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 R, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club P, 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 R, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club P, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 April 2010, the players’ agent R (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the country A Football Association, and Club P, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an exclusive representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid until 1 April 2012 and according to which the Respondent mandated the Claimant “so that the latter takes care of its interests, assisting in the conclusion of the transfer of the contract of the player C [hereinafter: the player] to clubs […] in any part of the world”. 2. The agreement further provided that, in case said “transfer” would occur, the Claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: “5% (five percent) of the amount of transfer of the contract of the player in case the latter would occur for an amount equal or inferior to € 20.000.000,00 (twenty million euros)”. The agreement also stipulated that the Claimant’s commission would be due 30 days after each instalment in relation to the transfer compensation effectively paid to the Respondent. 3. On 25 June 2010, the Claimant signed another representation contract (hereinafter: the 2nd contract) with Club N, from country I (hereinafter: Club N), valid for one month, according to which the latter engaged the Claimant “in order to represent its interests, assisting in the negotiation and conclusion of the contract” between the player and Club N. The 2nd contract further stipulated that, in case said employment contract would be signed, the Claimant would receive from Club N the total amount of EUR 675,000 as commission, payable in five instalments. 4. On 30 November 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the agreement. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that, thanks to his services, the player was successfully transferred from the Respondent to Club N and had signed an employment contract with the latter in July 2010. In this respect, the Claimant provided a written declaration of the agent of the player, Mr T (hereinafter: Mr T), which apparently confirms the Claimant’s involvement in said negotiations. 5. Consequently, and in view of the fact that, until the date of his claim, Club N had already paid to the Respondent a first instalment of EUR 5,000,000 for the transfer of the player, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 250,000 which represented 5% of the aforementioned amount. Furthermore, the Claimant requested the Respondent to disclose the full content of the transfer agreement concluded with Club N. 6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent explained that the player was first transferred on a loan basis to Club N on 17 July 2010 “with a permanent transfer option” for a loan compensation of EUR 5,000,000. Furthermore, on 20 June 2011, and following Club N’s decision to exercise said option, an amount of EUR 17,000,000, “which included the first € 5’000’000 initially paid by Club N”, had become due by the latter to the Respondent for the definitive acquisition of the services of the player. 7. However, and while recognising that it had concluded the agreement with the Claimant on 1 April 2010, the Respondent firmly denied “that the transfer of the player C to Club N was negotiated and agreed with Mr R’s [i.e. the Claimant]” and that he had failed to submit any evidence corroborating his involvement in the player’s transfer. In particular, the Respondent underlined that the written declaration of Mr T should not be regarded as conclusive evidence as “this witness has questionable authority to intervene in such capacity as he has a direct interest in the business carried out by the Claimant”. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that the transfer of the player was directly agreed between its president and the president of Club N “without the intervention of any other party”. In this respect, the Respondent enclosed an “affidavit” signed by the president of Club N, in which the latter confirmed that the Claimant had not taken part in the relevant transaction on behalf of the Respondent. In this context and in view of art. 19 par. 7 of the Regulations, the Respondent argued that it retained “its natural and legal right to represent itself” in the negotiations leading to the transfer of the player to Club N. 9. Finally, the Respondent argued that, by concluding the 2nd contract with Club N on 25 June 2010, the Claimant had breached art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations as he had “acted for Club P’s counterpart in the same transaction”. 10. In view of all of the above, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. 11. On 20 December 2013, the Claimant provided his further comments in the matter and rejected the allegations raised by the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant argued that according to the wording of the agreement, his duty “was only to collaborate or assist and not to sign the contract or decide upon the terms and economic conditions of the transaction”. In addition, the Claimant argued that the declaration of the president of Club N did not explicitly state that “other persons” had not been involved during the negotiations between both clubs. The Claimant also claimed that by paying him a commission under the 2nd contract, Club N had expressly confirmed his involvement in the negotiations leading to the player’s transfer. 12. The Claimant also rejected the argument that he had breached art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations as the services he provided to the Respondent were in relation to the transfer agreement signed between the two clubs, while the services he provided to Club N were in relation to the employment contract the player finally signed with the latter club. 13. Finally, and in view of the fact that the Respondent had confirmed that the transfer of the player had been concluded for a total amount of EUR 17,000,000, the Claimant amended his claim and requested from the Respondent, as commission for the services rendered under the agreement, the amount of EUR 850,000, plus an interest of 5% on the bellow-mentioned partial amounts as follows: - On EUR 250,000 as from 18 August 2010; - On EUR 140,000 as from 30 January 2012; - On EUR 60,000 as from 30 April 2012; - On EUR 140,000 as from 30 January 2013; - On EUR 60,000 as from 30 April 2013; - On EUR 140,000 as from 30 January 2014; - On EUR 60,000 as from 30 April 2014. In order to establish the aforementioned dates and amounts, the Claimant provided a copy of Club N’s financial forecast statement apparently confirming that the following amounts would be paid by Club N to the Respondent in relation to the player: EUR 2,800,000 on 31 December 2011, EUR 1,200,000 on 31 March 2012, EUR 2,800,000 on 31 December 2012, EUR 1,200,000 on 31 March 2013, EUR 2,800,000 on 31 December 2013 and EUR 1,200,000 on 31 March 2014. 14. On 14 February 2014, the Respondent provided its final comments in the matter and reiterated that the Claimant’s claim was “groundless as there is no evidence that any service instrumental to the conclusion of the transfer contract as performed by the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] in favour of Club P [i.e. the Respondent]”. Furthermore, the Respondent maintained that as the Claimant was remunerated by Club N in the scope of the same transaction, “any recognition of the Claimant’s claims on such grounds would mean validating a clear violation of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations” and that, consequently, the matter should be referred to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for appropriate actions. 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 30 November 2010, 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 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 30 November 2010, 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 Argentinian Football Association to an country I club, in connection with 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. In doing so and as a preliminary remark, the Single Judge emphasised that, in his analysis of the matter, he would only refer to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence considered pertinent for the assessment of the present dispute. 6. In this regard and first of all, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant deemed to be entitled to the amount of EUR 850,000 as commission, together with interest, on the basis of the agreement he had concluded with the Respondent on 1 April 2010. The Single Judge further noted that the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant should not be entitled to any commission whatsoever as he had not been involved in the actual negotiations of said transfer and, at the time said negotiations were taking place, he was already acting as the players’ agent of the buying club, i.e. Club N, and had received a commission from the latter. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge also pointed out that the Claimant, in response to the argument raised by the Respondent that he had represented Club N in the same transaction, had recognised having received a commission amounting to EUR 675,000 from the latter club but had denied that said amount was received in the context of the same transaction. In particular, the Claimant argued that the services he had allegedly provided to the Respondent were in relation to the transfer agreement signed between the latter and Club N, while the services he had provided to Club N were in relation to the employment contract the player had finally signed with the latter club. 8. In view of the above, the Single Judge referred to art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations which provides, inter alia, as follows: “Players’ agents shall avoid all conflicts of interest in the course of their activity. A players’ agent may only represent the interests of one party per transaction. In particular, a players’ agent is forbidden from having a representation contract, a cooperation agreement or shared interests with one of the other parties or with one of the other parties’ players’ agents involved in the player’s transfer or in the completion of the employment contract”. 9. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge went on to analyse the ratio legis of art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations and held the view that the underlying principle behind the obligation imposed on players’ agents to “avoid all conflicts of interest in the course of their activity” was to ensure that they are not permitted to have “shared interests” with more than one party in the course of the same transaction and, in turn, would allow them to be remunerated multiple times by different parties involved in a transaction. 10. In this context, and while stressing that art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations was enacted in order to make sure that players’ agents are prevented from having conflicting interests with parties involved in the same transaction, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the contract the Claimant had concluded with Club N on 25 June 2010 was concluded in the context of the player’s move to the latter club and had therefore to be considered as part of the same transaction, i.e. the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club N and his incorporation to the latter club. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant, by signing a contract with Club N which entitled him to receive an amount of EUR 675,000 from the latter club, and simultaneously entering into the agreement with the Respondent, had undoubtedly represented the interest of more than one party in the same transaction. Such conduct clearly represents a conflict of interest in the sense of art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations. 11. After establishing the above, the Single Judge went on to point out that the agreement the Claimant had signed with the Respondent also appeared to contravene art. 29 par. 1 of the Regulations which provides, inter alia, as follows: “No compensation payment, including transfer compensation [emphasis added], training compensation or solidarity contribution, that is payable in connection with a player’s transfer between clubs, may be paid in full or part, by the debtor (club) to the players’ agent […]”. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge reverted to the terms of the agreement signed between the Claimant and the Respondent. In doing so and after comparing the wording of the different versions of said agreement provided by the parties, i.e. the original version in language of country I as well as the translations provided in Spanish and English, concluded that the parties appeared to have agreed that in the event that the player would be transferred from the Respondent to Club N for an amount equal or inferior to EUR 20,000,000, the Claimant would have been entitled to 5% of the transfer compensation to be paid by Club N to the Respondent. In other words, in case the player would move to Club N, 5% of the transfer compensation due by the latter club to the Respondent would be deducted from said transfer amount and paid to the Claimant. 13. Consequently and in the absence of any other clause in the contract that would allow a different conclusion than the one drawn above, the Single Judge held that said payment clause clearly contravened the payment restrictions provision mentioned under art. 29 par. 1 of the Regulations. 14. In view of all of the above and taking into account, in particular, that the Claimant, by concluding a contract with Club N for the payment of commission, had committed a clear conflict of interest as well as considering that the agreement signed between the Claimant and the Respondent provided that the former would be entitled to receive a percentage of the transfer compensation to be paid by Club N to the Respondent for the transfer of the player, the Single Judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety. 15. Furthermore, in view of the infringements to art. 19 par. 8 and art. 29. par. 1 of the Regulations as established above and while referring to art. 30 par. 3 of said Regulations, the Single Judge added that the file shall in due course also be submitted to the Disciplinary Committee for the commencement of disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code and Chapter VIII of the Regulations. 16. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the 2010 edition of the Regulations on 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. 17. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is fully rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the latter has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is at least EUR 850,000. 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 25,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 25,000 has to be paid by the Claimant 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 R, is rejected. 2. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Players’ Agent R. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Players’ Agent R, has to pay the amount of currency of country H 20,000, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, 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