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 22 May 2015, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players? agent Players’ Agent A, Country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, Country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute 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 22 May 2015, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players? agent Players’ Agent A, Country B as “Claimant” against the club Club C, Country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 21 December 2012, the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: “the Respondent”), and the players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of Country B, Players’ Agent A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), signed a document called “Agency contract” (hereinafter: “the agreement”), by means of which the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission in the total amount of USD 60,000 for the services rendered in connection with the transfer of the Player E (hereinafter: “the player”), to the club. 2. Point 3.1. of the agreement stated: “Amounts payable to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] under this Agreement, for the period of the employment contract between the Player and the Club [i.e. the Respondent] are as follows: US $ 60,000 (sixty thousand dollars) – up to 30 June 2013”. 3. On 28 December 2012, the Respondent and the Claimant signed a document called “Act of Handover of completion” (hereinafter: “the act”). 4. The third paragraph of the act established: “As a result of services rendered by the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] has been concluded the employment contract between Club C [i.e. the Respondent] and Player E [i.e. the player]. The amount of fee which Club [i.e. the Respondent] pays to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] under the conditions specified in paragraph 3.1 of the contract from 21.12.3012 [i.e. the agreement] is: 60.000 US dollars. Club [i.e. the Respondent] has no claims to the quality and scope of services rendered”. 5. On 3 June 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent and requested the payment of the outstanding commission of USD 60,000, plus 5% interest as from 1 July 2013. 6. In particular, the Claimant stated that he had fulfilled his obligations based on the agreement. However, the Respondent had failed to pay the relevant commission agreed upon between the parties. 7. The Claimant added that, on 20 January 2014, he sent a letter to the Respondent requesting the payment of the relevant commission without receiving any reply from the latter. 8. Upon FIFA?s request for position, the Respondent requested an extension of deadline to provide its position due to the fact that the Respondent had new authorities and that criminal cases against the previous directors were pending. In addition, the Respondent stated that the act lacked stamps and signatures of the parties. 9. However, the Respondent did not provide FIFA with any further answer in relation to the Claimant’s claim. 10. After the closure of the investigation phase in the present matter, the Respondent enclosed a letter from the Football Federation of Country D stating that the documents presented by the Claimant were not registered at that federation and that such prerequisites were mandatory in accordance with the Players? Agents Regulations. 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, he referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015). Since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 June 2014, 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 in hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agent As 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’ Agent As Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 3 June 2014, the edition 2008 of the Players’ Agent As Regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at stake. 3. With regard to his competence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 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 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 concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of Country B and a Club of Country D, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. 5. As a consequence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee is competent 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 this regard and to start with, the Single Judge took note that on 21 December 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the agreement by means of which, in its point 3.1, the latter undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 60,000 as commission for the services he rendered in connection with the transfer of the player. 8. Equally, the Single Judge noted that on 28 December 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded another agreement, i.e. the act, under the terms of which the Respondent confirmed owing to the Claimant the amount of USD 60,000 as commission for the transfer of the player to the Respondent in accordance with point 3.1 of the agreement. 9. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that, on the one hand, the Claimant had requested the amount of USD 60,000 as outstanding commission, whereas, on the other hand, the Respondent had alleged that the act lacked the Respondent’s official stamps and signatures of the parties without presenting any documentary evidence in this respect. 10. In this respect, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the contents of the agreement as well as of the act and emphasised that the Respondent and the Claimant had contractually agreed that the latter would receive from the Respondent an amount of USD 60,000 payable “up to 30 June 2013” (cf. point 3.1 of the agreement). 11. Moreover, the Single Judge, after having examined once again the documents which are the legal basis of this dispute, i.e. the agreement and the act, underlined that both documents were duly stamped and signed by both parties and, therefore, binding upon between them. 12. Having said this, the Single Judge noted that after the closure of the investigation phase the Respondent sent a communication to FIFA reiterating its previous allegations and enclosing a letter of the Football Federation of Country D which stated that the agreement and the act were not registered at the said Football Federation. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that in principle after the investigation phase in a matter is closed no further submission from the parties are admitted. 14. Notwithstanding of the above and for sake of good order, the Single Judge was keen to emphasize that, as a general rule, the registration of a representation contract at a federation is a formal prerequisite which does not constitute per se a condition for its validity. 15. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the agreement and the act signed between the parties, and therefore, that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the commission agreed upon in the agreement, i.e. USD 60,000. 16. In addition, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had requested interest over the outstanding amount of USD 60,000. In this regard, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to grant interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the outstanding amount of USD 60,000 as from the due date, i.e. from 1 July 2013, until the date of effective payment. 17. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 60,000 as outstanding commission plus an interest at a rate of 5% per annum over the said amount from 1 July 2013 until the date of effective payment. 18. 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, including the 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. 19. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is USD 60,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 10,000. 20. Considering that, in the case in hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the agreement and the act can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 10,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Respondent. 21. In conclusion, the amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order 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 C, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 60,000 as well as 5% interest per annum on the said amount from 1 July 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum, plus interest, is 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 amounting to CHF 10,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Players’ Agent A; 4.2 The amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid directly to FIFA to the following bank account: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 5. The Claimant, Players’ Agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.1 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 Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives