The case involves a dispute between FC Rubin Kazan and UEFA regarding violations of UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (CL&FFPR). The conflict arose from a 2014 Settlement Agreement, which required the club to meet specific financial break-even targets for the reporting periods ending in 2015, 2016, and 2017. FC Rubin Kazan failed to comply with these targets, leading UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) to impose sanctions, including a two-season exclusion from UEFA competitions (2019/2020 and 2020/2021) and a fine. The club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the sanctions were disproportionate and that UEFA incorrectly classified certain donations as related-party transactions.
A central issue in the case was whether donations from the Non-commercial Organization "Fund for Promotion of Physical Culture and Sport" (NKO Fund) and Tatenergo should be excluded from break-even calculations. UEFA contended these entities were related parties due to their ties to the Republic of Tatarstan, which exerted significant influence over the club through overlapping leadership, including the President of Tatarstan, Rustam Minnikhanov, who chaired both the club’s Board of Trustees and the parent company of NKO Fund and Tatenergo. The CAS panel upheld UEFA’s position, finding sufficient evidence of significant influence, particularly through the Board of Trustees’ decision-making authority, as demonstrated by media releases and financial records.
The panel also addressed the applicability of different editions of UEFA’s regulations, applying the principle of lex mitior to determine that the 2015 edition, which included a mitigating factor for operating in a structurally inefficient market, was more favorable to the club. Despite this, the panel confirmed the club’s breach of the Settlement Agreement, noting an aggregate deficit of €45,953,000 over the three reporting periods, exceeding the acceptable deviation of €30,000,000. The panel rejected the club’s argument that the sanctions were disproportionate, comparing the case to precedents like Galatasaray, where similar breaches resulted in comparable penalties.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld UEFA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of financial fair play compliance and the consequences of breaching settlement agreements. The ruling reinforced that clubs benefiting from second chances under such agreements must adhere to their terms, and failure to do so warrants significant sanctions. The panel dismissed all other motions and requests for relief, fully affirming UEFA’s original decision. The case underscores the rigorous enforcement of financial regulations in European football and the challenges clubs face in navigating complex ownership and sponsorship structures while maintaining compliance.