Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Olea Sports Capital LLC v. Russian Football Union (RFU), JSC Professional Football Club CSKA

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Olea Sports Capital LLC (Russia) v. Football Union of Russia (FUR) and JSC Professional Football Club CSKA (Moscow)
Case no.
CAS 2022/A/8844
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code (edition January 2021); hearing in Lausanne
Treaty
None. Jurisdiction rests on Article 58(2) of the FUR Regulations on Dispute Resolution
Tribunal
Lars Hilliger (President), Wouter Lambrecht, Michael Beloff
Sector
Football; intermediary services
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and FUR PSC decision of 3 March 2022 confirmed (award of 7 September 2023). The FUR DRC had no jurisdiction over a claim based on an unregistered intermediary contract.
Amount
Claimed: EUR 1,333,333.35 plus interest at 6.5% (alternatively 5%) per annum from 1 September 2021. Awarded: nothing. The cost rulings are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Olea, a Moscow-based intermediary registered with the Football Union of Russia, claimed a commission from CSKA Moscow for the transfer of the player Mr N. to West Ham United. The transfer was agreed on 30 August 2021 for a guaranteed fee of EUR 26,666,667. CSKA had signed a written mandate with Olea that was valid only until 18 July 2021. Olea said the mandate was extended through WhatsApp exchanges in August 2021 (the "New Mandate"), but CSKA never signed the "Formalised Mandate" and it was never registered with the FUR. The FUR Intermediary Commission and the FUR Appeal Committee refused registration, and Olea did not appeal that refusal to CAS. The FUR Chamber on Dispute Resolution (DRC) and then the FUR Committee on the Status of Players (PSC) declined jurisdiction over Olea's claim for payment. Before CAS, Olea argued that Article 18(o) of the FUR DR gave the DRC jurisdiction, that the contract was valid under Russian law, and that the Panel should decide the merits. CSKA relied on Article 11(6) of the FUR Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (RWI), the binding effect of the unappealed refusal to register, and the lack of any agreement on essential terms or proof of services.

Key holdings

  1. CAS had jurisdiction under Article 58(2) of the FUR DR, and CSKA did not object. The appeal was admissible: it was filed on 25 April 2022, within 21 days of notification on 4 April 2022. ¶¶ 77–86
  2. The rules of sports federations are interpreted like statutes, not contracts. Interpretation starts from the wording and then looks to the objectively construed intention of the association that drafted the rule. ¶¶ 113–115
  3. Article 11(6) of the FUR RWI is lex specialis to the general competence in Article 18(o) of the FUR DR. Under it, unregistered intermediary contracts are not recognised by the FUR. The DRC therefore cannot hear a claim for breach of an intermediary contract that was not registered within the deadline. ¶¶ 116–122
  4. Olea did not appeal to CAS the FUR Appeal Committee's refusal to register the Formalised Mandate, so that refusal became binding. The FUR DRC and PSC were right to decline jurisdiction. Clause 5.2 of the Formalised Mandate does not change this, because it refers back to the FUR DR. ¶¶ 123–130
  5. There was no denial of justice and no conflict with the principle that sports disputes are resolved within the sports system. The registration requirement protects legitimate interests. The Panel did not decide whether a valid contract existed or whether Olea contributed to the transfer, and Olea may still bring its claim elsewhere, including before national courts. ¶¶ 131–136
  6. CAS has no binding precedent (stare decisis). CAS 2021/A/8251 and CAS 2021/A/8252 are not decisive, because there the intermediary had not sought registration and had the refusal reviewed. The Panel declined to follow the Sole Arbitrator in those cases into the merits. ¶¶ 137–145

Procedural history

  1. 30 August 2021CSKA, West Ham and the player sign the Transfer Agreement. The same day Olea sends CSKA the Formalised Mandate for signature.
  2. 23 September 2021The FUR Intermediary Commission refuses to register the Formalised Mandate.
  3. 14 October 2021The FUR Appeal Committee dismisses Olea's appeal against the refusal. Olea does not appeal to CAS.
  4. 20 January 2022The FUR DRC ends proceedings on Olea's payment claim for lack of jurisdiction under Article 49(2)(a) of the FUR DR.
  5. 3 March 2022The FUR PSC rejects Olea's appeal and confirms the DRC ruling.
  6. 25 April 2022Olea files its Statement of Appeal with CAS. It also files a parallel ordinary CAS request for arbitration, which is stayed.
  7. 24 August 2022The Panel is constituted.
  8. 26 January 2023Hearing at the CAS Court Office in Lausanne.
  9. 7 September 2023Award: appeal dismissed and the Appealed Decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Antonio Rigozzi · Eolos Rigopoulos
For the respondent
Ilya Chicherov · Yury Yakhno

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

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

Case ID
CAS 2022/A/8844
Claimant
Olea Sports Capital LLC
Respondent
Russian Football Union (RFU), JSC Professional Football Club CSKA
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Contractual litigations (except transfer)
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Michael Beloff, Lars Hilliger, Wouter Lambrecht
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.