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 23 September 2014, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent S, from country M as “Claimant” against the player Player T, from country R 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 23 September 2014, by Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent S, from country M as “Claimant” against the player Player T, from country R as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 May 2012, the players’ agent S (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association from country M, and the player T from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), born on 12 April 1983, concluded an exclusive representation contract for country V, country W and the country A (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 1 May 2012 until 1 August 2012, under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, in consideration for his services, “a commission amounting to 10% of the annual liquid basic salary or other amount which will be agreed in written (between the players’ agent [i.e. the Claimant] and the client [i.e. the Respondent]) due to the client as a result of the employment contract negotiated by the Player’s agent”. 2. According to article 4.b) i. of the contract, “The client [i.e. the Respondent] is obligated to invite the Player’s agent [i.e. the Claimant] to attend along with him in all negotiations will take place in country V, country W and the country A”. 3. Furthermore, article 4.b) ii. of the contract stated as follows: “The Client [i.e. the Respondent] states that no other person, except the Player’s agent [i.e. the Claimant], may represent him and any other different agreement written or oral made with any other person, company or corporation in country V, country W and the country A shall be invalid and out of force until the termination of this contract”. 4. On an unknown date, the Respondent and the club F from country A (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the employment contract) for the period from 10 July 2012 until 30 June 2013 and by means of which the Respondent declared that “I assume the whole liability for the signing of this agreement, that my agent O negotiated with the club on my behalf” (cf. art. 19.2 of the employment contract). 5. According to article 1 of the financial appendix to the employment contract (hereinafter: the appendix), the Respondent was entitled to receive a total salary in the amount of EUR 120,000. 6. On 16 November 2012, a termination agreement (hereinafter: the termination agreement) was signed between the Respondent and the club, by means of which the parties, i.e. the club and the Respondent, agreed to mutually and immediately terminate their contractual relationship. 7. On 31 July 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, claiming that the latter had breached their contractual relationship and failed to pay his commission. 8. In this respect, considering the total value of the employment contract, i.e. EUR 120,000, as well as article 2 of the contract, the Claimant deemed that he should be entitled to a commission in the amount of EUR 12,000. 9. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 12,000 as well as argued that FIFA should also impose disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent. 10. In his response dated 3 December 2013, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s complaint, arguing that the latter is not entitled to request any commission, since he “did not represent or assisted in any manner the Player [i.e. the Respondent] in the negotiations and conclusion of the contract with club F”. 11. In this respect, the Respondent admitted having signed an employment contract with the club but “without the assistance or intervention of the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]” and further alleged that he had “directly negotiated the conditions and terms of the contract with the Club” and that “no other Agent assisted the Player [i.e. the Respondent] in the conclusion of the Contract with the Club”. 12. As evidence of his allegations, the Respondent provided a written witness statement (hereinafter: the statement) of Mr K, the alleged former Sports Director of the club, dated 1 December 2013, by means of which the latter confirmed that the Respondent had “concluded the contract with club F on his own without the intervention of any football players’ Agent”. 13. In view of the above, the Respondent stated that “the agent’s activities must be causal to the conclusion of the contract” and that “Agents may only claim a commission –even if they have not been actively involved in a transfer- if a clause to this effect is explicitly and unequivocally stipulated in the contract, which is not the case”. 14. Consequently, and considering the aforementioned, the Respondent emphasised that the contract “explicitly subjects the commission to the intervention of the AGENT [i.e. the Claimant] in the conclusion of an employment contract” and was therefore of the opinion that since the Claimant “did not represent or assisted in any manner the Player [i.e. the Respondent] in the negotiations and conclusion of the contract with club F” he should therefore not be entitled to receive any commission. 15. Notwithstanding the above and considering that the employment contract had been terminated before its term, the Respondent argued that “even in the hypothetical event that the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] would somehow demonstrate that he his intervention was casual to the conclusion of the employment contract (…) the amount of any due commission ought to be limited to the effective period of contract between the Player [i.e. the Respondent] and the Club”. 16. On account of all of the above, the Respondent held that the Claimant is not entitled to any commission and requested FIFA to “fully dismiss the Claim filed by the AGENT [i.e. the Claimant]” and subsidiary “only for the case in which FIFA considers that the Agent is entitled to a commission, to limit the fees of the AGENT to 10% of the amount corresponding to the Player [i.e. the Respondent] from the signature of the employment contract until its termination on 15 November 2012”. 17. On 6 February 2014, the Claimant provided his response to the allegations of the Respondent and, first and foremost, rejected them entirely. 18. In this respect, the Claimant alleged having “managed to get several offers from various clubs” and that he had “received an offer from the club and the player gave his consent to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] to proceed with negotiations, which he did with the known outcome”. Furthermore, while referring to article 4.b)i. of the contract, the Claimant emphasised that the Respondent had “expressly agreed to invite the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] in any negotiations that may take place in one of the three countries the Player [i.e. the Respondent] and the agent agreed by the Representation Contract”. 19. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had concluded the employment contract “with one of his partners, Mr. O, also a licensed agent, duly authorized by him and without his involvement the Contract would not be concluded in any case”, a fact that was also confirmed by art. 19.2 of the employment contract. In this context, the Claimant further alleged that he “and his partner were in constant communication with the Player [i.e. the Respondent] and the Club regarding the Contract of Employment exchanging e-mails in regard to the terms and condition”. In support of his allegations the Claimant provided an email, dated 11 July 2012 sent by Mr O to a certain Mr Z, who was allegedly acting on behalf of the club, confirming the aforementioned as well as two other emails dated 11 July 2012 and 12 July 2012 respectively, both sent by the Claimant to the Respondent by means of which the Claimant explained the conditions and terms. 20. Furthermore, with regard to the statement provided by the Respondent, the Claimant disputed its validity and stated that it “cannot be admissible by the Committee as it does not represent the truth”. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that “Mr K was not present at the time the contract was signed by the Player [i.e. the Respondent], the Club and the Agent” and therefore the statement “is without any legal basis”. 21. Finally, as to the fact that the club and the Respondent had terminated the employment contract before its term, the Claimant stated that it “does not in any case affect the Agent’s right to full payment of the agreed amount” since he had “fulfilled its duty towards the Player [i.e. the Respondent] and contributed to the conclusion of the employment contract with the Club and the Player should have paid the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] the full amount of the agreed fees as of the Representation Contract”. 22. Consequently, the Claimant reiterated his claim and requested FIFA “to allow the claim and award the amount owed to him”. 23. The Respondent, in his last submission of 15 April 2014, reiterated his previous position. 24. In this respect, the Respondent, first of all, pointed out that he “was never aware and never consented to any kind of partnership between the AGENT [i.e. the Claimant] and third players’ agents” and that he “does not know who Mr. O, and certainly he has no representation agreement with this agent, which would somehow entitle him to act on his behalf before any club” and further stated that he had “never met or talked with Mr. O”. In this context, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant “who never intervened in the conclusion of the employment contract between the Club and the PLAYER [i.e. the Respondent], claims to have a partnership with the agent who in fact was being paid by the Club”. 25. Consequently and in view of the above, the Respondent stated that the alleged exchanged emails between the Claimant and Mr O do “not proof the existence of any partnership” and therefore deemed that “in any event, should Mr. O consider himself to be entitled to a commission from the PLAYER [i.e. the Respondent] for being mentioned in the employment contract it would be up to him and not to the AGENT to request it”. ***** 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 edition of the Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 July 2013, thus after 1 December 2012 and before 1 August 2014. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 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 31 July 2013, 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 Football Association of country M and a player T, regarding an alleged 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. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established 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. 7. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge noted that, on 1 May 2012, the parties had concluded a representation contract for country V, country W and the country A, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, as commission, 10% of the latter’s gross remuneration the Claimant would negotiate on his behalf. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had concluded an employment contract with the club F from country A valid from 10 July 2012 until 30 June 2013, allegedly with the involvement of another player’s agent, Mr O, as stipulated in art. 19.2 of the relevant employment contract. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of EUR 12,000 as commission on the basis of the agreement alleging that his work, together with the involvement of his colleague Mr O, had led to the conclusion of the employment contract with club F. Furthermore and in the same context, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the Claimant’s complaint arguing that the employment contract was concluded without the latter’s involvement and in case of intervention of Mr O, it would be in any case up to him to request the alleged commission and not to the Claimant. 9. In view of the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the employment contract the Respondent had concluded with club F and noted that the Claimant had deemed to be entitled to a commission amounting to EUR 12,000, which corresponded to 10% of the total gross salary of the Respondent, was earning with club F. The Single Judge further recalled that the Claimant had stated in his submission that the Respondent had negotiated his transfer to club F with the cooperation of one of his partners, Mr O, and that they were in constant communication with the Respondent and the club, negotiating the terms of the future employment contract. 10. At this stage, and as a general remark, 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 conclusion of employment contracts and 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. However, the Bureau 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. 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. 11. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge observed that such explicit clause entitling the Claimant to receive commission without his active participation in the negotiations leading to the conclusion of an employment contract between the Respondent and club F had not been inserted in the agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the Claimant was not entitled to receive any compensation from the Respondent even though the latter decided to negotiate and sign an employment contract with club F without the Claimant’s involvement 12. In the light of the above and having thus analysed the various aspects of the Claimant’s request for commission in relation to the employment contract signed between the Respondent and club F, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the Claimant’s claim is rejected. 13. Finally, 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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. 14. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 15. 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 the total amount at dispute in the present matter, i.e. the amount of EUR 12,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 16. Consequently, the amount of CHF 4,000 has to be paid by the Claimant 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 rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant, agent S, has already paid the amount of CHF 1,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the amount of CHF 3,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account ****** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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