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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent A, country G as “Claimant” against the club B, country R represented by Mr xxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player Z.

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 26 August 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent A, country G as “Claimant” against the club B, country R represented by Mr xxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties and relating to the player Z. I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 June 2011, the players’ agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant) licensed by the Football Federation of country G and the club B from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an “agency contract” (hereinafter: the agreement), valid from the date of its signature until 31 July 2011, and according to which the Claimant had the obligation to “mediate the conclusion of the labor contract between the football player Z (…) and FC B [i.e. the Respondent], to carry preliminary negotiations, prepare interim agreements and contracts and provide other actions directed on conclusion of the labor contract between the Principal (the Club) and the football player Z[i.e. the player]”. 2. According to article 3.1 of the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 300,000 “in the xxx equivalent at the exchange rate of Central Bank of country R on day of payment”. Article 3.2 of said agreement stipulated that the amount should be paid “until 15 March 2012”. 3. Article 5.6 of the agreement provided that “the Agent’s [i.e. the Claimant] obligations are considered as fulfilled in case the Principal (Club) concludes the labor contract with the football player Z. [i.e. the player] with the participation of an Agent [i.e. the Claimant]”. 4. On 1 July 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an “Act of Acceptance to Agency Contract d/d 27.06.2011” (hereinafter: the act) which stated that “the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] rendered the services to the Principal (Club), conducted the preliminary negotiations, prepared interim agreements and contracts directed on conclusion of the labor contract between the Principal (the Club) and the football player Z [i.e. the player]”. 5. The act also stipulated that “the services directed on conclusion of the labor contract are fulfilled in full and duly executed according to the Agency agreementd/d 27.06.2011 [i.e. the agreement], the Principal (club) has no claims against. The cost of services is established in an amount of 300.000 (two hundred thousand) Euro”. 6. On 1 July 2011, the player and the Respondent concluded an employment contract, which was stamped by the Football Federation of country R on 5 August 2011. 7. On 26 June 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had failed to respect its contractual obligations and that the sum of EUR 300,000 for the services he had rendered in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent was still outstanding. Consequently, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the total amount of EUR 300,000. 8. By means of a correspondence dated 29 October 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s complaint and rejected it in its entirety. First of all, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant’s claim was time-barred. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the Claimant “failed to file a proper petition within the pertinent time-frame of two years”, as provided in the Players’ Agents Regulations, since the Claimant had allegedly only paid the advance of costs to FIFA on 29 July 2013, i.e. more than two years after the agreement and the act were concluded. 9. The Respondent further argued that the Claimant’s allegations are based on an incomplete factual background and contested the validity of the agreement as well as the act, since it was of the opinion that “the fulfilment of the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] of all his obligations was manifestly erroneous at that stage”, i.e. on 1 July 2011, as the player’s employment contract was effectively signed by the player on 5 August 2011 when the agreement was not valid anymore. In other words, the Respondent deemed that the agreement as well as the act had expired at the time the player’s employment contract was concluded.10. Moreover, the Respondent raised the fact that the person who signed the act on behalf of the Respondent, i.e. Mr G, had not acted in good faith. In this respect, the Respondent underlined that Mr G had signed four different acts regarding four different players, i.e. player 1, player 2, player 3 and the player himself, with the Claimant on the same date and this only a few weeks before leaving the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that the “actions undertaken by Mr G as representative of B [i.e. the Respondent] in favour of the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] are detrimental to the interests of the Club [i.e. the Respondent] itself”. 11. The Respondent also stressed that the Claimant had infringed “the legislation of the Football Federation of country R and the FIFA Regulations”, as “no Power of Attorney was given in favour of the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] by the Club [i.e. the Respondent] to effect legal actions on its behalf”. 12. Alternatively, the Respondent was of the opinion that the commission was disproportionate and, therefore, should be reduced. In support of its claim, the Respondent explained that FIFA should “take into consideration the accomplishments undertaken by the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] as well as the value of the services of the Player compared with the agency fee agreed upon in the Agency Contract [i.e. the agreement]”. According to the Respondent, since the player had been transferred to the Respondent for an approximate amount of EUR 300,000 and since the player left the Respondent in January 2012 already, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant’s commission should amount to only USD 8,621, i.e. 3% of the value of the player’s employment contract for the first half of the 2011/2012 sporting season amounting to a total of USD 287,358. 13. On 9 December 2013, the Claimant reiterated his previous allegations and added that the claim was submitted “within the two-year period prescribed by the FIFA Regulations”. 14. Regarding the Respondent’s allegation that the player’s employment contract was only concluded on 5 August 2011, the Claimant referred to article 5 of the player’semployment contract which stated that the latter was concluded from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2014 and that the “date of beginning of employment” was set on 1 July 2011. The Claimant underlined that the player’s employment contract was duly signed on 1 July 2011 but only registered at the League on 5 August 2011. Therefore, the Claimant deemed to have fulfilled all his obligations on 1 July 2011 when the Respondent and the player concluded the employment contract since the validity of the latter was not affected by the registration at the Federation, which had only to be considered as a formal requirement. 15. In its last position dated 24 February 2014, the Respondent reiterated its previous statements of defence and emphasised once again that the player’s employment contract was signed on 5 August 2011. The Respondent further argued that the agreement as well as the act should be declared “null and void” since Mr G, who signed those agreements on behalf of the Respondent, concluded such agreements “in order to benefit the agent [i.e. the Claimant] with disproportionate amounts in exchange of services supposedly rendered”. 16. Finally, the Respondent reiterated that the commission should be, alternatively, reduced taking into account “the accomplishments undertaken by the Player’s Agent [i.e. the Claimant] as well as the value of the services of the Player compared with the agency fee agreed upon in the Agency Contract [i.e. the agreement]”. 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, the Single Judge referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2012 and 2014). In view of the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 June 2013, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2012 edition ofthe Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the present matter. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, the Single Judge 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 June 2013, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in hand. 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 of the Players’ Status Committee continued his deliberations by indicating that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of country G and a club from country R, 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. The competence of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge went on to consider the documentary evidence that the parties had submitted in support of their allegations. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of article 12 par. 3 of the ProceduralRules, according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear evidence can be taken into consideration by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that, in its submissions to FIFA, the Respondent had firstly argued that the Claimant’s complaint had to be considered as time-barred since the Claimant had allegedly only paid the advance of costs to FIFA more than two years after the agreement and the act were concluded. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the element giving rise to the dispute in the matter in hand was the non-payment of the amount stipulated in the agreement and the act on the relevant date when the alleged commission was due to the agent, i.e. on 15 March 2012 pursuant to the agreement, and not the conclusion itself of the agreement and the act. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s complaint had been lodged on time on 26 June 2013, this is, within the deadline of two years provided in article 30 par. 4 of the Regulations and, therefore, the Single Judge held that the Claimant lodged his complaint on time. 8. The Single Judge also remarked that the Respondent had contested the validity of the agreement as well as the act, alleging that the agreement had expired at the time the employment contract of the player was effectively signed by the latter with the Respondent. Hence, the Single Judge stressed that the question of whether the agreement as well as the act were binding upon the Claimant and the Respondent when the player concluded his employment contract with the Respondent had to be addressed. 9. In this regard, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was eager to underline that the date mentioned in the employment contract of the player was 1 July 2011 and that article 5 of the latter provided that the contractual relationship between the player and the Respondent would start on 1 July 2011. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Single Judge remarked the fact that theemployment contract was indeed stamped by the Football Federation of country R on 5 August 2011 shall be seen as an administrative formality which has no impact on the effectiveness of the relevant contract between the parties. 10. On account of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the agreement and the act were valid and binding upon the Claimant and the Respondent when the player concluded his employment contract with the Respondent. 11. With regard to the allegations of the Respondent according to which the person who signed the act, i.e. Mr G, had acted in bad faith and against the Respondent’s interests, the Single Judge pointed out that Mr G was mentioned on the act as the “President” of the Respondent and, therefore, the Single Judge emphasised that it could not reasonably be expected from the Claimant to have known whether Mr G, had the necessary authority or not to represent and bind the Respondent at the time the act was concluded. 12. Having established all the aforementioned, the Single Judge reverted to the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith. In this respect, the Single Judge established that the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant according to the agreement and the act and consequently, pay him the outstanding amount of EUR 300,000. 13. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant EUR 300,000 as commission in accordance with the agreement and the act. 14. 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 inconsideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 15. 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. 16. 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, i.e. the amount of EUR 300,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 17. In conclusion and in view of the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 20,000. 18. Consequently, the amount of CHF 20,000 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, A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of EUR 300,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and 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 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 15,000 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 4.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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 Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives