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 23 September 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent A, country E as “Claimant” against the Player B, country B represented by Mr xxxxxx 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, Switzerland, on 23 September 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent A, country E as “Claimant” against the Player B, country B represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 May 2010, the players’ agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of country E, and the player B from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an “Authorization” (hereinafter: the agreement), according to which the Respondent “authorize Mr A [i.e. the Claimant] to negotiate for me [i.e. the Respondent] with Club X [country E]”. According to said agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent “10% from my [i.e. the Respondent] Contract money to be paid yearly in advance”. 2. On 4 October 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that the latter had failed to respect his contractual obligations. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the Respondent had signed an employment contract with the club X (hereinafter: X) as a result of the services he had rendered and under the terms of which the Respondent was earning a total salary amounting to USD 685,000. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent was earning a total amount “after cut taxes” of USD 550,000 and that the latter had only paid him the sum of USD 25,000 “for the first season 2010/2011” as commission. 3. Equally, the Claimant explained to have “supported the player [i.e. the Respondent] financially” on two occasions for a total amount of USD 1,221 and, therefore, requested the reimbursement of this sum. 4. Therefore, the Claimant was of the opinion that the sum of USD 30,000 representing his commission “for the season 2011/2012” was still outstanding and, consequently, requested from the Respondent the total amount of USD 30,000, i.e. 10% of USD 550,000 minus the amount of USD 25,000 allegedly paid to the Claimant, as well as USD 1,221 as reimbursement of the money lent to the Respondent.5. On 19 March 2014, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s complaint and rejected it in its entirety. In this respect and first of all, the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute since he deemed that the Claimant was not listed on the “official FIFA website” as a licensed players’ agent. 6. Alternatively, the Respondent argued that the agreement could not be considered as a valid representation agreement since it was lacking some essential elements such as the duration, the names of the contractual parties and the terms of payment. 7. The Respondent further explained that, although he did not contest knowing the the Claimant, he had never collaborated with him with regard to his transfer to X. 8. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that he had not received all his salaries from X for the season 2011/2012. As a consequence, the Respondent was of the opinion that the amount requested by the Claimant was thus “disproportionate” to the salary effectively received by him from X. 9. On 30 June 2014, the Claimant reiterated his previous allegation and added that he had a “working relationship” with the Respondent as it can be shown from the emails exchanged between the Respondent and the Claimant. 10. In his last position dated 5 July 2014, the Respondent reiterated his previous statements and emphasised that the agreement should be considered as null and void. 11. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Claimant had neither provided him with an invoice for the payment of any commission, nor had he supplied FIFA with any proof of payment for the first amount of USD 25,000 allegedly paid by him to the Claimant.12. The Respondent was also of the opinion that the Claimant had not proven to have negotiated any employment contract on his behalf with X. Moreover, the Respondent argued that, assuming that the agreement was valid and binding, which he strongly contested, he was not obliged to use the services of the Claimant to sign with X. 13. With regard to the alleged money lent to the Respondent, he deemed that the “Players’ Status Committee is anyway not competent to deal with such complaints”. 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 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 4 October 2012, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2008 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 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 4 October 2012, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter in hand.3. The applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee went on to assess whether he was competent to hear the present matter and recalled that the Respondent had argued in his submissions that FIFA was not competent to deal with the present dispute as the Claimant was not listed on the “official FIFA website” as a licensed players’ agent. 4. In this context, and while noting that the Football Association of country E had provided FIFA with a statement confirming that the Claimant was still a licensed players’ agent, the Single Judge was eager to stress that, in accordance with art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations which provided that FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of licensed players’ agents, i.e. individuals who hold a valid player’s agent license issued by the relevant member Association, the Single Judge held that he was competent to decide on the present matter which had an international dimension as the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country E and a player from country B, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. 5. 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. 6. In continuation, the Single Judge recalled that, in his submissions to FIFA, the Respondent had firstly contested the validity of the agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent as it was allegedly lacking some essential elements. 7. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the agreement, duly signed by both parties and dated 28 May 2010, contained a specific clause providing that the Claimant would receive a percentage of 10% of the player’s total salary contained in the employment contract of the Respondent the Claimant would negotiate onhis behalf with the club from country E, X. Therefore, the Single Judge held that the agreement contained the essential elements of a representation agreement and decided that such agreement concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent is valid and binding between them. 8. The Single Judge also remarked that the Respondent had argued that the Claimant had not taken part in the negotiations regarding his transfer to the club X. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to recall that, according to article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In this regard, the Single Judge underlined that the Claimant had provided evidence such as exchange of emails, from which it can be understood that he sent flight tickets to the Respondent to go to country E. Furthermore, the Claimant did not contest having received the said email and the flight tickets. Finally and more importantly, the Single Judge noted that the agreement at the basis of the present dispute clearly referred to an authorisation given by the Respondent to the Claimant to negotiate an employment contract with X, club with which the Respondent ultimately concluded an employment contract. 9. In light of these consideration, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant had demonstrated with enough documentary evidence that he had indeed taken part in the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of the employment contract between the Respondent and X and consequently that he is entitled to the relevant commission as established in the agreement between the parties. 10. Furthermore, 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 consequently, pay him the outstanding remuneration in accordance with the agreement.11. Having established all the above, the Single Judge went on to calculate the exact amount to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant as remuneration on the basis of the agreement. 12. In this regard, the Single Judge acknowledged the fact that, according to the employment contract concluded between the Respondent and X on 1 July 2010, the Respondent was entitled to a total net salary of USD 550,000. Equally, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant had argued, in his allegations, to have already received a sum of USD 25,000 from the Respondent. Therefore, the Single Judged held that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of USD 30,000, i.e. 10% of the sum of USD 550,000 minus the amount of USD 25,000 allegedly already received by the Claimant. 13. Additionally and with regard to the alleged money lent to the Respondent (cf. point I. 4 above), the Single Judge referred to the agreement and pointed out that it did not include any provision related to the payment of such money to the Claimant. As a result, the Single Judge decided that this part of the request of the Claimant has to be rejected as it lacked legal basis. 14. As a consequence of all of the above, the Single Judge concluded his analysis of the present case by deciding that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted, and that therefore the Respondent must pay to the Claimant an amount equal to 10% of the total gross basic salary concluded in the employment contract between the Respondent and X and that such amount corresponds to USD 30,000. 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 partially 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, i.e. the amount of USD 31,221, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 18. 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 3,000. 19. Consequently, the amount of CHF 3,000 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 admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, A, the amount of USD 30,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. 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. 5. Any other claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 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 6.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant.7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 3. and 6.2 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