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 K, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club C, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen 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 7 May 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players’ agent K, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club C, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 June 2011, the players’ agent K (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the country G Football Federation, and Club C, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed a representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), valid from 9 June 2011 until 31 August 2012, and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive an amount of EUR 160,000 as commission in the event that the services provided by the latter would lead to the transfer of the player P (hereinafter: the player) from the Respondent to “any other country I or international football club”. 2. The agreement further provided that the amount of EUR 160,000 would be paid in “two instalments until the 30th of September 2011, only after he [i.e. the Claimant] provides Club C [i.e. the Respondent] with the appropriate fiscal documents, and provided that the transfer(s) has(have) taken place as a result of the proven professional services of the agent”. 3. On 16 April 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the agreement. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that, following the player’s transfer to Club B in July 2011, the Respondent had only paid him the amount of EUR 27,500. In support of his statement, the Respondent provided a copy of the transfer contract the Respondent had concluded with Club B on 20 July 2011. 4. The Claimant alleged to have sent three letters to the Respondent on 2 and 24 October 2012 as well as on 13 February 2013, reminding the latter of its obligations and asking it to pay him the remaining amount of EUR 132,500, but to have never received any reply from the Respondent nor the amount in question. 5. In view of the above, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay him the total amount of EUR 132,500, plus “interest […] calculated at the latest from 2 October 2012 when the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] had requested in writing the payment of the long outstanding amount of 132,500 euros” as well as an additional amount as “legal expenses” to be determined by FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee. 6. In its reply dated 22 July 2013, the Respondent, first of all, deemed that as the agreement did “not mention a specific club or, more to the point, the task to be undertaken by the agent [i.e. the Claimant]”, it clearly “fell outside of the scope of application of the 2008 FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations [hereinafter: the Regulations]”. In addition, the Respondent argued that article 3 of the agreement violated the Regulations as it stipulated that “in case Club C [i.e. the Respondent] sells in the future the rights on the players services, Club C shall acknowledge an additional remuneration to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] equal to 10% on the net surplus value of the transfer”. 7. Finally, the Respondent claimed that the Claimant had not provided any evidence of his alleged activity with respect to the transfer and that the transfer agreement provided by the latter was not even signed by him. Consequently, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. 8. In his position dated 28 November 2013, the Claimant rejected the allegations raised by the Respondent and, in particular, the claim that the agreement was outside of the scope of the Regulations “since a club [i.e. the Respondent] is definitely entitled to ask and engage the services of a players’ agent for the transfer of one of the club’s players to any possible club, without specifying the club or clubs”. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that by “partially paying him the requested commission”, the Respondent had already acknowledged his involvement in the negotiations leading to the transfer of the player to Club B. 10. Although the Respondent was invited to provide its final position in the matter in hand, it did not submit any further comments. 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 referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter in hand. In this respect and since the claim of the Claimant against the Respondent was lodged with FIFA on 16 April 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the present matter (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 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. 4 of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and again considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 16 April 2013, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter. 3. Furthermore, and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge pointed out that according to art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of players’ agents. 4. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute opposing a players’ agent duly licensed by the country G Football Federation to a country I club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. Consequently, the Single Judge held that he was competent to decide on the present matter which had a clear international dimension. 5. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge acknowledged the abovementioned facts as well as the documentation submitted by the parties and contained in the file. 6. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge noted that on 9 June 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a representation agreement, valid from the date of signature until 31 August 2012, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of EUR 160,000 as commission in the event that the services provided by the Claimant would lead to the transfer of the player from the Respondent to “any other country I or international football club”. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had lodged a claim with FIFA on 16 April 2013, arguing that the Respondent had not entirely complied with its obligations deriving from their agreement. In this connection, the Claimant had claimed to have only received from the Respondent an amount of EUR 27,500 following the transfer of the player to Club B, from country D in July 2011 and to have subsequently not received any further payment from the Respondent. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the outstanding amount of EUR 132,000, plus interest as well as “legal expenses”. 8. Equally, the Single Judge took into account the response of the Respondent and noted that the latter had argued in its submission that the agreement “fell outside of the scope” of the Regulations as it did not specify the tasks to be undertaken by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Respondent also argued that the Claimant had not provided any evidence of his activity in relation to the transfer of the player to Club B and that said transfer contract was not signed by the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety for the above-mentioned reasons. 9. Having carefully analysed the arguments raised by the parties, the Single Judge pointed out that the “Definitions” section of the Regulations stipulate that a players’ agent is a “natural person who, for a fee, introduces players to clubs with a view to negotiating or renegotiating an employment contract or introduces two clubs to one another with a view to concluding a transfer agreement”. 10. In this respect, the Single Judge deemed that the task to be undertaken by the Claimant according to the agreement did not fall outside of the scope of the Regulations as the purpose of said agreement was clearly to introduce the Respondent to “any other country I or international football club” so that a transfer contract could be concluded and the player be transferred to a new club. 11. Furthermore, based on the documentation on file and the statements of the parties, the Single Judge noted in this respect that a transfer contract was indeed concluded between the Respondent and an “international football club”, i.e. the Club B, from country D, on 20 July 2011, and that the player was consequently transferred to the latter club in July 2011 as stipulated in the agreement signed by the Claimant and the Respondent on 9 June 2011. 12. Turing his attention to the second argument raised by Respondent, i.e. the allegation that the Claimant had not provided any evidence of his activity in respect to the transfer in question, the Single Judge was eager to point out that by paying an amount of EUR 27,500 to the Claimant, the Respondent had clearly acknowledged that the Claimant had indeed provided services which had led to the signature of the relevant transfer contract and the subsequent transfer of the player to Club B. 13. In addition, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge underlined that, although article 3 of the agreement appeared to be contrary to art. 29 of the Regulations, said provision could not possibly affect the claim of the Claimant as the latter was not relying on that particular provision in order to claim his commission. 14. In view of the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of Pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee held that the outstanding amount of EUR 132,500 has to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant as contractually agreed between the parties in their agreement. In addition and taking into account the specific request for interest of the Claimant, the Single Judge also decided that the Respondent has to pay an interest of 5% on the aforementioned amount of EUR 132,500 as from 2 October 2012. 15. Finally, for the sake of good order, the Single Judge rejected the request of the Claimant to be awarded “legal expenses” as no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee (cf. art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules). 16. 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 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. 17. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been almost fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over currency of country H 150,000 but below currency of country H 200,001. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 20,000. 18. 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 17,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 17,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, players’ agent K, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, players’ agent K, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 132,500, together with an interest at a rate of 5% on the aforementioned amount from 2 October 2012 until the effective date of payment. 3. If the abovementioned amount, 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. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, players’ agent K, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 17,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 13,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, players’ agent K 6. The Claimant, players’ agent K, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances 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 Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives