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 15 August 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ agent J, From Country K as Claimant against the player Player V, From Country W as Respondent concerning a claim for commission

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 15 August 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ agent J, From Country K as Claimant against the player Player V, From Country W as Respondent concerning a claim for commission I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 May 2009, the players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of country K Players’agent J (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the player V from country W (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a document entitled “AUTHORIZATION” (hereinafter: the authorization), valid “until August 31, 2009 inclusive”, by means of which the Respondent “DELEGATES to (Players’ agent) Mr J (..) to represent him in regards to conducting all pertaining aspects that could lead and to an offer for Player V in Country K in exclusive”. In this respect, the authorisation specified that the Claimant “can receive proposals on behalf” of the Respondent “as well as to carry out the negotiation and the culmination of the contracts with the clubs from country K.” 2. On 26 August 2009, the Respondent and the club M from country K (hereinafter: club M) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the employment contract) in which the Claimant is not mentioned. 3. On 1 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract. 4. In this respect, the Claimant argued that, although he had informed the Respondent and his former club I (hereinafter: club I) that several clubs from country K were interested in his transfer, the latter had signed with club M without “allowing” him “to carry out the negotiation (..) and finalize the personal terms of the agreement”. In this respect and as proof of his allegations, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of the following documents: a correspondence dated 29 June 2009 by means of which club M had allegedly requested him to start negotiating the transfer of the Respondent; a correspondence dated 29 July 2009 in which the club U from country K (hereinafter: U) had apparently confirmed to the Claimant its interest in the Respondent; a copy of an email dated 29 June 2009, allegedly sent to the Respondent, in which a person named C, apparently a co-worker of the Claimant, had informed the Respondent of U’s and club M’s interest in his transfer and a copy of an email dated 3 July 2009 that Mr C had allegedly sent to Inter. 5. On account of the above, the Claimant considered that the Respondent had to pay him, as compensation for having breached the authorization, an amount corresponding to 3% of the latter’s salary with club M “including any signing-on fee” as well as “3% of any loan, transfer or indemnification fee paid by club M to club I, in accordance with the FIFA Players’ Agent Regulations in force (article 20.4.)”, plus 5% “annual interest on the amount due (..) from the time of the signing of the Player until the date of payment”. Furthermore, the Claimant also requested to be provided with a copy of the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and club M as well as with the “loan contract with club I in order to quantify the due amounts”. Finally, the Claimant requested FIFA to impose the costs of the proceedings on the Respondent. 6. On 23 October 2009, FIFA informed the Claimant that, in accordance with art. 19 par. 7 of the Players’ Agents Regulations, a player has the right to conclude an employment contract or transfer agreement without the assistance of a representative. Furthermore, FIFA advised the latter that, according to its well established jurisprudence, a players’ agent activity must be causal in concluding an employment contract, that is, as a general rule, if a contract is signed without the involvement of a players’ agent, the player concerned does not owe the agent any commission. 7. Nevertheless, the Claimant insisted on being entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation on the basis of the authorization arguing that his actions had indeed been causal in the conclusion of the employment contract. In this respect, the Claimant stressed that, without his involvement, “the Player and the Club would not have come into contact, and therefore been unable to contract” and referred to art. 2 of the Players’ Agent Regulations “which stated: “The players’ agent is entitled to be remunerated for the services he provides”.” 8. In its response dated 15 April 2010, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing that the Respondent had never been involved in any negotiations related to his transfer to club M and “just wrote a simple email (..) two months before (..) regarding some clubs from country K (..)”. As to that, the Respondent stressed that the employment contract did not bear the signature of the Claimant “because he has been completely out of the deal” and explained that the “transfer was organized and done directly by the two clubs [i.e. club I and club M].” In addition, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant had not even “put in contact the clubs” and “did not work to make any contract for the player.” 9. Consequently, the Respondent concluded that no compensation had to be paid to the Claimant in connection with his transfer to country K. 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 (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules; edition 2008). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 October 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of 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 1 October 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 Federation of Country K and a player from country W, 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 matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 9 May 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had signed a document entitled authorization (hereinafter: the authorization), by means of which the Respondent had authorized the Claimant to exclusively represent him in front “the clubs from country K”. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that, later on, i.e. on 26 August 2009, the Respondent had concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the employment contract) with the club M from country K, and that such contract was uncontestedly signed without using the services of the Claimant. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, notwithstanding the above, the Claimant deemed that, on the basis of the authorization as well as on the basis of art. 20 par. 4 of the Regulations, he was entitled to receive from the Respondent 3% of the latter’s salary with club M. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that, in addition, the Claimant considered that, by not let him carry out the negotiations that had finally led to the conclusion of the employment contract, the Respondent had breached the authorization. 8. Likewise, the Single Judge acknowledged that, for his part, the Respondent had contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any kind of compensation in connection with the conclusion of the employment contract, arguing that the latter had not at all been involved in the relevant negotiations. 9. With those considerations in mind and as a preliminary remark, the Single Judge sought to recall that the activity of players’ agents is a function intended to bring a player and a club or two clubs together, so as to establish a working relationship between the parties concerned (cf. par. 1 of the Definitions of the Regulations as well as art. 1 par. 1 of the Regulations), and that, consequently, the negotiations led by a players’ agent should culminate in the signing of an employment contract between a particular player and a club or to the conclusion of a transfer agreement between two clubs. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that, as clearly established in art. 20 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of remuneration due to a players’ agent who has been engaged to act on a player’s behalf is calculated on the basis of the player’s annual basic gross income that the players’ agent has negotiated for him in the employment contract in question. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with his well-established jurisprudence, a players’ agent’s activity must be causal in concluding an employment contract, that is, as a general rule, if a contract is signed without the involvement of a players’ agent, the player concerned does not owe the agent any commission. 11. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and taking into account that it was undisputed that the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and the club had not been negotiated by the Claimant, as well as considering the relevant provisions included in the Regulations and his well-established jurisprudence, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant is not entitled to receive any commission from the Respondent in connection with the conclusion of the employment contract. 12. Having established the aforementioned and as to the Claimant’s request to receive compensation from the Respondent for having breached the authorization by not involving him in the conclusion of the employment contract, the Single Judge recalled that, in accordance with art. 19 par. 7 of the Regulations, a player has the right to conclude an employment contract or a transfer agreement without the assistance of a representative. Besides, the Single Judge referred once again to his well-established jurisprudence and stressed that, as a general rule, a player, even if he has signed a(n) (exclusive) representation agreement with a players’ agent, is at liberty to negotiate and/or sign by himself, i.e. without using the services of his or any other agent, an employment contract with the club of his choice. In this context, the Single Judge was eager to emphasize that, in particular, the relevant correspondence takes into account the fundamental principle linked to the player’s right of personality. 13. On account of the above, the Single Judge deemed that, despite having concluded the authorization, the player was free to conclude an employment contract with a club of his choice without using the services of the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Jude concluded that, by concluding the employment contract without the involvement of the Claimant, the Respondent had not breach the authorization. As a result, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent does not have to pay any compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant. 14. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. 15. Lastly, 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 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. 16. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 17. 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 is less than CHF 50,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 18. In conclusion and in view of the numerous submissions that had to be analysed in the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000. 19. Consequently, the amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant 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 J, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Players’ agent J. Considering that the Claimant, Players’ agent J, already paid the amount of CHF 1,000 as advance of costs, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 4,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case nrXXXXXXX: UBS Zurich Account number XXXXXX (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number XX IBANXXXXXXX SWIFT: XXXXX ** 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