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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Agent S, from country R as “Claimant” against the club Club V, from country X 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Agent S, from country R as “Claimant” against the club Club V, from country X as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission. I. Facts of the case 1. On an unknown date, the players’ agent S (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Federation of country R, and the Club V from country X(hereinafter: the Respondent), allegedly concluded an exclusive representation contract entitled “the representation contract” (hereinafter: the representation contract), valid until 31 August 2010 and by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission for his activity in connection with the conclusion of an employment contract between the Respondent and the player José Manuel Flores Moreno (hereinafter: the player) in the amount of EUR 400,000 as follows: EUR 100,000 on 30 September 2010, EUR 100,000 on 30 June 2011, EUR 100,000 on 30 September 2011 and EUR 100,000 on 30 June 2012. The parties provided two identical copies of the original representation contract, drafted in language of country X as well as two slightly different translations into language of country Z. 2. Article 5 of the representation contract stated, in the translated version provided by the Respondent, that “By signing this mandate, the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] declares that there is no mandate and/or agency agreement between himself and the Football José Manuel Flores Moreno, known as Chico, and that he is free to enter into this mandate”. 3. On 21 July 2010, the player signed a five-year employment contract (hereinafter: the employment contract) with the Respondent. The employment contract stated that Mr “M”, another players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of country R, was the agent of the player. 4. On 14 December 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the representation contract. In this respect, the Claimant argued that although the Respondent had signed an employment contract with the player in July 2010, it had failed to pay him the first three instalments agreed upon between the parties for his services rendered. 5. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 300,000 plus interest of 5% as from the date the amounts became due. In addition the Claimant requested that “if the Defendant [i.e. the Respondent] does not pay the amount of EUR 100,000 [i.e. corresponding to the fourth instalment] on or before 30 June 2012 that the amount of EUR 100,000 plus the 5% annual interest be added to this claim”. 6. In its response dated 16 February 2012, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim, arguing that the latter is not entitled to request any commission, since the representation contract is not valid due to a conflict of interest. 7. In this respect, the Respondent, first of all, stated that the representation contract provided by the Claimant did not correspond to the original copy in its possession and which was not signed by the Claimant but by Mr M .The Respondent provided a copy of the undated representation contract signed by Mr M. With regard to this allegation, the Respondent stated that “Mr M and Mr S [i.e. the Claimant] are both involved in You First Sports, an established Company specialized in athletes representation”, and therefore the Respondent considered that “both Agents, in the transaction at stake, were operating on behalf of ‘You First Sports’” since all the invoices received by the club were issued by the aforementioned company as well as “all the correspondence from Mr. M was formally sent as a You First Sports member”. 8. Furthermore the Respondent stated that “Mr S [i.e. the Claimant] alleged to be the Agent representing club V” and “On the other hand, his business partner Mr M was the Agent of the Player in the very same transaction, as proved by the labour contract of the Player enclosed by the Claimant” and, therefore, they “were clearly acting for the same centre of economic interest” violating the Players’ Agents Regulations. The Respondent provided an excerpt from the website of “You First Sport” allegedly confirming that the Claimant and Mr M worked for the same company. 9. On account of all of the above, the Respondent was of the opinion that the representation contract is “ineffective” because it is “not in compliance with the current Regulations, most of all because it is uncertain who are the parties involved and furthermore because it lacks a certain date”. 10. Finally, the Respondent pointed out that even if the representation contract would be considered valid, “it is uncertain not only if a professional activity occurred, but it is also undetermined who possibly did perform such an activity”. 11. Lastly, the Respondent requested FIFA to condemn the Claimant “to bear all costs and expenses relating to this claim”. 12. On 1 March 2012, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s allegations and insisted that the representation contract was valid. Furthermore, the Claimant admitted that Mr M had signed the representation contract on his behalf after having been authorised to do so, but also stressed that for this reason, the Respondent had later signed a copy of the same representation contract with the Claimant’s signature. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the only reason to do so was because the club had apparently told Mr M, “that for administrative reasons, it would be best if Mr. M signed the representation contract between club V and Mr. S on Mr. S behalf” since the Claimant himself was not present at the time of the transfer. In this regard and as evidence of his allegations, the Claimant provided FIFA with a witness statement of Mr M apparently confirming the aforementioned explanations. 13. With regard to the Respondent’s allegation that Mr M and the Claimant were working for the same company, the Claimant first and foremost, explained that “no such company exists and that there in fact exist two different legal entities; Company L from city A of country R and Company B from city C of country R” and therefore he and Mr. M would “occupy different roles in the two different companies”. The Claimant provided two excerpts from a commercial register of country R, which show that company L is registered in city A and company B in city C. 14. Furthermore, the Claimant insisted that there was no conflict of interest since Mr M and the Claimant himself had “signed as individuals to be the representatives of the Player and the Club respectively, and did not sign as employees of the same entity”. In this respect and as evidence, the Claimant provided FIFA with a witness statement of the player, by means of which the latter confirmed that Mr M was his sole representative and the Claimant the sole representative of the Respondent. The Claimant also provided a copy of the two-year representation agreement signed between Mr M and the player on 24 June 2010. 15. On 12 March 2012, the Respondent reiterated that Mr M and the Claimant “are both member of the same Company O” and that the two different legal entities, as alleged by the Claimant, were “just two different registered offices of the same Company”. 16. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the two invoices it had received concerning the present transfer were issued by company B, considered as the office of Mr M. 17. Finally, the Respondent provided two witness statements of its Sport Director and General Secretary, Mr D and Mr K respectively, by means of which they declared that the Claimant had never been involved in the present transfer. 18. On 28 June 2012, after the investigation phase had already been closed, the Claimant provided a copy of the transfer agreement concluded between the Respondent and the club ID of country R concerning the transfer of the player which stipulates that the Claimant was involved in the present transfer on behalf of the Respondent. 19. In its response of 18 July 2012, the Respondent stated that the aforementioned document should not be taken into account as the investigation phase of the present matter was already closed and the said document “pertains to a third party not involved in the present proceeding” and, therefore, “represents a gross violation of the most basilar rules about Privacy and data protection”. 20. On 4 and 8 February 2013, the Claimant informed FIFA that, although the Respondent in the meantime had paid him EUR 50,000 “of the outstanding debt of 400,000 Euro”, they had not been able to find an agreement as to the remaining amount claimed. Consequently, the Claimant requested that “the proceedings must go on”. 21. On 28 February 2013, the Respondent alleged that the amount of EUR 50,000 it had paid to the Claimant was “in full and final settlement of any economic claim forwarded by Mr. S and without prejudice whatsoever”. 22. Finally, on 7 March 2013, the Claimant stressed that “there was no full and final settlement” and that he “just wait for the decision”. 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 14 December 2011, 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 14 December 2011, 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 Football Federation of country R and club V, 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 and the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the parties submitted two identical copies of the original representation contract, one signed by the Claimant itself, the other one signed by a person acting on the Claimant’s behalf. 7. Notwithstanding the above and taking into account that the content of both representation contracts was identical, the Single Judge was keen to underline that a representation contract was signed between the parties in relation to the transfer of the player to the Respondent, according to which the latter agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission amounting to EUR 400,000, payable in four instalments, regardless of the fact that another copy of the contract was signed by a third party, i.e. Mr M. In light of the above, the Single Judge reached the conclusion that the representation contract signed between the parties was fully binding upon them. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to the main arguments of the parties and noted that the Claimant had alleged in front of FIFA that the Respondent had failed to pay the commission agreed in the representation contract. 9. As for the position of the Respondent, the Single Judge noted that the latter rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing the existence of a conflict of interest due to the fact that the Claimant’s “business partner Mr M was the Agent of the Player in the very same transaction”. 10. In view of the aforementioned, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that the provision according to which a players’ agent may only represent the interests of one party in a transaction and which is contained in the current version of the Regulations, 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. 11. In view of the above, the Single Judge formed the view that, although Mr. M, who represented the player in the said transaction appears to be the Claimant’s business partner, the documentary evidence contained in the file clearly demonstrated that the Claimant could not have possibly been remunerated twice for his services. 12. Furthermore, the Single Judge also remarked that the Respondent, during the course of the proceedings, had made a payment of EUR 50,000 to the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge deemed that, by acting in this way, the Respondent had accepted the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties. 13. Based on all the above-mentioned considerations and taking into account the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant and therefore, the Respondent must pay the Claimant for the services he rendered in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid payment of EUR 50,000, which can be attributed to the first instalment under the representation contract which was due on 30 September 2010, as well as the fact that the Claimant had amended his claim during the proceedings, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and ruled that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of EUR 350,000 pursuant to the representation contract concluded between the parties. 15. Additionally and with respect to the claimed default interest, the Single Judge recalled that no interest seemed to have contractually been agreed between the parties. Therefore and also taking into account the Claimant’s request in this regard, the Single Judge decided, in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee concerning the payment of interest, that the Claimant should receive from the Respondent an interest rate of 5% per year as from the day after the due date of each instalment due. As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 5% interest as follows: - on EUR 50,000, as from 1 October 2010; - on EUR 100,000, as from 1 July 2011; - on EUR 100,000, as from 1 October 2011; - on EUR 100,000, as from 1 July 2012. 16. 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 EUR 350,000 as outstanding commission, plus interest as established above. 17. Finally, 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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 CHF 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 20. Considering the complexity of the case, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 15,000. 21. Consequently, and in line with the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the amount of CHF 15,000 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, Agent S, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant, agent S, the amount of EUR 350,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Within the same time limit, the Respondent, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant, agent S, default interest at a rate of 5% per year on the following partial amounts, as follows: - On EUR 50,000 from 1 October 2010 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 100,000 from 1 July 2011 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 100,000 from 1 October 2011 until the effective date of payment; - On EUR 100,000 from 1 July 2012 until the effective date of payment. 4. If the aforementioned amount of EUR 350,000, 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club V, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxx: 5.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Agent S 6. The Claimant, agent S, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club V, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2, 3 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