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 H, as “Claimant” against the club G, as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission. I. Facts of the case

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 H, as “Claimant” against the club G, as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 October 2005, the players’ agent H licensed by the Football Association A, (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the country A player M (hereinafter: the player) concluded a representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid from 1 October 2005 until 1 October 2007. 2. On 26 July 2006, the player and the country T club G (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the employment contract) valid until 31 May 2011, which provided for the player to inter alia receive from the Respondent the following payments: USD 500,000 “for the period between 1 August 2006 and 31 May 2007”; USD 600,000 ”for the period between 1 August 2007 and 31 May 2008”; USD 650,000 ”for the period between 1 August 2008 and 31 May 2009”; USD 700,000 ”for the period between 1 August 2009 and 31 May 2010”; USD 750,000 ”for the period between 1 August 2010 and 31 May 2011”. In this respect, the employment contract was co-signed by the Claimant. 3. On an unknown date, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document entitled “Player’s Agent Contract” (hereinafter: the contract) by means of which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant USD 110,000 “in cash as a comission for the first and the second years of the contract of the player” and “The rest of the commision (..) at the end of the each season as %10 (for 2008- 2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons) during the duration of the contract”. 4. Also on an unknown date, the player signed a document (hereinafter: the authorisation) by means of which he authorised the Respondent to pay the Claimant’s commission on his behalf. In this connection, the authorisation translates (from language S to English): “M authorizes hereby the club G to pay directly to my agent H, the commission corresponding to the contract concluded between the parties on 26 July 2006 in accordance with the terms to be agreed between them”. 5. On 3 July 2008, the Respondent and the country M club X concluded an agreement regarding the loan of the player to club X during the period from 7 July 2008 until 31 May 2009 which inter alia specified that, during the relevant loan period, the player was remunerated exclusively by club X. 6. On 4 August 2009, the Respondent and the country A club Z concluded an agreement regarding the loan of the player to club Z “for the period established between the current date and June 30th, 2010 (..)” which inter alia specified that, during the relevant loan period, the player was remunerated exclusively by club Z. 7. On 21 August 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent, requesting from the latter the payment of USD 210,000, corresponding to 10% of the player’s salary between 1 August 2008 and 31 May 2011, i.e. the last three years of the employment contract signed between the player and the Respondent, plus 5% interest. 8. In this respect, the Claimant maintained that, although the player and the Respondent had terminated their contractual relationship prematurely, the latter had to pay him the entire commission due as per the contract. Regarding this, the Claimant further argued that, in his opinion, the termination of the employment contract could not have an impact on him as third party. Besides, the Claimant stressed that his commission was also due in accordance with the Swiss law. 9. Finally, the Claimant specified that the interest on the amount claimed had to be calculated as of the date in which the employment contract had been terminated. 10. In its response dated 12 July 2010, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. In this respect, the Respondent admitted having concluded the contract and stressed that it had already paid the Claimant the amount of USD 110,000 “for the first and second seasons”. 11. In continuation, the Respondent explained that, during the 2008/2009 season, the player had been loaned to the country M club X and that, during the 2009/2010 season, the latter had been on loan with the country A club Z. Besides, the Respondent stressed that, while on loan with club X and club Z, the player had not received his salary from the Respondent as per the employment contract. 12. In addition, the Respondent maintained that, although the employment contract was still valid, a “temporarily transfer of the Player for the upcoming season” was being negotiated “with another country A club”. 13. As a consequence of all the above, the Respondent considered that because the Claimant’s commission was being paid on the player’s behalf in accordance with art. 19 par. 4 of the Regulations and the latter was not entitled to receive his salary “for the third and the fourth seasons”, it “was not in a position to pay to the Agent on behalf of the Player”. 14. In its subsequent statements, sent after the investigation phase of the present matter had already been closed by FIFA, the Claimant contested the Respondent’s allegations and insisted on being entitled to receive from the latter the whole amount of commission stipulated in the contract. In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent’s obligation to pay his commission did not depend on the latter’s “duty to pay the salary to the player (..) neither by law, nor by contract”. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the conclusion of the relevant loan agreements had not led to a termination of the employment contract. 15. In continuation, the Claimant maintained that, in accordance with Swiss law, a release on loan was not sufficient to deprive an agent of his entitlement to obtain the relevant commission. Besides, the Claimant indicated that no provisions concerning the “cessation of the commission payments before the termination of Mr. M’s employment contract” had been included in the contract. 16. Additionally, the Claimant called the attention to the fact that, during the loan periods in question, the Respondent was “saving the salary” of the player and received a loan fee from the clubs X and Z. Therefore, the Claimant considered that it would be “inadequate and unjust enrichment if, although gaining money with Mr H’s client Mr. M, club G would also be entitled to reject paying the commission to Mr. H.” 17. Finally, the Claimant amended his claim requesting from the Respondent the payment of USD 210,000, plus 5% interest “starting 01.07.2008, 01.07.2009 and 01.07.2010 respectively fro [sic] each season owed.” 18. In its final statement dated 24 November 2011, the Respondent mainly reiterated the content of its previous submission and rejected the latest allegations of the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent stressed once again that the Claimant was being remunerated on the player’s behalf and that he was clearly not entitled to receive any commission “for a period of time when the Player was registered to a third club and he received his income from a third Club.” 19. In addition, the Respondent maintained that the player had been loaned because he could not adapt to the team and wished to return to his country. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that, after the end of the loan period, neither it nor the player intended to “be bound with the employment contract.” 20. Finally, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant’s entitlement to receive his commission clearly depended on the validity of the employment contract “otherwise it would be unjust enrichment of the Claimant since his commission fee was calculated and agreed on the basis of the effective period of the employment contract between club G and the Player.” 21. Lastly, FIFA was informed by the Football Federation T on 20 April 2012 that, in country T, the 2008-2009 football season had started on 23 August 2008 and had ended on 30 May 2009, while the 2009-2010 season had lasted from 7 August 2009 until 16 May 2010 and the 2010-2011 season from 14 August 2010 until 22 May 2011. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 August 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Procedural Rules (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agent 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, considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 August 2009, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand. 3. With regard to his competence, the Single Judge pointed out that in accordance with the provisions set out by the Regulations, FIFA has jurisdiction on matters relating to licensed players’ agents, i.e. on those individuals who hold a valid players’ agent licence issued by the relevant member Association. 4. The Single Judge continued his deliberations by indicating that the present matter concerns a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association A and a country T club, regarding an allegedly outstanding commission. 5. As a consequence, the Single Judge is the competent body to decide on the present matter which has an international dimension (cf. art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations). 6. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the established facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. In particular, the Single Judge started his analysis of the case by noting that, on 1 October 2005, the Claimant and the player had concluded a representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) and that, on 26 July 2006, the player had signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the employment contract) with the Respondent, valid until 31 May 2011, by means of which he was inter alia entitled to receive from the Respondent, as salary, USD 500,000 for the 2006/2007 season; USD 600,000 for the 2007/2008 season; USD 650,000 for the 2008/2009 season; USD 700,000 for the 2009/2010 season and USD 750,000 for the 2010/2011 season. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, by means of an undated document (hereinafter: the contract), the Respondent had undertaken to pay to the Claimant USD 110,000 as commission “for the first and the second years of the contract of the player” and the rest “at the end of the each season as %10 (for 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons) during the duration of the contract”. Besides, the Single Judge further remarked that, by means of another undated document (hereinafter: the authorisation) the player had authorised the Respondent to pay the Claimant’s commission of his behalf as per the contract. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, during the 2008/2009 season, the player had been loaned to the club X and that, during the 2009/2010 season, the latter had been on loan with the club Z. 8. Finally, the Single Judge observed that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant, referring to the contract, had requested from the Respondent the payment of USD 210,000, corresponding to 10% of the player’s salary between 1 August 2008 and 31 May 2011 in accordance with the employment contract, arguing that the latter’s loan to club X and to club Z could not interfere with his right to receive his entire commission as per the contract. Likewise, the Single Judge acknowledged that, for its part, the Respondent had admitted having concluded the contract but, at the same time, had vehemently contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive the requested amount on the basis of the aforementioned loans as well as on the basis of the fact that it was allegedly negotiating the loan of the player to “another country A club” for the 2010/2011 season without, however, providing any documentary evidence indicating that this third loan had actually taken place. 9. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and as a preliminary remark, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent’s commitment to the pay the Claimant’s commission was based on art. 19 par. 4 of the Regulations, i.e. the Respondent had undertaken to pay the relevant amount on the player’s behalf and not as a client of the Respondent. 10. In view of the above, the Single Judge was eager to emphasize that the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent depended on the employment contract concluded between the player and the Respondent, and, consequently, the remuneration payable by Respondent under the contract was subordinate to the commission that the player owed to the Claimant. 11. In continuation and in the same context, the Single Judge referred to art. 20 par. 3 of the Regulations, and stressed that, in principle, the entitlement of a player’s agent to receive his commission from a player in cases where no lump sum payment has been agreed in advance, lasts only until the player’s employment contract in question has expired or the player has signed a new employment contract without the involvement of the agent. 12. With those considerations in mind, the Single Judge further recalled that, during the player’s loan to club X and to club Z, the latter’s contractual relationship with the Respondent and the payment of his remuneration under the employment contract had been suspended. Indeed, this is confirmed under the terms of both loan agreement concluded between the Respondent and club X, respectively club Z, which stipulate that the player’s salary shall be paid by the two latter clubs during the period of the respective loan. Hence, the Single Judge considered that, during the relevant period of time, the player had not received the salary that the Claimant had negotiated for him and which was at the basis of the latter’s entitlement to receive his commission in the first place. 13. Accordingly, taking into account the aforementioned and, in particular, considering the wording of art. 20 par. 3 of the Regulations as well as bearing in mind that during his loan to the clubs X and Z, i.e. during the seasons 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, the player had not been remunerated by the Respondent as per the employment contract, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that, during the relevant timeframe, the Claimant was not entitled to receive his commission. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant related to the payment of his commission for the season 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 had to be rejected. 14. Having established the aforementioned and turning his attention to the Claimant’s request for his commission in relation to the 2010/2011 season, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent, despite having alleged that the player had been loaned to another club, never provided FIFA with the corresponding documentary evidence. Thus, bearing in mind the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that the burden of proof has to be carried out by the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact and taking into account that no evidence was on file in support of the allegation that, during the 2010/2011 season, the player had not performed for the Respondent on the terms of the contract negotiated by the Claimant, the Single Judge resolved that it had to be assumed that, during the relevant period of time, the player had been part of the Respondent’s squad and received his salary as per the employment contract. 15. In view of the above, taking into account the legal principle of Pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, as well as considering that in accordance with the contract the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant 10% of the player’s salary during the 2010/2011 season, the Single Judge held that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the relevant amount, i.e. the sum of USD 75,000. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 75,000. 16. Additionally and with regard to the Claimant’s request for interest, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the contract, the relevant instalments were payable to the latter “at the end of the each season”. 17. Therefore, given that, in accordance with the information provided by the Football Federation T, the 2010-2011 season in country T had ended on 22 May 2011 as well as considering the clear content of the contract in this respect, the Single Judge decided that the interest on the amount due to the Claimant had to be calculated as of the day after the conclusion of the season in question, i.e. as of 23 May 2011. 18. As a consequence of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant USD 75,000 as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 23 May 2011 until the effective date of payment. 19. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 20. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is only partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in view of the circumstances of the present case, it would be fair and reasonable that the costs of the current proceedings are proportionally borne by the Claimant and the Respondent on the basis of their respective degree of success in the present matter. 21. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present is USD 210,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 20,000. 22. In conclusion, considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore and that the present case did not show particular factual difficulties or specific legal complexities but bearing in mind the considerable amount of submissions that had to be analysed, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000. 23. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant has to pay the amount of CHF 10,000 and the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 5,000 in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant H is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, club G, has to pay to the Claimant, H, the amount of USD 75,000, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 23 May 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, H, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum, plus interest, is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Claimant, H, is directed to inform the Respondent, club G, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, club G. 6.2 The amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, H. Considering that the Claimant, H, already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 5,000. 6.3 The above-mentioned amounts have to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80 Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 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