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 10 December 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Player’s Agent E, from country I as “Claimant” against the player Player K, from country B 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 10 December 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Player’s Agent E, from country I as “Claimant” against the player Player K, from country B as “Respondent” regarding a claim for commission I. Facts of the case 1. According to the players’ agent E (hereinafter: the Claimant) licensed by the country I Football Association, in May 2011, he allegedly concluded a representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) with the Player K, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), “exclusive for country I and all Europe”, valid until 22 September 2012, under the terms of which the player agreed to pay to the agent a “total of 10% net + vat, from any contract that he sign in this countries (commission)”. 2. On 31 October 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, claiming that the latter had breached their agreement and failed to pay his commission. 3. In this respect, the Claimant explained that in July 2011, upon the Respondent’s request, he had successfully renegotiated the terms of the Respondent’s employment contract that he had at the time with the Club S, from country I. In this regard, the Claimant provided FIFA with a copy of the Respondent’s employment contract concluded on 15 July 2011 with Club S, valid from 1 July 2011 until 31 May 2012 and which provided for a total salary of currency of country I 382,580. 4. The Claimant further alleged that although the Respondent had verbally confirmed that his commission would be paid “from his [i.e. the Respondent’s] last salaries of the season”, the latter had failed to pay the amount allegedly owed as per the agreement, i.e. currency of country I 38,258. The Claimant therefore requested from the Respondent the amount of currency of country I 44,762, which represented 10% of the Respondent’s basic gross income with Club S, plus 17% VAT (i.e. currency of country I 38,258 + currency of country I 6,504). 5. Furthermore and while he was still in the process of negotiating “with all other clubs in country I and abroad in order to get new and/or improved offers for the player [i.e. the Respondent], he was amazed to discover that the player had sign a contract in Club L, from country C […] although and according to the mandate/contract between the parties, the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] is the exclusive representing agent/person of the player in country I and all over Europe till 22.9.12”. 6. The Claimant alleged that according to some media reports, the Respondent had signed a three-year employment contract with Club L for a salary of EUR 180,000 per season and that “This deal came through by another agent involvement”. 7. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the additional amount of EUR 105,000 on the basis of the agreement, plus EUR 15,000 as “compensation for the damage done by delaying the payment and the damage to reputation”. 8. On 14 January 2013, in his response to the claim, the Respondent denied having concluded any agreement with the Claimant and claimed that he was at the time already represented by Mr V, another players’ agent licensed by the country B Football Union. In this regard, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of a representation agreement valid from 11 January 2011 until 11 January 2013 he had signed with Mr V. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed that the commission related to his employment contract signed on 15 July 2011 was supposed to be paid by Club S to Mr V and that an agreement had been concluded between them for that purpose. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a copy of a document entitled “Contract for commission fee” dated “July 2011” and which mentioned that an amount of USD 6,000 had to be paid by Club S to Mr V, as the “Agent of the Player”. 10. In addition, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had never been given the authorisation to negotiate on his behalf “all over Europe” and that the only agreements the Respondent recognised were two mandates that the Claimant had signed with Mr V by means of which the latter had authorised the Claimant to negotiate employment contracts on his behalf in country I, country H and country G only. In support of the aforementioned, the Respondent provided a copy of an “authorization” valid from 22 June 2011 until 1 October 2011 and another identical “authorization” valid from 21 April 2012 until 31 August 2012. 11. The Respondent also claimed that he had in any case the right to sign an employment contract on his own without the assistance of any players’ agents. 12. In view of all of the above, the Respondent asked FIFA to reject the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. 13. On 27 February 2013, the Claimant provided his reply to the Respondent’s position and rejected the allegations of the latter. 14. In addition, the Claimant alleged that the “Contract for commission fee” concluded between Mr V and Club S did not “reflect the 10% of the player’s salary which was supposed to be paid to him in return for his work” and could consequently not constitute evidence he was not supposed to receive any commission. 15. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that, based on the aforementioned “Contract for commission fee”, Mr V appears to have been remunerated by Club S at a time that he was also representing the Respondent and while no authorisation had been given by the latter for Club S to pay the commission on his behalf. In view of this, the Claimant argued that Mr V had committed a conflict of interest, contrary to art. 19 par. 8 of the Players’ Agents Regulations. 16. The Claimant also claimed that the Respondent had also used the services of another licensed players’ agent, Mr D, at the time he had signed his employment contract with Club L and that therefore, it was “clear that the player had minimum of 2 agents to conclude the deal in country C, so there is no doubt that the player did not sign by himself”. In support of his allegations, the Claimant enclosed an excerpt from Mr D’s “agency website” apparently confirming that Mr D was representing the Respondent at the time he had signed with Club L. 17. On that basis, the Claimant maintained that the Respondent “was the one who deceitfully breached the agreement between him and the plaintiff [i.e. the Claimant]” and, as a result, had denied him “the opportunity to attain a new contract for the respondent and […] to receive the payment he was entitled to for his work”. 18. On 30 April 2013, the Respondent provided his last comments in the matter and argued that the Claimant had “failed to prove that he had a signed contract between him [i.e. the Claimant] and the Player [i.e. the Respondent]”. Furthermore, the Respondent denied that there was any conflict of interest in his relationship with Mr V as Club S had paid “a commission to the agent as a formal confirmation that this is the legal agent of the player and the player in his capacity of a party in the representative contract between Mr V and Mr H [i.e. the Respondent], pays 10% of his salary”. 19. In view of the above, the Respondent reiterated that the Claimant’s claim be rejected entirely. 20. Based on the information and documents available in the transfer matching system (TMS), the Respondent signed a two-year employment contract with Club L on 22 May 2012 and no players’ agent appears to have represented the Respondent in the relevant transaction. 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 31 October 2012, 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 31 October 2012, 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 I Football Association to a country B football player, 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 the Respondent had denied having concluded the agreement on which the Claimant based his claim and which was allegedly signed between the parties in May 2011. However, the Single Judge noted that the agreement, copy of which was provided by the Claimant, clearly mentioned the Claimant as a party and appeared, on the face of it, to bear the latter’s signature. At the least, the Claimant did not allege that the signature on the document in question was not his. 7. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the contrary, the Single Judge was convinced that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded in May 2011 a representation agreement (i.e. the agreement), valid until 22 September 2011 and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent as commission “a total of 10% net + vat” from any employment contract that the former would negotiate on behalf of the latter in “country I and all Europe”. 8. In continuation, and reverting to the argument of the Respondent according to which he was already represented by Mr V at the time the Claimant alleged to have signed the agreement with him, the Single Judge was keen to point out that Mr V appears to have authorised the Claimant, by means of two written “authorisations”, valid from 22 June 2011 until 1 October 2011 for the first one and from 21 April 2012 until 31 August 2012 for the second one, to negotiate any employment contracts on his behalf in country I, country H and country G. 9. Consequently, and in view of the fact that the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and Club L was signed on 15 July 2011, i.e. at a time that the Claimant was expressly authorised to represent the Respondent in country I on the basis of the first abovementioned “authorization” given by Mr V, the Single Judge held that the Claimant was thus fully entitled to renegotiate with Club S an employment contract on behalf of the Respondent. 10. The aforementioned having been established, the Single Judge reverted to the claim of the Claimant and underlined that the latter deemed to be entitled to a first amount of commission in relation to the employment contract signed between the Respondent and Club S, as well as to a second amount of commission in relation to the employment contract that the Respondent had subsequently signed with Club L. In this respect, and on the basis of the documentation available on file, the Single Judge held that it remained undisputed by the parties that the Respondent had signed the two employment contracts in question, the first one with Club S on 15 July 2011 and the second one with Club L on 22 May 2012. 11. In this context, the Single Judge reverted to the submissions of the Claimant according to which the Respondent should be asked to pay the amount of currency of country I 44,762 and which represented 10% of the Respondent’s basis gross income with Club S, plus 17% VAT, as well as an additional amount of EUR 105,000 in relation to the second employment contract signed with Club L, allegedly with the assistance of another players’ agent. 12. Starting with the employment contract signed between the Respondent and Club S on 15 July 2011, the Single Judge noted that the said contract mentioned that the Claimant had acted as players’ agent in the negotiations leading to the conclusion of said contract and that the latter had co-signed the contract in question. 13. Having established that the Claimant had represented the Respondent in the renegotiation of his employment contract with Club S on 15 July 2011 on the basis of the agreement signed between the parties in May 2011, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfill his obligations agreed upon in the agreement in question and, consequently, should be requested to pay the relevant outstanding commission to the Claimant. 14. In this context, the Single Judge referred to art. 12 par. 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that “The amount of remuneration due to the players’ agent who has been engaged to act on a player’s behalf is calculated on the basis of the player’s annual basic gross income […] that the players’ agent has negotiated for him in the employment contract”. 15. In this respect, the Single Judge pointed out that the agreement between the Respondent and the Claimant provided for a commission amounting to “10% net + VAT” of the value of any employment contract the Claimant would negotiate on the Respondent’s behalf but that said agreement did not mention the exact percentage of VAT applicable. Moreover, and although the Claimant had requested 17% VAT in addition to the 10% of the Respondent’s basic gross income with Club S, the Single Judge noticed that the Claimant had not provided any documentary evidence in support of his allegation that the percentage of VAT should indeed be 17% (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 16. On account of the above, and in view of the fact that the employment contract concluded with Club S provided for a basic salary of currency of country I 382,580 for the entire duration of the contract, the Single Judge concluded that the total amount of commission that the Respondent had agreed to pay to the Claimant amounted to currency of country I 38,258, i.e. 10% of currency of country I 382,580. Therefore, and while reiterating that the additional amount of currency of country I 6,504 requested by the Claimant and allegedly representing 17% of VAT could not be taken into account for lack of evidence, the Single Judge decided that the claim for outstanding commission in relation to the signing of the employment contract with Club S should only be partially accepted. 17. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the employment contract the Respondent had concluded with Club L on 22 May 2012 and underlined that the Claimant had stated in his submission that the Respondent had negotiated said contract with the assistance of “another agent”. 18. At this stage, 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. 19. Furthermore, the Single Judge emphasised that even if according to the representation agreement the “placement rights” should be exclusively transferred to the players’ agent, such a clause cannot be taken into consideration if the player negotiates and concludes the employment contract himself, as such exclusivity-clause can only be objected to other players’ agents. The Single Judge evoked that, as part of the right of personality, the client of a players’ agent, who signed an exclusive representation contract, is still at liberty to negotiate employment contracts on his own (cf. art. 19 par. 7 of the Regulations). In this context and for the sake of argument, the Single Judge pointed out that the second “authorization” given to the Claimant by Mr V and valid from 21 April 2012 until 31 August 2012 only authorised him to negotiate on the Respondent’s behalf with clubs in country I, country H and country G. 20. The Single Judge was eager to underline that the Claimant had not provided any conclusive evidence corroborating his allegation that the Respondent had made use of the services of another or other players’ agents during the negotiations leading to the signature of the employment contract with Club L and that therefore, he had not been able to discharge the burden of proof which was upon him to demonstrate that another agent had been involved in said negotiations (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). In particular, the Single Judge noted that the excerpt from Mr D’s “agency website” only constituted third party evidence and could not, by itself, demonstrate that the Respondent had indeed used his services up until the relevant employment contract was signed. 21. In addition, the Single Judge stressed that, from the information available in the transfer matching system (TMS), in particular, the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and Club L, no other players’ agent was mentioned in the relevant documentation. 22. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim in relation to the employment contract signed between the Respondent and Club L should thus be rejected. 23. Finally, for the sake of completeness, and concerning the last request of the Claimant to be awarded EUR 15,000 as “compensation for the damage done by delaying the payment and the damage to reputation”, the Single Judge ruled that such a request lacked contractual basis and that it should be rejected. 24. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and consequently held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of currency of country L 38,258 and that any further claims lodged by the latter are rejected. 25. 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 S 25,000 are levied and that such costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings. 26. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA have to be split between the parties. Moreover 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 above currency of country S 150,000 but below currency of country S 200,001. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country S 20,000. 27. 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 S 8,000. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country S 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent and that the amount of currency of country S 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant 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, Player’s Agent E, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Player K, has to pay to the Claimant, Player’s Agent E, the amount of currency of country I 38,258, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player’s Agent E, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of 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 Claimant, Player’s Agent E, is directed to inform the Respondent, Player K, immediately and directly of the account number to which the abovementioned remittance is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. 6. The total costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country S 8,000 are to be paid to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of currency of country S 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club K. 6.2 The amount of currency of country S 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Player’s Agent E. Given that the latter already paid an amount of currency of country S 2,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present the Claimant, Player’s Agent E, has to pay the remaining amount of currency of country H 3,000. 6.3 The abovementioned two amounts of currency of country H 3,000 each have to be paid 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives