FC Zenit St. Petersburg, FC Dynamo Moscow, FC Sochi, CSKA Moscow, FC Krasnodar, FC Lokomotiv, FC Rostov, FC Rubin Kazan v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

FC Zenit JSC, FC Dynamo Moscow, FC Sochi, PFC CSKA Moscow, FC Krasnodar, FC Lokomotiv, FC Rostov and FC Rubin (Russia) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/9017

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the CAS Code (2021 edition); FIFA regulations applied, Swiss law subsidiarily

Treaty

None; appeal under Article 57(1) FIFA Statutes and Article R47 CAS Code

Panel

Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (President), Prof. Thomas Clay, Prof. Ulrich Haas

Sector

Football governance; player employment contracts

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and the FIFA Bureau decision of 20 June 2022 confirmed (operative part 13 January 2023; reasoned award 12 June 2023). Several findings were made by majority.

Amount

The Appellants sought a contribution of EUR 80,000 towards their legal costs. The cost orders are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. On 7 March 2022 the Bureau of the FIFA Council added a temporary Annex 7 to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). It allowed foreign players and coaches at clubs affiliated to the Football Union of Russia to suspend their contracts unilaterally until 30 June 2022. On 20 June 2022 the Bureau amended Annex 7 and extended that right to 30 June 2023. Eight Russian clubs appealed the extension to CAS. They argued that it breached their right to be heard and the procedure in Article 38 of the FIFA Statutes, that it gave no reasons, and that it was unnecessary, disproportionate and discriminatory. They also argued that it broke the Swiss Cartel Act, their personality rights under Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code, their constitutional guarantees of property and economic freedom, and public policy (pacta sunt servanda). FIFA replied that it had acted lawfully within its regulatory autonomy, in an urgent situation, after consulting stakeholders.

Key holdings

1. The appeal is admissible. The clubs' failure to appeal the original Annex 7 does not bar an appeal against the amended rules. The extension had different and longer effects on the clubs, and there was no acquiescence and no venire contra factum proprium. ¶¶ 75–76
2. The decision met the formal requirements. The situation was still urgent enough in June 2022 for the Bureau to act under Article 38 of the FIFA Statutes. All seven Bureau members approved by email between 17 and 20 June 2022, and the Council was informed on 23 June 2022. ¶¶ 100–104
3. There was no breach of the right to be heard and no duty to give reasons. The decision was a regulatory act, not a disciplinary one, and no rule required FIFA to consult the clubs. In any event, the CAS appeal gave them the chance to be heard, and the reasons for the rules had been made public in Circular Letter No. 1787 and the Interpretative Note. ¶¶ 106–122
4. FIFA pursued a legitimate objective: giving general legal guidance amid security risks and contractual uncertainty for foreign players and coaches in Russia. By majority, the Panel held the extension necessary and proportionate. The one-year period, running to the end of the season, was reasonable, and the clubs proposed no workable alternative that would have burdened them less. ¶¶ 138–140, 170–172, 195
5. Annex 7 did not have to provide compensation for the clubs to be valid. Possible abuse by players, agents or new clubs must be dealt with case by case, for example in unjust enrichment claims under Articles 62 et seq. of the Swiss Code of Obligations or under Article 2 of the Swiss Civil Code. ¶¶ 145–168, 197–198
6. The Swiss Cartel Act claim failed as unsubstantiated: the clubs did not define the relevant markets. Any distortion of the market was justified in any event. ¶¶ 200–209
7. None of the general principles relied on was breached: equal treatment, personality rights, property and economic freedom, and public policy. Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code in principle protects only natural persons based in Switzerland. Any infringement of personality rights would in any event be justified by overriding interests. ¶¶ 226, 233–237, 246, 253

Procedural history

1. 7 March 2022The FIFA Bureau adopts Annex 7 to the RSTP (the Temporary Rules).
2. 20 June 2022The Bureau adopts the Amended Temporary Rules, extending the right to suspend contracts until 30 June 2023. Circular Letter No. 1800 announces the change on 22 June 2022.
3. 8 July 2022The clubs file their Statement of Appeal with CAS.
4. 22 August 2022The Panel is constituted.
5. 25 August 2022The request for a stay of the decision is dismissed; the reasoned order follows on 16 September 2022.
6. 21 November 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
7. 13 January 2023Operative part of the award issued: the appeal is dismissed.
8. 12 June 2023Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Luigi Fumagalli President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Thomas Clay Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Ulrich Haas Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

In-house counsel of the clubs · Mikhail Prokopets · Alexandre Zen-Ruffinen · Georgi Gradev · Ivan Bykovskiy

For the respondent

FIFA

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Annex 7 RSTP
• FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
• war in Ukraine
• Russian football clubs
• suspension of employment contracts
• foreign players
• FIFA Bureau
• Article 38 FIFA Statutes
• right to be heard
• regulatory autonomy
• proportionality
• Swiss Cartel Act
• personality rights Article 28 SCC
• pacta sunt servanda
• unjust enrichment
• contractual stability
• Zenit
• CSKA Moscow

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.