Football lawyer Anton Smirnov shared commentary on the detention of Spartak Moscow player Quincy Promes in the United Arab Emirates on March 13. The remarks sparked discussion about the legal and contractual implications for Promes and his club, with Smirnov suggesting that Promes might not be held responsible for resolving the situation and that Spartak could consider contract termination with a justified termination payment, depending on the governing terms and local law.
Smirnov asserted that the UAE incident illustrates an outcome where the club could find a way to part ways with Promes while addressing contractual provisions. He noted that terminating the contract could be pursued with a valid reason recognized under footballing and employment law, potentially allowing Spartak to move forward without the burden of an ongoing unresolved case involving the player.
Promes was arrested in the UAE on March 13 after previously being under house arrest. This development followed a complex sequence of legal actions and international measures connected to Promes and his status as a footballer facing multiple legal challenges in Europe.
On February 14, an Amsterdam court sentenced Promes to six years in prison for cocaine trafficking. The hearing occurred on January 24, with prosecutors seeking a nine-year term. By February 16, Promes had been placed on an international list of wanted persons. In addition to the drug charges, he also faced a prison sentence of 1.5 years for an earlier stabbing incident, contributing to a multi‑faceted legal saga surrounding the player.
Earlier in March, a journalist reported that Promes was detained in Dubai following an incident at a location there. The report indicated that Promes fled the scene in an attempt to avoid immediate scrutiny, and authorities subsequently detained him while he was attempting to exit the UAE and return to Russia. The sequence underscored the heightened scrutiny surrounding Promes as his legal status moved across borders and different judicial systems intersected with his professional career.
Meanwhile, statements from the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office and other official bodies have focused on the ongoing legal proceedings and the implications for Promes’s professional involvement with Spartak. The unfolding events illustrate how a high-profile footballer’s legal troubles can intersect with club decisions, contract management, and international law enforcement coordination, creating a complex landscape for both the athlete and the team involved.