F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – 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 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent C, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country G as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – 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 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent C, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country G as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission. I. Facts of the case 1. On 4 October 2011, the players’ agent C (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the country S Football Federation, and Club A, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission for “professional commitments carried out by the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] in the name of Club A [i.e. the Respondent]”. 2. Article 2 of the agreement stated that “For the services the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] received a check with number 00000038-8 and date of expiry the 15th of October 2011 for the amount of 65.000€ (sixty five thousand euros) according to the agreement signed on 01-07-2009 as it was amended”. 3. Furthermore, article 3 of the agreement stipulated as follows: “For the amount described above the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] is entitled to receive the total amount of SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (65.000,00€) net in 6 equal instalments of TEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNRED THIRTY THREE EUROS (10.833,00€) starting on the 15th of November 2011 and finalizing on the 15th of April 2012”. 4. On 3 August 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had failed to respect its contractual obligations since it had “failed to make payment of all the amounts due, both the check and any of the 6 installments and as such the total amount of €130,000 is outstanding”. 5. Consequently, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay him the amount of EUR 130,000 for the alleged breach of the agreement, plus interest of 5% from the date the amounts became due. 6. In its response dated 17 December 2012, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim “in its biggest part”, arguing that the latter “is actually asking to receive twice the same debt”. 7. In this regard, the Respondent explained that the “amount that was due to the Claimant, according to the agreement of 4 October 2011 was only 65,000 euros and not 130 euros, as the Claimant argues in bad faith”. 8. In support of its allegations, the Respondent explained that already on 30 June 2011, it had signed with the Claimant an agreement entitled “acuerdo privado” (hereinafter: the old agreement), whereby the Claimant had “acknowledged that he had received all the amounts due to him according to the agreement that had been signed between the Claimant and the Respondent on 1 July 2009 (as amended on 30 July 2009 and that there was no obligation whatsoever towards him by the Respondent”. 9. The Respondent further explained that the bank cheque of 15 October 2011 could not have been paid due to its financial difficulties and that therefore the parties had signed the agreement, whereby they had “arranged for the payment of the outstanding amount of 65,000 euros in 6 monthly instalments of 10,833 euros each (…) instead of the payment by means of the aforementioned cheque”. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that it “has itself some claims against the Claimant that need to be set-off against his claim”. 11. In this respect, the Respondent explained that on the basis of a “sponsorship agreement” (hereinafter: the sponsorship agreement) concluded between the Claimant’s company called “Soccermash Corporation” and the Respondent, “the Claimant would pay the Respondent the amount of 30,000 euros plus VAT” and that although the latter had “fullfiled all his obligations from the agreement [i.e. the sponsorship agreement], the Claimant never proceeded with any payment whatsoever”. 12. In view of the aforementioned, the Respondent requested FIFA “to deduct the said amount of 30,000 euros from the amount of 65,000 euros payable to the Claimant, according to the agreement of 4 October 2011”. 13. The Respondent further alleged that it had also paid a flight ticket on behalf of the Claimant in the amount of EUR 3,100, “without any reason and without obviously being entitled to do so” and was therefore of the opinion that such amount should also be deducted from the claimed amount. 14. Consequently, the Respondent did not deny that on the basis of the agreement the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 65,000 but also stated that “the actual amount due to the Claimant by the Respondent is 31,900 euros” (i.e. EUR 65,000 – EUR 30,000 – EUR 3,100). 15. On 28 February 2013, the Claimant provided his response to the allegations of the Respondent and, first and foremost, reiterated his claim. In this respect, he stated that on the same day, shortly before signing the agreement (i.e. on 4 October 2011), the parties had signed a document (hereinafter: the document) by means of which it had originally been agreed with the Respondent that the Claimant, for having rendered different services to the Respondent, should be entitled to a first cheque in the amount of EUR 50,000 as well as to a second cheque in the amount of EUR 65,000, and that therefore he was entitled to a total amount of EUR 115,000. 16. The Claimant further alleged that immediately after signing the document, the parties had signed the agreement, by means of which the amount of EUR 50,000 originally agreed in the document, had been increased to EUR 65,000. In view of the aforementioned and considering the amounts previously established in the document, the Claimant deemed, that it was clear that he should be entitled to both amounts i.e. EUR 65,000 from the cheque with number 000000XX-X as well as to an additional amount of EUR 65,000. 17. With regard to the Respondent’s argument that the amount of EUR 30,000 based on the sponsorship agreement should be deducted from the claimed amount, the Claimant pointed out that since the aforementioned sponsorship agreement had been signed by the company and not by the Claimant, it should therefore not be taken into account. 18. Finally and concerning the Respondent’s allegations that it had paid the costs of the flight ticket on behalf of the Claimant, the latter, first of all, explained that from the content of the receipt of the flight ticket provided by the Respondent, it could not be established who had made the payment. Additionally, the Claimant alleged that the parties had anyway agreed that the Claimant should have been entitled to unlimited flights for himself. 19. Consequently, the Claimant reiterated his claim in its entirety and requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 130,000. 20. The Respondent, in its last submission of 8 May 2013, reiterated its previous position and first and foremost stated that “there is of course no agreement [i.e. the document] like the one mentioned by the Claimant”. 21. Furthermore, and with regard to the flight ticket, the Respondent pointed out, that “it was never agreed that the Claimant was entitled to an unlimited amount for tickets, in any case the said ticket was booked by the Claimant and charged to the club [i.e. the Respondent] in December 2011 when the agreement between the Claimant and Club A [i.e. the Respondent] had anyway been terminated and therefore Club A had anyway no obligation to pay such ticket”. 22. Consequently, the Respondent requested FIFA to partially reject the Claimant’s claim “by ruling that the actual amount due to the Claimant by the Respondent is 31,900 euros”, or “subsidiarily (…) 61,900 euros” or “subsidiarily (…) 65,000 euros”, depending on whether FIFA accepts to take into account the aforementioned amounts of EUR 30,000 and EUR 3,100 respectively and to deduct said amounts from the claimed amount of EUR 65,000. 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 were 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) and acknowledged that the present dispute was submitted to FIFA on 3 August 2012, thus before the aforementioned rules entered into force (1 December 2012). Consequently, 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) was applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules) 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, the Single Judge 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 3 August 2012, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in 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 country S Football Federation and a country G club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. 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). 5. 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 above-mentioned facts and the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge noted that, on 4 October 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission for “professional commitments carried out by the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] in the name of Club A [i.e. the Respondent]”. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay such commission and had consequently requested from the latter the total payment of EUR 130,000 in accordance with article 2 and 3 of the agreement (i.e. EUR 65,000 + EUR 65,000). Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had admitted having not paid the commission stipulated in the agreement, but, at the same time, had stressed that the commission agreed corresponded to EUR 65,000 only. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the parties disputed the interpretation of the agreement concluded between them. In this regard, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on the one hand, the Claimant was of the opinion that the amount stipulated in article 3 of the agreement had been established in addition to the amount provided in article 2 and that he should be entitled to both amounts, i.e. EUR 65,000 from the cheque with number 000000XX-X as well as to an additional amount of EUR 65,000, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent argued that the bank cheque of 15 October 2011 could not have been paid due to its financial difficulties and that therefore the parties had signed the agreement, whereby they had “arranged for the payment of the outstanding amount of 65,000 euros in 6 monthly instalments of 10,833 euros each (…) instead of the payment by means of the aforementioned cheque”. 9. In view of the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the commission agreed in the agreement amounted to EUR 65,000 or EUR 130,000, and first of all, observed that article 2 of the agreement stipulated that “For the services the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] received a check with number 000000XX-X and date of expiry the 15th of October 2011 for the amount of 65.000€”. 10. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge carefully analysed the content of article 3 of the agreement which stated the following: “For the amount described above the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] is entitled to receive the total amount of SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND EUROS (65.000,00€) net in 6 equal instalments of TEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNRED THIRTY THREE EUROS (10.833,00€) starting on the 15th of November 2011 and finalizing on the 15th of April 2012”. 11. In view of the content of said provision, in particular considering that the provision in question referred to “the amount described above”, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 65,000 stipulated in article 3 was indeed to be considered as the same amount mentioned in article 2 of the agreement. Therefore, the Single Judge formed the view that it has to be assumed that the commission agreed between the parties amounted to EUR 65,000 only. 12. Based on all the above-mentioned considerations and taking into account the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant and therefore, the Respondent must pay the Claimant the outstanding commission for his services he rendered. 13. Bearing in mind the foregoing, in particular taking into account that the Respondent, during the present proceedings, had not denied that the commission in the amount of EUR 65,000 was still outstanding, the Single Judge concluded that the commission amounting to EUR 65,000 pursuant to the agreement concluded between the parties was still outstanding and should therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in accordance with article 3 of the agreement. 14. After having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to the argument of the Respondent, i.e. its request to deduct from the undisputed outstanding commission the total amount of EUR 33,100. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had argued that the Claimant had failed to pay the amount of EUR 30,000, allegedly agreed in a sponsorship agreement concluded between the Respondent and the Claimant’s company called “Soccermash Corporation” as well as the amount of EUR 3,100 for a flight ticket allegedly paid by the Respondent on behalf of the Claimant and that it was therefore of the opinion that these two amounts (i.e. EUR 30,000 + EUR 3,100), should be deducted from the outstanding commission. 15. As for the position of the Respondent, the Single Judge, first of all and while referring to art. 1 par. 1 of the Regulations, recalled 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 working relations, 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. 16. In view of the above, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that the content of a sponsorship agreement is clearly outside of the scope of the abovementioned Regulations and therefore cannot be taken into consideration. 17. With regard to the second part of the Respondent’s request, i.e. the deduction of the amount of EUR 3,100 for a flight ticket allegedly paid by the latter on behalf of the Claimant, the Single Judge ruled that, considering that the agreement did not specify any amounts in relation to these costs as well as in view of the fact that the said expenses do not appear to have directly been related to the agreement, the Single Judge also concluded that said amount should not be deducted from the outstanding commission. 18. On that basis, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the amount of EUR 30,000 corresponding to an alleged outstanding amount arising from the sponsorship agreement as well as the amount of EUR 3,100 for an alleged paid flight ticket cannot be deducted from the outstanding commission as established under article 3 of the agreement, i.e. EUR 65,000. 19. Additionally and with respect to the claimed default interest, the Single Judge recalled that no interest appears to have been contractually agreed between the parties. Therefore and also taking into account the Claimant’s request in this regard, the Single Judge decided, in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee concerning the payment of interest, that the Claimant should receive from the Respondent an interest rate of 5% per year as from the day after the due date of each instalment due. As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 5% interest as follows: - on EUR 10,833, as from 16 November 2011; - on EUR 10,833, as from 16 December 2011; - on EUR 10,833, as from 16 January 2012; - on EUR 10,833, as from 16 February 2012; - on EUR 10,833, as from 16 March 2012; - on EUR 10,833, as from 16 April 2012. 20. In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant a total amount of EUR 65,000 as outstanding commission, plus interest as established above. 21. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players 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 H 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 and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 22. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 23. 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 130,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 15,000. 24. In conclusion and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 14,000. 25. Consequently and since the claim has been partially accepted, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country h 7,000 by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Players’ Agent C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent C, the amount of EUR 65,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Within the same time limit, the Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent C, default interest at a rate of 5% per year on the following partial amounts, as follows: - On EUR 10,833 from 16 November 2011 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 10,833 from 16 December 2011 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 10,833 from 16 January 2012 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 10,833 from 16 February 2012 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 10,833 from 16 March 2012 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 10,833 from 16 April 2012 until the effective date of payment. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Players’ Agent C, are rejected. 5. If the aforementioned amount of EUR 65,000, plus interest as established above, 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. 6. The Claimant, Players’ Agent C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 3 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 7. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 14,000 are to be paid to FIFA by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 7.1 The amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Players’ Agent C. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 3,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Players’ Agent C, has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 4,000 to FIFA. 7.2 The amount of currency of country H 7,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, to FIFA7.3 The abovementioned two payments have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr. : ***** 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