F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – 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 18 July 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent J, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club E, from country T as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – 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 18 July 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent J, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club E, from country T as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 August 2009, the Club E, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent) and Agent J, a players’ agent licensed by the country S Football Federation (hereinafter: the Claimant), signed an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), by means of which the Respondent agreed to pay “commission fee services to the AGENT for the season 2009-2010, 10.000 € […] in the maximum date 25.09.2009 through bankary transference XXX”, in connection with the conclusion of an employment contract between the Respondent and the player R (hereinafter: the player). 2. On 4 November 2009, the Respondent and the player signed a cancellation agreement, terminating the employment relationship which had been entered into in August 2009. Clause 4 of the cancellation agreement stipulated that “The player undertakes to pay the contract between the Employer [i.e. the Respondent] and his Manager [i.e. the Claimant] dated 31/08/2009 for the whole amount. This amount is for the Manager services about the transfer of the player to the Club”. Furthermore, Clause 6 of the cancellation agreement stipulated that “The Employer [i.e. the Respondent] will release the Player and send the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) if the Player paid his Manager [i.e. the Claimant] and give to the Employer the amount of Fifteen Thousand Euros”. 3. On 12 November 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the agreement. In this respect, the Claimant claimed that the Respondent had not paid him the commission agreed upon between the parties for his services rendered in relation to the transfer of the player and the subsequent conclusion of the employment contract between the Respondent and the player. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 10,000 as per the agreement. 4. On 11 November 2010, the Respondent provided FIFA with its response to the claim and rejected it entirely. In this respect, the Respondent claimed that on 4 November 2009, it had signed a cancellation agreement with the player (cf. par. 2 above), by means of which the latter had agreed to pay the Claimant’s commission on behalf of the Respondent. In this regard, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had agreed with the terms of the cancellation agreement, since he was “acting on behalf of this client”. 5. Finally, the Respondent manifested that in case it was found liable to pay the Claimant’s commission, such amount “should be for the period of 2nd August 2009 to 4th November 2009 that the Player was employed by the Club. Consequently the amount of €10.000 in the contract represented 12 months of the player contract and as the player was employed only for 2 ½ months the amount owed should be €2.083,30 (10.000:12x2 ½)”. 6. After the closure of the investigation, the Claimant requested default interest of 5% per year on the amount allegedly due to him as from the date the payment became due, and was consequently informed by FIFA that it would be up to the Players’ Status Committee to decide whether his additional request can be taken into account. 7. On 13 March 2012, the player clarified his relationship with the Claimant and explained that on 19 August 2009, he was contacted by the Claimant who had told him that he had an offer from the Respondent. On the day that the relevant employment contract was signed between the player and the Respondent (according to the player on 25 August 2009), the player claimed that the Claimant had told him that he had also signed a commission agreement with the Respondent (cf. par. 1 above). In this respect, the player stated that he had agreed with the Claimant not to remunerate him for his services, “since Club E [i.e. the Respondent], to which he [i.e. the Claimant] had served was responsible for paying for his services”. The player further stated that subsequently the Claimant had proposed to represent him in future transactions and consequently a two-year representation agreement was concluded between the player and the Claimant on 17 September 2009. 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 in hand. In this respect and since the claim against the Respondent was lodged in front of FIFA on 12 November 2009, 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’ Agent Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 39 par. 4 of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 12 November 2009, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter. 3. Furthermore, and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee pointed out that according to art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of players’ agents. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute opposing a players’ agent licensed by the country S Football Federation to a country T club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. Consequently, the Single Judge held that he was competent to decide on the present matter which had a clear 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 and contained in the file. 5. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge noted that on 31 August 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement in relation to the player R and according to which the Respondent had agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission amounting to EUR 10,000 for his services rendered in the context of the transfer of the aforementioned player to the Respondent. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had lodged a claim in front of FIFA on 12 November 2009, arguing that the Respondent had not complied with its obligations deriving from the agreement and, consequently, claimed from the Respondent the amount of EUR 10,000, plus an interest of 5% per year on the said amount from the date the payment had become due. 7. Moreover, the Single Judge took into account the response of the Respondent to the Claimant’s claim and noted that the Respondent had argued that, based on the cancellation agreement it had concluded with the player on 4 November 2009, the latter had allegedly agreed to pay the Claimant’s commission on behalf of the Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent was of the opinion that it should therefore not pay anything to the Claimant. 8. Having established the aforementioned and first of all, the Singe Judge was eager to underline that the termination agreement concluded on 4 November 2009 between the Respondent and the player could not have extinguished the obligations of the Respondent towards the Claimant pursuant to the agreement they had concluded on 31 August 2009. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the termination agreement had been concluded between the Respondent and the player exclusively and further specified that the Claimant was not a party to it. 9. Furthermore, and in response to the request of the Respondent that in the event that if it would be found liable to pay a commission to the Claimant on the basis of the agreement the said commission should be reduced as the player had terminated his employment contract prematurely, the Single Judge held that whenever a club contracts a players’ agent, the latter is remunerated for his services “by payment of a lump sum that has been agreed upon in advance” (cf. art. 20 par. 5 of the Regulations) and which, consequently, cannot be reduced in the event that the player found by the players’ agent leaves his club before the end of his contractual relationship. 10. In addition, for the sake of good order, and based on the documents contained on file, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was also keen to emphasise that the Claimant had not represented the interests of the Respondent and the player at the same time, and thus that he did not act in breach of art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, based on the declaration of the player submitted to FIFA on 13 March 2012, the two-year representation agreement he had signed with the Claimant was concluded on 17 September 2009, i.e. after the transaction at the basis of the present dispute and the issuing obligation by the Respondent to remunerate the Claimant for his services had taken place, and that therefore it could not be concluded that the Claimant had represented both parties in the same transaction. 11. 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 and therefore has to pay to the latter the amount of EUR 10,000 as established in the agreement concluded on 31 August 2009. In addition, the Single Judge also determined that an interest of 5% per year on the said amount has also to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant as from 26 September 2009 until the date of effective payment. 12. 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 U 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. 13. 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 EUR 10,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country U 5,000. 14. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter as well as the fact that the case was decided by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country U 3,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country U 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present procedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Agent J, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club E, has to pay to the Claimant, Agent J, the amount of EUR 10,000, as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount as from 26 September 2009 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. 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. 4. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country U 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club E, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country U 2,000 to FIFA, to the following bank account, with reference to case nr. XX-XXXX: 4.2 The amount of currency of country U 1,000 to the Claimant, Agent J. 5. The Claimant, Agent J, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club E, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 4.2 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. 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives