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, country B, on 10 March 2015, by 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 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, country B, on 10 March 2015, by 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 arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 12 May 2009, the players’ agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of country B, and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an “agent agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement), under the terms of which “the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] represents interests of the Firm [i.e. the Respondent] in negotiations on the transfer of the football player E [hereinafter: the player] […] from Club F to Club C [i.e. the Respondent] on a permanent basis”. 2. According to article 2.1 of the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 430,000 “in case the Firm [i.e. the Respondent] successfully enters into transfer contract concerning the transfer of the Player from Club F to Club C [i.e. the Respondent] on a permanent basis and permanent registration of the Player for Club C [i.e. the Respondent]”. 3. Article 2.3 of the agreement provided that “in case of a subsequent transfer of the Player from Club C [i.e. the Respondent] to a third club, the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] will be entitled to receive additional commission amounting to 10% (ten percents) of the corresponding transfer fee”. 4. On 1 September 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an “Appendix N°1 to the AGENT AGREEMENT dated 12 May 2009” (hereinafter: the Appendix) which stated that “the Parties have agreed that the amount of additional commission due by the Firm [i.e. the Respondent] to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] according to cl. 2.3 of the Agent Agreement dated 12 May 2009 [i.e. the agreement] shall be 1 150 000 (one million one hundred fifty thousand) Euros”. 5. On 26 February 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had failed to respect its contractual obligations towards him. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the player had been subsequently transferred from the Respondent to the club from country G, Club H, and that, therefore, he would have been entitled to receive from the Respondent 10% of the transfer fee amounting to EUR 12,900,000, i.e. EUR 1,290,000, pursuant to article 2.3 of the agreement. Since the Respondent asked for “a reduction of the additional commission and in consideration of the good relationship existing into the parties”, the Claimant explained having accepted to conclude the appendix and to reduce his commission to EUR 1,150,000.6. The Claimant further argued to have received two payments from the Respondent, i.e. EUR 350,000 on 13 October 2011 as well as EUR 200,000 on 1 November 2011, but the sum of EUR 600,000 remained outstanding. 7. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 600,000 according to the appendix together with 5% interest “for delay payment, and legal fees, to be reasonable determined by this Honourable Committee, and any other different amount such Honourable Committee will retain equitable for the losses incurred”. 8. Although it was invited to provide its position in response to the claim, the Respondent did not submit any comments in the matter at stake. *****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 26 February 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, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 February 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 Association of country B and a club from country D, 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, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had not submitted any comments in response to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that, in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, it had to be assumed that it had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. Hence and bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Single Judge referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and pointed out that in the present matter adecision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words upon the allegations and documents provided by the Claimant. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that, on 12 May 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a representation agreement, i.e. in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the sum of EUR 430,000 in case the player would sign an employment contract with the Respondent, as well as 10% of the potential transfer fee the Respondent would receive in case of subsequent transfer of the player to a third club. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that, on 1 September 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded another agreement, i.e. the appendix, which stipulates that “the Parties have agreed that the amount of the additional commission due by the Firm [i.e. the Respondent] to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] according to cl. 2.3 of the Agent Agreement [i.e. the agreement] shall be 1,150,000 (one million one hundred fifty thousand) Euros. 10. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested the payment of the remaining commission amounting to EUR 600,000 as per the appendix, arguing that although the Respondent had paid him two instalments of EUR 350,000 and of EUR 200,000, the latter had failed to pay him the relevant outstanding amount. 11. The club, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the player, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 12. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Jude concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 13. Bearing in mind the abovementioned facts and documents presented by the Claimant, the Single Judge held that, based on the appendix concluded between the parties, the Respondent had agreed to pay to the Claimant EUR 1,150,000 as additional commission for the transfer of the player. Furthermore and considering that the Respondent had only paid two instalments for total amount of EUR 550,000 and does not appear to have paid the total amount in question to the Claimant, the Single Judge ruled that, in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda which in essence means that agreements mustbe respected by the parties in good faith, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent EUR 600,000 as commission in accordance with the appendix. 14. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations on the present dispute by deciding that the Claimant’s claim is accepted, and therefore the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 600,000. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 the total amount at dispute in the present matter, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 18. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore but that the Respondent did not reply to the claim lodged against it, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000. 19. Consequently, the amount of CHF 25,000 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 C, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the total amount of EUR 600,000 as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 26 February 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 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 the present decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid 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 4.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Players’ agent A. 5. The Claimant, Players’ agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance underpoints 2. and 4.2 above is 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 country B 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