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 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent N, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club S, from country U 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 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent N, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club S, from country U as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission. I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 July 2012, Player M, from country A (hereinafter: the player) and Club S, from country U (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a two-year employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid until 30 June 2014. 2. According to article 2.1 of the contract, the player was entitled to a total salary of USD 1,250,000, payable as follows: - For the first season a total amount of USD 750,000 (USD 250,000 after the receipt of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the player, USD 140,000 on 30 January 2013 as well as USD 360,000 corresponding to 12 monthly salaries of USD 30,000, “payable at the end of each month”). - For the second season a total amount of USD 500,000 (USD 70,000 on 30 September 2013, USD 70,000 on 30 January 2014 as well as USD 360,000 corresponding to 12 monthly salaries of USD 30,000 each, “payable at the end of each month”). 3. On 24 July 2012, the players’ agent N (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the country G Football Association, and the Respondent concluded an agreement entitled “Agreement Players agent Prelude” (hereinafter: the agreement). 4. Article 1 of the agreement stated that “the first party [i.e. the Respondent] Pay to the second party [i.e. the Claimant] a commission for a transfer rate of 8% of the value of his [i.e. the player’s] contract for the first year after of the club’s [i.e. the Respondent’s] receipt ITC”. 5. Article 2 of the agreement stated that “the first party [i.e. the Respondent] Pay to the second party [i.e. the Claimant] a commission for a transfer rate of 8% of the value of his [i.e. the player’s] contract for the second year, in the event of continuing the player for the second season with the club [i.e. the Respondent]”. 6. On 17 November 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the agreement. In this respect, the Claimant argued that although the Respondent had signed an employment contract with the player, it had failed to pay him the commission agreed upon between the parties for his services rendered. 7. In this respect, the Claimant deemed that according to article 1 of the agreement he should be entitled to receive a commission corresponding to 8% of the player’s annual income for the first season arguing that the aforesaid annual income amounted to USD 750,000 (i.e. USD 250,000 after the receipt of the ITC + USD 140,000 on 30 January 2013 + USD 360,000 corresponding to 12 monthly salaries of USD 30,000 each). 8. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that although he had requested the Respondent several times to proceed with the payment of USD 60,000 based on article 1 of the agreement, the latter had failed to pay the requested amount. 9. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of USD 60,000 corresponding to 8% of USD 750,000 as well as an interest of 5% per year since the due date. 10. On 20 December 2012, after having been asked by FIFA to provide a possible representation contract signed between the player and the Claimant, the latter explained that he had not signed any representation contract with the player and stressed that he was only representing the Respondent in the transaction in question. 11. In its response dated 20 August 2013, the Respondent did not deny the allegations of the Claimant but stated that it had “already transferred the amount of 60,000 USD to the account of Players’ agent N” and therefore requested FIFA the “closure of this case”. 12. On 26 August 2013, the Claimant confirmed having received USD 60,000 from the Respondent but deemed that since the player in the meantime had “already continued to fulfill his contract for the 2nd season” he should also be entitled to receive “8% of the annual value of the player’s contract”. 13. In this respect, the Claimant explained that “the player’s salary is in total 500,000 USD for the second season” (i.e. USD 70,000 on 30 September 2013 + USD 70,000 on 30 January 2014 + USD 360,000 corresponding to 12 monthly salaries of USD 30,000 each). 14. Consequently, the Claimant amended his claim and claimed from the Respondent the amount of USD 40,000 (i.e. 8% of USD 500,000) based on article 2 of the agreement. 15. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide any further comments in response to the Claimant’s amended claim, although it had been informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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 17 November 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 17 November 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 G Football Association and an country U 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 of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that, on 24 July 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement according to which the latter agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission for his activity in connection with the transfer of the player M (hereinafter: the player) to the Respondent amounting to 8% of the player’s salary. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the outstanding commission requested by the Claimant and noted that, during the course of the present investigation, the Claimant had amended his claim. In this context, the Single Judge observed that, based on the information received from the Claimant, the Respondent had only paid the total amount of USD 60,000, representing 8% of the player’s salary for the first season i.e. USD 750,000 and that the Claimant had claimed that since the player had “continued to fulfill his contract for the 2nd season”, he should be entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of USD 40,000 representing 8% of the player’s salary for the second season i.e. USD 500,000 as agreed in article 2 of the agreement. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge also remarked that the Respondent had not submitted any comments in response to the amended claim, i.e. the claimed commission representing 8% of the player’s salary for the second season, lodged against it by the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge deemed that, by acting in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and it had therefore to be assumed that the Respondent had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 8. In view of the above and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, 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 to the Claimant the outstanding commission agreed upon for the services rendered to the Respondent. 9. Therefore and taking into account that the Claimant, during the present proceedings, had acknowledged the receipt of a total amount of USD 60,000 corresponding to 8% of the player’s salary for the first season, from the Respondent and that the latter had not denied owing the remaining amount i.e. 8% of the player’s salary for the second season, to the Claimant, the Single Judge concluded that the remaining sum amounting to USD 40,000 (i.e. 8% of USD 500,000), was still outstanding and should therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 10. In view of all the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent is fully accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant a total amount of USD 40,000 as outstanding commission. 11. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the 2012 edition 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. 12. In respect of the above and taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the fully payment of the commission can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and that the claim of the Claimant has been fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 13. 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 not higher than currency of country H 50,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 14. 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 5,000. 15. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 5,000 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, Players’ agent N, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club S, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ agent N, the amount of USD 40,000, 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 from 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 5,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club S, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 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 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Players’ Agent N. 5. The Claimant, Players’ Agent N, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club S, 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