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 – Decisionof the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Agent F, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country Z 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 – Decisionof the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2013, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Agent F, from country A as “Claimant” against the club Club B, from country Z as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission.I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 June 2007, the players’ agent F (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of country A, and the club B from country Z. (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a contract (hereinafter: the contract) by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission “for the services rendered for the contract of Professional Football Player M” (hereinafter: the player) in the amount of EUR 50,000 payable as follows: EUR 25,000 on 10 June 2007 and EUR 25,000 on 31 July 2008. 2. On 10 January 2012, the company called BDL sports & economics GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter: the company) lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent and claimed that the latter had failed to pay the second instalment agreed upon between the Respondent and the Claimant for his services rendered, although it had requested the Respondent several times to proceed with the payment. 3. In addition, the company stated that it had sent its claim to FIFA already on 31 March 2009 and 20 January 2010 but had allegedly never received an answer from FIFA. In this regard and as evidence of its allegations, the company provided FIFA with a fax report from which it appears that the claim had been sent to FIFA already on 20 January 2010. 4. Consequently, the company requested from the Respondent the amount of EUR 25,000 representing the second instalment according to the contract. 5. On 29 June 2012, after having been asked by FIFA to specify whether the company or the Claimant was the claimant in the present affair, the Claimant confirmed that he was the claimant in the matter in hand. 6. In its comments dated 9 November and 18 December 2012, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety, arguing that, “there is no admissible claim received by FIFA”. 7. In this respect, the Respondent, first of all, confirmed having signed the contract with the Claimant, by means of which it was obliged to pay to the latter an amount of EUR 50,000 but emphasised that the claim lodged on 10 January 2012 was submitted by the company, which was not a party to the contract in dispute. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that “according to the letter of the Claimant [i.e. the company] dated 10 January 2012 there is no doubt that FIFA never received a claim before this date”. 9. The Respondent further argued that “in its letters dated 29 June 2012, 9 July 2012, 19 July 2012, 10 September 2012, 18 September 2012, 10 October 2012 the counterparty refers to the case Ref. xxxxxxxx” as well as alleged that according to the wording of the power of attorney dated 6 June 2012 and 12 July 2012 “Mr. Reiter [i.e. the lawyer] is empowered in the case” and that on account of the above, the Respondent “does not understand when and how FIFA decided to change the claimant of the case as Mr. F [i.e. the Claimant]”. 10. Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that “even within the power of attorney Mr. F [i.e. the Claimant] submitted on 10 September 2012, he underlines that the claimant is BDL [i.e. the company]” and alleged that “a company cannot be licensed as an agent and thus cannot be a member of FIFA”. 11. On account of all of the above, the Respondent was of the opinion that “Mr. F [i.e. the Claimant] did not submit a claim on behalf of himself neither within the time limit nor until now”, and therefore the Respondent considered that “there is no admissible claim received by FIFA”. 12. On 18 April 2013, the Claimant provided his response to the allegations of the Respondent and, first and foremost, reiterated that “the plaintiff in this case is Mr. F [i.e. the Claimant]” and that “the question who is and who is not the plaintiff is to be decided by the relevant court – in this case by FIFA – and not by the defendant [i.e. the Respondent]”. 13. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Respondent, in its position dated 9 November 2012, had acknowledged that it owed him EUR 50,000 and that it had not been questioned by the Respondent that the second instalment of EUR 25,000 had not yet been paid. 14. The Respondent, in its last submission of 25 June 2013, reiterated its previous position and accepted that “there is no doubt that FIFA will decide on the matter” and thus “requests from FIFA to decide as the claim is inadmissible”. 15. In this respect, the Respondent stated once again that the claim was lodged by the company which was not a party to the contract and that a company cannot be a party in front of FIFA. 16. Consequently, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject all the claims of either the company or the Claimant. 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 20 January 2010, 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 20 January 2010, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in hand. 3. Furthermore, and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge pointed out that in accordance with art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of licensed players’ agents, i.e. individuals who hold a valid player’s agent license issued by the relevant member Association. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country A and a club B, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. As a consequence, the Single Judge held that he was, in principle competent to decide on the present matter which had an international dimension. 4. At this point, the Single Judge duly took note that the Respondent had contested the competence of FIFA since, according to it, the present claim had originally been lodged by the company and not by the Claimant and that the Respondent therefore alleged that “a company cannot be licensed as an agent and thus cannot be a member of FIFA”. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had argued that the Claimant itself “did not submit a claim on behalf of himself neither within the time limit nor until now”, and that the Respondent therefore alleged that “there is no admissible claim received by FIFA”. 5. In view of the aforementioned, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that although the claim had primarily been lodged by the company, the Claimant, after having been asked by FIFA whether the company or himself was the claimant in the present affair, had immediately confirmed that he was the claimant in the present matter. In addition, the Single Judge underlined that the contract at the basis of the present dispute was concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent and that the company was not a party to it. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge turned his attention to the Respondent’s argument that at the time the Claimant had designated himself as the Claimant, i.e. on 29 June 2012, more than two years had elapsed since the due date of the claimed amount, i.e. 31 July 2008, and that therefore the present claim should have been considered prescribed. In this respect, the Single Judge remarked that the documentary evidence contained in the file, in particular the fax report provided by the Claimant, clearly demonstrated that the claim had already been lodged on 20 January 2010 and deemed that this was the relevant date in order to establish if more than two years had elapsed from the event giving rise to the dispute. 7. Additionally and with respect to the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant had designated himself as the Claimant on 29 June 2012 only, i.e. more than two years and five months after the claim had been lodged by the company, the Single Judge deemed that such a fact, in particular, the long period of time which had elapsed from the date the claim was lodged, i.e. 20 January 2010 until the date the Claimant had specified that he was the Claimant in the present affair, i.e. 29 June 2012, cannot be attributed to the Claimant since he had not been asked by FIFA on an earlier stage to specify whether the company or the Claimant was the claimant in the present affair. 8. In view of the above, in particular, considering that the claim was lodged within the time limit of two years and taking into account that the Claimant, at a later stage, had clearly specified that he was the Claimant in the present matter, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that FIFA is fully competent to deal with the matter at stake. 9. 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 abovementioned facts and the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. 10. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge started his analysis of the case by acknowledging that, according to the contract the Claimant had submitted in his claim, the latter was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission “for the services rendered for the contract of Professional Football Player M” (hereinafter: the player) in the amount of EUR 50,000 payable as follows: EUR 25,000 on 10 June 2007 and EUR 25,000 on 31 July 2008. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the outstanding commission requested by the Claimant and noted that, based on the information received from the Claimant during the course of the present investigation, the Respondent had only paid the total amount of EUR 25,000, representing the first instalment stipulated in the contract. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that, according to the submissions of the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay the second instalment due on 31 July 2008 and that such a fact had not been questioned by the latter. 12. 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 contract signed between the parties, and therefore, the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the outstanding commission agreed upon for the services rendered in relation with the transfer of the player. 13. Bearing in mind the foregoing, in particular taking into account that the Claimant had acknowledged the receipt of the first instalment under the contract, as well as the fact that the Respondent, during the present proceedings, had not denied that the second instalment was still outstanding, the Single Judge concluded that the second instalment amounting to EUR 25,000 pursuant to the contract concluded between the parties was still outstanding and should therefore be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 14. In view of all of 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 25,000 as outstanding commission. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 EUR 25,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 18. In conclusion, and considering that the present matter did not pose any particular factual difficulty or legal complexity, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 1,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 1,000 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 F, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Agent F, is accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, agent F, the amount of EUR 25,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% 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 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 1,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club B within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, directly to the Claimant, agent F. 6. The Claimant, agent F, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club B, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 3 and 5 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