manchester City, citing lack of evidence. It noted that Shakhtar had already received training compensation, which could not be conflated with breach compensation. Regarding sporting sanctions, the panel considered Zinchenko's minor status and the geopolitical context but upheld the DRC's discretionary decision not to impose sanctions, as Ufa did not induce the breach.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed Shakhtar's appeal, confirming the DRC's decision. The ruling underscored the importance of flexibility in contractual disputes, balancing FIFA regulations with contextual fairness. It reinforced CAS's role in ensuring equitable outcomes based on the latest information and legal principles, while respecting FIFA's discretionary application of sanctions. The case highlights the complexities of player contracts in football, particularly in extraordinary circumstances like armed conflict, and the need for nuanced legal interpretations to address such disputes.