Spartak Moscow has reportedly stopped paying the salary of midfielder Quincy Promes, according to the Telegram channel BAZA. The disclosure notes that payments to the player ceased at the start of March, even though he remains under contract. With Promes’ imprisonment, the club opted not to terminate the agreement immediately. There are roughly three months left on his deal, and terminating the contract could trigger substantial legal challenges, so Spartak appears to have chosen a different course of action.
The report suggests Spartak is saving around 300 thousand euros every month through this arrangement. Because Promes has not fulfilled contractual terms, the club has effectively suspended his remuneration while the contract endures.
Promes, who joined Spartak from the Netherlands, was arrested on March 13 in the United Arab Emirates. He was linked to an incident in Dubai in January 2024. In February, an Amsterdam court handed down a six-year prison sentence for cocaine trafficking, with the hearing held on January 24 and prosecutors seeking a nine-year term. On February 16, Promes was placed on the international wanted list. He also carries a separate 1.5-year sentence for stabbing in a different case.
There have been further tabloid-style developments surrounding Promes, including rumors about paternity claims connected to a former reality TV figure, which reportedly tied the child’s father to the Spartak forward. These reports have circulated in entertainment and sports gossip cycles, adding to the public interest around Promes and his status with Spartak.
As the situation unfolds, observers note the potential implications for Spartak’s squad planning, contract strategies, and the club’s approach to players under arrest or facing criminal proceedings. The developments underscore the complexities clubs face when an on‑field contributor encounters serious legal challenges, and they highlight how contractual leverage, league rules, and international arrest warrants can interact in high-profile football cases. The ongoing discourse also prompts examination of how football authorities handle disciplinary actions in parallel with legal outcomes. Sources include BAZA’s Telegram updates, which have provided the timeline and context for these events.