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 29 July 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent D, from country P as “Claimant” against the player Player E, 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 29 July 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent D, from country P as “Claimant” against the player Player E, from country G as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission. I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 April 2006, the Players’ Agent D licensed by the country P Football Association (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the country G player E (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an exclusive representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid as of 24 July 2006 until 23 July 2008, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, as agent fee, 10% of the latter’s gross remuneration negotiated by the Claimant (cf. clause 5 of the agreement). As to that, clause 6 of the agreement translates from language of country P “the parties agree that any and all rights within the scope of representing the Player [i.e. the Respondent] connected with his sport career are transferred on exclusive basis in favour of the Agent [i.e. the Claimant], provided that the Player declares that he shall not entrust these rights and actions with any other third parties, or arrange them individually, unless the Agent consents to it in writing.” 2. The agreement further provided in its clause 9 that if the player “breaches the regulations in §6 and §7, renounces, terminates this Agreement without notice period, the Player undertakes to reimburse to the Agent expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement and to pay the Agent stipulated penalty in the amount of currency of country P 40,000.00 (..) within 14 days from receipt of notice payment. Without prejudice to the aforementioned provisions the Player is in such case obliged to pay to the Agent remuneration payable to him based on §5 of the Agreement.” 3. By correspondence dated 24 July 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting from the latter the payment of currency of country H 14,322.04, “equivalent to currency of country P 40,000”, as well as of 10% of “the gross value of the contracts” that the Respondent had concluded “during the football season 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 with the country B club Club K [hereinafter: Club K] and during the season 2008/2009 with the country B club Club L [hereinafter: Club L]”. In addition, the Claimant requested the payment of “statutory interest accrued from due date of each monthly obligation to pay the remuneration in form of commission” and the reimbursement of the costs of his legal defence. Furthermore, the Claimant requested to be provided with the employment contracts that the Respondent had apparently concluded with Club K and Club L. 4. In this respect, the Claimant referred to clause 9 of the agreement and alleged that the Respondent, by concluding an employment contract with Club K in 2007 as well as by signing with Club L in 2008 without his involvement nor consent and using the services of another agent, had breached the agreement and should therefore compensate him accordingly. 5. In this context, the Claimant provided FIFA with one email allegedly received from the Respondent as well as one from the players’ agent licensed by the Union country B des Societés de Football-Association Mr S (hereinafter: Mr S) who is apparently the Respondent’s new representative. 6. In its response, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. 7. In this respect and first of all, the Respondent rejected FIFA’s competence to decide on a dispute arisen between a players’ agent and a player referring to art 3 of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber in connection with art 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In addition, the Respondent stressed that he had never concluded any arbitrational agreement with the Claimant. 8. In continuation and as to the facts of the case, the Respondent maintained that because the Claimant had not been able to find him any contract, the agreement had been amicably terminated by the parties already in 2006. As a consequence, the Respondent was of the opinion that when he had signed an employment contract with Club K in January 2007, the agreement had already been terminated and could therefore not be breached. In addition, the Respondent alleged that, anyway, in accordance with the country F law and jurisprudence, the Claimant could not have represented him within the country F territory and provided FIFA with a copy of the corresponding law. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that no remuneration whatsoever should be paid to the Claimant for employment contracts concluded on the country F territory. 9. In conclusion, the Respondent deemed that no compensation whatsoever was to be paid to the Claimant pertaining to the agreement. 10. Finally, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of the employment contracts concluded with Club K and Club L but failed to include a translation into one of the official languages of FIFA of the agreement concluded with Club L in spite of having being requested by FIFA to do so on several occasions. Nevertheless, the Respondent specified that he was entitled to receive from Club L a monthly salary of EUR 5,000 as well as EUR 500 per point as match bonus. In addition, the agreement seemed to be valid for three seasons as follows: for the season 2008/2009 from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009, for the season 2009/2010 from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2010 and for the season 2010/2011 from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011. 11. In this respect, the contract concluded with Club K was valid from 1 February 2007 until 30 June 2007. According to the Respondent it provided him with a salary of monthly EUR 3,350. Furthermore, the relevant document specified that Mr S had been involved in its conclusion. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether Mr S represented the Respondent or the club. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at 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 (editions 2008 and 2012). Consequently and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 July 2009, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agent Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 39 par. 1 and 4 of the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations, considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 July 2009, the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at 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 P Football Association and a country G player, regarding an allegedly outstanding commission. 5. 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). 6. In this context and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge was eager to specify that in case of international disputes in connection with the activity of players’ agent, a request for arbitration proceedings might be lodged with the FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee. The Players’ Status Committee or its Single Judge has then the competence to decide on the matter regardless of whether the parties concluded an arbitrational clause or not. 7. In continuation, having established his competence and the applicable regulations 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. 8. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge took note that, on 24 April 2006, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid as of 24 July 2006 until 23 July 2008, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, as agent fee, 10% of the latter’s gross remuneration negotiated by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that, according to clause 9 of the agreement, in case the Respondent breached its exclusivity or confidentiality, or in case the latter prematurely terminated the agreement without notice, he would have to reimburse the Claimant of all expenses incurred and to pay to the latter the remuneration due as per the agreement, i.e. 10% of the Respondent’s salary, plus currency of country P 40,000 as penalty fee (hereinafter: the penalty fee). 9. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had accused the Respondent of having breached the agreement by concluding an employment contract with the country B clubs Club K (hereinafter: Club K) and Club L (hereinafter: Club L) without his involvement and using the services of another players’ agent. Therefore, the Claimant deemed being entitled to receive from the Respondent currency of country P 40,000, corresponding to the penalty fee, as well as 10% of the Claimant’s remuneration with the clubs in question. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge acknowledged that, for his part, the Respondent, had rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that their contractual relationship had been terminated by mutual consent before he concluded the relevant employment contracts as well as alleging that, anyway, in accordance with country F law, the Claimant could have not represented him on the country F territory. 10. In view of the above and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled that no evidence had been provided by the Respondent in support of the allegation that at the time the employments contracts with Club K and Club L were concluded, the agreement had already been terminated in an amicable way by the parties. Hence, the Single Judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and stressed that any party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. Consequently and since the Respondent had not been able to prove that his contractual relationship with the Claimant had been terminated prior to the conclusion of an employment contract with Club K and Club L, the Single Judge concluded that it had to be assumed that at that time, the agreement was still in force, i.e. valid and binding between the parties. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the activity of players’ agents is a function intended to bring players and clubs together, so as to establish working relations, i.e. the players’ agents’ negotiations should culminate in the signing of mutually acceptable contracts between players and clubs. In this context, the Single Judge referred to a letter addressed to all licensed players’ agents in June 1999, whereby the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee informed the players’ agents that it had discussed at its meeting in Zurich on 27 August 1998 cases in which players’ agents had demanded a fee from players, even though employment contracts had been concluded between the players and the clubs without the agents’ involvements. In this respect, the Bureau held that players’ agents activities must be causal to the concluding of employment contracts. The Bureau further decided that, as a general rule, if an employment contract is signed without the involvement of a players’ agent, the player concerned does not owe any commission to the agent. This said, the Single Judge recalled that this legal interpretation of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee addressed to all players’ agents in June 1999 is still applicable and has since been confirmed by the Players’ Status Committee’s constant jurisprudence. 12. Notwithstanding the above, and referring again to the letter addressed to all licensed players’ agents in June 1999, the Single Judge pointed out that the Bureau had also called attention to the fact that players’ agents may, nevertheless, claim commission if they have not been actively involved in a transfer, if a clause to this effect is explicitly and unequivocally stipulated in the representation agreement. 13. With those considerations in mind, the Single Judge recalled that the agreement did include a clause (clause 9 of the agreement) which entitled the Claimant to receive from the Respondent the payment of currency of country P 40,000 as penalty fee as well as 10% of the Respondent’s salary with a new club in case the latter breached clause 6 of the agreement. Such clause is to be interpreted as a penalty clause in the sense of the aforementioned letter of June 1999. Furthermore, the Single pointed out that in accordance with clause 6 of the agreement “the parties agree that any and all rights within the scope of representing the Player connected with his sport career are transferred on exclusive basis in favour of the Agent, provided that the Player declares that he shall not entrust these rights and actions with any other third parties, or arrange them individually, unless the Agent consents to it in writing.” Thus, the parties to the agreement had agreed upon an exclusive representation agreement of the Respondent by the Claimant. 14. In continuation and as to the allegations of the Respondent related to the fact that in accordance with country F law it would have been impossible for the Claimant to represent him on the country F territory, the Single Judge pointed out that no such restriction had been mentioned in the agreement. In fact, the applicability of the agreement had not been limited to any specific country at all. Therefore, the Single Judge deemed that the Respondent could not, in bona fide, claim now the inapplicability of the agreement on a particular territory. In the Single Judge’s opinion, such limitation should have been inserted beforehand in the agreement. Hence, and considering that the relevant objection of the Respondent had to be considered venire contra factum proprium, the Single Judge decided that had to be rejected. 15. Bearing in mind all the above, and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent had concluded an employment contract with Club K and with Club L during the validity of the agreement without using the services of the Claimant as well as bearing in mind that the Respondent had not contested having been represented by another players’ agent when concluding the contracts in question, the Single Judge concluded that the exclusivity clause had been breached by the latter. As a result, the Single Judge determined that the Respondent has to compensate the Claimant accordingly. 16. Having established the aforementioned and as to the concrete amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract, the Single Judge recalled once again that the Claimant had requested the payment of currency of country P 40,000 as well as 10% of the Respondent’s remuneration with Club K and Club L. In addition, the Single Judge referred to clause 9 of the agreement and stressed that it provided for the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the remuneration due in accordance with the agreement, i.e. 10% of the latter’s salary, as well as currency of country P 40,000 as penalty fee. Equally, the Single Judge pointed out that the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and Club K was valid from 1 February 2007 until 30 June 2007 and provided for the Respondent to receive a monthly salary of EUR 3,350. Besides, the Single Judge indicated that in accordance with the contract concluded between the Respondent and Club L, which was valid from 1 July 2008 until 31 June 2011, the Respondent was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 5,000 as well as EUR 500 per point as match bonus. 17. On account of the above, considering the claim of the Claimant as well as the wording of clause 9 of the agreement and bearing mind the content as well as the validity of the employment contracts concluded between the Respondent and the clubs K and Club L, the Single Judge ruled that the latter had to pay to the Claimant, as compensation for breach of contract, currency of country P 40,000, as well as EUR 1,675, corresponding to 10% of EUR 3,350 during 5 months under the employment contract with Club K, and EUR 18,000, corresponding to 10% of EUR 5,000 during 12 months multiplied by 3 seasons under the employment contract with Club L. Furthermore, the Single Judge decided that in accordance with the Claimant’s respective request, an interest at the rate of 5% on all aforementioned amounts as from 29 July 2013 until the date of effective payment shall apply. 18. Having decided on the aforementioned and turning his attention to the Claimant’s request related to the reimbursement of the costs of his legal defence, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the DRC. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided that this second part of the Claimant’s claim had to be rejected for lack of legal basis. 19. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of currency of country P 40,000 as well as the amount of EUR 19,675, plus 5% p.a. on the said amounts as from 29 July 2013 until the date of the effective payment. 20. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. 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. 21. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the costs of the current proceedings are to borne by the Respondent. 22. 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. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present is less than currency of country H 50,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 23. In conclusion, considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore and that the present case did not show particular factual difficulties or specific legal complexities but bearing in mind the amount of documentation that had to be analysed, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 3,000. 24. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of currency of country H 3,000 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 D, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Player E, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent D, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of currency of country P 40,000 as well as the amount of EUR 19,675. 3. Within the same deadline, the Respondent, Player E has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ agent D, default interest of 5% p.a. on the aforesaid amounts as from 29 July 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. If the aforementioned sums, plus interest, are 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. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Players’ Agent D, are rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Player E, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision as follows: 6.1. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 6.2. The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, Players’ Agent D. 7. The Claimant, Players’ Agent D, is directed to inform the Respondent, Player E, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2., 3. and 6.2. above are 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