The case involves a legal dispute between Ruslan Zaerko, a former football player, and FC Nizhny Novgorod, along with the Football Union of Russia (FUR), concerning the termination of his employment contract. The dispute was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with a sole arbitrator overseeing the proceedings. The core issues revolved around the validity and enforceability of specific clauses in the employment contract, particularly a buyout clause and a liquidated damages clause. The contract, signed in February 2018, included provisions allowing the player to terminate the contract early by paying 2.5 million rubles, while the club could terminate with one month's notice and a payment of three months' salary. The player contested the termination, arguing it violated Russian labor law and principles of contractual stability under FIFA and FUR regulations.
The arbitrator ruled that the parties had implicitly agreed to the application of CAS rules, ensuring uniformity in applying federation standards. The decision emphasized the distinction between a liquidated damages clause, which quantifies damages for breach, and a buyout clause, which permits early termination. The arbitrator found that the existence of one clause did not invalidate the other, as they served different purposes. The disparity in the amounts specified in the clauses was deemed insufficient to render them invalid, as the parties had freely negotiated the terms. The club's failure to comply fully with the buyout clause's payment terms led the arbitrator to rule the termination invalid, making the club liable for damages. However, the liquidated damages clause was upheld as valid under Russian law and FUR regulations.
The player's arguments regarding the unfairness of the clause were dismissed, with the arbitrator noting that the parties had negotiated the terms without undue influence. The compensation amount of 225,000 rubles, equivalent to three months' fixed salary, was deemed compliant with the contract and regulations. The arbitrator also rejected the player's claim that his actions, such as seeking new employment, constituted acceptance of the termination, as he had challenged it promptly before the FUR Dispute Resolution Chamber. The principle of "venire contra factum proprium" (acting against one's own prior conduct) was found inapplicable, as the player had consistently contested the termination.
The CAS affirmed the arbitrator's decision, dismissing the player's appeal and upholding the original ruling. The case highlights the importance of strict compliance with contractual terms and the autonomy of parties in negotiating termination conditions under applicable regulations. It also underscores the precedence of sports federation rules over national law in CAS proceedings, ensuring consistency in the application of standards across the sport. The outcome reinforces the principle that freely negotiated contractual terms are binding unless they contravene mandatory legal provisions or demonstrate clear unfairness. The decision serves as a reminder of the complexities in football employment disputes and the procedural rigor required in sports arbitration.