F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent A, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Agent A, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 21 July 2012, the players’ agent, Agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Federation from country B, and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an “Agency Agreement” (hereinafter: the contract) for the participation of the Claimant in the negotiations for the transfer of the player from country B, Player E (hereinafter: the player) to the Respondent. 2. According to article 1 of the contract “[T]he club [i.e. the Respondent] shall pay to the agent [i.e. the Claimant] as remuneration for mediation services on the signature of the contract with the player, the initial amount equivalent to USD 400,000 in two instalments as follows: 1. One instalment of USD 200,000 to be paid no later than November 15th 2012; 2. One instalment of USD 200,000 to be paid no later than June 15th 2013”. 3. According to article 2 of the contract, “[S]hould the club [i.e. the Respondent] confirm the option to extend the Labour Contract with the player for an additional year, beyond the 3 initial years, the club shall pay to the agent [i.e. the Claimant] as complementary remuneration for the mediation services on the signature of the contract with the player another USD 175,000 no later than 5th August 2015”. 4. Furthermore, article 4 of the contract stated as follows: “In the case the club [i.e. the Respondent] fail to make the payment of the first instalment on the deadline established thereon, the payment date of the second instalment will automatically be anticipated and the club shall pay both instalments immediately. If the club do not pay both instalments in up to 7 days, the club shall pay a compensation fine of USD 20,000 plus interests of 10% per year, calculated pro rata die, until the effective payment, regardless of any notification or other formality”. 5. On 15 January 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, claiming a total amount of USD 420,000 plus 10% interest as from the due date of the first instalment, i.e. on 15 November 2012. 6. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the first instalment amounting to USD 200,000 was not paid on time, i.e. on 15 November 2012, and therefore, he argued that, according to article 4 of the contract, the second instalment amounting to USD 200,000 should be automatically anticipated and both instalments were due on 15 November 2012. The Claimant further stated that he was also entitled to receive a penalty fee amounting to USD 20,000 in accordance with article 4 of the contract. 7. In its response dated 29 July 2013, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s complaint, arguing that the parties signed in July 2012 a “Termination of the agency agreement” (hereinafter: the termination contract) for the premature termination of the contract, releasing both parties from all the rights and obligations. 8. The Respondent maintained that such termination contract was never signed by the Claimant since the parties had decided to renegotiate the conditions of the contract concluded on 21 July 2012 and, therefore, had agreed to draft the termination contract which was supposed to cancel the previous one [i.e. the contract]. The Respondent further stated that the termination contract was given to the Claimant for signature but the latter apparently never returned it. 9. Additionally, the Respondent pointed out that there was another case pending at the Dispute Resolution Chamber, in which the player had lodged a complaint against the Respondent for the alleged breach of the player’s employment contract by the Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent requested to suspend the present proceeding until a decision was issued in the above-mentioned matter. The Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant had induced the player to breach his contract with the Respondent without just cause and requested to sanction the Claimant in accordance with “art. 17.5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of FIFA”. 10. On 3 April 2014, the Claimant reiterated his initial claim, rejected the reply of the Respondent it its entirety and provided his comments to the allegations of the Respondent. First and foremost, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent did not deny its debt towards him. 11. Regarding the suspension of the proceeding as there was a pending claim filed by the player against the Respondent at FIFA, the Claimant argued that there was no link between both cases. According to the Claimant, the alleged premature termination of the employment contract of the player was not linked with the present matter between him and the Respondent. 12. In its last submission dated 19 June 2014, the Respondent reiterated its previous position and pointed out that they denied the debt towards the Claimant as the parties had decided to terminate the contract by concluding the termination contract which was never returned signed by the Claimant. 13. Alternatively, and without prejudice of the termination contract allegedly concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent, the latter deemed fair to reduce the amount of the commission requested by the Claimant as the duration of the employment contract of the player with the Respondent was established for three seasons and the player apparently breached it and left the club before its expiry. 14. The Respondent further stated that “the commission should apply by analogy the rule of -the time remaining on the existing contract [i.e. the employment contract of the player]- in our hypothesis since has to take into account that only three months have passed of the thirty six months stipulated as the entire period of the contract“. 15. Therefore and alternatively, to avoid an “unfair enrichment”, the Respondent requested that “alternatively, the amounts fixed in such document should be reduced to the limits in view of the time which had effectively elapsed as usual in this kind of agreements” and consequently to reduce the amount of the commission to the amount of USD 33,333. ***** 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 is applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 editions 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 15 January 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 as to the substance in the matter at hand. 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 15 January 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 Federation from country B and a club from country D, 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. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 7. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge noted that, on 21 July 2012, the parties concluded a contract for the participation of the Claimant in the negotiations for the transfer of the player to the Respondent, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission amounting to USD 400,000, payable in two instalments of USD 200,000 each, i.e. the first one to be paid no later than 15 November 2012 and the second one to be paid no later than 15 June 2013. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of USD 420,000 as commission and as penalty fee for the late payment of commission on the basis of the contract. 9. Likewise, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the Claimant’s complaint arguing that the parties had signed a termination contract, by means of which both parties were released from their contractual obligations. 10. Finally, the Single Judge also acknowledged that, alternatively, the Respondent deemed that the commission to be paid to the Claimant should be reduced to the amount of USD 33,333 since the player had allegedly terminated his employment contract with the Respondent before its expiry. 11. In view of the above, the Single Judge reasoned that the first question to be addressed in the present dispute was whether the termination contract allegedly concluded between the parties was binding upon between them. 12. In this regard and to begin with, the Singe Judge observed that it was undisputed that such termination contract was not signed by the Claimant. 13. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not provided any evidence indicating that the Claimant had signed the termination contract. Consequently and also bearing in mind the wording of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that the burden of proof has to be carried by the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact, the Single Judge concluded that it could safely be assumed that the employment contract was not signed by the Claimant and was, therefore, not binding upon between the parties. 14. Having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of whether the amount of the commission agreed in the contract should be reduced since the player allegedly breached his employment contract with the Respondent. 15. In this regard, Single Judge was eager to emphasize that the contract concluded by the Claimant and the Respondent did not include any condition for the payment of the commission to the Claimant. In other words, according to the contract, the payment of the commission to the Claimant by the Respondent was not subject to the permanence of the player at the Respondent or to any other condition whatsoever. 16. In continuation, the Single Judge held that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of Pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and therefore has to pay to the latter the commission amounting to USD 400,000 for the transfer of the player based on the contract. 17. With regard to the penalty of USD 20,000 stipulated in the contract and requested by the Claimant, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay such amount to the Claimant for late payment of the commission. 18. Finally, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 420,000 as well as 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 400,000 from 16 November 2012 until the date of effective payment, as established in the contract. 19. 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. 20. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 21. 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 CHF 200,001. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 22. 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 20,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 25,000 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 A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 420,000 as well as 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 400,000 from 16 November 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Agent A, are rejected. 4. 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 20,000 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 5.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Agent A. 6. The Claimant, Agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2 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 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