TAS - CAS 2025-A-11787

Palais de Beaulieu Av. Bergières 10 CH -1004 Lausanne Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 www.tas -cas.org

CAS 2025/A/11787 Vladimir Pisarskii v. Russian Football Union

ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Mr Frans de Weger, Attorney-at-Law in Haarlem, The Netherlands Arbitrators: His Honour James Robert Reid KC, Retired Judge in Liss, United Kingdom Mr Siarhei Ilyich, Attorney-at-Law in Minsk, Belarus in the arbitration between

Mr Vladimir Pisarskii , Russia Represented by Mr Anton Smirnov, Attorney -at-Law in Moscow, Russia

• Appellant –

and

Russian Football Union , Russia Represented by Ms Ani Gevorgyan, in -house-counsel (RFU) in Moscow, Russia - Respondent –CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 2

I. PARTIES

1. Mr Vladimir Pisarskii (the “Appellant” or the “Player ”) is a professional football player of Russian nationality .

2. The Russian Football Union (the “Respondent” or the “RFU”) is the national governing body of football in Russia with its registered office in Moscow, Russia.

3. The Appellant and the Respondent are hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties”.

II. INTRODUCTION

4. The present appeal arbitration proceedings concern an appeal lodged by the Appellant against a decision issued by the RFU Appeals Committee dated 7 August 2025 and communicated with grounds on 28 August 2025 (the “Appealed Decision”).

5. In the Appealed Decision, the RFU Appeals Committee dismissed the appeal filed by

against a decision issued by the RFU Appeals Committee dated 7 August 2025 and communicated with grounds on 28 August 2025 (the “Appealed Decision”).

5. In the Appealed Decision, the RFU Appeals Committee dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant on 24 July 2025 against the decision of the RFU Ethics Committee dated 3 July 2025 and communicated with its grounds on 21 July 2025. The RFU Appeals Committee found that the Player had committed a violation of Article 18 (1) of the RFU Ethics Regulations in that he was involved in indirect betting and imposed a sanction in the form of a ban on engaging in any football -related activity for a period of four (4) years, consisting of one (1) year of effective suspension and three (3) years of suspended sanction to apply following the expiry of the effective suspension period. Accordingly, the RFU Appeals Committee upheld the decision of the RFU Ethics Committee and confirmed the sanction.

6. In these proceedings, the Appellant is challenging the Appealed Decision and requests the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) to declare that the Appealed Decision is set aside, whereas the Respondent seeks confirmation of the Appealed Decision.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the submissions of the Parties , the hearing and the evidence examined in the course of the proceedings. This background information is given for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion.

A. Background Facts

8. On 6 January 2023, the Player entered into an employment agreement with Joint Stock Company Professional Football Club Krylia Sovetov (“PFC Krylia Sovetov”), valid as from 6 January 2023 until 31 May 2026 .CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 3

9. On 15 August 2024, Limited Liability Company Football Club Sochi (“FC Sochi”)

valid as from 6 January 2023 until 31 May 2026 .CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 3

9. On 15 August 2024, Limited Liability Company Football Club Sochi (“FC Sochi”) and PFC Krylia Sovetov concluded a transfer agreement pursuant to which the Player was transferred to FC Sochi on a loan basis for the period from 16 August 2024 to 30

June 2025.

10. On 16 August 2024, the Player entered into an employment agreement with FC Sochi, valid for the sporting season 2024/2025.

11. On 28 May 2025, the first leg of a promotion/relegation play -off tie between FC Sochi and the Russian football club FC Pari Nizhny Novgorod (“FC Pari NN”) took place

(the “Match”). The outcome of the two -legged tie would determine whether the clubs concerned would parti cipate in the Russian Premier League (“RPL”) or the Russian (second) Football National League (“FNL”) in the subsequent season. At the time, FC Sochi competed in the FNL, whereas FC Pari NN participated in the RPL.

12. In the 35 th minute of the Match, the Player committed a violation of the Laws of the Game and was consequently , following the intervention of VAR, shown a red card by the referee. At that point, the score was 1 -0 in favour of FC Sochi. The Match ended with a score of 2 -1 in favour of FC Pari NN.

13. On 6 June 2025, the RFU Game Protection Department (the “RFU GPD”) received a signal alleging potential direct or indirect influence by the Player on the outcome of the Match. On that basis, the RFU GPD, as an investigative body of the RFU, initiated an internal investigation .

14. On 16 June 2025, the RFU GPD sent a letter to FC Sochi, requesting that the Player appear at the RFU Office in order to provide an explanation .

the Match. On that basis, the RFU GPD, as an investigative body of the RFU, initiated an internal investigation .

14. On 16 June 2025, the RFU GPD sent a letter to FC Sochi, requesting that the Player appear at the RFU Office in order to provide an explanation .

15. On 17 June 2025, the RFU GPD sent a formal request to the bookmaker BetCity, seeking information concerning bets placed in relation to the Match by the Player and by a registered client of Be tCity, Abramov V.V. (“Abramov”). The request covered, inter alia, the full name and date of birth of the bettor, the timing and amount of each bet, the relevant sporting event, and any winnings obtained.

16. On 1 8 June 2025, BetCity provided the requested information to the RFU GPD.

According to the data supplied, Abramov had placed fourteen (14) bets on various outcomes related to the Match, for a total amount of RUB 4,351,250. BetCity further reported that it had identified a connection between Abramov and the Player.

17. On the same date , the RFU GPD interrogated the Player. During this hearing, the Player confirmed that he maintained a friendly relationship with Abramov and that he had transferred amount s totalling RUB 4,000,000 to Abramov prior to the Match.

18. On 25 June 2025, FC Sochi notified the Player of the termination of his employment contract. The notice reads as follows : “We inform you that employment contract No. 85/24 dated August 16, 2024, concluded between you and the Limited Liability Company FOOTBALL CLUBCAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 4

SOCHI (LLC FC SOCHI), will be terminated on June 30, 2025, due to the expiration of its term on the basis of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. ”

B. Proceedings before the RFU Ethics Committee

SOCHI (LLC FC SOCHI), will be terminated on June 30, 2025, due to the expiration of its term on the basis of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. ”

B. Proceedings before the RFU Ethics Committee

19. On 24 June 2025, the RFU General Secretary submitted a request to the Chairman of the RFU Ethics Committee to assess and evaluate the actions of the Player in view of potential violations of the RFU Ethics Regulations.

20. On 3 July 2025, the RFU Ethics Committee rendered a decision, imposing an unconditional suspension of one (1) year on the Player. The operative part of the decision reads as follows: “1.In connection with the violations of Article 18 of the RFU Ethics Regulations committed by football player Vladimir Vasilyevich Pisarskii in accordance with Art. 4 of the RFU Ethics Regulations, to apply to football player Vladimir Vasilyevich Pisarskii a sanction in the form of a ban on any football -related activity for a period of 4 (years), of which 1 (one) year, starting from the date of the decision, the real ban, and 3 (three) years – a conditional sports sanction after the expiration of the real ban. To establish a probationary period of 2 (two) years for football player

Vladimir Vasilyevich Pisarskii.

2. In accordance with paragraph 1. Of Article 45. Of the RFU Ethics Regulations, the decision of the Ethics Committee may be appealed by the interested party to the RFU Appeals Committee within three business days from the date of receipt of the full text of the decision.”

21. On 7 July 2025, the Player requested the reasoning of the decision from the RFU Ethics Committee, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 42 of the RFU Ethics Regulations.

22. On 21 July 2025, the RFU Ethics Committee provided the Player with the grounds of its decision.

Committee, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 42 of the RFU Ethics Regulations.

22. On 21 July 2025, the RFU Ethics Committee provided the Player with the grounds of its decision.

C. Proceedings before the RFU Appeals Committee

23. On 24 July 2025, the Player lodged an appeal against the decision of the RFU Ethics Committee with the RFU Appeals Committee.

24. On 7 August 2025, the RFU Appeals Committee dismissed the Player ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the RFU Ethics Committee, thereby confirming the suspension of the Player. This decision (previously defined as the “Appealed Decision”) forms the subject of the present proceedings before the CAS. The operative part of the Appealed Decision reads as follows: “1. To reject the appeal of Pisarskii V.V against the decision of the RFU Ethics Committee No. 016 -25/E of 3 July 2025.CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 5

2. To leave the decision of the RFU Ethics Committee NO. 016 -25/E of 03 July 2025 regarding Pisarskii V.V. in force.

3. The appeal fee is non -refundable to the appellant.”

25. On 12 August 2025, the Player requested the reasoning of the Appealed Decision from the RFU Appeals Committee, pursuant to Article 74 (1) of the RFU Disciplinary

Regulations.

26. On 28 August 2025, the RFU Appeals Committee provided the grounds of the Appealed Decision to the Player.

IV. PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

27. On 18 September 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the CAS against the Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision, in accordance with Article R47 and R48 of the 2025 edition of the CAS Code of Sports -related Arbitration (the “CAS

Code”).

27. On 18 September 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal with the CAS against the Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision, in accordance with Article R47 and R48 of the 2025 edition of the CAS Code of Sports -related Arbitration (the “CAS

Code”).

28. On 24 September 2025, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s

Statement of Appeal.

29. On 26 September 2025, the Respondent nominated Mr Siarhei Ilyich, Attorney-at-Law, in Minsk, Belarus, as arbitrator.

30. On 12 October 2025, the Appellant nominated His Honour James Robert Reid KC, Retired Judge in Liss, United Kingdom, as arbitrator.

31. On 2 November 2025, the Appellant filed his Appeal Brief in accordance with Article

R51 CAS Code.

32. On 3 November 2025, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s Appeal Brief and invited the Respondent to file its Answer within twenty (20) days .

33. On 11 November 2025, the Appellant filed a request for provisional measures pursuant to Article R37 of the CAS Code. The Appellant requested a stay of the execution of the sanction imposed on the Player by the RFU Ethics Committee and confirmed by the RFU Appeals Committee in the Appealed Decision.

34. On the same date, the CAS Court Office invited the Respondent to file its position on the Appellant’s request for provisional measures.

35. On 20 November 2025, the Respondent filed its position opposing the Appellant’s request for provisional measures.CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 6

36. On 10 December 2025, the Appellant submitted a reply to the Respondent’s position on the Appellant’s request for provisional measures.

37. On 11 December 2025, pursuant to Article R54 CAS Code, the CAS Court Office

P. 6

36. On 10 December 2025, the Appellant submitted a reply to the Respondent’s position on the Appellant’s request for provisional measures.

37. On 11 December 2025, pursuant to Article R54 CAS Code, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties on behalf of the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division that the arbitral tribunal for the present matter was constituted by: ➢ Mr Frans de Weger, Attorney-at-Law in Haarlem, The Netherlands; ➢ His Honour James Robert Reid KC, Retired Judge in Liss, United Kingdom; ➢ Mr Siarhei Ilyich, Attorney-at-Law in Minsk, Belarus, as arbitrators.

38. On 18 December 2025, the Panel issued the Operative part of the Order on Request for Provisional Measures, dismissing the Appellant’s application.

39. On 19 December 2025, the Respondent filed its Answer in accordance with Article R55

CAS Code.

40. On 5 January 2026, the Respondent indicated its preference for a hearing to be held and requested a case management conference (“CMC”).

41. On 6 January 2026, the Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that he considered it necessary for both a hearing and a CMC to be held.

42. On 26 January 2026, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Panel, issued the reasoned Order on the Appellant’s Request for Provisional Measures.

43. On the same date, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties, that the Appellant’s requests to hear an anonymous witness, as well as the outstanding evidentiary request, were rejected by the Panel . The Panel indicated that the reasoning for this decision would be fully addressed in the arbitral award.

44. On 29 January 2026, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to attend a CMC, to be held by videoconference on 6 February 2026.

45. On 6 February 2026, the CMC was held.

would be fully addressed in the arbitral award.

44. On 29 January 2026, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to attend a CMC, to be held by videoconference on 6 February 2026.

45. On 6 February 2026, the CMC was held.

46. During the CMC, the Appellant requested clarification regarding the Respondent’s reference to Clause 5 of the RFU Ethics Regulations in its reply. In addition, the Appellant alleged that there were shortcomings regarding the translation of Annex 6 of the A nswer and a request concerning the job description of certain RFU GPD employees.

47. On 11 February 2026, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the Panel, invited the Respondent to address these requests, including full disclosure of the duties set out in the job description of the employee related to paragraphs 59/60 of the Answer.

48. On 27 February 2026, after a granted extension, the Respondent provided clarification regarding the Respondent’s reference to Clause 5 of the RFU Ethics Regulations andCAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 7

the alleged shortcomings regarding the translation of Annex 6 of the Answer . The Respondent offered to provide the video re cording of the hearing before the RFU. Further to this, the Respondent provided the job description of the RFU GPD employee.

49. On 2 March 2026, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to attend a hearing, to be held by videoconference on 8 April 2026.

50. On 10 March 2026, the CAS Court Office invited the Appellant to provide written observations regarding any comments the Appellant may have in relation to the job description as provided by the Respondent, his position or observations concerning Article 28 of the RFU Ethics Regulations and any comments regarding the transcript and the related request for video recording.

51. On 16 March 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s signed Order of Procedure.

description as provided by the Respondent, his position or observations concerning Article 28 of the RFU Ethics Regulations and any comments regarding the transcript and the related request for video recording.

51. On 16 March 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s signed Order of Procedure.

52. On 17 March 2026, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s signed Order of Procedure as well as the Appellant’s comments regarding the Respondent’s clarification as to Clause 5 of the RFU Ethics Regulations , the alleged shortcomings regarding the translation of Annex 6 of the Answer and the job description of the RFU GPD employee as was provided by the Respondent . The Appellant informed the CAS Court Office that it was not necessary for the Appellant to be provided with the video recording.

53. On 20 March 2026, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that they would have the opportunity to further address the issues in relation to the job description as provided by the Respondent, Article 28 of the RFU Ethics Regulations as well as to the transcript.

Further to this, it was confirmed that the Respondent’s offer to provide a video recording was not necessary and, consequently, the Parties were informed that the Panel did not require the production of the video recording.

54. On 8 April 2026, a hearing was held by videoconference. In addition to the Panel and Mr Andrés Redondo Oshur , Counsel to the CAS, the following persons attended the

hearing: a) For the Appellant: 1) Mr Vladimir Pisarskii , the Player;

1. Mr Anton Smirnov , Counsel;
2. Mr Maksim Sidorov , Interpreter; 4) Mr Vitaly Abramov , Witness; 5) Mr Dmitry Zhelanov , Witness; and
3. Mr Nikita Zazulin , Witness.

b) For the Respondent:CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 8

1. Ms Ani Gevorgyan , Counsel.

1. Mr Dmitry Zhelanov , Witness; and
2. Mr Nikita Zazulin , Witness.

b) For the Respondent:CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 8

1. Ms Ani Gevorgyan , Counsel.

55. At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant informed the Panel that Mr Roberto Moreno, who was initially listed as one of the witnesses, was not going to be heard as witness.

Similarly, during the hearing, the Appellant wi thdrew his request to hear Mr Bogdan Zburovskii.

56. The Parties were given full opportunity to present their cases, submit their arguments and answer the questions posed by the Panel.

57. Before the hearing was concluded, the Parties expressly stated that they had no objection to the procedure adopted by the Panel and that their right to be heard had been respected.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

58. The following outline of the Parties’ positions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise every submission advanced. The Panel, however, confirms that it carefully heard and took into account in its decision all the submissions, evidence, and arguments presented by the Parties, even if they have not been specifically summarised or referred to in the present arbitral award.

A. The Appellant

59. The Appellant 's submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows: ➢ The Player did not violate Article 18 of the RFU Ethics Regulations. In this regard, the only alleged evidence consists of the Player’s transfer of money to Abramov. There is no further evidence of the Player’s involvement in any wrongdoing in the case file. Nevertheless, the RFU Appeals Committee considered that the Player’s guilt was established beyond doubt. The Player strongly contests this conclusion. ➢ The Appeals Committee failed to substantiate its conclusion that the Player knew the funds would be used for betting. The case file contains no evidence supporting this assertion. On the contrary, the documentation submitted by the

considered that the Player’s guilt was established beyond doubt. The Player strongly contests this conclusion. ➢ The Appeals Committee failed to substantiate its conclusion that the Player knew the funds would be used for betting. The case file contains no evidence supporting this assertion. On the contrary, the documentation submitted by the Player, including corres pondence between Abramov and his mother, indicates the opposite. At the time of the transfer on 28 May 2025, the Player had no reason to believe that the funds would be used for betting rather than debt repayment. ➢ The RFU Appeals Committee correctly refer red to the “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof. However, this standard must primarily be met by the national association, which bears the burden of proving the Player’s guilt. By contrast, the Player is only required to meet the “balance of probabilities” standard.CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 9

➢ The CAS jurisprudence on the application of standards of proof in comparable cases is extensive and well known to the Panel. By way of example, in CAS 2021/A/8453 it was held that the burden of proof regarding a player’s alleged involvement in match -fixing lies with the sanctioning authority, and that the applicable standard is that of comfortable satisfaction. In reaching such satisfaction, CAS panels must take into account the seriousness of the allegation, requiring a high degree of confidence in the quality of the evidence. ➢ In casu, even if it cannot be excluded that a match was manipulated, this alone does not constitute a sufficient basis to conclude that a player participating in such a match is automatically involved in the manipulation or has otherwise breached the principles o f fairness. Accordingly, the practice referred to by the RFU Appeals Committee in paragraph 57 does not relieve the national association of its obligation to establish the Player’s guilt to the comfortable satisfaction standard . ➢ Even assuming that the proceedings were spontaneous rather than premeditated , the timing – namely the penultimate match of the seaso n –

the RFU Appeals Committee in paragraph 57 does not relieve the national association of its obligation to establish the Player’s guilt to the comfortable satisfaction standard . ➢ Even assuming that the proceedings were spontaneous rather than premeditated , the timing – namely the penultimate match of the seaso n – suggests a strategic decision to initiate proceedings against the Player. The club had previously relied extensively on the Player, who made a significant contribution to its promotion to the RPL, despite a weaker performance in the spring. It is precisely this decline in performance, combined with the sendingoff in the Match and information received from BetCity, that appears to have triggered coordinated action between the club and the RFU. In light of the se facts and circumstances, the Player’s position regarding the existence of a coordinated effort against him is, at the very least, credible . ➢ It must be acknowledged that the RFU GPD and the RFU Ethics Committee also committed numerous procedural violations. The period between the application to the RFU Ethics Committee on 24 June 2025 and the final meeting on 3 July 2025 spans only eight days. Such an expedited handling of a complex and extensive case is highly unusual and virtually unprecedented in the pract ice of RFU jurisdictional bodies and other national associations. ➢ Additionally, t he apparent disregard for applicable regulatory norms in the presence of the Player’s representatives is indicative of a broader failure to ensure due process. Moreover, the RFU Appeals Committee did not establish what actions were taken by the RFU GPD and the RFU Ethics Committee in the absence of the Player’s representatives – an issue that remains undisputed . ➢ The assertion in paragraph 81 of the Appealed Decision is also incorrect. The Player advanced numerous arguments and supporting evidence with respect to his innocence as to the alleged indirect betting , including a polygraph test, however, these arguments were not properly assessed by the RFU jurisdictional bodies .CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 10

Player advanced numerous arguments and supporting evidence with respect to his innocence as to the alleged indirect betting , including a polygraph test, however, these arguments were not properly assessed by the RFU jurisdictional bodies .CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 10

➢ The RFU GPD and the jurisdictional bodies have failed to explain how the Player could realistically prove his innocence in a case concerning alleged indirect participation in betting. While direct betting activity may be objectively verifiable, establishin g indirect participation requires clear and convincing evidence, which is absent in the present case . ➢ In this context, a polygraph test conducted under the supervision of the RFU GPD or the RFU Ethics Committee could have served as an additional evidentiary tool. ➢ Since the CAS Panel is considering the case de novo, the Player expects that all aspects which were disregarded, unverified, or insufficiently investigated by the RFU GPD, the RFU Ethics Committee, and the Appeals Committee will now be assessed thoroughly and objectively. ➢ This case appears to be the first instance in RFU history in which sanctions have been imposed for alleged indirect participation in betting. Previous cases have consistently concerned direct participation and resulted in less severe sanctions. The present case is therefore unprecedented and underscores the disproportionate nature of the sanction imposed. ➢ In particular, the Player disputes the interpretation adopted in paragraph 89 of the Appealed Decision, whereby “participation” is said to include indirect participation . In the Player’s view, direct and indirect participation in betting are fundamentally distinct concepts and cannot be equated. In any event, the Player maintains that he did not engage in indirect participation in betting . ➢ The Player refers to the Explanatory Dictionary of the State Language of the Russian Federation, approved by Order No. 1102 -r of 30 April 2025, for the definition of “activity,” which forms part of the concept of participation . Given that “participation” entails “joint activity with others,” and that

Russian Federation, approved by Order No. 1102 -r of 30 April 2025, for the definition of “activity,” which forms part of the concept of participation . Given that “participation” entails “joint activity with others,” and that “activity” is defined as a process aimed at achieving a specific goal, the qualification of indirect participation requires that the Player’s actions be directed towards a shared objective. In this case, such a shared objective would have been the placing of bets together with Abramov. ➢ However, when the Player transferred money to Abramov, he was unaware that Abramov intended to use the funds for betting purposes. The purpose of the transfer was solely to assist a friend in repaying debts. Only subsequently did Abramov inform the Player of his intention to place bets. The decision on how to use the funds rested exclusively with Abramov. The Player’s objective was never to engage in betting, as confirmed by the case file . ➢ The Player merely sought to assist a friend facing severe financial difficulties, exacerbated by family circumstances, including his mother’s situation. The Player acted without any intent to commit wrongdoing. The only regret heCAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 11

expresses is that he did not postpone or decline Abramov’s request in order to focus on his professional obligations . ➢ Finally, the proportionality of the sanction must be assessed by the CAS Panel in light of the Player’s personal and professional circumstances. At 29 years of age, with limited remaining years in his career, and as the sole provider for his family, including a newborn child and a mother suffering from cancer, the imposition of a one -year suspe nsion – based on an unprecedented and questionable interpretation of Article 18 of the RFU Ethics Regulations – amounts to a disproportionate and unjust sanction. In practical terms, it risks bringing the Player’s professional career to an end .

60. On this basis, the Appellant submitted the following requests for relief in his Appeal Brief: "1. The Player’s appeal is admissible.

amounts to a disproportionate and unjust sanction. In practical terms, it risks bringing the Player’s professional career to an end .

60. On this basis, the Appellant submitted the following requests for relief in his Appeal Brief: "1. The Player’s appeal is admissible.

2. The appeal filed by the Player is upheld.

3. The Decision of RFU Appeals Committee Nº 07/2025 of 07 August 2025 and the Decision of RFU Ethics Committee Nº 016-25/E of 03 July 2025 are set aside.

4. The costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the RFU.”

B. The Respondent

61. The Respondent’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows: ➢ The Player violated the RFU Ethics Regulations (namely, paragraph 1 of Article 18). Article 18 of the RFU Ethics Regulations establishes the following: “Article 18. Prohibition of participation in football betting and gambling

1. Football entities are prohibited from taking part, directly or indirectly, in betting, gambling, lotteries or similar activities related to football Matches or competitions and/or any ancillary football events.

2. Football entities are prohibited from having an interest, directly or indirectly (through or jointly with third parties) , in organizations, companies, etc. that promote, broker, organize, or conduct betting, gambling, wagering, lotteries, or other similar events related to football Matches and competitions.

For the purposes of this article, an interest is understood to mea n obtaining any potential advantage personally for the football entity and/or for persons associated with it."CAS 2025/A/11 787

P. 12

➢ Similar prohibitions are contained in the regulations of other football federations around the world. It demonstrates that both international and national football federations have a zero -tolerance policy toward s betting, both directly and indirectly. This is a universal rule adhered to by the entire football community.

➢ Similar prohibitions are contained in the regulations of other football federations around the world. It demonstrates that both international and national football federations