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 23 April 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players´ agent Player’s Agent H, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country P 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 23 April 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players´ agent Player’s Agent H, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country P as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 August 2007, the players´ agent H (hereafter: “the Claimant”), licensed by the country A Football Association, Club B, from country P (hereafter: “the Respondent”) and the player D (hereafter: “the player”) concluded an agreement (hereafter: “the agreement”) by means of which the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant an amount of EUR 400,000 for the renewal of the employment contract with the player. 2. Article 1 a) of the agreement provided that the amount of EUR 400,000 would be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in ten equal instalments of EUR 40,000, on the following dates: 1 November 2007, 1 January 2008, 1 November 2008, 1 January 2009, 1 November 2009, 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010, 1 January 2011, 1 November 2011 and 1 January 2012. Such payments had to be made after receipt of the relevant invoices. 3. The agreement further established under article 1 b) that if the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and the player would be terminated before the date of its expiry, i.e. 30 June 2012, any of the abovementioned instalments still due would no longer have to be paid to the Claimant. 4. On 26 October 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting a total amount of EUR 160,000 as outstanding commission, plus interests as from the moment that the respective obligations became due and procedural costs. 5. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that although the Respondent had paid him the first four instalments as mentioned in the agreement, it had failed to pay the instalments due on 1 November 2009, 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010, 1 January 2011 for a total amount of EUR 160,000 (i.e. 4 x EUR 40,000). 6. On 18 November 2011, the Claimant informed FIFA that in the meantime the instalment with expiry date on 1 November 2011 became due and that it was not paid by the Respondent. Therefore, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 200,000 as outstanding commission. 7. On 14 December 2011, upon FIFA´s request for a position, the Respondent stated that: a) FIFA is not competent to deal with this matter as art. 22 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players does not specifically refer to disputes between players’ agents and clubs; b) The Claimant had only sent to the Respondent the invoice corresponding to the instalment due on 1 November 2009 and, consequently, only that instalment was due; c) The Respondent did not pay the Claimant the instalments due on 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010 and 1 January 2011 because the latter had not provided the Respondent with the relevant invoices; d) In addition, the employment contract concluded between the player and the Respondent was terminated on 29 June 2011. Both parties concluded a relevant termination in writing; e) Since the Claimant had not sent the invoices for the instalments due on 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010 and 1 January 2011 to the Respondent before the date of termination, the cited instalments are not due to the Claimant. 8. On 26 January 2012, the Claimant rejected categorically the Respondent’s allegations and stated that the Respondent did not contest the fact that it had not paid him the requested instalments. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that it was logical that if the parties terminated the employment contract he would not be entitled to receive instalments with due dates after the relevant termination. Therefore, the Claimant amended his claim and requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 160,000, corresponding to the instalments due on 1 November 2009, 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010 and 1 January 2011. 10. Finally, on 14 February 2012 the Respondent reiterated all its previous allegations and acknowledged that it only owes the Claimant the instalment due on 1 November 2009 for an amount of EUR 40,000. 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, 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 2012). Since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 October 2011, 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 matter in hand. 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 with FIFA on 26 October 2011, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at stake. 3. At this stage, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent contested the competence of the FIFA deciding bodies to hear the present dispute as art. 22 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players did not specifically mention players´ agents. 4. In this regard, the Single Judge clarified that the pertinent provision to be taken into account was in fact art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that the Players’ Status Committee has jurisdiction on international disputes in connection with the activity of licensed players’ agents. 5. The Single Judge further indicated that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the country A Football Association and a country P club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. As a consequence, the Single Judge held that he is competent to decide on the present matter which has an international dimension (cf. art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations). 6. Having established the application regulations and his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation. 7. First and foremost, the Single Judge took note that on 30 August 2007 the Claimant, the Respondent and the player concluded the agreement the purpose of which was the renewal of the employment contract between the Respondent and the player until 30 June 2012. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that from the content of the agreement, the Claimant was acting as the agent of the player at the time of signature and stated that by co-signing the agreement the player had accepted that the Respondent would pay the commission to the Claimant on his behalf. In this context, the Single Judge specifically referred to art. 19 par. 4 of the Regulations which provides, inter alia, that “the player may give his written consent for the club to pay the player’s agent on his behalf”. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that it was uncontested that the Respondent had paid to the Claimant the first four instalments as established in article 1 a) of the agreement. 10. The Single Judge then pointed out that both parties had diverging positions in relation to the remaining instalments mentioned in the agreement. On the one hand, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent did not pay the instalments due on 1 November 2009, 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010 and 1 January 2011. On the other hand, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not send the relevant invoices as established in the agreement and thus the Respondent was not liable to pay the relevant amounts. 11. Consequently, the Single Judge focussed his attention to article 1 of the agreement and stated that although the parties had agreed that the payments in question would be done after the receipt of the relevant invoices, the main obligation for the Respondent in accordance with the cited article was the payment of the commission to the Claimant. 12. Therefore, the Single Judge confirmed that the obligation of the Respondent was to pay the agreed amounts of commission on the relevant dates convened by both parties. Moreover, the Single Judge remarked that the issuance of the invoices by the Claimant was only a formal and administrative aspect within the contractual relationship between the parties. 13. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge added that from the documentation at disposal it could be noted that the Claimant had sent some correspondence to the Respondent requesting the relevant payments and offering to settle the present matter amicably, whereas the Respondent had not provided any evidence requesting the relevant invoices so that it could proceed with the payments in question. In this context, the Single Judge emphasised the legal principle contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “Any party claiming a right on the basis on an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. 14. Furthermore, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the Respondent had apparently not encountered any problem in respect with the payment to the Claimant of the first four instalments which were originally due on 1 November 2007, 1 January 2008, 1 November 2008 and 1 January 2009. 15. At this stage, the Single Judge stated that in accordance with article 1 b) of the agreement and based on the documentary evidence at disposal which established that the employment contract between the player and the Respondent was terminated on 29 June 2011, the instalments with expiry date 1 November 2011 and 1 January 2012 were not contractually due. 16. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 160,000 representing the four instalments of EUR 40,000 each originally due on 1 November 2009, 1 January 2010, 1 November 2010 and 1 January 2011. 17. 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, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country C 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. 18. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 160,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country C 20,000. 19. Considering that, in the case in hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the agreement can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of currency of country C 18,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Respondent. 20. In conclusion, the amount of currency of country C 18,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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, Player’s Agent H, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, Player’s Agent H, the amount of EUR 160,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of 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 proceeding amounting to currency of country C 18,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club B, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 Currency of country C 13,000, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XX-XXXXX: 4.2 Currency of country C 5,000, directly to the Claimant, Player’s Agent H. 5. The Claimant, Player’s Agent H, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club B, directly and immediately 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives