F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2011-2012) – players’ and match agents disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players’ agent E, from country C as “Claimant” against the club Club K, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2011-2012) – players’ and match agents disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players’ agent E, from country C as “Claimant” against the club Club K, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 December 2008, the players’ agent E (hereinafter: the Claimant) licensed by the country C Football Federation and the country R club Club K (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a “Business Agreement No.25/12-08” (hereinafter: the 1st agreement) valid “until both parties have fulfilled their obligations in full”, under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission of EUR 600,000 to be paid until 31 December 2009 in the event that the player Player B (hereinafter: the player) extended his employment contract with the Respondent. 2. On 31 July 2009, the Respondent and the Claimant signed an additional agreement (hereinafter: the 2nd agreement), which specifically referred to the 1st agreement and which stipulated that the “agreement No 25/12 08 ‘Agreement price’ shall be amended as follows: […] The amount of remuneration for the Agent is fixed and is equal to 100,000 (one hundred thousand) that shall be paid till 31.12.2009”. On the same date, the Respondent and the Claimant also signed a document named “Acceptance Certificate No.1” (hereinafter: the Certificate), which specifically referred to the 1st agreement and stated that “The agent [i.e. the Claimant] has fulfilled his obligations […] to the fullest extent”. Furthermore, the Certificate stipulated that the “Cost of works (services) by the agreement shall be EUR 100,000”. 3. On 15 October 2009, the Respondent and the Claimant signed another agreement (hereinafter: the 3rd agreement) valid from the date of signature until 31 December 2009, and according to which the Claimant would conduct “negotiations to extend the employment contract between the professional football club Club K [i.e. the Respondent] and the professional footballer Player B”. Art. 2 of the 3rd agreement provided that an amount of EUR 500,000 would be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant “by 31.12.2009” in return for his services. Furthermore, art. 6 of the 3rd agreement provided that “In relation to signing this contract, the Business Contract [i.e. the 1st agreement] no, 25/12-08 between the Principal [i.e. the club] and the agent of 25th December 2008 shall no longer be valid”. 4. On 24 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent requesting from the latter the total amount of EUR 300,000. In this respect, the Claimant explained that, after the parties had concluded the 1st and 2nd agreements, the Respondent had paid him the amount of EUR 100,000 as commission. The Claimant further explained that, subsequently, the parties had “concluded a new contract [i.e. the 3rd agreement] in which they’ve put only 500,000 EUR since 100,000 was already paid”. Furthermore, the Claimant claimed that the Respondent had then paid him an amount of EUR 200,000 on the basis of the 3rd agreement and that, consequently, the amount of EUR 300,000 was still outstanding. 5. In its reply, the Respondent explained that all its obligations towards the Claimant had been fulfilled since it had paid the amount of EUR 100,000 according to the Certificate. 6. In his second submission, the Claimant reiterated his previous comments explaining again the chronology of the facts and confirming that the commission of EUR 300,000 was still outstanding. 7. In its last position dated 7 February 2012, the Respondent reiterated that it had fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. In this respect, the Respondent claimed to have concluded another additional agreement (hereinafter: the 4th agreement) on 15 December 2009, which specifically referred to the 3rd agreement, and which stated that the “agency agreement No 15/10-09 of October 15, 2009 ‘Agreement price’ shall be amended as follows: The amount of remuneration for the Agent is fixed and is equal to 200 000 (two hundred thousand) Euro, Vat is not applicable, that shall be paid until 31.12.2009”. 8. After that, the Respondent explained to have concluded two more agreements (hereinafter: act 1 and act 2) on 29 December 2009 stating that “the agent [i.e. the Claimant] has fulfilled his obligations […] to the fullest extent” and the Respondent “has paid a part of works (services) of the agent [i.e. the Claimant] for the Agreement [i.e. 3rd agreement] at a rate of 100,000 Euro”. 9. Therefore, the Respondent deemed to have paid two instalments of EUR 100,000 each according to act 1 and act 2, which, according to the Respondent, corresponded to the rest of the commission amounting to EUR 200,000 stipulated in the 4th agreement. 10. On 20 March 2012, the Claimant refuted having ever signed the 4th agreement, act 1 as well as act 2 and argued that said documents were forged. He therefore asked FIFA to request the Respondent to produce the originals documents and further argued that it was odd that the Respondent had come up with those documents right at the end of the proceedings without having referred to them previously. As a consequence, he strongly contested the validity of such documents. 11. At the end of the proceedings, FIFA requested the Respondent to provide the originals of the 4th agreement, act 1 as well as act 2. The documents in question were, up until the day on which the decision was taken, not provided by the Respondent. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also simply referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, and since the claim against the Respondent was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 January 2011, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 39 par. 1 and 4 of the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 January 2011, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at stake. 3. Furthermore, and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge pointed out that in accordance with art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of licensed players’ agents, i.e. individuals who hold a valid player’s agent license issued by the relevant member Association. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the country C Football Federation and a country R club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. As a consequence, the Single Judge held that he was competent to decide on the present matter which had an international dimension. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge acknowledged the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation submitted by the parties up until the date of the present decision. 5. After having carefully analysed the arguments and the documents provided by the parties and as a preliminary remark, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant had disputed the validity of the 4th agreement, act 1 as well as act 2, copy of which were provided by the Respondent in its last position dated 7 February 2012. In this respect, the Claimant argued that he had never signed those agreements and that they were consequently forged. In view of this, the Single Judge held that the first issue to be addressed in this case was whether these agreements had been validly concluded between the parties and were therefore binding upon them. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that despite having been asked by FIFA to provide the originals of the 4th agreement, act 1 as well as act 2, the Respondent had, up until the day on which the decision was taken, failed to remit to FIFA the originals of the said documents. Consequently, and in the absence of the original documents in question, the Single Judge concluded that said documents should not be taken into account in the present analysis. 6. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that whenever a party disputes the validity of the copy of a document provided by the other party, it is a common practice of the Players’ Status Committee to ask the party who has submitted a copy of the said document to provide FIFA by post with the original document. Furthermore, and in case the party allegedly in possession of said document is not able to provide the original version until the relevant matter is decided, the copy of the disputed document will not be taken into account by the Players’ Status Committee. 7. In continuation and first of all, the Single Judge noted that on 25 December 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a “Business Agreement” (i.e. the 1st agreement) in relation to the extension of the employment contract of the player B with the Respondent and according to which the latter had agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission amounting to EUR 600,000 for his services rendered in the said negotiations. 8. The Single Judge also took note of the fact that, on 31 July 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had also signed an additional agreement (i.e. the 2nd agreement) which specifically referred to the 1st agreement and mentioned that the Claimant was entitled to receive an amount of EUR 100,000 payable until 31 December 2009. The Single Judge also acknowledge that, on the same date, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a document named “Acceptance Certificate No. 1” (i.e. the Certificate), which specifically referred to the 1st agreement and stipulated that the Claimant had “fulfilled his obligations […] to the fullest extent” and that the Claimant was entitled to receive the aforementioned amount of EUR 100,000 as commission. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that on 15 October 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded another agreement (i.e. the 3rd agreement) which replaced the 1st agreement and according to which the Respondent had agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission amounting to EUR 500,000 for the services rendered by the latter “in connection with the negotiations to extend the employment contract between the professional club K and the professional footballer B”. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had lodged a claim in front of FIFA on 24 January 2011, arguing that the Respondent had not entirely complied with its obligations deriving from the 3rd agreement concluded between the parties on 15 October 2009. In this connection, the Claimant had claimed to have only received from the Respondent an amount of EUR 100,000 (cf. par. 8 above), representing partial payment of the amount of EUR 600,000 under the 1st and the 2nd agreement, and to have only received EUR 200,000 from the Respondent in relation to the 3rd agreement. Consequently, the Claimant claimed the alleged outstanding amount of EUR 300,000 on the basis of the 3rd agreement 11. Moreover, the Single Judge took into account the response of the Respondent to the Claimant’s claim and noted that the Respondent had denied owing the outstanding payment since it deemed to have respected its contractual obligations by paying a commission amounting to EUR 100,000 according to the Certificate concluded by the parties on 31 July 2009. 12. Equally, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the 3rd agreement, which provided for a payment in the amount of EUR 500,000, was concluded on 15 October 2009, i.e. after the conclusion of the 2nd agreement and the accompanying Certificate. Consequently, the Single Judge emphasised that the 3rd agreement appears to have been concluded in order to specify the exact amount of commission that the Respondent still needed to pay to the Claimant after the latter had received a first payment of EUR 100,000 on the basis of the 2nd agreement. 13. Consequently, on account of the fact that the Respondent had only paid EUR 200,000 out of the agreed amount of EUR 500,000 stipulated in the 3rd agreement and in view of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “any party claiming right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, the Single Judge held that the Respondent had clearly failed to demonstrate that it had complied with the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties on 15 October 2009 (i.e. the 3rd agreement). 14. Consequently, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of Pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 300,000. 15. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 16. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 17. In conclusion, in view of the circumstances of the present matter and, in particular, taking into account the considerable amount of submissions that had to be analysed in the matter in hand, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 20,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Players’ agent E, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ agent E, the total amount of EUR 300,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In case of non-payment of the abovementioned amount within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club K, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 4.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, players’ agent E. 5. The Claimant, players’ agent E, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club K, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 4.2 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives