F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent R, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club L, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent R, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club L, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 4 July 2013, the players’ agent, Agent R (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Federation of country G, and the club from country C, Club L (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a “Consultancy Agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement), which stipulated that the Claimant would be entitled to a commission of EUR 25,000 for the services provided in connection with the conclusion of an employment contract by the player T (hereinafter: the player) with the club, payable as follows: - EUR 12,500 “on 15th August 2013”; - EUR 12,500 “on 30th September 2013”. 2. On 9 December 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club and claimed that, although he had duly provided his services to the Respondent as agreed in the agreement, the latter had failed to pay him an amount whatsoever. 3. Consequently, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay him the total amount of EUR 25,000 as well as the “costs connected with proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee”. 4. On 12 March 2014, the Respondent provided its response to the claim and rejected the allegations of the Claimant. In this respect, the Respondent argued that as the agreement was signed by “Mr. X, the Sports Director of the Club”, it should be considered null and void since the “only person authorized to sign is the President of the Club”. 5. In this context, the Respondent added that according to the “national law of Contracts in country C”, it could not be held liable for “actions committed and/ or Agreements signed by a non-authorized person” and that, in view of the content of art. 2 of the FIFA Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, FIFA should also come to the same conclusion. 6. In view of all of the above, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the claim lodged by the agent in its entirety. 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 9 December 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the current edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; 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 9 December 2013, the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (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 Football Federation of country G to a club from country C, 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 regard, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant is claiming an outstanding commission fee in the amount of EUR 25,000 resulting from the agreement signed between the parties on 4 July 2013. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note of the arguments presented by the Respondent in response to the claim, i.e. the fact that, in the Respondent’s opinion, the agreement should be considered as null and void since, allegedly, the person who signed the agreement on its behalf was not authorised to do so. 7. Having duly analysed the respective positions of the parties as well as the documents submitted by them in support of their positions, the Single Judge decided that he could not uphold the Respondent’s aforementioned argumentation due to the fact that in accordance with the principle of good faith, or bona fide, to be respected by the parties during the conclusion of contracts. Indeed, the Claimant was in good faith allowed to believe that the person signing the relevant agreement, i.e. the club’s Sport Director, on behalf of the Respondent was legally authorized to sign it on behalf of the Respondent. Equally and in accordance with the principle of burden of proof mentioned in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge outlined that the Respondent did not provide documentary evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was aware of the situation outlined by the Respondent. 8. In view of the above, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that he has no valid reason to declare the agreement null and void. Since the Respondent did not provide any other reason as to why it did not proceed to the payment of the claimed commission fee, nor contested that the Claimant had duly rendered his services towards the Respondent as established in the agreement, the Single Judge held that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations established in the agreement, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda. 9. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the commission fee as per the agreement in the total amount of EUR 25,000. 10. 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 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. 11. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant is fully accepted, the Single Judge concluded that Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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 lower than CHF 50,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 12. 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 CHF 4,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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, Agent R, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant, Agent R, the amount of EUR 25,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. 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. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club L, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 4.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Agent R. 5. The Claimant, Agent R, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club L, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2 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