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 14 October 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players’ Agent S, from country A as “Claimant” against the player Player P, from country A 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 14 October 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players’ Agent S, from country A as “Claimant” against the player Player P, from country A as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 March 2011, the players´ agent S licensed by the country A Football Association, (hereafter: “the Claimant”) and player P, from country A (hereafter: “the Respondent”) signed a representation contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) according to which the Claimant would have the power to represent and assist the Respondent with exclusive rights, in the negotiation of every labour contract, as well as in every transfer contract and sponsorship agreement he would have entered into as professional football. 2. According to the contract, the duration was set until 6 March 2013 and the Claimant was entitled to receive 15% of the sums received by the Respondent as a consequence of the agreements signed with the assistance of the Claimant. The deadline of the payment was fixed at the end of every sporting season. 3. Clause 6 of the contract stated the following: “The parties involved accept the decisions of the Supervisory and Decision making Body of the country A Football Association and/or the other FIFA competent bodies”. 4. According to the information provided by the Claimant, the Respondent signed an employment contract on 22 June 2011 with the country P club, Club B (hereinafter: “Club B”), with the assistance of the Claimant. The Respondent’s employment contract was valid until 30 June 2016 and provided with a net salary per season of EUR 1,123,596. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent went on loan from January 2012 until June 2012 to Club J, from country A, apparently maintaining the same salary. 5. On 6 November 2013, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 337,078.80 for the seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 (i.e. 15% of the yearly salary amounting to EUR 1,123,596) corresponding to his alleged remuneration in accordance with the contract, as well as 5% interest. The Claimant also requested the payment of his alleged remuneration until the end of the employment contract the Respondent had signed with Club B (i.e. the amount of EUR 168,539.40 per sporting season until 30 June 2016). 6. On 18 December 2013, FIFA informed the Claimant that “in line with its well-established jurisprudence, the Players´ Status Committee does not have jurisdiction in cases of a dispute between a players ‘agent licensed through the association for the country of which the player is a national in accordance with the art. 30 par. 1 and 2 of the Players´ Agent Regulations (hereafter: the Regulations)”. In view of the aforementioned, FIFA informed the Claimant that it “is unable to intervene in this matter since it involves parties belonging to the same association and hence has to be considered as a pure internal matter that falls under the competence of the country A Football Federation. 7. The Claimant replied to FIFA and stated that, based on clause 6 of the contract, the parties accepted the jurisdiction of FIFA as an alternative to the internal decision-making bodies. The Claimant also emphasised that, in accordance with art. 30 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, there was no doubts about the international dimension of the present affair considering the following: a) The country A Football Association did not constitute an independent arbitral jurisdiction. b) The Respondent has both the country A and the country I nationality. c) The Respondent is currently living in country P. 8. In view of the above, the Claimant requested again the Players´ Status Committee to take a decision in the present matter. 9. In his reply to the claim lodged by the Claimant against him, the Respondent rejected the competence of FIFA, as he was of the opinion that the present affair must be considered as an internal matter. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that clause 3 of the contract clearly stipulated that the country A Football Association was competent in case of dispute between the parties. Regarding the substance of the matter, the Respondent requested the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against the Claimant since the latter did not comply with the principle established in the Regulations which prevents any conflict of interest, as the Respondent deemed that the Claimant also agreed to receive a future commission from the agent of Club P and from Club B in case of a future transfer of the player. Finally, the Respondent considered that the amount of commission was disproportionate. In this respect, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant did not provide any evidence regarding his salary under the contract with Club J and, therefore, deemed that the salary he was earning with the latter cannot be linked with the one he was getting from Club B because of tax reasons. 10. After the closure of the investigation, the Claimant sent an unsolicited correspondence, in which he rejected the allegations of the Respondent and insisted once again on the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute. With regard to the agreement signed with Club B, the Claimant stated that said document cannot be taken into account by FIFA administration as it was submitted in country P. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect and since the claim against the Respondent was lodged with FIFA on 6 November 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 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. 4 of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 6 November 2013, 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’s deciding bodies would, in principle, be competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of players’ agents. 4. However, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent had contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies and that the FIFA administration had previously informed the Claimant about the content of art. 30 of the Regulations and the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee which provides that the latter does not have jurisdiction in disputes between a players’ agent licensed by the association of the country of which the player is a national. 5. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that the present matter concerned a dispute opposing a players’ agent licensed by the country A Football Association to an country A player regarding an alleged outstanding commission. 6. At this stage, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to clarify that, although art. 30 of the Regulations does not define specifically what constitutes a domestic or an international dispute, those concepts are defined by the well-established jurisprudence of the Players´ Status Committee. The Single Judge reiterated that the cited jurisprudence is clear and categorical and establishes that the crucial elements to take into account in order to decide if a dispute between a players´ agent and a player is international or not are, on the one hand, the country of the association which granted the relevant license to the players´ agent and, on the other hand, the nationality of the player. 7. The Single Judge remarked that, based on the information and documents at disposal, the Claimant is licensed by the country A Football Association and the Respondent is, according to the employment contract signed with Club B on 22 June 2011, an country A national. 8. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that, taking into account that the Claimant is licensed by the country A Football Association and the Respondent is country A national, the matter at stake lacked international dimension and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the football association of the country concerned (i.e. country A). 9. Consequently, the Singe Judge decided that the present dispute is not admissible and hence he is unable to hear the claim lodged by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, players’ agent S, is not admissible. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 23,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant, Players’ Agent S, has already paid the amount of currency of country H 3,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the amount of currency of country H 20,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: ***** 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