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 A, from country U as “Claimant” against the club Club G, from country I 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 A, from country U as “Claimant” against the club Club G, from country I as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 January 2012, the players’ agent, licensed by the country U Football Association, Players’ Agent A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and Club G, from country I (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) signed a “FIFA representation contract” (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid from the date of signing until 12 February 2012. 2. The second clause of the contract established that the object of the contract was “the possible transfer of the player P, (...) to a major club in country B, country U, country A, country M or country C”. 3. The third clause established the remuneration for the Claimant in the following terms: a) “With regard to the work carried out, the agent [i.e. the Claimant] will be entitled to an overall (fixed) sum equivalent to USD 50,000 to be paid in the manner and terms specified below, only upon presentation to Club G [i.e. the Respondent] of the standard and correct fiscal documentation: i. USD 25,000 on 31/03/2012 subject to the effective collection of what has been agreed by Club G, with regard to indemnity (compensation), with a possible buyer of the Player according to what is specified in section 2); ii. USD 25,000 on 31/10/2012 subject to the effective collection of what has been agreed by Club G, with regard to indemnity (compensation), with a possible buyer of the Player according to what is specified in section 2); The above-mentioned compensation shall be paid out in one payment by Club G to the Agent upon fulfilment of the essential requirement referred to in point 2) of the present contract, in accordance with the valid FIFA/country I Football Federation regulations and if that transfer occurs as a result of the professional work of the Agent. b) The parties agree that, in the event of a future sale of the rights of the player by Club G before 31/10/2012, Club G shall pay the Agent a further settlement equivalent to 5% of the net amount of the transfer of the FIFA solidarity/training charges (fees) and of what has already been paid and is to be paid by Club G to the Agent. The possible percentage of 5% will be paid at the end under the same terms and conditions that Club G has established with the buying club, in a definitive transfer, in relation to the amount of the transfer and subject to the effective collection of the fees. The above-mentioned compensation shall be paid out in one payment by Club G to the Agent upon fulfilment of the essential requirement referred to in point b) of the present contract, in accordance with the valid FIFA/country I Football Federation regulations and if that definitive transfer occurs as a result of the professional work of the Agent.” 4. Meanwhile, clause four of the contract implied “limitation (exclusivity) in the context of the contract, as specified in point 2)”. 5. Finally, clause six of the contract stipulated that “the parties agree and commit to act in accordance with the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions issued by FIFA (...). In the event of a dispute or argument, the parties shall recognise the jurisdiction of FIFA. The parties are prohibited from taking recourse through the civil courts.” 6. On 31 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting the amount of USD 50,000 representing the commission agreed in the contract, plus interest of 5% as from the due dates. Meanwhile, the Claimant had expressly reserved his right “to increase the claim and/or initiate a new one, in order to claim the payment of the commission provided for in point b) of section 3) Compensation”. 7. According to the Claimant, as a result of his actions, Club V, from country A (hereinafter: “Club V”) subsequently signed the player P (hereinafter: “the player”) on a temporary basis with a “Provisional transfer agreement with the option to definitively purchase the professional football player P” (hereinafter: “the transfer agreement”) concluded with the Respondent on 5 February 2012. In connection to the above-mentioned transfer agreement, Club V would pay the Respondent the amount of USD 400,000, as follows: i. USD 200,000 on 20 March 2012; ii. USD 200,000 on 20 October 2012. Equally, an option to purchase the player was stipulated in the transfer agreement for the amount of USD 2,800,000, to be communicated before 31 October 2012 and paid in three equal instalments, i.e. on 31 December 2012, on 15 June 2013 and on 15 December 2013 respectively. It was also established that, in exercising the option to purchase, the sum of USD 400,000 from the loan transfer would be deducted from the price. Finally, the transfer agreement provided that in the event of a later sale to a third club, Club V would be obliged to pay the Respondent 10% of any amount exceeding EUR 2,500,000. 8. The Claimant alleged that it was thanks to his involvement on behalf of the Respondent, through the contract that designated him exclusively as the agent for a particular geographical region, that the Respondent signed the transfer agreement with Club V on 5 February 2012. Therefore, the Claimant maintained that he was entitled to receive the commission agreed upon in the contract as he had been involved in the negotiations between the two clubs. 9. In this regard, the Claimant claimed that he had carried out actions for the transfer of the player to Club V as part of a loan transfer agreement with the option to purchase the player. To prove this, the Claimant included copies of various e-mails between the two parties: a) The first e-mail was sent to an agent apparently working with the Respondent on 31 January 2012, which included the first proposal by Club V for the acquisition of the player. b) The second e-mail dated 2 February 2012, sent by the agent working with the Respondent, included a copy of the agreement signed by the president of Club V and was to be signed by the president of the Respondent. Also included were letters sent directly by the Respondent to Club V on the same date and another dated 3 February 2012, in which the Respondent rejected the proposal offered by the country A club and set the conditions that would have to be met for the transfer to be. c) The third e-mail dated 4 February 2012, sent by the agent working with Club G to the Claimant, in which he forwarded a copy of the e-mail sent by Respondents´ general secretary to Respondents´ president and Respondents´ agent, attaching a new copy of the agreement with modifications. d) The fourth e-mail dated 6 February 2012, sent by Respondents´ general secretary to the Claimant and Respondents´ agent, the content of which reads as follows: “In the file attached, please find the provisional Transfer Agreement with the option to definitively purchase the professional football player P, signed by Mr Z, Administrator of Club G [i.e. the Respondent]. Grazie per la collaborazione [thank you for your collaboration]”. 10. Later, the Claimant maintained that, on 20 February 2012, he had sent correspondence to the Respondent, in which he provided the details for the bank account to which the agreed payments were to be made. Since the Respondent never replied, the Claimant argued that he sent a payment reminder on 28 January 2013, in which he requested the Respondent to pay the agreed commission for the signing of the transfer agreement in the amount of USD 50,000 within a period of 15 days. In the same reminder, he informed the Respondent that, with Club V having exercised their right to purchase the player for an amount of EUR 2,490,000, he was also entitled to receive 5% as commission according to what had been agreed in the contract. 11. In their response, the Respondent firstly maintained that the application of the second clause of the contract was outside the scope of the Players’ Agent Regulations, the application of which is limited to the activity of those agents who represent players in the negotiation or renegotiation of employment contracts or act as liaison between two clubs for the conclusion of a transfer agreement. In this regard, according to the Respondent, the second clause of the contract made a general reference to the transfer of the player to any of the associations in South America, without specifying a particular club or defining the tasks of the Claimant. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the contract was beyond the jurisdiction of FIFA. 12. Secondly, the Respondent claimed that the third clause of the contract set a percentage for the Claimant on a future transfer of the player to a third club, which implied an infringement of the Players’ Agents Regulations. 13. Finally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had not provided proof of the activity undertaken in the transfer of the player, as stipulated in the third clause. According to the Respondent, the Claimant’s name did not appear in the transfer agreement, this being an obligation established by article 22 of the Players’ Agents Regulations. Therefore, the Respondent was of the opinion that the claim lodged by the Claimant must be rejected. 14. In his reply to the Respondent’s position, the Claimant stated that the contract concluded with the Respondent fell within the scope of the Players’ Agents Regulations as these contracts could be made for a particular club or for a specific league or region and, in the event that they were later concluded in that area, they would be valid. With regard to the third clause of the contract, the Claimant stated that the percentage was not the subject of this claim, given that he was only claiming the commission for the transfer of the player, but, in any case, the same would not be contrary to the FIFA regulations as it was to be anticipated that a percentage would be charged once the transfer had been concluded and should be paid by the Respondent and not by Club V. Finally, the Claimant maintained that the absence of his signature on the transfer agreement did not invalidate his right to request his commission, given that the evidences provided were sufficiently conclusive. The Claimant also provided as evidence a note of authorisation given by the Respondent to the Claiamant to negotiate for the player on behalf of the Respondent with Club V. 15. In their final statement, the Respondent reiterated its previous allegations and insisted on its previous allegations. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2012 and 2014). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 May 2013, thus after 1 December 2012 and before 1 August 2014. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules (hereinafter: 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 May 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 country U Football Association and an country I club, regarding an allegedly 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. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 7. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge took note that, on 28 January 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a representation contract concerning the possible transfer of the player P from the Respondent “to a major club in country B, country U, country A, country M or country C” and by means of which the Respondent had undertaken to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 50,000 “if the transfer occurs as a result of the professional work of the agent”. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, on the one hand, the Claimant had requested the payment of the commission in accordance with the terms of the contract, as he was apparently involved in the negotiations for the transfer of the player to Club V on 5 February 2012, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent, although admitting that it had signed the contract, had rejected the claim of the Claimant alleging that the scope of application of the second clause of the contract was outside of the scope of the Regulations as such clause made a general reference to the transfer of the player to an association in South America without specifying a particular club or defining the tasks of the Claimant. Moreover, the Single Judge also took note of the fact that the Respondent had challenged the involvement of the Claimant in the transfer of the player to Club V and considered that he had not provided any evidence of any involvement whatsoever in such transfer of the player. Additionally, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had argued that the Claimant’s name did not appear in the transfer agreement of the player, this being an obligation according to art. 22 of the Players´ Agent Regulations. 9. Given the aforementioned and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled once again that the transfer agreement of the player between the Respondent and Club V was duly concluded. Hence, from the Single Judge’s point of view, regardless of whether the document in question also bore the signature of the Claimant or not, the Respondent had clearly undertaken to pay USD 50,000 to the Claimant if the transfer of the player to a major club in country B, country U, country A, country M or country C occurs as a result of the professional work of the Claimant. 10. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge was keen to stress that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, the Claimant had provided evidence such as the note of authorisation giving by the Respondent to the Claimant to negotiate the transfer of the player on behalf of the Respondent as well as copies of various e-mails confirming the involvement of the Claimant in the negotiations for the transfer of the player. Therefore, the Single Judge held that in casu it is clearly established that the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club V occurred as a result of the professional work of the Claimant. 11. In view of all the aforementioned considerations and taking into account the basic legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda” which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, as well as considering the evidence provided by the Claimant, i.e. the note of authorisation giving by the Respondent to the Claimant to negotiate the transfer of the player on behalf of the Respondent as well as copies of various e-mails confirming the involvement of the Claimant in the negotiations for the transfer of the player, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the outstanding sum of USD 50,000 agreed upon in the contract. 12. Finally and with regard to the request for interest made by the Claimant, the Single Judge observed that the latter had specifically mentioned that the said interest should start running as from the respective dates the commission had fallen due. As a consequence, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay an interest at a rate of 5% per year as from 1 April 2012 on the amount of USD 25,000 and at a rate of 5% per year as from 1 November 2012 on the amount of USD 25,000. 13. 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 the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 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 accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent 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 that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is less than currency of country H 50,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 16. In conclusion and in view of the numerous submissions that had to be analysed in the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 4,000. 17. Consequently, the amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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, Players’ Agent A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR USD 50,000 as follows: - USD 25,000 as well as 5% p.a. on the said amount from 1 April 2012 until the date of effective payment; - USD 25,000 as well as 5% p.a. on the said amount from 1 November 2012 until the date of effective payment; 3. If the aforementioned amounts, plus interest as established above, are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, 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 currency of country H 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club G, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 4.2 The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Players’ Agent A. 5. The Claimant, Players’ Agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club G, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2 above are 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives