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 20 November 2014, 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 20 November 2014, 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 10 August 2010, the players’ agent A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), licensed by the Football Association of country B, and the player from country B, Player E (hereinafter: “the player”), concluded an exclusive representation contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid for two years from 10 August 2010 and until 10 August 2012. 2. According to the point 3.1 of the contract the Claimant was entitled to receive from the player, in consideration for his services, “a remuneration of 20% of the gross annual salaries received by the player during the validity of the contract negotiated by the representative [i.e. the Claimant]”. 3. On 25 July 2011, the player and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) concluded a three-year employment contract (hereinafter: “the employment contract”) valid until 31 May 2014. 4. According to article 30 of the employment contract, the player was entitled to a yearly salary of EUR 107,500. 5. On the same day, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”), according to which the Respondent would pay the Claimant, in its capacity as agent of the player, a total amount of EUR 60,000, in three instalments as follows (cf. article 2 of the agreement): EUR 20,000 on or before 1 August 2011, EUR 20,000 on or before 1 August 2012 and EUR 20,000 on or before 1 August 2013. The agreement stated that the Claimant was “an authorised FIFA Player agent and officially represents the Player in reference to the agreement [i.e. the employment contract] signed between the Club and the Player on 25th July 2011”. 6. On 10 July 2012, a termination agreement (hereinafter: “the termination agreement”) was signed between the player and the Respondent, which stated that the parties (i.e. the Respondent and the player) had decided by mutual consent to terminate their contractual relationship and according to which “any and/or all their economic disputes and/or any claims or disputes exist between the parties are fully and finally settled”. 7. On 26 March 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the agreement and argued that, although the latter had signed the agreement with him, it had failed to pay the commission agreed upon between the parties for his services rendered.8. In this respect, the Claimant requested having only received from the Respondent the first instalment in accordance with article 2 of the agreement and argued that, although he had requested the Respondent several times to proceed with the payment of the second instalment, the latter had failed to pay the outstanding amount in accordance with the agreement. The Claimant enclosed in his submission two letters addressed to the Respondent dated 1 February 2013 and 6 March 2013 in which the Claimant requested the cited payment. 9. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the amount of USD 20,000 and that in case the latter “also fails to pay players’ agent A [i.e. the Claimant] the third instalment amount agreed in clause 2 of the Agreement, consider it as liable to pay the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] the further amount of EUR 20,000.00”, as well as an interest of 5% p.a. over the total amount from the due date of the respective amounts. 10. Lastly, the Claimant requested the Respondent “any and all legal costs incurred by players’ agent A [i.e. the Claimant] hereby estimated in the amount of CHF 5,000”. 11. On 14 May 2013, after having been asked by FIFA to provide a possible written consent given by the player for the club to pay his commission on behalf of the player, the Claimant provided a declaration dated 6 May 2013 and signed by the player, by means of which the latter confirmed that the club had been “fully and expressly authorized to remunerate the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] on behalf of me [i.e. the player] and that the <> entered into between the Agent and Club [i.e. the Respondent] also on 25 July 2011”. 12. In its response dated 20 August 2013, the Respondent rejected the Claimant?s claim and added that it did not deny having failed to pay the claimed instalment to the Claimant, but since it had signed, on 10 July 2012, the termination agreement with the player, it “had as a result the termination of the agreement with his agent at the same exactly time”. 13. In this respect, the Respondent argued that since the Claimant’s name was not mentioned in the employment contract, “thus is safely to conclude that the Respondent had signed the agreement with the Claimant as a representative of the player and in that sense whatever payment was to be made was a payment on behalf of the player”. Furthermore, the Respondent emphasised that both the employment contract and the agreement “at the remuneration provision are constructed on per sporting season payment basis. In other words both the salary of the player and the fee to the agent are agreed per season” and that therefore, the Claimant “was to be paid on the same exactly method of annual payments as long of course as the Player’s employment contract is running”.14. Consequently, the Respondent deemed that since the player “was no longer eligible to receive any remuneration or salary after the termination of his employment contract”, the agreement had also been terminated on 10 July 2012, due to the termination of the player’s employment contract. 15. On 26 December 2013, the Claimant provided his reaction to the allegations of the Respondent and, first and foremost, reiterated his claim. In this respect, the Claimant did not deny that the player and the Respondent had terminated their contractual relationship on 10 July 2012 but also stated that, contrary to the Respondent’s allegation, the employment contract “was not capable to bind the Agent or limit or invalidate his rights under the Agreement because […] the payment of the Agent’s full and entire remuneration was not conditioned to the full performance of the Employment Contract”. 16. In this respect, the Claimant argued that the agreement and “particularly the payment of the remuneration provided therein were not subject to any term or condition whatsoever” and that the amount of EUR 60,000 agreed between the parties, was “with no reference to the due and entire payment of the Player’s salaries”, and that therefore, the three instalments provided for in the agreement “must be regarded simply as the method of payment” agreed between the parties. 17. Finally, with regard to the Respondent’s argument that his name was not mentioned in the employment contract, the Claimant argued that “it was absolutely unnecessary for the parties to expressly mention Claimant’s intervention in the Employment Contract, since a specific agreement [i.e. the agreement] was concluded between Claimant and Respondent on the very same date the Player agreed to be employed by the latter”. 18. The Respondent, in its last submission of 28 February 2014, reiterated its previous position and stated that “although a total amount is mentioned (that of Euro 60.000) in the Claimant’s Agreement with the Club [i.e. the Respondent] then is set to three (3) instalments, one (1) in the beginning of every new sporting season that the Player was to be employed by the Club”. 19. In this respect, the Respondent alleged that “there is no doubt that the remuneration was agreed to be paid as a percentage of the Player’s annual salary every sporting season” and that in the present case “the entitlement of the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] for remuneration last not just three year but as long as the Player would have being employed by the Club [i.e. the Respondent]”. Consequently, the Respondent deemed that since “the player ceased to be employed by the Club [i.e. the Respondent], by mutual consent, on the end of thefirst year automatically ceased the obligation to pay any remuneration to the Agent” and therefore requested FIFA to reject the claim. 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 simply 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 and 2014). Since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 March 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 in hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agents 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, and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 26 March 2013, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at stake. 3. The Single Judge further indicated that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country B and a club from country D, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. As a consequence, the Single Judge held that he is competent to decide on the present matter which has an international dimension (cf. art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations). 4. Having established the application regulations and his competence, the Single Judge turned his attention to the substance of the present matter and carefully considered and analysed the arguments and documents presented by the parties during the investigation. 5. First and foremost, the Single Judge took note that on 10 August 2010 the Claimant and the player concluded the contract and that, in continuation, on 25 July 2011 the player and the Respondent concluded the employment contract. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that on the same date of the signature of the employment contract, i.e. on 25 July 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the agreement, by means of which the latter agreed to pay to the Claimant a total amount of EUR 60,000 as commission in three equal instalments of EUR 20,000 each.7. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent had paid the 1st instalment, however the 2nd and the 3rd instalments remained unpaid by the latter and, consequently, the Claimant requested the Respondent to pay the total sum of EUR 40,000, plus interests and legal costs. 8. At this stage, the Single Judge pointed out that the Respondent rejected the Claimant?s request alleging that, since the employment contract with the player was terminated in writing on 10 July 2012, i.e. the termination agreement, this fact provoked also the termination of the agreement with the Claimant. For this reason, the Respondent claimed that it did not owe any additional commission to the Claimant. 9. On the other side, the Single Judge remarked that the Claimant alleged that the termination of the employment contract between the player and the Respondent did not have any legal impact on the agreement he concluded with the Respondent and thus the latter still owed him the 2nd and 3rd instalment for an amount of EUR 40,000 in accordance with the agreement. 10. At this stage, the Single Judge decided to analyse in detail the content of the agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent. 11. First of all, the Single Judge noted that from its wording it was expressly mentioned that the Claimant was the agent of the player and that the agreement was concluded in connection to the employment contract concluded between the latter and the Respondent on the same date. 12. The Single Judge further noted that article 2 of the agreement clearly stipulated that the Respondent would pay to the Claimant, in his capacity of agent of the player, the lump sum of EUR 60,000 in three instalments. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to underline that there was no reference in the agreement as to the fact that such agreement was subject to the execution of the employment contract concluded by the player and the Respondent for the full period of validity (i.e. 3 years) or to any other condition. 14. Moreover, the Single Judge concluded that from the wording of the agreement it was clear that the Claimant’s right to receive his commission was not subject to any conditions whatsoever. 15. At this stage, the Single Judge emphasised that the termination agreement of the player’s employment contract with the Respondent and the agreement itself concluded between the Respondent and the Claimant were two different and independent legal instruments.16. In continuation, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the content of the declaration dated 6 May 2013 and noted that the player expressly stated in such declaration that the Claimant was engaged by him and represented his interests in the negotiation and signature of the employment contract. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the player expressly confirmed in said declaration that he never paid any remuneration to the Claimant for the services rendered in connection to the employment contract and that the player authorised the Respondent to remunerate the Claimant on his behalf. 17. In this context, the Single Judge specifically referred to art. 19 par. 4 of the Regulations which provides, inter alia, that “the player may give his written consent for the club to pay the player’s agent on his behalf”. 18. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that from the evidence at disposal it was clear that the Claimant was authorised by the player to receive his commission directly from the Respondent. 19. In continuation, the Single Judge focussed his attention to the Respondent?s allegation that the Claimant?s total commission amounting EUR 60,000 was agreed to be paid as a percentage of the player?s annual salary every sporting season and since the employment contract was terminated prematurely, the Claimant was not entitled to receive the 2nd and 3rd instalments. 20. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that from the wording of the agreement it was clear that the commission agreed between the Claimant and the Respondent was established as a lump sum of EUR 60,000 payable in three instalments of EUR 20,000 each. The Single Judge added that there was no reference in the agreement that the three payments of EUR 20,000 were agreed taking into account the different sporting seasons. 21. Furthermore, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the services performed by the Claimant in favour of the player were concluded at the moment that the employment contract was signed between the player and the Respondent and that exactly at that same moment the Claimant?s remuneration became entirely due. 22. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that according to the contract concluded between the Claimant and the player, the cited parties agreed that the Claimant should be remunerated by the player with 20% of his gross annual salaries. 23. In this context, the Single Judge underlined that the player?s annual salary agreed in the employment contract was equivalent to EUR 107,500. The employmentcontract had a validity of three years involving a total annual salary of EUR 322,500 for the player. 24. Therefore, the Single Judge remarked that according to the point 3.1 of the contract the Claimant would have been entitled to EUR 64,500, i.e. 20% of EUR 322,500. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 60,000 established in the agreement was a bit less of the sum the Claimant could have been entitled to in accordance with the contract and thus the total lump sum of EUR 60,000 that the Respondent is obligated to pay to the Claimant on the player’s behalf pursuant to the agreement reflects the commission agreed in the contract and is therefore reasonable. 25. Furthermore and with regard to the Claimant’s request for legal costs, the Single Judge decided to reject such request as such amount, i.e. CHF 5,000, is not granted in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee in accordance with article 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 26. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 40,000 as commission representing the 2 nd and the 3rd instalments of EUR 20,000 each originally due on 1 August 2012 and 1 August 2013. 27. In addition, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant an annual interest at a rate of 5% over each instalment of EUR 20,000 each from the relevant due dates, i.e. on 2 August 2012 and on 2 August 2013 respectively until the date of effective payment. 28. 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. 29. 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 EUR 40,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 30. Considering that, in the case in hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the agreement can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judgedetermined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Respondent. 31. In conclusion, the amount of CHF 4,000 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 partially 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 following amounts: • EUR 20,000 plus an interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the said amount from 2 August 2012 until the date of effective payment; • EUR 20,000 plus an interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the said amount from 2 August 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, players’ agent A, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sums 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 amounting to CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, players’ agent A; 5.2 The amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid directly to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXX: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant, players’ agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance underpoints 2. and 5.1 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