F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – 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 April 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players Agent V, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club L, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – 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 April 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the players’ agent Players Agent V, from country G as “Claimant” against the club Club L, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 July 2013, the players’ agent V (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Federation of country G, and Club L, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a representation agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), according to which the Claimant would provide to the Respondent “consultancy services, as Player’s Agent in order to conclude the contract between Club L [i.e. the Respondent] and the professional Football Player B [hereinafter: the player]”. 2. Art. 1 b) and c) of the agreement provided that “in exchange for the services provided”, the Respondent would pay to the Claimant an amount of EUR 24,000 as follows: - EUR 12,000 “when the player signs definitive contract with the club [i.e. the Respondent]”; - EUR 12,000 “at the moment that the club [i.e. the Respondent] […] exercises the option to renew for season 2014/2015 as provided in clause 1 of Player V Employment”. 3. Art. 6 c) of the agreement provided that “Both parties agreed to stipulate an penal clause in the case of late payment of the agreed amounts as provided in article 1 c) in the amount of the double”. 4. On 2 December 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent and alleged that, although the player had entered into an employment contract with the Respondent, the first instalment of EUR 12,000 mentioned in the agreement had only been paid on 16 August 2013. 5. In view of the above, the Claimant argued that since the Respondent had paid the first instalment “about a month after the deadline”, he should be entitled to an additional amount of EUR 12,000 as penalty for late payment under art. 6 c) of the agreement. In addition, the Claimant also requested “interests” on said amount as from 15 August 2013. 6. On 28 January 2014, the Respondent provided its response to the claim and rejected it in its entirety. In this respect, the Respondent argued that in view of “the longstanding practice of the Players’ Status Committee”, art. 6 c) of the agreement should be considered “illegal and/or unreasonable” as it had fulfilled its contractual obligation by paying the first instalment of EUR 12,000 to the Claimant. Alternatively, the Claimant requested FIFA to reduce the amount of penalty due under art. 6 c) of the agreement as it considered said penalty to be excessive. 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 and since the claim of the Claimant against the Respondent was lodged with FIFA on 2 December 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 present matter (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 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. 4 of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and again considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 2 December 2012, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter. 3. Furthermore, and with regard to his competence, the Single Judge pointed out that according to art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of players’ agents. 4. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute opposing a players’ agent duly licensed by the Football Federation of country G to a country C club, regarding a penalty clause in connection with the late payment of a commission. Consequently, the Single Judge held that he was competent to decide on the present matter which had a clear international dimension. 5. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge acknowledged the abovementioned facts as well as the documentation submitted by the parties and contained in the file. 6. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge carefully examined the content of the agreement concluded between the parties and underlined that the Respondent had agreed to pay the total amount of EUR 24,000 to the Claimant in two equal instalments of EUR 12,000, the first one “when the player signs definitive contract with the club [i.e. the Respondent]” and the second one “at the moment that the club [i.e. the Respondent] […] exercises the option to renew for season 2014/2015”. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that art. 6 c) of the agreement provided for a penalty clause in case of late payment of any of the aforementioned instalments by the Respondent, as follows: “Both parties agreed to stipulate an penal clause in the case of late payment of the agreed amounts as provided in article 1 c) in the amount of the double”. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested the payment of the amount of EUR 12,000 on the basis of the penalty clause contained in art. 6 c) of the agreement, arguing that the Respondent had paid the first instalment “about a month after the deadline”. In addition, the Claimant also requested interest on said amount as from 15 August 2013. 9. Equally, the Single Judge took note that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that the penal requested by the latter was either “unreasonable” or excessive as it had fully paid the first instalment of EUR 12,000. 10. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge determined that the main issue in the present matter was to determine whether the penalty clause contained in art. 6 c) of the agreement should be applied. 11. In this respect, the Single Judge was eager to underline that the amount requested by the Claimant as penalty represented 100% of the amount paid with delay, i.e. the sum of EUR 12,000. In this context, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant himself had stated that the sum of EUR 12,000 was paid by the Respondent “about a month after the deadline”. 12. In view of the foregoing, and while referring to the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee in similar cases, the Single Judge considered that the penalty clause of art. 6 c) of the agreement was clearly disproportionate and therefore had to be disregarded. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant has to be rejected in its entirety. 13. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 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. 14. In respect of the above and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is fully rejected, the Single Judge concluded that the latter has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 15. 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 12,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 16. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 4,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 4,000 has to be paid by the Claimant in order to cover the costs of the present procedure. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Players Agent V, is rejected. 2. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 4,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Players Agent V. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs of currency of country H 1,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Players Agent V, has to pay the amount of currency of country H 3,000, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: ***** 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