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 5 June 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent S, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player M

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 5 June 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent S, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club N, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player M I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 January 2011, the players’ agent S (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the country G Football Federation, and Club N, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an “agency contract” (hereinafter: the agreement), valid from the date of its signature until 31 January 2011, and according to which the Claimant had the obligation to “mediate the conclusion of the labor contract between the football player M [hereinafter: the player] (…) and Club N [i.e. the club] to carry preliminary negotiations, prepare interim agreements and contracts and provide other actions directed on conclusion of the labor contract between the Principal (the Club) [i.e. the Respondent] and the football player Player M. [i.e. the player]”. 2. According to article 3.1 of the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 400,000 “in the country R equivalent at the exchange rate of Central Bank of country R Federation on day of payment”. Article 3.2 of said agreement stipulated that the amount should be paid “until 31 October 2011”. 3. Article 5.6 of the agreement provided that “the Agent’s [i.e. the Claimant] obligations are considered fulfilled in case the Principal (Club) [i.e. the Respondent] concludes the labor contract with the football player M [i.e. the player] with the participation of an Agent”. 4. On the same date, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an “Act of Acceptance to Agency Contract d/d 01.01.2011” (hereinafter: the act) which stated that “the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] rendered the services to the Principal (Club) [i.e. the Respondent], conducted the preliminary negotiations, prepared interim agreements and contracts directed on conclusion of the labor contract between the Principal (the Club) [i.e. the Respondent] and the football player M [i.e. the player]”. 5. The act also stipulated that “the services directed on conclusion of the labor contract are fulfilled in full and duly executed according to the Agency agreement d/d 01.01.2011 [i.e. the agreement], the Principal (club) [i.e. the Respondent] has no claims against. The cost of services is established in an amount of 400.000 (four hundred thousand) Euro”. 6. On 27 March 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had failed to respect its contractual obligations and that the sum of EUR 400,000 for the services he had rendered in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent was still outstanding. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 400,000. 7. By means of a correspondence dated 7 June 2012, the Respondent answered to the Claimant’s complaint and rejected it in its entirety. In this respect, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant had infringed the Players’ Agents Regulations as well as the “country R Football Union Procedures” by not registering the agreement and the act at the relevant ”national associations”. Moreover, the Respondent explained that the employment contract concluded between the player and the Respondent did not mention that the Claimant’s services were used. 8. The Respondent further contested the validity of the agreement and of the act, since it was of the opinion that the dates stipulated in such agreements, i.e. 1 January 2011, were wrong and that the agreement and the act “were signed by the parties in order to receive unjustified benefit and it is not connected with the employment agreement concluded with player M”. Therefore, the Respondent requested the Claimant to provide the original version of the agreement and the act in order to “prove the effective date of the documents”. 9. On 12 July 2012, the Claimant reiterated his previous allegation and provided FIFA with the original agreement and the act. In addition, the Claimant added that the act clearly confirmed that he had fulfilled his obligations in connection with the player’s transfer to the Respondent. 10. With regard to the alleged violations of the Players’ Agents Regulations and of the “country R Football Union procedures”, the Claimant deemed that it was the Respondent who had to register the agreement and the act and added that such requirement was, however, not mandatory. 11. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not give its last comments in the matter at stake. 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, the Single Judge 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 2012). In view of the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 March 2012, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the present matter. 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 27 March 2012, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at stake. 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 country G Football Federation and a country R 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. The competence of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that, in its submissions to FIFA, the Respondent had firstly stressed that the Claimant had infringed the Players’ Agents Regulations by not registering the agreement and the act at the relevant “national associations” and by not having mentioned in the employment contract signed between the player and the Respondent that the Claimant’s services had been used. The Single Judge also took note that the Respondent had contested the validity of the agreement alleging that the dates stipulated in the agreement as well as in the act were wrong and that such documents “were signed by the parties in order to receive unjustified benefit not connected with the employment agreement concluded with the player”. Hence, the Single Judge stressed that the question of whether the agreement had been validly concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent and was therefore binding upon them had first to be addressed. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee pointed out that art. 19 par. 6 of the Regulations provided that players’ agents were “advised” to send copies of their representation contracts to the associations concerned for registration purposes only. Consequently, the Single Judge underlined that the Regulations do not establish the aforementioned registration as a requirement for the validity of a particular representation agreement and also, do not provide any legal consequences suspending or jeopardising its validity in the event of non-registration. In other words, failure to register a representation contract with a particular association will not lead to its nullity or invalidity. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to stress that this well-established approach is in line with the jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee and is confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (cf. CAS 2009/A/XXXX Player L v/ Club M). 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge went on to address the allegation of the Respondent according to which the Claimant had also infringed the Regulations and the relevant national “procedures” as the employment contract between the player and the Respondent did not mention that his services were used. In this respect, the Single Judge held that such omission could not per se invalidate the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent which had been laid out in their agreement, which clearly stipulated the obligations of each party and the conditions under which the Claimant would be entitled to his commission. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant was not a party to the employment contract the Respondent had signed with the player and could therefore not have influenced its wording. 10. Regarding the contested validity of the agreement and the act based on the claim by the Respondent that the dates contained in the documents faxed to FIFA by the Claimant in his first position were “wrong”, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had provided at a later stage in the investigation the original of the agreement and the act which demonstrated that the dates in question appeared to be the dates agreed upon between the parties. 11. On account of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the agreement and the act had been validly concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent and were therefore valid and binding upon them. 12. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge reverted to the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith. In this respect, the Single Judge established that the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant according to the agreement and the act and consequently, pay him the outstanding amount of EUR 400,000. 13. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant EUR 400,000 as commission in accordance with the agreement and the act. 14. 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 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. 15. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 16. 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 the total amount at dispute in the present matter, i.e. the amount of EUR 400,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 17. In conclusion and in view of the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 18,000. 18. Consequently, the amount of currency of country H 18,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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, Players’ Agent S, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club N, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent S, the amount of EUR 400,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned amount is not paid 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 18,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club N, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 13,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Players’ Agent S. 5. The Claimant, Players’ Agent S, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club N, 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. 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