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 V, from country S as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club P, from country I as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

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 V, from country S as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club P, from country I as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 November 2010, Club P, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply: the Respondent) and the players’ agent V (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or simply: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of country S, signed an agreement entitled “Mandate” (hereinafter: the 1st agreement), under the terms of which “Club P [i.e. the Respondent] awards exclusive mandate to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] to take care Club’s interests giving assistance on registration of the player M [hereinafter: the player]”. Pursuant to article 3 of the 1st agreement, “for his work the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] will receive the following amounts: i. EUR 1.500.000,00 to be paid after 7 days to the receipt of International Transfer Certificate by Club P [i.e. the Respondent] and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]; ii. EUR 500.000,00 to be paid after 60 (sixty) days from the player’s 5th match in official competitions (Championship, country I Cup, European Cups) during only the first season on which player will be registered for Club P [i.e. the Respondent] and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]; iii. EUR 500.000,00 to paid after 60 (sixty) days from the player’s 15th match in official competitions (Championship, country I Cup, European Cups) during only the second season on which the player will be registered for Club P [i.e. the Respondent] and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]”. 2. According to art. 4 of the 1st agreement, the “agent [i.e. the Claimant] declares not to have any type of relationship with the Player’s Agent or representatives of football player, Player M or with the same footballer [i.e. the player], raising Club P [i.e. the Respondent] from every responsibility deriving from this circumstance”. 3. On 30 August 2011, the Respondent and the Claimant signed another agreement (hereinafter: the 2nd agreement) which stipulated the following: • “On 15th November 2011 (sic!: 2010) was signed a mandate to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] to take care Club’s interests giving assistance on registration of player, Player M [i.e. the player] (31.03.1991); • On 9th March 2011, the player M signed a preliminary agreement with employment contract with Club P [i.e. the Respondent] with starting date for the sporting season 2011-2012; • After the rules issued by the country I Football Association on 5th July 2011, the Club P could not register anymore the player, not EU citizen; • Club P confirms its obligation to pay the agreed commission of EUR 1,500,000 pursuant to clause 3.a of the mandate (of 15th November 2010) [i.e. the 1st agreement] to be paid within 7 days by the future registration of the player M with Club P […] • Referring to the bonus that Club P should pay to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] according to clause b), c), d) and e) of the mandate signed on 15th November 2010 [i.e. 1st agreement], hereby the Parties change the following conditions in this way: first season is to be intended as Second season second season is to be intended as third season third season is to be intended as fourth season”. 4. The 2nd agreement also stipulated that “all the other conditions of the mandate signed on 15th November 2010 [i.e. the 1st agreement] which are not expressly changed by the present Agreement [i.e. the 2nd agreement] are still perfectly valid”. 5. On 24 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that, although the player had signed an employment contract with the Respondent, the latter had failed to respect its contractual obligations towards him since it had only paid him the sum of EUR 250,000 out of the amount of 1,500,000 stipulated in the 2nd agreement and that, therefore, the sum of EUR 1,250,000 was still outstanding. 6. Consequently, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 1,250,000 plus 5% interest per year as from the date it had requested the Respondent in writing to pay him, i.e. 18 March 2013. 7. On 9 August 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s complaint and confirmed that the player and the Respondent “on 3 January 2012 entered into a definitive employment contract valid until 30 June 2016”. The Respondent further stressed that, soon after having paid EUR 250,000 to the Claimant “with the intention to cover the remainder of agent’s remuneration shortly afterwards”, it had “abruptly discovered” that the Claimant was also acting on behalf of the player at the time he negotiated the player’s transfer to the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that it did not have any contractual obligation towards the Claimant and that the agreements “shall be considered invalid for being executed by the Claimant in violation of the FIFA Regulations, the country I Regulations as well as the provisions of the Mandate [i.e. 1st agreement] itself”. 8. Moreover, and in the “unlikely event it is decided that the mandate [i.e. the 1st agreement] cannot be declared invalid”, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant had failed to inform the Respondent of the alleged conflict of interest and the “clear link to the player and representation of his interests” and, therefore, requested FIFA to declare that the 1st agreement was terminated with immediate effect and that “no remuneration is due” to the Claimant since he violated the country I Regulations preventing any conflict of interest. 9. Alternatively, the Respondent was of the opinion that “the disproportionately exaggerated amount of compensation due” to the Claimant should be reduced. Therefore, the Respondent argued that the commission should be considered excessive and should be reduced accordingly. 10. Finally, the Respondent lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant and requested the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 250,000 already paid to him. 11. On 20 January 2014, the Claimant replied to the allegations of the Respondent by arguing that he had never represented the player’s interests while he was negotiating the player’s employment contract with the Respondent. The Claimant further provided a statement of the player dated 3 October 2013 which stated inter alia the following: “I the undersigned Player M [i.e. the player] […] state under oath […] in all my sporting career as professional player I have never been represented by the Players’ Agent V [i.e. the Claimant]. In particular I would point out that I have never given any mandate to Mr V, neither written nor oral […]”. 12. Finally the Claimant reiterated his initial complaint, rejected the counter-claim lodged against him and requested the amount of EUR 1,250,000 together with interest. 13. In its last comments dated 13 March 2014, the Respondent reiterated its position without adding anything new in the present dispute and, therefore, requested the reimbursement of the amount EUR 250,000 already paid to the Claimant. 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, 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 24 May 2013, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2012 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 of the Players’ Status Committee 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 24 May 2013, 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 of the Players’ Status Committee 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 individuals who hold a valid players’ agent licence issued by the relevant member Association. 4. The Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee continued his deliberations by indicating that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country S and an country I club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. 5. As a consequence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee is competent 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 the Claimant and the Respondent had signed the 1st agreement, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent inter alia the sum of EUR 1,500,000 “to be paid 7 days to the receipt of International Transfer Certificate by Club P [i.e. the Respondent] and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]” for the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 7. Likewise, the Single Judge noted that on 30 August 2011, the Claimant had concluded the 2nd agreement with the Respondent, which amended part of the 1st agreement and according to which the Respondent confirmed inter alia “its obligation to pay the agreed commission of EUR 1,500,000 […] to be paid within 7 days by the future registration of the player M with Club P [i.e. the Respondent]”. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that, on the one hand, the Respondent had argued that the Claimant had infringed the Regulations by violating the principle which prohibits double representation, whereas, on the other hand, the Claimant had claimed that, although he had rendered his services for the transfer of the player to the Respondent, he had only received the sum of EUR 250,000 out of the total amount of EUR 1,500,000 foreseen in the 2nd agreement. 9. Equally, the Single Judge also acknowledged that the Respondent had lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant. In this regard, the Single Judge duly took note of the Respondent’s opinion that the Claimant should not be entitled to any kind of remuneration whatsoever since he was acting on behalf of the player at the time he had negotiated the player’s transfer to the Respondent and that, therefore, it should be entitled to receive from the Claimant the amount it had already paid to him, i.e. EUR 250,000. 10. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and starting with the position of the Respondent, the Single Judge noted that the latter rejected the Claimant’s complaint arguing the existence of a conflict of interest due to the fact that the Claimant was allegedly representing the player and the Respondent in the same transaction, i.e. the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 11. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations, which provides inter alia that “A players’ agent may only represent the interests of one party per transaction”, was enacted, among other things, in order to ensure that a players’ agent is not remunerated twice for the services he renders in a same transaction. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to the wording of the statement of the player dated 3 October 2013 and noted that the player himself had confirmed having never been represented by the Claimant. 13. In view of the above, the Single Judge held that, according to the documentary evidence contained in the file, the Claimant clearly appears to have never represented the Respondent and the player in the same transaction. In this context, and while referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the Respondent had not been able to provide any convincing documentary evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was also representing the player in said transaction. 14. Consequently, and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the agreement signed between the parties, and therefore, the Respondent must pay the Claimant for the services he rendered in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 15. In view of all the above, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to accept the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent, to reject the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant a total sum of EUR 1,250,000, plus 5% interest per year from 18 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 16. Lastly, 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including the 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. 17. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the 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. 18. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is higher than EUR 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 19. 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 18,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 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 / Counter-Respondent, Player Agent V, is accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player Agent V, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the total amount of EUR 1,250,000 as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 18 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club P, is rejected. 4. If the aforementioned total amount 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 18,000 are to be paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club P, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 Considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club P, already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 during the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the amount of currency of country H 8,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Players’ Agent V. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Players’ Agent V, is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club P, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 5.2 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