Clubs cannot seek to profit from a situation whereby they attribute to a player’s services a greater value than they are willing to pay the player in return for those services.
In this case, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejected the appeal filed by FC Shakhtar Donetsk, accepting a wider scope of appeal than FIFA’s (at least, with regard to the claimed amount) and considering that this case does not require using the “positive interest” principle, as there was sufficient information to apply the objectives in Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). In addition, the Panel decided that no sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the respondents, despite the fact that the player terminated the employment contract with the former club without just cause during the protected period.
Brief facts
In March 2013, Shakhtar’s third team (U19) and Oleksandr Zinchenko (Zinchenko), who was under 18 at the time, entered into an employment contract, valid from July 2013 until June 2015.
Soon after the contract came into force, Shakhtar offered a new contract to Zinchenko, to come into force after the expiry of the current one. Zinchenko rejected the offer and made a counteroffer, which was left unanswered by Shakhtar.
As of 1 December 2013, Zinchenko was sidelined and assigned to individual training. Until the end of May 2014, he took part in just one game in the Youth Champions League against Arsenal.
In June 2014, Zinchenko’s mother wrote to Shakhtar informing them that she and her son intended to move to Russia due to the recent military actions in the Donbass region. Shakhtar did not react to that...
Why not join us?
Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations, intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).
Register today and stay tuned to the latest legal news.
Get started