The case involves a dispute between Russian football players Marat Shaymordanov, Nikita Fursin, and Sergey Shumeyko and FC Tyumen, along with the Russian Football Union (RFU), concerning unpaid promotion bonuses for the 2013/2014 season. The players claimed entitlement to bonuses under their employment contracts, specifically tied to the club's advancement to the National Football League (NFL). The dispute centered on the validity of the Bonus Regulations, which outlined these payments, and whether FC Tyumen was obligated to honor them. The players initially filed claims with the RFU's Dispute Resolution Chamber (RFU DRC), which dismissed their claims in March 2015. They then appealed to the RFU's Players' Status Committee (RFU PSC), which ruled in their favor in July 2015, ordering the club to pay the bonuses. However, a subsequent court decision in 2016 declared the Bonus Regulations invalid, prompting FC Tyumen to request a review of the RFU PSC's decision. The RFU PSC reversed its ruling and referred the matter back to the RFU DRC for reconsideration.
One player, Sergei Serdyukov, appealed the reversal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reinstated the original RFU PSC decision in his case in April 2017. Meanwhile, another court decision in October 2017 reaffirmed the invalidity of the Bonus Regulations. In January 2018, the RFU DRC reversed its earlier decisions and ordered a new review of the players' claims. The legal issues included the applicability of res judicata (finality of judicial decisions) and the conditions for reviewing decisions based on new evidence under RFU regulations. The CAS panel emphasized that res judicata requires identity of parties, objects, and legal basis, and that Article 64 of the RFU Regulations on Dispute Resolution permits review only for newly discovered evidence, not subsequent legal developments.
The players appealed the RFU DRC's January 2018 decision to CAS, arguing that the RFU DRC lacked competence and misapplied regulations. They sought to reinstate the original RFU PSC decisions and claimed compensation for legal costs. FC Tyumen and the RFU contested the appeal, arguing that the CAS lacked jurisdiction and that the RFU DRC's decision was valid. The Sole Arbitrator, Dr. András Gurovits, examined the case, including witness testimonies and prior rulings, and determined that the RFU DRC had overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing the RFU PSC's decisions. The arbitrator found that the RFU PSC alone had the authority to review its own decisions, while the RFU DRC was responsible for issuing new rulings on the merits.
The arbitrator also addressed the validity of the Bonus Regulations, concluding that they were enforceable under the players' contracts and the club's broader regulatory framework. Witnesses confirmed that bonuses had been paid for promotion, though the amounts were disputed. The arbitrator ruled that the players were entitled to the promotion bonus of RUB 997,500 each, plus late payment interest, and set aside the RFU DRC's decision. The case highlighted the complexities of sports arbitration, the interplay between contractual obligations and regulatory frameworks, and the challenges of reconciling decisions from different judicial bodies. The outcome underscored the importance of procedural clarity and adherence to jurisdictional boundaries in resolving sports-related disputes.