CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9413 — FC Zenit JSC v. Russian Football Union

"FC Zenit v. RFU" · CAS upheld six-match suspensions of three FC Zenit players for participation in a mass fight after a Russian Cup match.

What happened in FC Zenit v. RFU

On 27 November 2022, following a Russian Cup group-stage match between FC Zenit and FC Spartak Moscow, a mass confrontation erupted on the pitch before the penalty shoot-out. The referee sent off three players from each team for 'aggressive behaviour' in the hard-copy match protocol, but added a comment in the electronic RFU.Digital Platform specifying 'participation in a mass fight.' The RFU Control and Disciplinary Committee (CDC) imposed six-match Russian Cup suspensions on each of FC Zenit's players Malcom, Barrios, and Rodrigo under Article 97(2) of the RFU Disciplinary Regulations, and fined FC Zenit 100,000 rubles. The RFU Appeals Committee upheld those sanctions on 26 December 2022. FC Zenit appealed to CAS, arguing: (1) the re-qualification from 'aggressive behaviour' to 'mass fight' violated nulla poena sine lege and venire contra factum proprium; (2) the field-of-play doctrine barred the RFU bodies from re-qualifying the referee's decision; and (3) the sanctions were disproportionate given the players' varying degrees of involvement. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed all grounds. He found Article 97(2) RFU DR sufficiently clear and predictable, that no genuine re-qualification occurred given the referee's electronic comment, that the field-of-play doctrine applies only to the sending-off itself and not to the subsequent disqualification decision, and that Article 97(2) prescribes a fixed six-match ban leaving no discretion to reduce it. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9413

On 1 December 2022, the RFU CDC rendered Decision No. 21/2022, disqualifying FC Zenit players Malcom, Barrios, and Rodrigo for six Russian Cup matches each under Article 97(2) RFU DR for participation in a mass fight, and fining FC Zenit 100,000 rubles. FC Zenit appealed to the RFU Appeals Committee on 21 December 2022. On 26 December 2022, the RFU AC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the CDC decision by Decision No. 25/2022. The grounds were sent to FC Zenit on 13 January 2023. FC Zenit filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 1 February 2023 (uploaded to the CAS E-Filing platform on 3 February 2023), challenging Decision No. 25/2022. Both parties agreed to an expedited procedure before a sole arbitrator, waived the right to a hearing, and submitted materials in Russian with English executive summaries. The operative part of the award was communicated to the parties on 3 March 2023.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9413

• Article 97(2) of the RFU Disciplinary Regulations, prescribing a fixed six-match disqualification for participation in a mass fight involving more than two persons, is sufficiently clear and precise to satisfy the predictability test and the principle of nulla poena sine lege clara.
• The field-of-play doctrine is limited to the referee's decision to show a red card; the subsequent decision on disqualification is within the exclusive discretion of the RFU disciplinary body and is not a field-of-play decision.
• Any violation of a party's right to be heard at first-instance RFU proceedings is cured by the de novo review conducted by the RFU Appeals Committee and, ultimately, by CAS proceedings under Article R57 of the CAS Code.
• The principle of venire contra factum proprium has little to no application in disciplinary matters, particularly under a regime of de novo review.
• Article 97(2) RFU DR prescribes a mandatory fixed sanction of six matches with no discretion to reduce it based on a player's degree of involvement, whether as initiator or provoked participant.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the de novo standard under Article R57 of the CAS Code and addressed three issues sequentially. On legality, he applied the CAS 'predictability test' and found Article 97(2) RFU DR unambiguous in defining mass fight and prescribing a six-match ban, satisfying nulla poena sine lege. On the right to be heard, he held that even if FC Zenit first learned of the mass-fight characterisation at the CDC hearing, any irregularity was cured by the RFU AC appeal and the CAS de novo proceedings, citing CAS 2008/A/1574 and CAS 2010/A/2124. He rejected venire contra factum proprium as having minimal scope in disciplinary proceedings. On the field-of-play doctrine, he distinguished the referee's sending-off decision (protected) from the disciplinary body's disqualification decision (not protected), noting that the RFU CDC did not reverse the red card but merely assessed the conduct under its own regulations. He further found that the referee's electronic comment on the RFU.Digital Platform, entered on the match day, confirmed the mass-fight characterisation, so no re-qualification occurred. On proportionality, he acknowledged CAS's de novo power but held that Article 97(2) leaves no discretion to reduce the sanction, and that revision is only warranted where a sanction is 'evidently and grossly disproportionate,' a threshold not met here.

Why FC Zenit v. RFU matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies the boundary between the field-of-play doctrine and disciplinary body jurisdiction in Russian football: a referee's red card is protected from review, but the subsequent disqualification decision belongs exclusively to the disciplinary body. It also confirms that Article 97(2) RFU DR is a mandatory fixed-sanction provision admitting no reduction regardless of individual culpability, and reaffirms that de novo CAS review cures procedural defects from first-instance proceedings.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2014/A/3765 CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 CAS 2008/A/1545 CAS 2020/A/7008 & 7009 CAS 2008/A/1574 CAS 2015/A/3880

Frequently asked questions about FC Zenit v. RFU

Why couldn't FC Zenit argue that the RFU re-qualified the offence from aggressive behaviour to mass fight in the Zenit v. RFU CAS case?

The Sole Arbitrator found that no genuine re-qualification occurred because the match referee had entered a comment in the electronic RFU.Digital Platform on the day of the match — 27 November 2022 — specifying 'participation in a mass fight' as the reason for the sending-offs. The referee explained at the CDC hearing that he selected 'aggressive behaviour' in the electronic protocol only because a 'mass fight' option was not available in the platform, and that explanation was not refuted by FC Zenit.

Does the field-of-play doctrine prevent the RFU from imposing a longer suspension than the automatic one-match ban after a red card, as argued in the FC Zenit v. RFU case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the field-of-play doctrine protects only the referee's decision to show a red card and send off a player; it does not extend to the disciplinary body's separate decision on disqualification. Under Articles 16 and 17 of the RFU Disciplinary Regulations, the sending-off is the referee's domain while the disqualification is the exclusive prerogative of the RFU jurisdictional authority, meaning the RFU CDC was entitled to impose a six-match ban under Article 97(2) without infringing the field-of-play principle.

Can a player involved in a mass fight under Article 97(2) RFU DR receive a reduced suspension if they were less involved or provoked, as FC Zenit argued for Malcom and Barrios?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 97(2) of the RFU Disciplinary Regulations prescribes a fixed mandatory sanction of six matches with no discretion to reduce it, regardless of the degree of involvement, whether the player was an initiator or was provoked, or any other mitigating circumstance. The provision does not permit a probation period or any reduction, so the Sole Arbitrator could not depart from the six-match ban even under his de novo powers.

Was FC Zenit's right to be heard violated in the Zenit v. RFU CAS proceedings because the club only learned of the mass-fight characterisation at the CDC hearing?

The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged that FC Zenit may have first encountered the mass-fight characterisation at the CDC hearing, but held that any such irregularity was cured by the full right to be heard granted at the RFU Appeals Committee level and, definitively, by the de novo CAS proceedings under Article R57 of the CAS Code. Citing CAS 2008/A/1574 and CAS 2010/A/2124, he confirmed the well-established principle that procedural defects at first instance are remedied by the appeal process.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.